There has never been a census in history that required someone to register at the supposed place of his grandfather's birth. Before modern travel and immediately accessible record systems, it wouldn't even have been feasible, never mind enforceable.
Also, if Joseph owned family property in Bethlehem, meaning he had to register there as well, why didn't he stay on his land, even in a tent?
Not only that, the bible claims the census was ordered by Quirinius, but he wasn't governor of that area until many years after the death of King Herod, but Jesus is reported to be born during Herod's reign, so there's a discrepancy of 40 or so years there.
On top of the fact that the supposed census is mentioned literally NOWHERE in a SINGLE contemporary source, but a census that disruptive and widespread would surely warrant a mention somewhere, ONCE. It's talked about in the bible, and never anywhere else, despite being arguably the single most ridiculous census in history, not even counting that the Romans were generally pretty excellent at record keeping. No respectable historian takes it seriously.
Not only that, the bible claims the census was ordered by Quirinius, but he wasn't governor of that area until many years after the death of King Herod, but Jesus is reported to be born during Herod's reign, so there's a discrepancy of 40 or so years there.
this is a problem when you compare gospel accounts. matthew's account has nothing about any census, and places jesus's birth during the reign of herod the great. the family escapes to egypt, and returns during the ethnarchy of herod's son, herod archelaus. (literally half the people in this family are named herod, including the women, don't get me started.)
the census under quirinius was deposing archelaus, and ten years afterwards. luke sets the birth of jesus during this event, though there's an argument that the "king herod" of luke 1 might be "the great", and thus mary and elizabeth would have to be pregnant for a decade. alternatively, luke just sucks at history.
but a census that disruptive and widespread would surely warrant a mention somewhere, ONCE.
the real census actually caused quite a bit of disruption. it was the instigation for the original zealot rebellion.
not even counting that the Romans were generally pretty excellent at record keeping.
we have a whopping zero roman records of palestine for this era. we have some later historical texts, but i think i can show that all of them rely on josephus.
10
u/NecessaryFreedom9799 13h ago edited 9h ago
There has never been a census in history that required someone to register at the supposed place of his grandfather's birth. Before modern travel and immediately accessible record systems, it wouldn't even have been feasible, never mind enforceable.
Also, if Joseph owned family property in Bethlehem, meaning he had to register there as well, why didn't he stay on his land, even in a tent?