Talk:Census of Quirinius

message: After reading the article, I'm quite settled in my consideration that the reference in the gospel of Luke has been misapplied and mis-specified particularly with reference to the introductory discussion in the article. 
The article says that Luke placed the timing of the Census but Quirinius in BC4 when it actually occurred in BC 6,..however a comparison of the following references using different bible versions paints a completely different picture:
Luke 2:2  (And thisG3778 taxingG582 was firstG4413 madeG1096 when CyreniusG2958 was governorG2230 of Syria.)G4947 [KJV STRONG]
Luke 2:2  This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. [ESV]
Luke 2:2  When this first census took place, Quirinius was the governor of Syria. [GNB] 
Luke 2:2  This was the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria. [ASV]
These texts shows clearly that Luke says this census was first made when Quirinius was governor, which could verily be in BC 6, and the reading of the texts shows reference to an earlier historical period as contrasted wit the time of the event of the Birth of Christ to which the primary focus of Luke is. 
Furthermore, given that at this time the Roman Empire had reached what as come to be known as the Augustan Age [Height of Glory] and was a world empire in the actual sense. Taking logistics and planning, such a worldwide census would not have been possible within a year, but could have taken years.
I suggest that the census was started when Quirinius was governor in BC 6 and was continued to this time forcing Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem from Nazareth. Mcfaddent (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The census took place in 6 AD (a.k.a. CE, "current era") not 6 BC (or BCE, "before current era"). Luke's error is the smoking gun that the labels BC for "Before Christ" and AD for "Anno Domini" ('in the year of the lord') never made real sense. UpdateNerd (talk) 01:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, the date is not the only thing Luke got wrong here. I'm not sure what is gained by the attempt to harmonize. Doric Loon (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to Luke Gospel 

message: Currently the Lede states ". . . died between 5 BCE and 1 CE."
However, the following Section has "c. 72 – 4 BCE", and the linked article Herod the Great offers two scholarly estimates of 37–4 BCE (Schürer) and 36–1 BCE (Filmer).
Whence comes the Lede's 1 CE? It's only one year's difference, there being no historical Year 0 (although astronomers have to use one, because mathematics, so astronomical dates BCE differ from historical ones by -1), but in view of the sensitivity of dates in this context, precision or cited scholarly disagreements should be observed. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.101.197 (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The current range of 5 BCE to 1 CE was introduced by User:Springnuts in this edit: . The edit summary mentions a range of scholarly opinions, but I don't see any explicit reference for these particular endpoints. --Amble (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I took the range from Herod_the_Great - the section on his death. The key encyclopaedic point is not the exact range (though this is the range apparently) but that this article did not reflect scholarly uncertainty. Regards, Springnuts (talk) 07:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: From an earlier version of the linked article the earliest date (5BCE) comes from Barnes, Timothy David. "The Date of Herod's Death," Journal of Theological Studies ns 19 (1968), 204–219   07:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death date of Herod the Great 

message: See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Census of Quirinius. tgeorgescu (talk)  15:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not citing "Liberty University" but the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. If we're going to have a section on "Religious defenses" this is exactly the sort of article that needs to be referenced. StAnselm (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Should it be in a "Religious defenses" section tho? My reading of  is that we should be looking to cite Turner, Bruce, and/or Wright, but not confident i am getting the content issue correct. fiveby(zero) 18:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  What does it even mean ? It does not seem to make sense. tgeorgescu (talk)  20:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Its argued that the adjective prötos used in Luke 2:2 should be read as "first" or "earlier" or "before," etc. Divus303 (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please read WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk)  16:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing Liberty University 

message: I was disappointed to see that the reference to the Stele of Quintus Aemilius Secundus was deleted. The reason given in the edit summary was that the Syrian census was a separate census and thus "tangential at best". However, the title of this article is "Census of Quirinius", not "Census of Quirinius in Judea", and thus the Syrian part of his census-taking work seems to me to be entirely relevant here. Rather than getting into revert conflicts about this, I have created a new article on the stele, which you will find at Stele of Quintus Aemilius Secundus - I think it deserves that. However, I do think that readers searching for information on the census in Luke may find that interesting and helpful, and so there should be a link to it from here. I will start by making a "see also". Doric Loon (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stele of Quintus Aemilius Secundus