Census Complaints, as Per a Video by Testify, Answers, Comparing His View with My Previous One

Nativity Narrative Revisited · Census Complaints, as Per a Video by Testify, Answers, Comparing His View with My Previous One

If you want to check Erik Manning's answer, it's on the video

Did Luke Botch the Census?
Testify | 22 Dec. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6fLnijaBWQ

Now, I've halted it to copy the list of complaints, to which I will respond.

1) There's a 10 year* gap between the timelines of Matthew and Luke;**
2) There was no census during the time of Jesus' birth;
3) Quirinius was not in charge of any earlier census;
4) Rome would have never conducted a census under a client king;
5) Nobody would have travalled to their 1000-year ancestral home to register;
6) Luke was just making stuff up to have Jesus born in Bethlehem to fulfill the Micheas 5:2 prophecy.***

To 1 and 6, I say, wrong. I'll return to why on 1, about the census creating the gap, and as to 6, Matthew also presupposed Jesus was born in Bethlehem, since the Holy Innocents only makes sense in that setting.

To 2 and 5, I give a modification. There was no direct tax census at the time recalled outside the Gospel, and a provincial under Rome typically wouldn't have returned to a 1000-year ancestral home to register.

To 3, I claim agnosticism. Quirinius was in Syria part time doing the functions of a governor, while the governor in title was Saturninus. Whether the earlier census was under him or Galilee had a separate set of Roman administrators, I don't know. St. Luke says the timing was the same.

To 4, I agree. The US Internal Revenue Service will not conduct a census on Puerto Rico, on Guam or in the Philippines. That was kind of the point of why Joseph chose to go to Bethlehem. Under Herod there was no Roman census. There may very well have been a census for the temple tax. Herod may very well have posed as a patriot, flirting with Essenians (whom Damien Mackey considers to have been Herodians). To me, Luke 2:5 strongly suggests St. Joseph enrolled with the Temple to pay temple tax, as a good Hebrew patriot.

Back to 5. A Roman official certainly would have preferred people to enroll in their own city. This was not automatically the city where they were residing for the moment. A citizen of Rome and of Pompeii would not have paid taxes at this point in the first place, but whatever official duties he could have that were not tied to being in Rome, he could only fulfill by being in Pompeii. While Provincials weren't citizens, Rome was used from its own backyard to citizens being so of a city state.

So, if the Roman official knew that there was no census going on in Judaea, why did he allow Joseph to leave with his fiancée?

There was another Bethlehem, and that one was in Galilee. The Roman official may have known that and thought that was the Bethlehem that Joseph meant.

Or, even supposing he knew Joseph was going to Judaea, he can have been unaware of Judaea being a vassal kingdom rather than a province. After, all, while Galilee was in a province, Herod was recognised as king there too. I'm presuming St. Joseph was only up with a centurion, not with a governor.

So, when Quirinius was later on in charge, personally being named as governor, not just stepping in, in AD 6, and a census in Judaea was held and caused a rebellion, that census was remembered, while the one in Galilee, which had sparked no rebellion, was not. And that's not the census that St. Luke is talking about. Here. (Erik Manning thinks he's briefly referencing it, with "πρώτη" translated as "before the one"). Either way, he does mention the rebellion, in Acts (thank's Erik! Also for Tacitus Annal's 3.48 confirming Quirinius had a governor like role before actually being governor.)

Now, I'll admit, I may have constructed a fake solution, because the solution of Erik Manning had already been presented to me, but as I recall, without the support in Josephus.

The solution of Erik Manning is, the census was first a census of loyalty, only later involved taxation, and then sparked a revolt. That was also the solution of a FB acquaintance known sometimes as "de Aulia" ... but the latter didn't mention this, quoting from Manning's video:

Therefore it is very [4:29] possible that the registration began in [4:32] 6 BC and there was actually a oil uh a [4:35] loyalty a oath of loyalty to Caesar uh [4:39] during this time. Josephus notes this in [4:42] antiquities, right? [ref. on screen to Ant. 17.2.4]

Now, that FB friend never gave the reference to Antiquities 17.2.4, which is a longish sub chapter or paragraph, but the reference would be here:

For there was a certain sect of men that were Jews, who valued themselves highly upon the exact skill they had in the law of their fathers, and made men believe they were highly favoured by God, by whom this set of women were inveagled. These are those that are called the sect of the Pharisees: who were in a capacity of greatly opposing Kings. A cunning sect they were; and soon elevated to a pitch of open fighting, and doing mischief. Accordingly when all the people of the Jews gave assurance of their good will to Cæsar, and to the King’s government; these very men did not swear: being above six thousand. (2)

So, the census when Jesus was born, in Judaea, would have involved "goodwill to Caear [Augustus] and to the King's [Herod's] goverment", which sounds like a less heavy strain on the absolute claims of God than loyalty to Caesar. At this census, Jews were not yet saying "we have no King but Caesar" ...

Again, as with taxes, the options may have been less patriotic in Galilee. So, Joseph could have still had a patriotic and law abiding motivation for preferring the census in Judaea, even if it wasn't for the temple tax.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Onesimus
16.II.2026

Romae beati Onesimi, de quo sanctus Paulus Apostolus ad Philemonem scribit; quem etiam, post sanctum Timotheum, Ephesiorum Episcopum ordinavit, praedicationisque verbum illi commisit. Ipse autem Onesimus, vinctus Romam perductus ac pro fide Christi lapidatus, primo ibidem sepultus fuit; inde ad locum ubi Episcopus fuerat ordinatus, corpus ejus delatum est.

* Copyist mistake number 1: "10 year" for "10-year"
** Copyist mistake number 2: "the timelines of Matthew and Luke" for "Matthew and Luke's timelines"
*** Copyist mistake number 3: "the Micheas 5:2 prophecy" for "the Micah 5:2 prophecy"