Was Luke a Clumsy Liar When Came To Jesus’ Birth?

[@jasonengwer8923]

The passage in Acts 5 is important. It shows that Luke was aware of the tumultuous nature of the census in 6 A.D. Josephus corroborates Luke about that atmosphere (Antiquities Of The Jews, 18:1; Jewish War, 7:8:1). By contrast, the setting of Luke 1-2 is peaceful. Mary, Joseph, the shepherds, etc. interact with people, travel, and so on without any mention of the unrest surrounding the 6 A.D. census or any suggestion that the individuals involved in the opening chapters of Luke were concerned about such matters. Furthermore, it would have been in Luke's interest to have mentioned the atmosphere of the 6 A.D. census in Luke 1-2 if he had thought such an atmosphere existed at the time. Luke was a Gentile writing to a largely Gentile audience, in a context in which Paul and other Christians were often having to defend themselves before Roman authorities and were suspected of destabilizing society. It would have been in Luke's interest to have contrasted Joseph and Mary's submission to a Roman census to the rebellion of other Jews at the time. No such contrast is made, though. The differences between Luke 1-2 and Acts 5:37 are striking. It's likely that Luke was aware that two different timeframes were involved. I think Stephen Carlson's rendering of Luke 2 is the most likely one, to the effect that the census became most prominent under Quirinius: "This registration became most prominent when Quirinius was governing Syria." Carlson's interpretation of the verse makes sense even if the passage isn't translated the way he translates it. He seems to be right about what concept Luke has in mind, regardless of whether we accept Carlson's wording. Remember, Jesus and his family don't even enter the narrative in Luke 2 until verse 4. The verse in question here, verse 2, is a parenthetical comment adding further detail to verse 1. Luke is referring to a process of census taking that happened in different parts of the empire at different times. The phase of that census-taking process under Quirinius was well known in Jewish circles and among people with an interest in Jewish history, like Luke's audience. He's adding a qualifier to further identify what census-taking process he has in mind. He's not identifying who was governor when Jesus was born. Jesus won't enter the narrative until verse 4.

[@davidgadbois6839]

Hi, Jason (and Erik): 1. Since you mentioned Stephen Carlson, I'd also add that he is almost certainly right, and Bethlehem was simply Joseph's primary residence, and temporarily residing in Nazareth for work, when he became engaged to Mary. He would have married Mary upon returning to Bethlehem in the presence of his family, some unspecified time before Jesus was born. This solves the supposed contradiction on Mary's marital status. It also rubbishes any supposed problem with this travel to Bethlehem being contrary to normal census practices and requirements. This would be from his "The Accomodations of Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem" article published in 2010 NTS. 2. Titus Kennedy has recently proposed that Quirinius administrated the census as a military leader under Saturninus (who was the legate) and points to the Lapis Venetia inscription.(Excavating the Evidence for Jesus phs 22-28.) This would connect with the census ordered in 8 BC (recorded in the Deeds of the Divine Augustus), implying a likely birthdate of Jesus in 7 BC. 3. While it is a crazy rabbit hole to go down, Dan papers over the scholarly debate on the year of Herod's death.

[@Lord9Genesis]

Bethlehem being Joseph's hometown makes sense out of Jesus' birth in the "manger" area of the house because there was no room in the house itself. Joseph had probably followed business opportunities in Nazareth and allowed this census to bring him back to Bethlehem for a time where he may not have had room for his new family in his father's home. He obviously stayed in Bethlehem until Jesus was weaned and the Wisemen found their way there at which time he had a house. Being an entrepreneur he would have made the sudden move to Egypt and back to Galilee easier than most other men at the time. God found in Joseph a wise man who was not afraid of sudden changes; Joseph would have had tremendous faith to trust God with many moves.

[@keatsiannightingale2025]

@@Lord9GenesisWhere is the evidence for Joseph being an entrepreneurs of sorts? Where is this coming from? If the offering of two turtle doves is any indication in Luke 2, the holy family would have been on the lower levels of the social stratum. I don’t see any evidence from either Matthew or Luke to suggest two residences. Matthew’s text almost seems to imply that Joseph wasn’t even a resident of Nazareth accept as a measure to prevent being in Archelaus’ domain. Matthew’s purpose for this development could be seen as indicating that Jesus was driven by political circumstances from the land of his rightful birth (Judea) and compelled to be brought up in “Galilee of the Nations”, just as his birth in the manger and not the inn also has symbolic significance of his humility and obscurity in human terms.

[@davidgadbois6839]

@@keatsiannightingale2025 @Lord9Genesis Joseph was a "tekton", a builder of some sort. Not an entrepreneur. He probably owned zero residences, his primary residence in Bethlehem would have been with his family, where they stayed in the petaluma (spare room/upper room, not "the inn") that was too small to accommodate a childbirth. In Nazareth, it would have just been some temporary lodging while he was away on work.

[@Lord9Genesis]

@@keatsiannightingale2025 Being an entrepreneur, regardless of trade, is a mindset. I am using it in that sense of the word. Note that being an entrepreneur does NOT necessarily imply wealth. Joseph apparently was the type of person that was able to roll with change as evidenced with the status of his betrothed and an apparent desire for relocation--if we assume his initial move to Galilee was his own idea. He very well may have struggled at first but His faith in God would have been rewarded with the Wisemen's generous gifts just prior to his relocation to Egypt.

[@futfan9092]

I'll add that InspiringPhilosophy also did a video on this topic, based on an article by John Rhoads. He argues that there is a good possibility that Josephus got his timelines mixed up and that Luke is actually describing the real timeline. It's interesting because it seems unfair that Josephus is generally accepted to be reliable while Luke is looked at skeptically. Why not hold Josephus to the same standard?

[@BanazirGalpsi1968]

And Josephus did get timelines mixed up once in awhile. Also Josephus is biased, and his biases change based on who's employing them at the time he's writing. At one point he was writing for patron then he switches sides and gets paid by the other patron.

[@nsp74]

fair

[@dixonbuttes]

Your closing line hits the nail on the head: Dr. Mclellan has a habit of taking things that are long-standing debates, siding with the least Christian guys & then speaking with authority as though there is nobody reasonable with a counter.

[@johnmainwaring6556]

It's funny how his scepticism gets commuted to total conviction in the opposite direction.... until he needs to update his facts and figures.

[@A.Joshua_]

Luke was an excellent historian regarding his works.

[@jameswitt108]

👌 100%

[@darkwolf7740]

Can't argue with that. He certainly knew his stuff.

[@unkown110]

wait how did he know about jesus birth

[@arkady0]

If he was he would have cited his sources at least.

[@A.Joshua_]

@@arkady0 He was writing gospel, not some phd thesis.

[@ZaktanVR]

It’s good to see you doing more responses to this guy.

[@cmj90-s1y]

Honestly, Dan needs a personal debunker. The man speaks like everything he says is a foregone conclusion, and biblical studies don't work like that. You have to argue for your conclusions, not just pretend that everyone else is dumber than you.

[@marionkeenan2980]

That’s because he’s right.

[@Jesus_isGod]

@@marionkeenan2980 nope, he is not

[@darkwolf7740]

​@@marionkeenan2980Could you elaborate on why you think he is right?

[@c2s2942]

He doesn’t have to have any particular debunker because so many people already do it. 😂

[@thesweuteen]

I'm glad I wasn't the only one that noticed this. Everything he says he acts like it is an objective fact, not to mention he consistently boasts about his education when all he's done in his videos is repeat arguments that you can find on Wikipedia lol

[@voymasa7980]

Caeser Augustus began rule in 27bc. His Silver jubilee was in 2bc. The registration was for his silver jubilee when Quirinius was a legate to the region

[@voymasa7980]

I've read a pretty thorough treatment about this that was published back in 1982. I was reminded of it because the arguments being presented today were handled in that book back then. The book is 'Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed' by VP Wierwille, First Edition, Seventh Printing, 1982. The first part of the book deals with the astronomical data while the second part deals with the biblical record. Specifically, pgs 199-205 addresses Quirinius. The book cites "Roman Civilization" by Lewis and Reinhold, History of the Armenians by Moses of Khorene, Antiquities by Josephus, and Birth of Christ Recalculated by Martin.

[@Bildad1976]

A couple of foundational points here. 1. As Eric pointed out, Dan already had to correct himself on one of the points (which he had asserted with full confidence), and so he should question the accuracy and truthfulness of his other assertions. 2. Dan's purpose is not to discover truth, but to find fault, so he is not a faithful witness, and, thus, his findings are not to be trusted.

[@dulls8475]

You ever made a mistake and then corrected it?

[@FromValkyrie]

​@@dulls8475If one mistake, how many more? Is that easier for you to understand? 🤦🏽‍♀️🤦🏽‍♀️🤦🏽‍♀️

[@dulls8475]

@@FromValkyrie If one mistake maybe no more? Is that easier for you to understand?

[@FromValkyrie]

@@dulls8475 one mistake is plenty. Shows that he can't be trusted to do his due diligence properly. Good luck fanboying him, though. 👀 👀 👀

[@dulls8475]

@@FromValkyrie No historian on this planet has ever not made a mistake....yet you hold Luke to a standard that you hold no other historian too. The devil is in the detail. I dont believe Luke made a mistake. Dont go to hell on a false technicality.

[@jasonengwer8923]

Luke isn't referring to an ancestral census. Verse 3 is about census participants in general, and no ancestry is mentioned there. Luke suggests that Joseph had potential non-ancestral reasons for registering in Bethlehem, in addition to the ancestral motivation. Joseph and Mary are referred to as engaged in verse 5. They're living together in verse 7. Most likely, they got married upon their arrival in Bethlehem. It's probable that Joseph's family lived there, and Joseph may have owned property in the city. The only source I'm aware of that comments on this issue in the first two centuries of church history is the Protevangelium Of James. Section 17 of that document refers to how "there was an order from the Emperor Augustus, that all in Bethlehem of Judaea should be enrolled". It refers to "all in Bethlehem", with no reference to ancestry, implying that Joseph had to go to Bethlehem because he was "in Bethlehem". Though the Protevangelium is often wrong on historical matters, and that weakness significantly diminishes the document's testimony, its view of the census has to be taken into account as an early interpretation of Luke 2. What Luke may be doing is saying that Joseph could have registered in more than one location, but chose Bethlehem because of his Davidic ties. Or Luke may be emphasizing Davidic ancestry as an explanation of why Joseph had family and/or property in Bethlehem. He isn't saying that ancestry by itself defines Bethlehem as Joseph's "own city" (as verse 3 puts it). Rather, he's emphasizing one of the reasons why Joseph had family and/or property in the city. Verse 3 explains what the census required. Verse 4 explains one of the reasons why Joseph was affiliated with Bethlehem. He and his relatives would also have had other reasons for being in Bethlehem, but Luke wants to emphasize one of those reasons, Davidic ancestry. Reading that ancestry comment back into verse 3, as if every census participant was required to go to such a place of ancestry, creates more problems than it solves.

[@bigdavexx1]

What translation is "own city"? RSV: 4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, 5 to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. YLT: 4 and Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, that is called Bethlehem, because of his being of the house and family of David, KJV: 4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) NCB: 4 Joseph therefore went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David. NIV: 4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David.

[@grantgooch5834]

@@bigdavexx1 The real question is why did you post a bunch of translations of Luke 2:4 when the OP is clearly talking about Luke 2:3, where Luke says that everyone went to their own town to register for the census? Every translation you listed translates τὴν ἑαυτοῦ πόλιν in verse 3 as "his own city" or "his own town. RSV: And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city. YLT: and all were going to be enrolled, each to his proper city, KJV: And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. NCB: Everyone traveled to his own town to be enrolled. NIV: And everyone went to their own town to register.

[@bigdavexx1]

@grantgooch5834 , I was confused because surely we would be talking about the verse where Luke refers to returning to an ancestral city for a census when attempting to explain how it doesn't say what it seems to say. So I think the real, real question is why the OP isn't addressing the most applicable verse.

[@jasonengwer8923]

@@bigdavexx1 The issue isn't whether Luke 2:4 refers to Bethlehem as Joseph's ancestral city. Nobody denies that it does. Rather, the issue is whether the census required him to go to Bethlehem on the basis that it was his ancestral city or on some other basis. The evidence suggests the latter. That's more consistent with what we see with Roman censuses in general. (And Luke lived in the Roman empire and was highly informed about historical matters, meaning he had firsthand experience with and a large amount of knowledge about the relevant issues.) Furthermore, verse 3 doesn't mention ancestry when discussing what the census required. And, as I mentioned earlier, the evidence suggests that Joseph and Mary had their wedding in Bethlehem. Luke also refers to their having no room in their accommodations, apparently a guest room in a house in which they were staying. All of this suggests that Joseph's family was in Bethlehem and that they got married there. And that's what Luke 1:56 suggests. After learning of her pregnancy, Mary went to stay with Elizabeth. That made sense under the circumstances, given the social problems associated with Mary's premarital pregnancy. Her return to Nazareth in Luke 1:56 is likely due to the change of events Matthew tells us about in Matthew 1:19-24. Mary learned something that convinced her it was safe to return home at the time of Luke 1:56. Most likely, Joseph sent word that he was aware of what was going on and was going to follow through with the marriage. Once Mary returned home, they weren't going to wait until late in the pregnancy or after the birth to carry out the wedding. They would have gotten married sooner rather than later. That's why they're described as still engaged while on their way to Bethlehem. Since Mary was only about three months into her pregnancy at the time of Luke 1:56, and that's the last we'd heard of her before 2:5, the best explanation of the timing of Luke 2:4 is that it happened just after 1:56. Thus, Joseph and Mary seem to have been in Bethlehem at least close to half a year. Luke 2:39 allows for them to have been there longer, but doesn't require it. Matthew's gospel corroborates the fact that they were in Bethlehem for a longer rather than shorter period of time. Their length of time there makes more sense if Joseph had more of a connection to the city than merely distant ancestry. And, as I pointed out above, the Protevangelium Of James offers further evidence that the census wasn't ancestral. So, you're going against the large majority of the evidence to interpret the passage as referring to an ancestral census, based on some wording in verse 4 that can easily be interpreted otherwise.

[@keatsiannightingale2025]

⁠@@jasonengwer8923Why would anyone even consider the Protoevangelium of James to be evidence at all? A pseudopigraphal work of that nature likely would not carry any reliable testimony to the events of Jesus’ life, much less his upbringing. That being said, you have to establish why anyone should take this document for sterling in the first place and then posit your hypothesis. The problem with all such scenarios like the one you gave is that they have to make so many assumptions and other like assertions not made or implied by the text at all. Besides, even to posit harmonization is to make one such assumption. There is no reason why we should suppose Matthew and Luke’s nativity accounts were meant to receive such treatment in the first place. As the case stands for me, Luke’ account of the census presupposes a time frame that must begin as a result of Judea being formally annexed to the Roman Empire under Augustus. That simply did not happen until around 6 AD. Any such tax in the time of Herod the Great or Archaleus’ jurisdiction is not only undocumented, but entirely unlikely, as client kingdoms did not undergo imperial taxation under Rome under Augustus. Perhaps that changed later on in the first century. Secondly, Jesus’ age in Luke 3:23 is given as “about thirty years of age” which suggests Jesus had not yet even reached his 30th year at the time of the start of his ministry. If we suppose Jesus was born in the very year Judea was officially made a Roman province, he would be in the age range. Try and impose the Matthean strictures on Luke’s timeline, with Jesus being born earlier before 4 BC in the reign of Herod the Great (when the Hasmonean kingdom was merely a client state but mostly autonomous) and now Jesus is over 30 years old by the time of the “Fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar”. I honestly think (even as a Christian) that all the attempts to perfectly rectify Matthew and Luke’s accounts is unbecoming and ultimately fails critically. The texts just simply weren’t meant to be harmonized in this way. As I think can be sufficiently demonstrated, we run into incredible difficulties if we try to do so.

[@darkwolf7740]

If Dan keeps comitting L's, he'll end up inventing a new alphabet.

[@metaldisciple]

He’s taking after his false prophet Joey smith

[@tydy5266]

The L-phabet

[@magnificentuniverse3085]

@@metaldisciple I'd recommend you think more citically cause Dan is clearly not motivated by his mormonism at all but by his critical scholarship which he regularly uses to bash mormonism as hard as he bashes our Christianity... even mormons support historicities of the Gospel infancy narratives. I get it that we Christians are wary of mormons but when we speak about Dan its critical scholarship and not mormonism.

[@c2s2942]

@@magnificentuniverse3085and for every claim Dan makes, a plethora of scholars debunk him. He’s taken far more seriously than he should be.

[@magnificentuniverse3085]

@@c2s2942 Plethora of Christian Bible believing scholars, he is pretty much a representative of scholarly consensus or at least consensus of critical scholars. Pretty much none of the things he says he came up with himself except some things that he personally published, but most of the things he comments about he got from other critical scholars.

[@TheBibleCode]

I told Dan some of those things , He told me He's not "wasting his time & I'm Thoughtless" , people were commenting him to not insult me and respond to my argument , he didn't reply 😐 I guess he won't respond to you

[@TestifyApologetics]

Sheesh 😢

[@ZaktanVR]

Which video was this on?

[@darkwolf7740]

In other words, he's right because of "meh consensus" and anyone who disagrees with him is wrong. 🤦‍♂️

[@brenthardaway3704]

He doesn't seem like the most likable guy.

[@brenthardaway3704]

The funny thing is that he does respond to some people, usually if they're a bit off.

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

Claims that Luke made an error in referring to the “census of Quirinius” in Luke 2:1-6 - are commonplace. But, while it is easy to say Luke was confused about Judean history before his time, it is rather harder to substantiate the argument that Luke was confused about events known to people of his own time. In this respect, read Luke 1:1-4. Regarding the census cited in Acts 5:37, there is strong evidence of a census being conducted in Judea in 6CE, while Quirinius was governor of Syria but after Archelaus had been deposed and banished to Vienna (Josephus, _Antiquities,_ 17.13.2, 5; 18.1.1). Luke clearly knew about the census mentioned by Josephus, because both Josephus’ account and Acts 5:33-39 mention “Judas the Galilean”. It seems clear, then, that the census referred to by Luke in Acts 5:33-39 was not the one he referred to in Luke 2:1-2. In Luke 2:1-2, we see that the reference is to “the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria”. Most Bible translations express the text similarly. According to Emil Schürer ( _A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ_ 1896, Vol 1, pp 351-354): _During the period B.C. 3-2, there is no direct evidence about any governor of Syria. But it may be concluded with a fair amount of probability from a passage in Tacitus, that about this time P. Sulpicius Quirinius, consul in B.C. 12, was appointed governor of Syria. … The only conclusion then that remains is that Quirinius … was governor of Syria._ Extra-biblical records are even less certain about who might have been governor of Syria from 1BCE to 4CE (Schürer, pp 354-357). In 4-5CE, though, Volusius Saturninus was governor of Syria. Josephus tells us that Quirinius assumed the governorship of Syria in 6CE after the banishment of Archelaus ( _Antiquities,_ 17.13.5; 18.1.1; 18.2.1). Hence it seems Quirinius had been governor of Syria twice - the first period being from 3BCE until at least 2BCE (and possibly as late as 4CE) and it was during this first period of governorship that Quirinius conducted the census mentioned in Luke 2:1-2. Josephus also records that, less than a year before Herod the Great died, over 6,000 Pharisees refused to pledge their good will to Caesar and were fined for not doing so ( _Antiquities_ 17.2.4). The fact that the number is recorded and that the offenders were fined suggests the pledge was required at the time of a census. Such a pledge could have been sought following the Roman Senate’s bestowal of the title ‘Pater Patriae’ (Father of the Country) on Caesar Augustus on 5 February 2BCE. Since it would make sense to administer the pledge and take the census at the same time, it is at least possible that this is the event to which Luke 2:1 refers. Our lack of independent verification of what Luke wrote does not make Luke wrong. Josephus was certainly aware of some people and events relating to what became Christianity. For example, he knew of John the Baptist ( _Antiquities_ 18.5.2), Pilate ( _Antiquities_ 18.4.2), Jesus ( _Antiquities_ 18.3.3, though textual corruption makes the extent unclear) and of the death by stoning of James the brother of Jesus on the order of the High Priest Ananus ben Ananus ( _Antiquities_ 20.9.1) - an event not recorded in the NT. Indeed, the fact Luke doesn't record James' death is one of the evidences pointing to an early date for Luke-Acts. It is sometimes claimed that Luke sourced his census material from Josephus' _Antiquities,_ which wasn't published until c.94CE. The claim is ludicrous. Luke's Gospel is typically dated to the mid 60s and rarely to later than the mid 80s, plus Luke had probably died before the _Antiquities_ was published. At most, all one can reasonably say is that Josephus had access to some of the same material that Luke had. Indeed, Josephus could have had access to a copy of Luke-Acts.

[@legron121]

To my knowledge, there are quite a few NT scholars who date Acts to the 2nd century (e.g., Mark Goodacre, Paula Frederickson, Amy-Jill Levine, M. David Litwa, Barbara Shellard, Dennis MacDonald, etc.).

[@dulls8475]

@@legron121 So why are they correct?

[@legron121]

@@dulls8475 Did I say they were correct? I don't recall saying that, not in that reply. The commenter made a claim that Luke's Gospel is rarely ever dated to later than the mid-80s, and I'm pointing out that that's not true.

[@bartolo498]

Even if Luke didn't know enough, why would he bother to make up pseudo-precision or make claims (like the way the census was done) that could have been easily falsified by people living in 50-80 AD Roman Empire. Maybe not the exact dates 50-80 years earlier but certainly the general features of censuses. I mean, if I read today something about the 1950s-60s that sounded strange I could ask people who are 70-80 now if this was how things were done or if it was probably made up.

[@WaterCat5]

The gospel of Luke is pegged to be around 85 CE. Even assuming it were 50 CE, that's still roughly 50 years later, meaning most people who were adults during the census would be dead. Also, there are plenty of older people whose memory of past days has been distorted by media and time. Human memory is incredibly fallible. Of course, this all just ignores the problem that the census makes no sense and offers no advantage versus just taking the census where people lived at the time. I don't see how Testify thinks that Annals passage says anything about people returning to their ancestral town for a census. His other example seems highly suspect as well, depending on the definition of "hometown."

[@bikesrcool_1958]

@@WaterCat5and the human mind is incredibly trustworthy also.

[@dulls8475]

@@WaterCat5 It never says a return to the "ancestral town". It is a return to their homes which is different just like today. Luke also says the " first" census allowing the possibility of there being more than one. The same word that is used for first can also be translated as before. You cast this doubt on the power of recall from 50 years or so yet give incredible powers to the people or scholars who were not there and are giving us supposed facts 2000 years later. Always an absurd position to take on any historical document.

[@dulls8475]

@@bikesrcool_1958 Does not suit their narrative.

[@WaterCat5]

@@dulls8475 If it's not referring to ancestral homes, then Testify's whole argument makes no sense, so I don't care. It supports my position either way. Similarly, it doesn't matter if it's the first or whatever. The concept of a census whereby people return to places they don't currently live makes zero sense and suggests it's falsified for narrative purposes. I don't even know what your last point is. Obviously scholarly, historical work uses entirely different methods than pure memory recall. To compare the two directly just makes no sense. Yes, it is entirely possible for a historian to construct a better approximation of real events thousands of years after the fact if they have good documentation versus a biased observer getting testimony multiple decades after the fact. We have pretty good documentation that it's questionable this census would have required Mary and Joseph to go to Bethlehem. This is primarily due to the fact that every Roman census order we have never requires this sort of thing. When we consider this likelihood in the context of the bible being a religious document, large time gaps over which oral tradition could evolve, the legendary progression, other historical falsities like Herod's murder of male children, etc., the conclusion to be drawn is that Luke's account is very likely not the reality of the situation.

[@5BBassist4Christ]

I mean, I've had to returned to my home town (Kansas City) to register for legal documents at times, so it's not unthinkable that Joseph would have needed to return home for a census even if there was no world-wide edict. But your explanations are much more robust and persuasive.

[@CriticalThomist]

Great video!!!❤

[@thesweuteen]

Please keep responding to him. What I would love to hear is how he can make this outrageous claims about the Bible and then profess to be a Latter-Day Saint. I get that church is heretical anyway, but surely they wouldn’t allow someone who thinks most of the Bible is essentially a big forgery to translate Scripture for them…right? Oh yeah, he was a translator for the LDS church. More reason to stay away from it.

[@keatsiannightingale2025]

He likely sees the Bible as canon fodder in order to prop up the Book of Mormon. I notice that he never ever makes videos on the Book of Mormon at all. Does he not do this because his viewership would drop from disinterest in the subject, or because he thinks it is more “pure” than the Bible?

[@magnificentuniverse3085]

@@keatsiannightingale2025 I'd recommend you think more citically cause Dan is clearly not motivated by his mormonism at all but by his critical scholarship which he regularly uses to bash mormonism as hard as he bashes our Christianity... even mormons support historicities of the Gospel infancy narratives. I get it that we Christians are wary of mormons but when we speak about Dan its critical scholarship and not mormonism. He does criticize The Book of Mormon and Mormon theology as much as Christian, but he does it more rarely cause its much more popular to bash Christianity because its much more widespread and there are more videos on Tiktok about something in the Bible than about something in the Book of Mormon which makes him want to respond to it.

[@thesweuteen]

@@keatsiannightingale2025 That's interesting because the Mormon church does not view the Bible as inerrant. And it's ironic he doesn't ever talk about the Book of Mormon because the scholarly consensus is that Joseph Smith wrote it hehe

[@ericdanielski4802]

Nice video.

[@macwade2755]

Merry Christmas, Testify!

[@UnremarkableMarx]

Amazing how you pull together so much interesting research into a 10 minute video! Really enjoyed hearing about this subject! Bless your ministry!

[@tiagorodrigues3730]

I admit to not having heard that theory by N.T. Wright with the _πρώτη (...) ἡγεμονεύοντος_ connection. If true, it would solve completely the contradiction!

[@danielmalinen6337]

Whoever wrote Luke clearly thought that Joseph lived in Bethlehem, his ancestral town, unlike Mary, who was from Nazareth moved to Bethlehem. I once told a critic, who was visiting my hometown, that people can also visit or work in different cities where they live as an explanation for why I think that Joseph would live in Bethlehem and not in Nazareth. But the critic replied that they don't and this is not usually the case in prose, but, especially in a fictional works, people live where they work and are. Then I reminded that the critic himself wasn't from my hometown but visiting to give a lecture about the topic and after that the critic didn't answer but changed the conversation.

[@tracywarren7332]

Luke was writing to people who lived in these times.If the book of Luke was in error on these points, I would think the contemporary Christians would have rejected the book. Similarly, the enemies of the gospels would have gleefully pointed out these errors.

[@mccalltrader]

And when this “issue” gets resolved, he will find another one, and when that “issue: gets resolved, he will find another, etc etc.

[@magnificentuniverse3085]

This one is not resolved per se, its only pointed out that it can be resolved somehow given some data, but there are still problems

[@c2s2942]

@@magnificentuniverse3085the problem remains that Dan speaks as if he has certainty and authority and that it’s a closed case, widely known fact.

[@fernandoperez8587]

Wow awesome that's for sharing. This seems to be one of the better videos on this topic on KZbin.

[@magnificentuniverse3085]

Nah its lame actually, his arguments are: Luke made a mistake its not Quirinius or maybe we have to translate "prote" as before and not "first" which is clearly wrong to anyone who knows Greek, I was astonished that N. T. Wright made such a blunder, but its not the first time actually. N. T. Wright is clearly wrong regarding the translation of prote in Luke 2:2, it is clearly used as an adjective for apographe ie. census cause they are both in the same nominative case, protos can mean "before" but then its not used as an adjective but as preposition which doesnt have to match the case of the noun which is always in genitive as in John 1:15. Its basic Greek. I recommend IPs (Inspiring Philosophy) vidoes on the subject they are much better

[@fernandoperez8587]

@@magnificentuniverse3085 🤔

[@johnmainwaring6556]

Luke says in the first four verses of chapter 1. that "MANY have undertaken to draw up a 'reciting of the events' which is 'diagesis' (in NT Greek)...The closest thing we have in modern English is a narration in a movie. Luke writes "I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I TOO decided to write a 'blow-by-blow' 'diagesis' ". The "I myself..." is an admission that Luke is 'undertaking' to create a narrative with as accurate a timeline as he can. It sounds like there were MANY trying to get the facts straight. This is Luke's best shot at it and it made it into Canon. Perhaps we should just leave it at that.

[@protochris]

Luke mentions that Joseph and Mary, "as was their custom, went to Jerusalem every year for the Passover". Bethlehem is just five miles south of Jerusalem. It would not have been difficult for them to make the journey.

[@Scantbracelet]

Please do more video responses to this guy.

[@deadalivemaniac]

One thing I’ve seen James Whote point out is the word for governor can also apply to other positions. It could be the case that, before he was appointed Governor, Quirinius was some sort of census taker or worked in a position where he’d be in charge of such a job. This also adds up to why he becomes governor, he proved his capabilities. I don’t agree with White on a lot but it was very illuminating.

[@I.am.esteven]

Luke was so technical and precise , If he would make something up , people would've easily called it out , Most specifically people on the time who were as old

[@rebelresource]

Luke didn't lie... he was context setting. Dan is cringe with his claims and isn't being faithful to authorial intent. But Luke still wasn't being a modern historian, he was being an ancient historian.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Ancient historians were interested in literal truth

[@rebelresource]

Yep. They were. And sometimes they went about telling the truth in roundabout ways that are not obvious, There is nothing wrong with using the census as a context setting tool. In fact, for ancient readers, it was the most truthful backdrop he could have painted. It does not have to be western sense of "WE GOT EXACT PERFECT DATA". That is so.... enlightenment style interpretations into the text. Sorry, but ancient Jews didn't do this. Oh, and Luke was a Jew. @@TestifyApologetics

[@darkwolf7740]

​@@TestifyApologeticsI'd say that's ½ true.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Hard no. For one, the early church was not accepting to that kind of idea: "The evangelists, therefore, would thus have spoken falsely, affirming what was not truth, but a fictitious commendation." Julius Africanus. For two, Luke was clearly a historian. He did not likely consider himself licensed to change the facts in the name of some kind of literary device. That's not the way he operated. That's not really the way historians of his time operated. There is no good reason to think that he moved an entire census for a literary purpose and would've expected his audience to pick up what he was laying down. “The historian’s task is one: to tell it as it happened…This is the one peculiar characteristic of history, and to truth alone must sacrifice be made.” (Lucian, How to Write History, 39-40) “Facts are not to be collected at haphazard, but with careful, laborious, repeated investigation; when possible, a man should have been present and seen for himself; failing that, he should prefer the disinterested account, selecting the informants least likely to diminish or magnify from partiality. And here comes the occasion for exercising the judgement in weighing probabilities.” (Lucian, How to Write History, 47) “But the principal scope that authors ought to aim at above all the rest, is to speak accurately, and to speak truly; for the satisfaction of those that are otherwise unacquainted with such transactions; and obliged to believe what these writers inform them of.” (Josephus, Antiquities, 14.1) “Having reached this point in my narrative, I propose to address a few words to Justus, who has produced his own account of these affairs, and to others who, while professing to write history, care little for truth, and either from spite or partiality, have no scruples about falsehood. The procedure of such persons resembles indeed the forgers of contracts, but, having no corresponding penalty of fear, they can afford to disdain veracity…But veracity is incumbent on the historian” (Life, 336-39) Indeed, all rules respecting it [history] are obvious to common view; for who is ignorant that it is the first law in writing history, that the historian must not dare to tell any falsehood, and the next, that he must be bold enough to tell the whole truth? Also, that there must be no suspicion of partiality in his writings, or of personal animosity? (Cicero, De Oratore 2.6.2) A historian should not try to astonish his readers by sensationalism, nor, like the tragic poets, seek after men’s probable utterances and enumerate all the possible consequences of the events under consideration, but simply record what really happened and was said, however commonplace. For the object of history is the very opposite of that of tragedy. The tragic writer seeks by the most plausible language to thrill and charm the audience temporarily; the historian by real facts and real speeches seeks to instruct and convince serious students for all time. There it is the probable that counts, even though it be false, the object being to beguile the spectator; here it is the truth, the object being to benefit the student. (Polybius, Histories II, 56.10-12) With reference to the speeches in this history, some were delivered before the war began, others while it was going on; some I heard myself, others I got from various quarters; it was in all cases difficult to carry them word for word in one’s memory, so my habit has been to make the speakers say what was in my opinion demanded of them by the various occasions, of course adhering as closely as possible to the general sense of what they really said. (Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War 1.22.1) Lucian, Josephus, Cicero, Polybius, Thucydides, and numerous other historians unequivocally contradict and dismiss this anachronistic notion of truth. There is not modern truth and ancient truth. I'm not saying these guys wrote like moderns or AP press reporters. But these guys thought relaying accurate history is important.

[@darkwolf7740]

​@@TestifyApologeticsI'm not necessarily saying that Luke made up the census or changed the details to fit prophecies. Rather, I'm pointing out that ancient historians would sometimes weave together history and elements of legend in their historical accounts. Whether Luke did that or not is up to debate, but I would agree with you that it's more likely that Luke prioritised history over myth, if indeed, he was writing accurate reportage.

[@TM_AZ]

Good stuff! This will come in handy!

[@Apollo1989V]

Herod Antipas was in charge of Galilee and wasn’t deposed till 39 ad by Caligula.

[@TheRonBerg]

An unbeliever giving the driest, least charitable interpretation of scripture. Shocker.

[@theepitomeministry]

Wasn't there also a guy named Quirinius who was a proconsul of Syria and Cycilia from 11BC until the death of Herod? There was a coin discovered with his name on it from that period. That seems to me to deal with any apparent discrepancies altogether. Or Josephus could be wrong on his timeline - not sure why he is automatically considered right and Luke is considered wrong. He's guilty until proven innocent. I also like NT Wright's solution from the video.

[@magnificentuniverse3085]

N. T. Wright is clearly wrong regarding the translation of prote in Luke 2:2, it is clearly used as an adjective for apographe ie. census cause they are both in the same nominative case, protos can mean "before" but then its not used as an adjective but as preposition which doesnt have to match the case of the noun which is always in genitive as in John 1:15 but as Ive said hete it is in nominative. Its basic Greek and I was flabbergasted when I heard it here coming from him, but its not the first time. I recommend IPs (Inspiring Philosophy) vidoes on the subject. He has an a video with quite interesting reasons for believing that Josephus actually got his chronology wrong.

[@thejollyviking8083]

Okay, I actually really like NT Wright's interpretation

[@addersrinseandclean]

Keep up the good work

[@jameswest9469]

Sam Shamoun totally refutes this Mormon heretic. Watch his videos on it!

[@joelpaddock5199]

The name of the nationality, 'Hebrew' basically means "people who go over land" ...it would be unfeasible for the people of this culture (non-Romans) in this part of the world at that time to NOT travel regularly.

[@c2s2942]

That, my friend, is an etymological fallacy. As with any established culture, the majority will build a stable home and remain there. Archaeological evidence can throw your whole statement out the window.

[@maryphoenix5414]

Great video, could you link the reference you use in the description?

[@cosmologium]

Ive heard McClellan utter absolutes like "never" and "always", even when we have evidence to the contrary. I think this is a really good example of scholarly arrogance -- never trust one scholar when they say absolutes until you've read other scholars on the same subject.

[@lanabowers5332]

The birth stories in Matthew & Luke are both correct. Matthew is telling the story of Jesus' actual physical birth into the world. Luke is talking about his 2d birth into the community. (Jesus was born on Sunday, March 1, 7 BC. He was born in Bethlehem of Judea, a residential complex a kilometer from Qumran. It was called the Queen's House. Because animals were stabled there, it was also called the 'Manger'. His '2d birth' was in 6AD, when he was 12 years old.) A boy at the age of 12 went through a ceremony equivalent to the Orthodox Bar Mitzvah, when he was formally separated from his mother. This early initiation was symbolized as a kind of 2d birth. When Maey 'brought him forth', she was following the symbolism, in which Jesus was formally separated from her. When he was 'wrapped in cloths', he was being clothed in the ceremonial vestment. This ceremony was held in the Queen's House, where Jesus had been born.///The oppression of the Jews took place in 6AD, when the native kings were removed, & the direct rule of Roman procurators was imposed. The census of property they required led to an armed uprising & continual zealot activity. Judea had now become an occupied country, without its own government, ruled by Roman procurators. This was indeed the 'Wrath', the beginning of oppression. Quirinius, the governor of Syria, was sent to oversee the change, and at once imposed a census, in which every man had to declare his property. Joazar Boethos councelled moderation, but Judas the Galilean saw it as the ultimate challenge. They were now faced with a choice between bondage to the Romans and a heroic fight for liberty. Judas' uprising was promptly put down by the Romans. Immediately afterwards, the peace party swept into power with Ananus as high priest, trusted by the Romans to encourage peaceful co-operation. His sons, 5 of whom became high priests, all adopted the same policy: westernized views and reasonable friendship towards Rome. Their emblem was the dove, their blessing, at the beginning of worship, was 'Peace be with you'. The change of power came just in time for Jesus' 12th birthday, when he was to undergo the ceremony of a '2d birth'. As the Ananus family held that he was legitimate, he now went through it as the heir of the Crown Prince, amid demonstrations of joy. His parents took him to Qumran, to the Queen's House, the Manger', where he had been born, to re-enact the event. Mary & Joseph, being in the married state, were not allowed into the KATALYMA, the upper room, the sacred dining chamber. They were not allowed into the highest form of communion, reserved for separated celibates. ('No room in the inn'.) Down at Ain Feshka, the 'farm', the pastors or 'shepherds' were meeting foe the equinox. The 'Angel of the Lord' (Simeon the Abiathar-Gabriel priest, also called Simon the Essene) came to them and announced the new regime, and that the 12 year old Jesus would continue the sucession. The ministers sang a hymn of praise, and declared the new policy 'peace on earth'. (The 'shepherds in the field').

[@BanazirGalpsi1968]

I like nt wrights before. Is Fitz Occam's razor so beautifully. Then keeping in mind that although Luke is a gentile riding the gentiles, he's been hanging out with Jews and they love word play. That's where Carlson's insights come in. So this is the first census that happened before quiriniaswas governor of siria ( unwritten implication. That guy 5hat was famous for stuff like that later)...

[@acem82]

It's almost like assuming the words translated into modern English might not give you a perfect idea of what was actually written in 1st century Greek. Who knew?

[@magnificentuniverse3085]

Dan McClellan knows 1st century Greek, he is a well educated biblical scholar

[@acem82]

@@magnificentuniverse3085 Then he should have known better!

[@c2s2942]

@@magnificentuniverse3085there are far better scholars who know 1st century Greek.

[@magnificentuniverse3085]

@@acem82 N. T. Wright is clearly wrong regarding the translation of prote in Luke 2:2, it is clearly used as an adjective for apographe ie. census cause they are both in the same nominative case, protos can mean "before" but then its not used as an adjective but as preposition which doesnt have to match the case of the noun which is always in genitive as in John 1:15. Its basic Greek. I recommend IPs (Inspiring Philosophy) vidoes on the subject

[@magnificentuniverse3085]

N. T. Wright is clearly wrong regarding the translation of prote in Luke 2:2, it is clearly used as an adjective for apographe ie. census cause they are both in the same nominative case, protos can mean "before" but then its not used as an adjective but as preposition which doesnt have to match the case of the noun which is always in genitive as in John 1:15. Its basic Greek. I recommend IPs (Inspiring Philosophy) vidoes on the subject@@c2s2942

[@KainL33]

I need to say I first heard this complaint when reading "History of the Jewish People during the Time of Christ" and was underwhelmed. He did not really defend his argument and assumed it as simply true.

[@user-tp4yd4lm9c]

He didn't lie anyway! 😊

[@wms72]

The ancient Romans didn't recognize B.C. or A.D. The dates we deduce 2,000 years later are not as accurate as Luke's firsthand account from Mary.

[@collin501]

Maybe they ended up in Bethlehem because Mary had already gone to the hill country of Judea to visit Elizabeth, according to Luke. They may have stayed there as a practical solution to deliver the baby, and at the same time register for the census. I was wondering, @testify, do you have a view on the duration of the ministry of Jesus? Was it one, two, or three years? The order of events and number of miracles recorded looks more like one year to me, but I’m curious to see the reasons given for each view.

[@Noir_Nouveau]

Making the Gospel authors say things he never intended to say to their "audience" is as close to arrogant ant prideful that a person can get. Let what has been written speak for itself, theories undermine the work that was put into writing these accounts. It is post modern thinking disguised as faithfulness.

[@magnificentuniverse3085]

N. T. Wright is clearly wrong regarding the translation of prote in Luke 2:2, it is clearly used as an adjective for apographe ie. census cause they are both in the same nominative case, protos can mean "before" but then its not used as an adjective but as preposition which doesnt have to match the case of the noun which is always in genitive as in John 1:15. Its basic Greek. I recommend IPs (Inspiring Philosophy) vidoes on the subject

[@Apollo1989V]

And there was a census for the Roman world for the year 2 bc. Because the senate was giving Augustus another honor. And we have records of people having to move for a census. The year 4 bc’s lunar eclipse is probably not the lunar eclipse Josephus is referring to. The eclipse in the year 1 bc seems to fit better.

[@thiccmcchicken550]

I just came to realize something that I need an answer to………..Does he himself represent an inspirational Philosophy? Or is he inspiring Philosophy among others?

[@nyxhighlander9894]

Dan uses C.E all opinions ignored

[@TestifyApologetics]

CE detected opinion rejected

[@darkwolf7740]

​@@TestifyApologeticsAD is much better 👏

[@Lurkingdolphin]

Dogma Dan at it again. You can just feel the anger he has .

[@joker18524]

another common Dan L

[@justanotherbaptistjew5659]

How could it be a census of 4 million with a population of 1 million? 5:45

[@stormchaser9738]

Maybe he meant 10 million? Idk

[@TestifyApologetics]

Because it wasn't limited to Rome (1 million) but it was empire wide (the larger number)

[@JCaroleClarke]

the letters he exchanged with followers in what is now Turkey. Remember that Luke never met Jesus, he was a Greek port doctor who traveled around the Med plying his craft. Any reporting he did about Jesus was at best second-hand, relaying what he heard as he traveled. That any of it survived was a miracle in itself. Jesus had novel ideas but he himself was not that important. He was from an unimportant region of the Roman Empire. When he was found to be a troublemaker, he received the same Roman sentence that Spartacus and his followers received in prior times. It was to Paul, formerly Saul, who also never met Jesus, that the teachings of Jesus spread. His letters exchanged with followers in what is now Turkey solidified the spread of The Gospel. As the disciples spread out, taking The Gospel with them, the teachings found a home among people who were tired of Roman domination. Don't quibble over dates and times and people in power. Know only that there was a Jesus, he had ideas that his friends spread and that although he died, his ideas LIVED and resonated long enough to take root and become a Church.

[@EOCrusader]

i got a question,since we know mohamad had tons of wars and killed many people, mohamad cannot be a Martyr,but doesnt the Bible also say to kill unbelievers in some Verses now ,they are misinterpreted,and many are just Jesus saying what someone else said in a parable and we also have no Christian army killing pagans or jews,is the other way around,we do have caliphates Paul becoming Christian from as a jew knowing it would be again more persecution doesnt make sense

[@CJFCarlsson]

About this Quirinius census, isn't there an american automaker, that is named after a dead guy and still making cars? Obviously the ancients were too slow to be able to manage such a complex idea. I am thinking about General Motors. Possibly Tesla, possibly Ford.

[@magnificentuniverse3085]

Nah, thats not the case here, we have sufficient evidence that Quirinius himself was governor of Syria later in 6 AD and lived some more and was involved in many political struggles in the region during that time. Its almost cringy to compare mentions of his name in historical sources to modern companies...

[@CJFCarlsson]

@@magnificentuniverse3085 I am happy to hear that the discussion is now over. When last I checked there was discussion on Quirinius position and the date of the census, that becomes irrelevant once one realises someone name can be attached to an activity that started befor or continues after.

[@magnificentuniverse3085]

@@CJFCarlsson Hmm its not just called census of Quirinius it explicitly says census WHEN Quirinius was governor of Syria... it's much more explicit. Ofc that we can call Rome "city of Augustus" centuries after he died and centuries before he was born, but here we explicitly have something like "Rome WHEN Augustus ruled over it" which implies that it corresponds to his own time and rule.

[@CJFCarlsson]

@@magnificentuniverse3085 I do not claim to be an expert, only to have listened in to the discussions, one of the objections being this was not the first census, thus not the census of Quirinius and that seems pointless to me.

[@ericgeddes3353]

five years off

[@lovegod8582]

Title should be “when it came to Jesus birth”

[@danny_r27]

He’s a Mormon which if anyone has corrupted the Bible it was them and Joseph smith so his opinion is discarded 🚮

[@magnificentuniverse3085]

I'd recommend you think more citically cause Dan is clearly not motivated by his mormonism at all but by his critical scholarship which he regularly uses to bash mormonism as hard as he bashes our Christianity... even mormons support historicities of the Gospel infancy narratives. I get it that we Christians are wary of mormons but when we speak about Dan its critical scholarship and not mormonism.

[@modernatheism]

1. In 02:34. If "one's own town" refers to the city of one's birth or present or past residence, then the census would require Joseph to go to the city he was born in, or lived previously. Not to the city his ancestors came from around 1000 years ago. 2. "Only a small minority of the jews in the first century lived somewhere other than the city in which they were born" And Joseph just happens to be part of that small minority. How convenient. 3. In 03:18. I think you are reading this very wrong. The Clitae tribe retreated to the mountains as way to avoid paying the tribute. It is not that they were required to travel there to pay the tribute. The wording would be "travel to the mountains to pay the tribute", but the word used here is retreat. 4. In 03:31, You finding one rare exception among all of human history (in Egypt, not Rome) when rulers required people to travel back to their hometowns for a census (under maybe very special circumstances) does not invalidate the fact that we have a very good record of Roman history, and no Roman census ever required that people travel from their own homes to those of their ancestors. 5. I am familiar with the response that maybe Quirinius held some kind of official position other than governor. See Bart Ehrman's take on this. When Luke gives the time frame as during the governorship of Quirinius, it is to make a time reference readers would understand. Broadening the term to any other leadership position renders that intention useless.

[@cardcounter21]

If the bible is God inspired then shouldn't it be 100% free of any errors or contradictions?

[@magnificentuniverse3085]

No! Imagine this scenario, Jesus rly did do miracles and Jesus rly did resurrect and there rly is God who then gave apostles and later followers Holy Spirit, and also wanted them to write the history od Christs birth and life, and used his Spirit in them to compel them to write it for the church and while writing it, they used their memory of true miraculous events but with some small errors here and there which God allowed... Inspiration doesnt necessarily mean infallibility, and fallibility doesnt necessarily mean that all of it is a mistake, even with some mistakes like this that Testify proposed as possible regarding the name of the governor it doesnt mean that because Luke made a mistake there that he also made a mistake or invented Christs resurrection

[@cardcounter21]

@@magnificentuniverse3085 _"they used their memory of true miraculous events but with some small errors here and there which God allowed"_ Ahh, so God allowed some mistakes because he wanted to create seeds of doubt and confusion, and promote unbelief! Makes sense. _"it doesnt mean that because Luke made a mistake there that he also made a mistake or invented Christs resurrection"_ Ahh yes....the mistakes are always in the trivial stuff, never the important events! I would say that the presence of mistakes/contradictions in an allegedly divinely inspired text does indeed mean that such text is a human, not God, inspired work!

[@gioarevadze2703]

like

[@andrevisser7542]

He sounds like a dan liar.

[@scottyhamilton3999]

Dan is wrong.

[@ranilodicen4460]

luke 1 and 2 could be a later add on to the proto luke gospel of marcion who was c😅mlaining that others are adding to his gospel to make it more jewish

[@Ruperdepuup]

What's with all the ugly AI generated art?

[@freddurstedgebono6029]

The Census correlates to the announcement of a census around 6-8 BC under Augustus, and it applies to Quirinius because at the time Quirinius was a highly ranked military official, and the military would have conducted the census As well, travelling to their hometown for that one area did in fact happen. Atheist is a little clown. L atheism YET again