El relato de la primera Navidad se basa en una imposibilidad historica

Segun el evangelio de Lucas, el nacimiento de Jesus coincidio con la supuesta publicacion de “un edicto de Cesar Augusto para que se empadronase a todo el mundo”.Su cronologia situa ESTE “decreto” en el año 6 de nuestra era,y,segun parece,fue la causa de que jose y maria se dirigieran a Belen, la localidad en la que los antiguos textos habian profetizado el nacimiento del Mesias. De hecho, este supuesto"decreto" no habria podido afectar nunca a un galileo, pues este era subdito de un reino cliente de roma que velaba por sus propios impuestos.La datacion de evangelio es tambien contradictoria, y no hay prueba alguna de que, fuera de galilea, se proclamara semejante “decreto” global. El relato de la primera Navidad se basa en una imposibilidad historica.
Robin Lane Fox. El mundo clásico. La epopeya de Grecia y Roma. Barcelona, Crítica, 2005.capitulo 48, segundo parrafo, pp.635-636.

1 Like

Hi Josue,
Sorry, I don’t speak Spanish, so used Google Translate for your question; hopefully it translated it correctly…

The story of the first Christmas is based on a historical impossibility
According to the Gospel of Luke, the birth of Jesus coincided with the supposed publication of “an edict of Cesar Augusto so that everyone could be registered.” His chronology places THIS “decree” in the year 6 of our era, and, according to it seems, it was the cause of Joseph and Mary going to Belen, the town where the ancient texts had prophesied the birth of the Messiah. In fact, this supposed “decree” could never have affected a Galilean, since this was a subject of a client kingdom of Rome that watched over his own taxes. The dating of the Gospel is also contradictory, and there is no proof that, outside of Galilee, such a global “decree” would be proclaimed. The story of the first Christmas is based on a historical impossibility.
Robin Lane Fox. The classic world. The epic of Greece and Rome. Barcelona, ​​Critique, 2005. chapter 48, second paragraph, pp. 635-636

So to the statements:

Timing is wrong

According to the Gospel of Luke, the birth of Jesus coincided with the supposed publication of “an edict of Cesar Augusto so that everyone could be registered.” His chronology places THIS “decree” in the year 6 of our era, and, according to it seems, it was the cause of Joseph and Mary going to Belen, the town where the ancient texts had prophesied the birth of the Messiah.

Response

It is a commonly held assumption that the decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world was to be taxed, was a single census [a single event] in the entire Roman empire. The question is, is this how Luke understood it, or intended it to be understood? Very likely, not.

According to Hoehner, “What is meant is that censuses were taken at different times in different provinces – Augustus being the first one in history to order a census or tax assessment of the whole provincial empire. This is further substantiated by the fact that Luke uses the present tense indicating that Augustus ordered censuses to be taken regularly, rather than only one time.”[3]

New Testament historian Jack Finegan says, “As to the taking of such an enrollment in general, it is known from discoveries among the Egyptian papyri that a Roman census was taken in Egypt, and therefore perhaps also throughout the empire regularly, every fourteen years. Many actual census returns have been found, and they use the very same word (ἀπογράφω) which Luke 2:2 uses for the “enrollment.”[4]

The specific census which Luke mentions (Lk. 2:2), is that it “first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria.”

Apart from Luke, we have two other historical sources concerning Quirinius – the Roman historian, Tacitus ( Annals 3.48) and the Jewish/Roman historian, Flavius Josephus ( Antiquities of the Jews 18.1-2).

According to Tacitus ( Annals 3.48), P. Sulpicius Quirinius died in A.D. 21.

Josephus’s reference to Quirinius in Antiquities of the Jews (18, I,1.) poses somewhat of a problem, because he informs us that the “taxings conducted by Quirinius while governing Syria were made in the thirty-seventh year of Caesar’s victory over [Marc] Anthony at Actium in 31 B.C. This would place the census in about A.D. 6/7, a date which is too late to be brought into alignment with the birth of Christ which was likely in the winter 5/4 B.C.[5]

In Luke’s account in Luke 2:2, he speaks of a census which “first” took place when Quirinius was governing Syria, so it is not out of the question that the census to which Josephus is referring was the second one, while Luke mentions the “first” one [i.e the earlier one].

Gleason Archer also notes that Luke, “was therefore well aware of the second census, taken by Quirinius in A.D. 7, which Josephus alludes to… We know this because Luke (who lived much closer to the time that Josephus did) also quotes Gamaliel as alluding to the insurrection of Judas of Galilee “in the days of census taking” (Acts 5:37).[6]

Additional evidence also seems to suggest that Quirinius served as governor twice which would then put him in an official position over Syria to enact the census of Luke 2:2. In 1784, a Latin inscription was discovered near Tivoli, located about twenty miles east of Rome. It is known as the Lapis Tiburtinus inscription, and according to Jack Finegan it, “…contains the statement of a high Roman official that when he became governor of Syria he entered the office for the second time (Latin, iterum ). It has even been thought that this personage might have been Quirinius…”[7]

Whatever the identity is of the Roman official mentioned in the inscription, at minimum shows that it was not uncommon for Roman procurators to have served twice, and maximally it may eventually reveal that it was Quirinius himself, through further research.
(source https://crossexamined.org/really-census-time-caesar-augustus/)

Galilee was not included

In fact, this supposed “decree” could never have affected a Galilean, since this was a subject of a client kingdom of Rome that watched over his own taxes

The dating of the Gospel is also contradictory, and there is no proof that, outside of Galilee, such a global “decree” would be proclaimed.

Response:

Luke 2 actually doesn’t state that the census was taken of the entire Roman empire. Some modern translations (e.g. the NIV) say that the census was taken of the “entire Roman world”. But the word “Roman” does not appear in the Greek. What this verse actually says is that the whole land was to be registered. This same phrase is used by Luke in Acts 11:28 when he states, “One of them, named Agabus, stood up and through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire world.” But this clearly refers to the land of Judea. Was the census recorded in Luke 2 restricted to the land of Judea? There would seem to be one problem with this suggestion — the consus is apparently ordered by Caesar Augustus, but surely a census of the land of Judea would be ordered by King Herod the Great. What’s interesting in this regard is that, according to Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (Antiquities 16.9.3), Herod fell out with Augustus a few years before Herod’s death in 4 B.C. over Herod having taken an army into Arabia. When the report of Herod’s actions reached Caesar, Josephus reports that,

Caesar was provoked when this was said, and asked no more than one question, both of Herod’s friends that were there, and of his own friends, who were come from Syria, Whether Herod had led an army thither? And when they were forced to confess so much, Caesar, without staying to hear for what reason he did it, and how it was done, grew very angry, and wrote to Herod sharply. The sum of his epistle was this, that whereas of old he had used him as his friend, he should now use him as his subject.

Herod was demoted from rex socius to rex amicus and thereby lost the authority to conduct taxing. Indeed, Antiquities 17.2.4 tells us that citizens of Herod’s domain were required to swear an oatch of allegiance to Caesar. This accounts for why a census in Judea would be ordered by Caesar Augustus rather than Herod.
(source https://crossexamined.org/the-nativity-defended/)

You might find these articles of interest as it looks to this question in depth and has references… Hopefully a helpful start…? :slight_smile:

ps; if you need, you can translate the article using Google Translate with these instructions…
https://support.google.com/translate/answer/2534559?co=GENIE.Platform%3DDesktop&hl=en&oco=0