Responding to apologetic claims about the historicity of Luke’s census

[@decades5643]

Apologists always go with a _plausible_ explanation that supports their beliefs rather than the _most likely_ explanation. Coming up with a plausible scenario doesn't really mean much if it's not the most likely scenario. This is why most scholars disagree with IP.

[@Jd-808]

Wrong. Sometimes they go with a _not impossible_ explanation. 😛

[@decades5643]

@@Jd-808 😆That's true!

[@paulallenscards]

It’s important to qualify your statement about favoring the most likely explanation *in absence of other evidence**. Unlikely events and happenings appear all throughout the historical record, we just shouldn’t presume them to be true over a simpler/more mundane account in the absence of corroborating evidence.

[@nicholasfiala6205]

Even the most likely explanation doesn't necessarily mean much. The "most likely" outcome of rolling two fair six-sided dice is 7. However, if you live your life according to following the "most likely" explanations to a fault and therefore bet that every roll is going to be a 7, you're going to be wrong about five times as often as you're right.

[@decades5643]

@@paulallenscards Right. Historians go with the most likely explanation based on the evidence they have.

[@bengreen171]

You have to admire IP for presenting his implausibilities so confidently. Confidence is possibly his superpower. He is a man who relies on confidence. He is a Confidence Man.

[@bengreen171]

@@MrMortal_Ra exactly. This is how people end up buying London Bridge. (If you're not aware, there was a famous incident where someone sold London Bridge to a rich American - who thought he was buying the bridge in London that is the most iconic - Tower Bridge. When people want something enough they can be easily influenced - whether that's a bargain, the chance to own an iconic status symbol - or validation for their religious beliefs. Enter the Con Man.

[@bengreen171]

@@MrMortal_Ra precisely. That's why you'll never see IP discuss his arguments with actual scholars like Dan - he wants his audience to remain isolated from dissenting views.

[@alejandromiranda2745]

Ok, I am going to refute all the video's objections: 1. First, pertaining to Quirinius, we cannot rule out that he held some administrative charge in the province of Syria before the year 6 AD. After all, Justin Martyr reported that the biblical census took place while Quirinius was only a procurator, while Tertullian wrote that the census took place under the governorship of Sentius Saturninos, who was the governor of Syria from 9-6 BC. On this basis, the historian Sabine Huebner has suggested that Luke was probably referring to a census that took place around the same time as the Roman imperial census of 8 BC, when Sentius Saturninos was governor of Syria while Quirinius was possibly a lower official who actually carried out the census. This would also place the census in a period when both Bethlehem and Nazareth would have fallen under a single jurisdiction, which was not the case in 6 AD. 2. There is one extrabiblical evidence corroborating Luke's report of an Augustan decree ordering all the people of the Roman empire to be registered. The scholar Anthony Giambrone, OP has recently noted that Hyginus Gromaticus, a pagan writer on land-surveying from the times of Trajan, reported that the emperor Augustus had ordered that all the provinces of the empire had to conduct censuses "so that property of no man should be considered unclear with respect of the amount that he would assume for paying taxe". Giambrone argues that this independent witness indicates that there was an Augustan policy to undertake separate, but loosely coordinated censuses through all the parts of the Roman empire. This scenario would be totally consistent with Luke's account. 3. There is also another piece of extrabiblical evidence indicating that the Romans could conduct a census in the client kingdoms of their empire. Anthony Giambrone notes that there is evidence indicating that the Romans were conducting censuses in the client kingdom of the Nabatea from at least the year 1 BC. Also, Tacitus' report on the Roman-style census in Cilicia Tracheia nowhere states that said census was conducted solely on the orders of Archelaus II; on the contrary, Tacitus seems to imply that the census was an unprecedented event in that client kingdom, suggesting that the Romans probably influenced the occurrence of that census. 4. Finally, the Lukan text never states that Joseph had to return to Bethlehem because that was an "ancestral hometown" (in fact, Luke 2:3 states that the people of the empire had to return to their own homes, not to any "ancestral" home). Saint John Chrysostom argued that Joseph was probably a citizen of his native town of Bethlehem and was only temporarily residing in Nazareth at the time of the Annunciation. (For further evidence in support of this reading, see also Stephen C. Carlson, "The Accommodations of Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem: Κατάλυμα in Luke 2.7,” New Testament Studies 56 (2010), 326-342.") Sabine Huebner concurs, and argues that this specific scenario would accord with the papyrological evidence from Egypt, which describes how the rural population at Alexandria had to return from their places of work in the city to the places where their families were resident. I would also recommend that you read Anthony Giambrone's article "Augustus as Censor and Luke's Worldwide Enrollment: Roman Propaganda and Lukan Theology from the Margins", which provides a very detailed case for the historicity of the Lukan census.

[@bengreen171]

@@alejandromiranda2745 1 - this is an argument from silence, and given that in the last decade of the 1st century BCE, Quirinius was campaigning against local tribesman in Galatia/Ciliica, it seems a big stretch for him to have taken a demotion in rank just to carry out some census in a territory not under direct Roman control...only to then carry out another census 12 years later when he was in control of the whole region. So no, that's very weak. 2 - for this point to even get off the ground the census has to have taken place after 6CE, since until then Judea wasn't a Roman province and Rome would not have any direct authority there - let alone the desire to carry out a property census. 3 - Why are you bringing up Archelaus II? He was given sovereignty of sorts over an area of land WITHIN a Roman province. Cilicia Tracheia was within the Roman province of Cappodocia. It's not the same thing as Judea being a client kingdom. 4 - yeah, the "ancestral" part of the order isn't the issue. The issue is that it's nonsensical to make every person in a country return home to their birthplace simply to conduct a sentence about property ownership. Sorry, but it sounds like you've just not actually considered anything said in this video, and just parroted some old IP video without understanding the entailments of any of the points.

[@bengreen171]

@@alejandromiranda2745 My reply is hidden - only visible if you change your settings to 'newest first'. I'll briefly reiterate. Suffice to say, your points don't actually refute any of Dan's points, and seem like just a rehash of IP's argument. Your first point is an argument from silence that holds little weight considering Quirinius was in Asia minor during the last decade of the 1st century BCE. Your second and fourth point are dealt with by Dan in the video - note his remarks about the purpose of censuses. And the idea that 'ancestral' is the issue rather than merely 'native' - again, argument from silence concerning why Joseph was in Nazareth, and you're trying to compare apples and oranges when you appeal to Egypt. Your third point is likewise a non sequitur, due to Cilicia Tracheia not being a client state, but merely an area within a Roman province.

[@QuinnPrice]

Thanks for sharing the consensus on the census.

[@jamesarnette1394]

But without consent..

[@tysfalsehood]

⁠@@jamesarnette1394 Without consent? Us? In what sense? Asserting this con before sussing out some sense… I cannot concur with what you’ve sent.

[@sp1ke0kill3r]

Thanks for sharing the census on the consensus

[@scienceexplains302]

The consensus on the census con.

[@BluStarGalaxy]

Another problem. Mary and Joseph were residents of Galilee and would not be part of any census of Judea. Galilee was separated from Judea by Samaria.

[@TacticusPrime]

It just seems so obvious that the final editor of Luke read Josephus and didn't understand the chronology very well but decided to use the infamous census that triggered the Zealot movement as a touchstone for Jesus' birth and explain how he could have been born in Bethlehem while still being from Nazareth.

[@TacticusPrime]

@Bible-Christian Except that wasn't a thing. There was never any Roman decree to go to one's ancestral homeland for a census. The very idea is laughable. The point of the census was to register for taxation purposes, not to testify to one's ancestry. And to be clear, Matthew doesn't say anything about such a census at all. The story in Matthew has nothing in common with Luke whatsoever. In Matthew, they are originally from Bethlehem but decide to move to Galilee to escape the rule of Herod Archelaus, which puts the story firmly prior to any census.

[@BluStarGalaxy]

@Bible-Christian Joseph and Mary were residents of Galilee, and the census applied to residents of Judea. It doesn't matter if Joseph had an ancestor that lived in Judea. He was not living in Judea, and the census didn't apply to him, a nonresident.

[@TacticusPrime]

@Bible-Christian No, Roman censuses at the time certainly were not about those things. They didn't have military conscription until centuries later, for example. They were never about ancestry at all. It's not a matter of emphasis. Matthew's account focuses on Herod the Great. Luke's takes place a decade after Herod's death. They contradict each other.

[@TacticusPrime]

@Bible-Christian ... of course it completely negates the overall truth of the message. The method of achieving the "prophecy" is completely different and contradictory, and thus completely fraudulent. Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem at all. Scholars agree that he was just from Nazareth.

[@user-gk9lg5sp4y]

The mental gymnastics of apologists are often breathtaking

[@kentstallard6512]

...true, but it comes at a cost of debilitating cognitive dissonance. At least it did for me, a former ordained Christian minister. Some, however, have guzzled so much Kool-Aid that their capacity to think critically is drowned.

[@user-gk9lg5sp4y]

@@kentstallard6512 I liken religion to opiates. They can be therapeutic but too much can be dangerous.

[@User81981]

Not ‘’mental gymnastics’’ to state the facts…

[@user-gk9lg5sp4y]

@@User81981 That's the point. He's not stating facts. He's making things up and twisting what few 'facts' he threw out to fit his preconceived narrative.

[@gordondetotth9302]

One of the problems I've found is how many people believe this sort of argument made by apologists. But, I've also found that if you have a queasy feeling in your gut, this queasiness is there for a reason.

[@wingedlion17]

I like how IP tries to turn a weakness: Luke being the only source for the census, into a strength… well you can’t show that Luke was lying so he must be telling the truth. Again, if this was a non Christian source he would reject it as weak coming from a single source and highly implausible.

[@firstpersonwinner7404]

It really comes from starting from the answer. If the evidence disagrees then any possible problem shows total error, while even the most tenuous ideas are definitive if they coalesce with the presuppositions.

[@dulls8475]

Except it works the other way down. We have far less evidence for all the other major historical persons of ancient history. The evidence for Jesus is incredibly abundant. The reason people reject this is philosophical and nothing to do with evidence.

[@Humorless_Wokescold]

@@dulls8475 Jesus is not more well documented than any of the Roman emperors. Come on now

[@dulls8475]

@@Humorless_Wokescold So what is your point?

[@jonhanson8925]

It's pretty funny that so many people, in order to defend a literalistic reading of the text, end up having to invent so much extrabiblical structure, and in some cases twist the meaning of the text It's something I also note when people try to "harmonize" discrepancies in things like the resurrection story, where in order to try and make every story literally true they need to invent a story that contradicts all the individual stories. If a secular critic played this fast and loose with the text the apologist would tear them apart, but I guess the "principle of charity" only goes one way.

[@thedarknessthatcomesbefore4279]

​@Bible-Christianand I think you must agree that the argument that the bible is the inerrant word of god and completely true is obviously incorrect. If you do not agree with this statement then there really isn't any benefit to humanity in continuing the discussion. Do you agree with my statements?

[@thedarknessthatcomesbefore4279]

@Bible-Christian the video just pointed out where it's wrong. So absolutely no point talking with you really is there.

[@thedarknessthatcomesbefore4279]

@Bible-Christian you are literally...the bible tells me so.

[@thedarknessthatcomesbefore4279]

@Bible-Christian the majority of scholars (those who don't have to sign a declaration stating that the bible is the inerrant word of god) disagree with your stance. But it really doesn't matter because you are never going to concede that something in the bible is wrong. You obviously believe in talking serpents and donkeys and a global flood and an old man and his family getting 2 of every animal into a boat. So nothing much I can tell you, if you believe that.

[@markbriten6999]

​@@thedarknessthatcomesbefore4279ignore the moron. He's too indoctrinated or stupid or both to understand anything

[@Rhewin]

Inspiring Philosophy: it’s not entirely impossible, therefore it’s true.

[@stephenlitten1789]

I'm sold! Where do I collect the bridge?

[@henrikhartmann-xh5pi]

If Josefs father lived in Betlehem, why did they have to stay in a stable, they could have stayed with him.

[@colinrow725]

Joseph's father ran a B&B so he just didn't have the room. I know the text doesn't say that but you can't prove he didn't run a B&B.

[@stormelemental13]

That's actually a poor translation/context problem that Dan has addressed. It is most likely that the story has them staying with someone, but in the lower part of the house. kzbin.info/www/bejne/oKvbpZaAbdWBmNE

[@sobertillnoon]

His father was actually the inn owner. They were not on good terms.

[@billcook4768]

@@sobertillnoonSince I can’t prove Joseph was on good terms with his father (er, one of the two people the Bible says was Joseph’s father) then I must believe you are correct that they weren’t on good terms.

[@henrikhartmann-xh5pi]

@@stormelemental13 I am sure that Dan is right, only my old Καινη Διαθηκη says φατνη which my old Greek dictionary translates as crib.

[@utubepunk]

IP is a good McApologist. His misdirection game is a bit better than most.

[@littleredpony6868]

Talking in a way that sounds smart helps with the misdirection

[@minaguta4147]

The Patron Saint of Apologetics should be Lloyd Christmas (Jim Carrey) in Dumb and Dumber: "So You're Telling Me There's A Chance?"

[@CharlesPayet]

This would be a great meme, but it sucks that YT doesn’t allow those or links to them.

[@finnguy9096]

Always be suspicious of apologetic clips with rousing, inspirational music in the background, is my take. Cold, hard facts don't need heart-tucking music to accompany them.

[@rollinolson3562]

... and narrated in a sappy voice.

[@Boogachomper]

I’m so glad you made this Dan. I just had an extended discussion of this issue with my former pastor, and I was trying to point out these many inconsistencies. He would, like IP here, point to the plausibility of the various points. I kept pointing at the implausibility of the points. As are most of my interactions with apologetically inclined Christian’s, it was (seemingly) pretty fruitless. I didn’t change his mind, he didn’t change mine. But it was frustrating to leave the discussion with no external proof or validation of my reasoning. This video gave me that. I feel that even if these Christians are committed to their interpretations through whatever means, I can rest assured it’s highly unlikely and go my way.

[@theophilussogoromo3000]

IP is so biased. I'm glad you're addressing him.

[@pepepena1937]

He should address Simon Greenleaf founder of Harvard Law and the authority in regards to evidence writings

[@theophilussogoromo3000]

@@pepepena1937elaborate.

[@AurorXZ]

Always grateful to see IP's influential arguments engaged.

[@Kenji17171]

Wow 🤯🤯 I was wondering when you were criticizing Inspiring Philosophy, it finalle happened!

[@AndrewBawitlung]

He has produced a few videos.

[@Kenji17171]

​@@AndrewBawitlungI never saw them. I wonder will IP answer though

[@AndrewBawitlung]

@@Kenji17171 He replied back some of it, I think it was on the topic of the goddess Ashera, i think IP indirectly admitted that his video was a minority view.

[@BlueBarrier782]

IP needs to put the philosophy book down and pick up a history book if he keeps wanting to talk about history.

[@dizzyspinner648]

According to Luke, it was 42 generations from David to Joseph. Mathew claims 27 generations. It is absurd to think that anyone would know who their ancestors were that far back and even more absurd that any state would send people to origins connected to ancestors that far back in time. The only thing any state has ever conducted a census for was to find out how many people there are, who they are and where they are at the moment.

[@Wertbag99]

Yes, it's estimated there was over 900 years between David and Joseph, so to demand he return to an ancient ancestor is truly a bizarre claim.

[@kylejohnson6]

Love this longer format video response! It lets you dive in a little bit more and really dissect these longer arguments. Awesome!

[@jimmynolet3752]

he's only filling your head with misinformation...

[@Bob20011492]

I can't recall ever hearing about some "principle of charity" ever guiding my willingness to accept some particular explanation of a historical account. That sounds more like a willingness on the part of the adherent of that explanation to arbitrarily overlook an absence of evidence for their particular version. There seems to be a lot of that occurring in retelling various biblical stories and their orthodox explanation.

[@derekwalls61]

If Joseph was returning home to his dad, why would he seek a room at the inn?

[@FaithIsNotEvidence]

So often apologist (excusist) grab at anything that will scarcely defend their dogma. I often fell into this trap when I was a believer. Just presenting that a dogmatic belief is possible when seen in the right light of that specific religious framework.

[@phil42]

Thank you for this video. IP is very persuasive and as a layman it's hard to know how accurate his information actually is.

[@bdawg-qj9bq]

He’s a snake. An alcoholic one at that.

[@MissMentats]

When I was 5, it was my first Christmas at school and I was told the nativity for the first time. I asked the teacher (Ms Lambert, just fyi) did they do censuses wrong back then, why would they need to uproot for a census? I got in so much trouble I lost my role as a sheep 😢

[@markbriten6999]

Seems about right. You didn't have the mentality of the "sheep".

[@dulls8475]

What an intelligent little 5 year old you were. I was more worried about my next meal...

[@fepeerreview3150]

Well done, and a great summary at the end. Yes, it's typical apologetics. If there is the faintest possibility that it might have happened then it suddenly becomes highly probable that it did happen. But that's not how rationality works. That's the stuff of faith.

[@dmnemaine]

Keep the believers believing is the goal. You lose believers, you lose power.

[@lightbearer313]

A big problem with the Bethlehem scenario is that many people lived on farms and were born on those farms. Not everyone was born in a town.

[@michaelsbeverly]

Very inventive apologetic. A for creative reasoning. F for being historical or reasonable or logical. Question: Is there any record anywhere or anytime in which a government did a census that wasn't to count the people who actually live in the geography of the census? If so, what would be the point? It would be like the Constitutional requirement in the American Constitution requiring Chinese Americans to go to China and Mexican Americans to go South. It's a bizarre argument.

[@markbriten6999]

Yep and think a Jew Egyptian from upper Egypt in northern France going back. So about 6 months travelling, massive costs, businesses up the wazoo. So tax rolls are useless as they are now skint

[@michaelsbeverly]

@@markbriten6999 I haven't heard an apologist explain this one, they just ignore it.

[@elf1193]

I have heard of the argument, that Joseph was a carpender. And they did went around Israel at the beginning of their job. And than later came back, to the land that the family inheritated from their acenstors. Than it would also kinda make sense to relate their hometown after their famous ancestor David.

[@TerryJLaRue]

A good apologist can go through more bends than the national Twister champion.

[@trabob4438]

Why would someone have to return to their home land from 1000 years ago for a census?

[@pigeon4x250]

Nice! I always love to see Dan address InspiringPhilosphy's claims

[@4305051]

Apologists lie, misrepresent and spin ALL the time. This is a great example. Kudos to Dan for taking the time.

[@CharlesPayet]

Definitely appreciate knowing scholars like you, Dan, who can dig up those obscure references.

[@makinginternetcontent]

if joseph's home (or father's home) was in bethleham, why'd his wife have to give birth in a stable? why didn't he just go to his own home?

[@bonsaibean2971]

Calm rational, fact based approach. Much appreciated.

[@billcook4768]

He completely ignores what is the weakest part of the story IMO. Even if we grant everything else, it’s insane to think that Mary - great with child - would make the journey.

[@Wertbag99]

Two weeks cross country over desert while heavily pregnant? Pregnancy was hard enough in those days without adding that on top.

[@InquisitiveBible]

Yeah, IP is ignoring the objections that he doesn't have a plausible excuse for.

[@dulls8475]

@@Wertbag99 People were not as wet as your generation.

[@vinnyrac]

Great Video. It infuriates me how apologists lie and obfuscate to support their claims. This topic is already confusing enough and person not versed in the details could easily be persuaded. Thanks Dan

[@StannisHarlock]

Yikes, IP got bodyslammed

[@DarkZeno]

The amount of BS we were all fed as kids is just amazing to think about. I see Christianity as adult's version of Santa Claus.

[@vermontmike9800]

Okie dokie.

[@thehippyhippy4642]

There's more evidence for santa.... st nick was recorded as living during his actual lifetime, not decades later....

[@k98killer]

If you honor Santa in this life, he will give you many gifts for the Eternal Christmas Party once your soul is admitted to True North Pole. But to those who do not worship Santa in this life, he will say "take this coal, for I never knew you", and you will wander into the blizzard and be consumed.

[@chrisdsouza8685]

Agreed most heartily. With my humble observation that there is nothing ADULT about it 😊

[@DarkZeno]

@@k98killer hahahaha... That was great. 👍

[@stevevasta]

Quite aside from the fact that, in Matthew's birth narrative, Joseph and Mary didn't have to travel to Bethlehem--they were already there!

[@Dave01Rhodes]

Yeah this bugs me too. Luke seems to have gone out of his way to make Mary and Joseph start in Nazareth. Probably to have Mary meet Elizabeth I guess, but then Luke could have just said "Joseph too had to travel back to his home in Bethlehem" instead of saying he traveled because he was descended from the house and family of David.

[@fergusfitzgerald977]

Just a thought - from my experience watching these various presentations by many different creators -I am realizing how subtle the process of faith driven interpretation is ! I wonder is this the case with creators of various different philosophical or political evaluations and critiques? Or do religious people exceed the norms of bias in their evaluations of religious texts ? If they do - they should refrain from this as it has the effect of increasing skepticism and is seriously counter productive to their desired end ! Just a thought?

[@manbearpig3507]

really the same Varus that lost 3 legions in Teutoburg was legate in Syria and put down a Jewish rebellion. Learned something new today

[@TheMesomovie]

And, of course, Luke conflicts with Matthew.

[@jenna2431]

To say nothing of the freezing temps at that time of year in Palestine, just the economic disruption alone, and add that all your ENEMIES would know that entire non-ancestral towns would be left totally vacant, ripe for the taking.

[@boydx4687]

Thanks!

[@sadib100]

If something is possible, it is probable, and it definitely occurred.

[@alejandromiranda2745]

Ok, I am going to refute all your video's objections: 1. First, pertaining to Quirinius, we cannot rule out that he held some administrative charge in the province of Syria before the year 6 AD. After all, Justin Martyr reported that the biblical census took place while Quirinius was only a procurator, while Tertullian wrote that the census took place under the governorship of Sentius Saturninos, who was the governor of Syria from 9-6 BC. On this basis, the historian Sabine Huebner has suggested that Luke was probably referring to a census that took place around the same time as the Roman imperial census of 8 BC, when Sentius Saturninos was governor of Syria while Quirinius was possibly a lower official who actually carried out the census. This would also place the census in a period when both Bethlehem and Nazareth would have fallen under a single jurisdiction, which was not the case in 6 AD. 2. There is one extrabiblical evidence corroborating Luke's report of an Augustan decree ordering all the people of the Roman empire to be registered. The scholar Anthony Giambrone, OP has recently noted that Hyginus Gromaticus, a pagan writer on land-surveying from the times of Trajan, reported that the emperor Augustus had ordered that all the provinces of the empire had to conduct censuses "so that property of no man should be considered unclear with respect of the amount that he would assume for paying taxe". Giambrone argues that this independent witness indicates that there was an Augustan policy to undertake separate, but loosely coordinated censuses through all the parts of the Roman empire. This scenario would be totally consistent with Luke's account. 3. There is also another piece of extrabiblical evidence indicating that the Romans could conduct a census in the client kingdoms of their empire. Anthony Giambrone notes that there is evidence indicating that the Romans were conducting censuses in the client kingdom of the Nabatea from at least the year 1 BC. Also, Tacitus' report on the Roman-style census in Cilicia Tracheia nowhere states that said census was conducted solely on the orders of Archelaus II; on the contrary, Tacitus seems to imply that the census was an unprecedented event in that client kingdom, suggesting that the Romans probably influenced the occurrence of that census. 4. Finally, the Lukan text never states that Joseph had to return to Bethlehem because that was an "ancestral hometown" (in fact, Luke 2:3 states that the people of the empire had to return to their own homes, not to any "ancestral" home). Saint John Chrysostom argued that Joseph was probably a citizen of his native town of Bethlehem and was only temporarily residing in Nazareth at the time of the Annunciation. (For further evidence in support of this reading, see also Stephen C. Carlson, "The Accommodations of Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem: Κατάλυμα in Luke 2.7,” New Testament Studies 56 (2010), 326-342.") Sabine Huebner concurs, and argues that this specific scenario would accord with the papyrological evidence from Egypt, which describes how the rural population at Alexandria had to return from their places of work in the city to the places where their families were resident. I would also recommend that you read Anthony Giambrone's article "Augustus as Censor and Luke's Worldwide Enrollment: Roman Propaganda and Lukan Theology from the Margins", which provides a very detailed case for the historicity of the Lukan census.

[@Dave01Rhodes]

To your point 4: Luke 2:4 specifically says "Joseph went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David." So why did Joseph go to Bethlehem according to Luke? Because he's a descendent of David. So yes the Lukan text said he returned to Bethlehem because it was his ancestral home. That is the exact reason Luke gives. I suppose you could make the argument that it's not impossible that, while normal people just went back to the towns they lived in, Joseph decided of his own free will that it would be better if he registered as a citizen of Bethlehem instead of a citizen of Nazareth. But with a very pregnant wife that you're going to drag along, that would be a very dumb decision to make. Matthew just starts Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem and has them move to Nazareth later. Either Matthew or Luke is wrong, and since Luke's story has more holes, it's probably Luke.

[@hyloguy6847]

Fascinating! IP’s insidious use of the phrase “innocent until proven guilty” clearly encapsulates the difference between apologetics and scholarship. They demand a framing in which biblical univocality and inerrancy is treated as the null hypothesis. The default assumption. The innocent defendant who must be *proven* false beyond reasonable doubt, otherwise we should accept it as true. That’s not how scholarship works at all. This is some really clever manipulation on their part.

[@KaiHenningsen]

Well, that's typical IP.

[@Deathhellandthegrave]

Luke is guilty until proven innocent.

[@markbriten6999]

One point that is often overlooked. A Roman census was basically a way to assess people to tax them, think doomsdsy book in England. What is the point af destroying someones entire weallth by making them abandon their business snd go many days jounrney at high cost?

[@johnnytr0uble]

I'm surprised he didn't mention #5. That's not how census works 😂

[@enoynaert]

If Joseph traveled to Bethlehem to be with his father's household, why did they need to stay in the stable at the inn? Why wouldn't they stay somewhere associated with Joseph's family?

[@barrywalton6820]

Luke seems to place Jesus birth during or near the end of Herods reign when he begins his gospel “in the days of Herod” and says Jesus was about 30 in the 15th year of Tiberius. These two data points within the same letter suggest to me that Luke is actually pointing away from Jesus’ birth during the “big” census of Quirinius, and was perhaps offering clarification that the census being talked about was not the one which led to the well known revolt. The charity I offer Luke is the assumption that he knows when Quirinius was in charge and when Herod was in charge, and that Jesus wasn’t born 6-8 years apart at the same time under two different rulers.

[@Spektor211]

Please do more of IP's videos. He has so many of these types of videos. I would love your take on his "evidence" for the exodus.

[@jackcimino8822]

Please respond to his video about Barabbas!

[@jackcimino8822]

@@MrMortal_Ra IP used the same argument and went further to cite examples of insurrectionists who were spared from crucifixion (those were the exception, not the norm). He also tried to make it seem plausible by saying that Roman states had their own rules. Lastly, he accused critics or skeptics of finding patterns in the Bible to say that this story must have been based on another. He links this with how two presidents from the 20th century had similar lives.

[@louisnemzer6801]

You can just stop watching at 0:45 😂

[@spinnwebe_]

It’s 200% more Dan!

[@ApPersonaNonGrata]

Poor habitually desperate, fallacious, and dishonest Mikey-J.

[@23ADJ93]

This Michael Jones dude is so confident in himself. Always.

[@michaelmaloskyjr]

So I was a philosophy major in college, did some journalism; and I typically leave long-winded, overly verbose replies. I'm struck by the number of times my reaction to Dan's various rebuttals is simply: "Duuuuude!"

[@andrewm3997]

Thank you!

[@Zahaqiel]

Wait hang on... "there are no sources that disagree" followed by accusing _other people_ of an argument from silence? Wow... balls.

[@billneo]

Wait a minute. If Joseph was still part of his father’s household in Bethlehem wouldn’t he have a room there? Why would they have wound up in a manger?

[@dulls8475]

Or here is something you could think about. With all the extended family staying because of the census there was no room....just like if all your family tried to turn up at Christmas. Can never understand why people dont think things through.

[@85set05]

Squeee, this is my favourite

[@MrCelaneous]

Aside from everything else, if Joseph's father _was_ still living in Bethlehem, why would they have needed to sleep in a stable?

[@Canaanitebabyeater]

Because Bethlehem of Judah was an abandoned Iron II site according to Israel's antiquities department.

[@dulls8475]

Or here is something you could think about. With all the extended family staying because of the census there was no room....just like if all your family tried to turn up at Christmas. Can never understand why people dont think things through.

[@eesev2017]

concise , interesting, informative

[@billbrenne5475]

Joseph Atwill ("Caesar's Messiah") makes a good case for the Gospels and Paul's letters as directly or indirectly being Roman propaganda.

[@disraelidemon]

Even if the premises of these arguments were factually correct, most of them are like saying, "we have evidence from the 1990's that it was possible to build a car that could travel faster than sound, therefore it's safe to assume that everyone in that era drove to Walmart at supersonic speeds."

[@Jake-zc3fk]

Data over Dogma!!

[@lanabowers5332]

The census was in 6AD. Quirinius was never governor of Syria when Herod was alive. Herod died in 4 BC. The census just required men to register their property. Also, on Tuesday, April 6, 6AD, Judas the Galilean prepares for his uprising against the census.

[@MaddKlown]

Man, I love everything you do, but I have a totally unrelated question. How excited are you for the new X-Men ‘97 cartoon that is releasing, and have you seen the new trailer that dropped for it?

[@wordwarrior1974]

I have no respect for Christian apologists.

[@icollectstories5702]

Everything is much simpler if you just BELIEVE! No reasoning is required. Religion is about the unreasonable anyway.

[@ct8888]

Have you done a video on the contradictions of Jesus and Joseph's Lineage in the two accounts in Matthew and Luke ? Apologists have tried so hard to explain those away

[@JuanGonzalez-kb3gm]

Look into Bart ehrman, I would say biggest bible scholar has a couple videos.

[@billrosenstein]

You can see it in his eyes, this man if haunted by demons.

[@jhake67]

What apologist will go through to defend their dogmas

[@AbdullahIbnAbdullah-pk1kf]

Was that voice IP

[@ballasog]

Fundamentally, what is this story? It is a story about a husband dragging his wife on a trip while not being sufficiently conscientious to make a hotel reservation. So, how can this story *not* be true? Furthermore, it explains why churches dedicated to Mary are frequently grand palaces, while churches dedicated to Joseph look like afterthoughts knocked together over a weekend. Also, it may lie behind the fact that Mother's Day compares to Father's Day the way Castle Neuschwanstein compares to a tarpaper shanty.

[@scienceexplains302]

🏡 🏠 Jimmy Akins and his *Joseph's two homes* idea Matthew is rather explicit that he's explaining how a family who *had to be from Bethlehem,* because of the Davidian prophecy, ended up being known as being from Nazareth, which was also supposedly prophesied per 2:23. Luke reads as if he is explaining how a family believed to be from Nazareth could have given birth in Bethlehem. *Problems in Matthew 2:22-23, and especially Luke 2:39:* Matthew reads clearly as if they are going to Nazareth for the first time. 1) They returned from Egypt when they learned Herod was dead, ala Moses fearing Pharaoh 2) after leaving Egypt, they found out Herod's son Archelaus was going to take his place (Whom did they expect? Was Archelaus more vicious than Herod’s other sons?), so they went to Galilee instead... 3) to a place called Nazareth. *So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.* So Nazareth was new to them in Matthew. If they had lived there before, they would not need to go there to be called Nazarenes. The plain reading of "..to a place called..." is also that it is new to all involved, except the author. The subsequent claim of being a fulfillment of a prophecy would seem to be *blasphemy if the real reason they went was because they had already lived there.* If Joseph and Mary had family there already, this would have been the time to mention it. Otherwise, this is poor and/or very dishonest writing. Luke 2:39 They returned to their own city, Nazareth, after going to Jerusalem directly from Bethlehem. Yes, Luke 2:3-4 also refers to Bethlehem as their city, but the subsequent story shows that their *home* was Nazareth. The key to the "home" contradiction is Matthew 2:23 vs Luke 2:39. Luke has J&M go to Bethlehem because they were of the house of David. Akins uses a double equivocation by converting this [reference to a 1,000-year-old family connection] to "they had relatives there, which is consistent with having family property." It doesn't say they had relatives there anymore. If they did, those relatives could have dealt with the tax registrars. What purpose would there be for Joseph to go to Bethlehem? Even less a pregnant woman. There was no suspension on vehicles then, so no matter the transportation, it would have been dangerous to Mary and her fetus. The purpose of the registration was to tax property, not to have a body count, especially of people who didn't live there (and had a significant chance of dying on on the way). The whole point of the story seems to be that they were of the house of David; the author is trying to establish that Jesus has the credentials to be the Tanakh-approved messiah. It doesn't say they went because they had property. Property is not mentioned, even though that was the purpose of the registration, according to Josephus. Luke ignores this. Matthew may have been written before Josephus wrote about the -census- land registration. In the virgin conception scenario, Jesus is not explicitly a descendant of David. In Luke 4:31-42, the people of Capernaum don't know Jesus is the son of God and Jesus tries to stop the breath/spirit of the unclean _(daemon)_ from letting people know that Jesus is "the holy one of God." If people who thought they were of the house of David (my family had its own false legends of regal heritage, so I'm not criticizing) *all* went to Bethlehem, that little town would have been disastrously overrun. Everybody is a descendant of a lot of people, and a large chunk of the Jews probably thought they were descended from David (and they might well be right, based on how much *one* king might "get around", not to mention that several generations of his descendants were also kings and that might get around, too). All those people travelling based on 1,000-year-old family connections would have been an economic disaster, making some people unable to give tax money - exactly the opposite of the purpose of the registration. According to Luke 3:23, Joseph's father was Heli (Eli). According to Matthew 1:16, Jacob (Yekub) was the father of Joseph. Arguing that Father could sometimes mean Ancestor doesn't help, because the whole point of the count in Matthew is to say there were 14 generations between the greatest characters. It renders the number meaningless if you have to ignore some of those genarations. More importantly, it doesn't resolve the contradiction, it just changes the wording, because it would mean that Matthew thought Jacob was Joseph's previous important ancestor and Luke thought Heli was. Augustus did not tell vassal kings how to raise taxes: just to pay them. The local rulers decided how to collect. There was no registration of the whole (Roman) world. Jimmy Akins, Catholic Apologist article on his "Joseph's two homes" idea jimmyakin.com/2022/03/where-was-josephs-residence.html

[@ryanzollinger]

Woah, horizontal Dan.

[@ManoverSuperman]

Also, even if we take the gospel of Luke at face value, it still contradicts Matthew because Luke 3:23 tells us Jesus was _about_ 30 years old (that is, slightly short of in the Lukan context) in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar (3:1), a date many estimate to be 29 CE. If Jesus was allegedly under thirty at that time, this would accord with a birth around 6-7 CE, but it would make any birth during Herod the Great’s reign impossible according to Luke’s dating. So something is very wrong with the data set here.

[@rimmersbryggeri]

If josephs father lived in bethlehem and Joseph was part of his household why did they not stay in that househould over the barn in the back of an inn? Is Joseph not presented as an older man or widower that more ore less "adopted" Mary. I think I have heard it presented like that on Bart Ehrman's podcast, it might have been the on on the infancy gospels from the end of last year.

[@calebhoff409]

Read the Hebrew passages, they seem to line up with what inspiring philosophy says, not this guy

[@wingedlion17]

IP’s entire apologetic system is to quote evangelical scholars who either engage in special pleading or this is possible so not impossible arguments

[@rollinolson3562]

​@MrMortal_Ra He quotes the critical scholars and main academic consensus to debunk the Evangelical nonsense.

[@rollinolson3562]

Dan consistently quotes critical scholars and the main academic consensus to debunk the Evangelical nonsense spouted by people like the creator of the video he is refuting. Dan does the same in many videos. Apparently I misinterpreted who the "he" referred to in your original reply.

[@rimmersbryggeri]

Why does he say Sir William Ramsay when the book is Credited to William M Ramsay. Is that to make the name more authoritative? Since William M Ramsay wasnt Knighted until years after this book was published I feels a little like that.

[@James-qo7uz]

And all of this doesn’t explain why Matthew’s and Luke’s gospels disagree on where Joseph and Mary lived initially at the time of Jesus’ birth. Matthew has them already in Bethlehem while Luke has them in Galilee needing to travel to Bethlehem. Its almost like both gospels don’t care about historical history and accuracy and just care about supporting a literary and theological point and analogy.

[@basilkearsley2657]

If his father was in Bethlehem why was Jesus born in a stable? Wouldn’t he be born in his grandfather’s house?

[@dulls8475]

Have you thought that there was no room because of the many people who had returned to Bethlehem for the census? A sort of random event that backs the truth of the scripture?

[@basilkearsley2657]

@@dulls8475 again you did not answer the question. If he was going back home, why did Joseph not stay at his family home? why did he stay at an inn?

[@CopticPrince-hh2yi]

@@basilkearsley2657 i think he answered your question . why are you repeating the same question again are you a bot ??

[@tussk.]

Yeah, but what if.... ≠ Evidence

[@davidm5707]

Its probably been said, but wasn't Joseph supposed to be an older man with children from a previous marriage? Its unlikely his father was still alive and in Bethlehem, or that Joseph was not his own head of household.

[@chev39rsh]

So as long as the buff isn't obnoxious, then we should support it by faith and charity and not consider it like other MYTHS, just not true..

[@mnorma12]

….not to mention there would have been absolutely no reason for anyone to document the birth of a poor kid from Nazareth. The account In Luke was written over 50 years after the fact by a person (probably not named Luke) that never even met Jesus.

[@dunk_law]

Please now respond to - Does Luke Make An Error Regarding The Census in Luke 2? Responding to Dan McClellan.

[@raised_by_wolves8105]

Luke was a careful historian and seems to right on so many things. It seems unlikely that he would just make this up. Luke deserves the benefit of the doubt here. After all, he was a lot closer to these events than we are.

[@bdawg-qj9bq]

The book of Luke was written by an anonymous Greek author. Luke deserves no such honor considering he wasn’t the one writing and wasn’t there.

[@j8000]

Writing down something that happened in another country ~80 years ago doesn't become reliable just because it's even longer ago from our context.

[@mattmiller9809]

Also, why would we ever grant Luke charity? We don't for literally any other source from this era if they say something implausible lol. We don't look at the story of the Ides of March and say its plausible because "well why not give that account the benefit of the doubt??" We look at the historians credibility. We look at whether their account is on par with the society they're describing: Luke's described census' are not but assassinations are commonplace in roman history. Luke's census defies logic; the idea that his rivals wanted him dead makes sense lol

[@rifelaw]

So Joseph is married and Mary is expecting, but he's still part of father's household. Right. And then they all bounce back to Nazareth and stay there even though that was only a temporary gig. Uh-huh.

[@Christiaanwebb]

Note To Apologists: Josephus is either... The guy whose work 'proves' there was a historical Jesus. Or he's that guy who's work needs to be taken with a grain of salt because he makes huge mistakes. JOSEPHUS IS DEFINITELY NOT the guy who's work proves there was a historical Jesus and also only makes huge mistakes when his words contradict the Bible.

[@thedriedge24]

When 'plausible' is the best evidence your god can leave in the trail of history as evidence for the most important events of all time, you might wanna rethink trusting him with other parts of your life.

[@busylivingnotdying]

Luke is not god

[@ChristianCarrizales]

Awesome, a critique of Inspiring Philosophy! They certainly go to great lengths to attempt the Bible’s legitimacy. While I’m not a fan of that channel or approach, hats off to the in-depth analyses they attempt.

[@utubepunk]

Disagree. Like Dan said, they're starting with the conclusion & doing backflips to ignore the most likely explanation in favor of their mental gymnastics. IP is approaching it as an apologist, not a historian.

[@ChristianCarrizales]

@@utubepunk yes they are, and that’s the reason I dislike them. They still put a lot of work into it though and any project that takes a decent amount of work, whether I agree with it or not, can still be done well

[@utubepunk]

@@ChristianCarrizales Oh the production value & time invested is top notch but at the end of the day, it's just meant to make it more convincing propaganda.

[@AurorXZ]

IP puts in a lot of work, but his approach is infuriating because he's clearly working double-time to cherrypick and twist the words of scholarship. Every time he discusses a field I'm quite familiar with (e.g. Pentateuchal Studies) it feels like I'm having a stroke lol.

[@nickrondinelli1402]

Chronology issues aside, is it possible that Luke's birth narrative could have happened first and then Matthew's? In Matthew, Jesus is already 2ish years old when the story takes place, couldnt the luke story have occured before it? Again this doesnt excuse the ahistoric census or herod being alive and a few other issues, but broad strokes timeline?

[@LoveAllAnimals101]

So Josephus is "correct" about the divinity of Jesus and "incorrect" regarding the census?