Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The reason Caesar being first of all men is because that is what he became on his silver Jubilee.
So the experts opinion eclipse is irrelevant; well that says it all. The experts disagree with you so they are irrelevant in exactly the same why the other historical writings are. You have lost all objectivity Trans tis truly sad to see.
If you read the NASA table right? So you do think you know more about eclipses then the experts.
That alone should tell everyone you actually have nothing but your own opinion over and above the experts and historians.
Yet you tried to use it a couple of times in this thread.
Why because you want everybody to believe your thesis, hell you even said you might write a book on this stuff. hmmm now I see why you do not want the expert opinions or the other historical writings.
except nowhere does Josephus mention anything about a census or registration. All Josephus says is that Cyrenius was to take account of there substance and then tax them accordingly. Now I know what you think that means, but did it ever occur to you that a census had already been done, thus Cyrenious just had to look at the account of there substance in order to tax them? Of course you have not.
Unlike you I do not try to make the gospels writer say what they do not, so have no interest in the synoptic view.
Rather, I want criticism of my 'Thesis', as the last thing I want to do is Go Public (1) and then have to argue about it. That is why Alt. Thinker's discussion of "Q" was so valuable. As was yours on Josephus' dating. Augustus being the first of all men (as all the Caesars were) does not make his required loyalty oath taking the 'First registration' which must be your point, otherwise I can't see what the point is.
The 'expert testimony' seems to show that the loyalty oath doesn't amount to a registration procedure. And I am not denying the expert testimony on the eclipse but using it. There was a decent partial 4 B. C and that's good enough. I am actually quite interested in astronomy and I know enough that to talk about partials being invisible or missed is taken out of context. Tiny percentage partials or ones viewed from the edge of the eclipse area could be missed, but not a third to half cover in the middle of the Shadow Area, as the NASA list seems to show for Judea 4 B.C.
As I say I don't get the "00" on the list so I am asking others whether I am reading it right.
Now, oddly it is 'expert testimony' (or accepted history, I'd say) that sees Josephus as recording the removal of Archelaus and when Quirinus was governor of Syria, sent Coponius into Judea as Prefect/Procurator and arrange a Roman style tax census (c 6 A.D) - which provoked the revolt of Judas - just as Luke says in Acts. It is you who reject the 'expert testimony' of Josephus and Luke as concensus -history in favour of an ingenious and unique theory that the Lucan census was the loyalty oath.
That it is your own pet theory doesn't matter if you could make a good case for it, but as shown here, you cannot convincingly make the loyalty-oath look like a census, nor force Herod's death to 1 BC on the basis of lunar eclipse -records, nor shift the end of Archelaus' rule by debunking Josephus as a reliable historian. In fact,old mate, you have nothing but the sad ol methods of Bible apologetics.
Start with the conclusion (Gospels are reliable, so Luke and Matthew must agree)
find the evidence to support a Census in 3 B.C; death of Herod two years later (find some kind of 'census' in Herod's time; make the 1 B.C eclipse the only possible one out of several)
debunk and refute any who argue by restating the debunked claims, appealing to Authority and playing the Bias card.
I don't mind as the Readership will have noted that your selection of a 3 B.C date for a head -count and a 1 B.C date for Herod's death out of all possible dates just happens to fit Luke's census fitted to Matthew's Herod -story.
So when you say you are just trying to follow the evidence of History rather than get it to support a faith -based case for Nativity factuality, they won't believe you any more than I do.
P.s your penultimate post - I have (thanks to your arguments) had to compare Antiquities with The Jewish war and have found them consistent and even looking like the same material used in both. The gospels on the other hand are replete with glaring contradictions. I suggest you stop trying to debunk Josephus and return to topic - Gospel reliability, not that of Josephus, who survived your best effort to debunk him.
(1) and you -all have seen how long it takes me to produce a bit of it. And Btw - Tran's law - the first to post a headslap Icon loses 10 points credibility.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-12-2016 at 07:45 AM..
Rather, I want criticism of my 'Thesis', as the last thing I want to do is Go Public (1) and then have to argue about it. That is why Alt. Thinker's discussion of "Q" was so valuable. As was yours on Josephus' dating. Augustus being the first of all men (as all the Caesars were) does not make his required loyalty oath taking the 'First registration' which must be your point, otherwise I can't see what the point is.
The 'expert testimony' seems to show that the loyalty oath doesn't amount to a registration procedure. And I am not denying the expert testimony on the eclipse but using it. There was a decent partial 4 B. C and that's good enough. I am actually quite interested in astronomy and I know enough that to talk about partials being invisible or missed is taken out of context. Tiny percentage partials or ones viewed from the edge of the eclipse area could be missed, but not a third to half cover in the middle of the Shadow Area, as the NASA list seems to show for Judea 4 B.C.
As I say I don't get the "00" on the list so I am asking others whether I am reading it right.
Now, oddly it is 'expert testimony' (or accepted history, I'd say) that sees Josephus as recording the removal of Archelaus and when Quirinus was governor of Syria, sent Coponius into Judea as Prefect/Procurator and arrange a Roman style tax census (c 6 A.D) - which provoked the revolt of Judas - just as Luke says in Acts. It is you who reject the 'expert testimony' of Josephus and Luke as concensus -history in favour of an ingenious and unique theory that the Lucan census was the loyalty oath.
That it is your own pet theory doesn't matter if you could make a good case for it, but as shown here, you cannot convincingly make the loyalty-oath look like a census, nor force Herod's death to 1 BC on the basis of lunar eclipse -records, nor shift the end of Archelaus' rule by debunking Josephus as a reliable historian. In fact,old mate, you have nothing but the sad ol methods of Bible apologetics.
Start with the conclusion (Gospels are reliable, so Luke and Matthew must agree)
find the evidence to support a Census in 3 B.C; death of Herod two years later (find some kind of 'census' in Herod's time; make the 1 B.C eclipse the only possible one out of several)
debunk and refute any who argue by restating the debunked claims, appealing to Authority and playing the Bias card.
I don't mind as the Readership will have noted that your selection of a 3 B.C date for a head -count and a 1 B.C date for Herod's death out of all possible dates just happens to fit Luke's census fitted to Matthew's Herod -story.
So when you say you are just trying to follow the evidence of History rather than get it to support a faith -based case for Nativity factuality, they won't believe you any more than I do.
P.s your penultimate post - I have (thanks to your arguments) had to compare Antiquities with The Jewish war and have found them consistent and even looking like the same material used in both. The gospels on the other hand are replete with glaring contradictions. I suggest you stop trying to debunk Josephus and return to topic - Gospel reliability, not that of Josephus, who survived your best effort to debunk him.
(1) and you -all have seen how long it takes me to produce a bit of it. And Btw - Tran's law - the first to post a headslap Icon loses 10 points credibility.
You have him by the throat old wolf. After all the times that he has stated that we should 'go with the experts', he conveniently ignores all the verifiable scholarship and Josephus experts that say that Herod died in 4BCE and sides with ridiculous apologist tripe from early Church fathers...even putting forward the proven 'Liar for Jesus' ..Eusebius....as an expert!!
The case is won old beast and we can safely add the Nativity 'census' account to the growing list of verifiable Gospel unreliability and move on to something else.. Well Done!
How valuable a discussion it was, however, as the Mysterious dark years of 4 - 1 BC now seem clearer with Varus (while Archelaus was in Rome) cleaning up the revolts in Judea, and if anyone but him was acting as governor, Josephus doesn't mention him. And Pneuma's references to the reliable Josephus (when it suits him) on the wealth of Herod and his son, the appeals to reduce the tax burden and the references to the tax on commerce in fact firmed up the case for a Herodian census tax secretly organized by Qurinus being quite unhistorical. I wonder whether we should offer him an honorary commission in the atheist army? He is surely worth a battallion (1) to us.
(1) another of those words which, however you spell it, Spellcheck says it's wrong.
Rather, I want criticism of my 'Thesis', as the last thing I want to do is Go Public (1) and then have to argue about it. That is why Alt. Thinker's discussion of "Q" was so valuable. As was yours on Josephus' dating. Augustus being the first of all men (as all the Caesars were) does not make his required loyalty oath taking the 'First registration' which must be your point, otherwise I can't see what the point is.
The point is it goes along with the other historical writings about a registration or census in 3BCE.
The Armenian historian, Moses of Khorene, said that the native sources he had available showed that in the second year of Abgar, king of Armenia (3 B.C.), the census brought Roman agents "to Armenia, bringing the image of Augustus Caesar, which they set up in every temple" (History of the Armenians, trans. R. W. Thomson, Book II, 26).
Whether you like it or not history shows there was a registration/census in 3BCE.
How you can ignore all these other historical writings and still say you are only following what history shows is beyond me.
Quote:
And I am not denying the expert testimony on the eclipse but using it. There was a decent partial 4 B. C and that's good enough. I am actually quite interested in astronomy and I know enough that to talk about partials being invisible or missed is taken out of context. Tiny percentage partials or ones viewed from the edge of the eclipse area could be missed, but not a third to half cover in the middle of the Shadow Area, as the NASA list seems to show for Judea 4 B.C.
You keep saying that Trans, but have not given anything (maybe a link or testimony of some kind) other then YOU looked and to YOU it seems.
I gave expert testimony that the 4BCE eclipse was a partial p type eclipse and they are not visible to the human eye. Even when astronomers know when one is to occur they can miss it.
A penumbral lunar eclipse occurs when the Sun, Earth, and Moon align in an almost straight line. When this happens, the Earth blocks some of the Sun's light from directly reaching the Moon's surface, and covers a part of the Moon with the outer part of its shadow, also known as the penumbra. The rest receives the same amount of sunlight as usual and is as bright as a full Moon. Because of this, it is often hard to differentiate between a normal full Moon and a penumbral eclipse of the Moon.
Now, oddly it is 'expert testimony' (or accepted history, I'd say) that sees Josephus as recording the removal of Archelaus and when Quirinus was governor of Syria, sent Coponius into Judea as Prefect/Procurator and arrange a Roman style tax census (c 6 A.D) - which provoked the revolt of Judas - just as Luke says in Acts. It is you who reject the 'expert testimony' of Josephus and Luke as concensus -history in favour of an ingenious and unique theory that the Lucan census was the loyalty oath.
I am not denying it trans I said it looked like there was two different census, but I still had questions concerning the AD/6 one. And I already gave you my reasons for why and added a another one as Josephus does not say anything about a census or registration that is linked to Cyrenius.
However you fail to even look at if this could be true or not. ( two census)
Quote:
That it is your own pet theory doesn't matter if you could make a good case for it, but as shown here, you cannot convincingly make the loyalty-oath look like a census, nor force Herod's death to 1 BC on the basis of lunar eclipse -records, nor shift the end of Archelaus' rule by debunking Josephus as a reliable historian. In fact,old mate, you have nothing but the sad ol methods of Bible apologetics.
The loyalty oath was and the registration/census are one and the same thing.
I just supplied another historian that tells us that a registration/census was done in 3BCE by Augustus. And as this is so and if Herod did indeed die in 1BCE and according the eclipse information it sure looks that way; then Josephus is indeed wrong about the AD/6 account or the length of reign of Archelaus. We already know that Josephus states two different length (that of 9 years and again of 10 years) for the reign of Archelaus, so it could be as simple as Josephus miss-dating Archelaus reign or Archelaus co- reigned with Herod for a couple of years.
Quote:
Start with the conclusion (Gospels are reliable, so Luke and Matthew must agree)
find the evidence to support a Census in 3 B.C; death of Herod two years later (find some kind of 'census' in Herod's time; make the 1 B.C eclipse the only possible one out of several)
debunk and refute any who argue by restating the debunked claims, appealing to Authority and playing the Bias card.
Right back at you.
Quote:
I don't mind
[IMG]file:///C:\Users\Scott\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\ clip_image001.gif[/IMG]
as the Readership will have noted that your selection of a 3 B.C date for a head -count and a 1 B.C date for Herod's death out of all possible dates just happens to fit Luke's census fitted to Matthew's Herod -story.
Can't help if that is what history shows Trans. Unlike you I do not base everything on one mans writings; I use every historical writings I can find and if 9 out of 10 say something it is more likely to be true then the 1.
Quote:
So when you say you are just trying to follow the evidence of History rather than get it to support a faith -based case for Nativity factuality, they won't believe you any more than I do.
That is because you refuse to look at all the historical evidence, you base all your evidence on one man, Josephus.
Quote:
P.s your penultimate post - I have (thanks to your arguments) had to compare Antiquities with The Jewish war and have found them consistent and even looking like the same material used in both. The gospels on the other hand are replete with glaring contradictions. I suggest you stop trying to debunk Josephus and return to topic - Gospel reliability, not that of Josephus, who survived your best effort to debunk him.
You misunderstood me Trans, I was not saying compare the Greek JW with the Greek Ant. I was saying compare the 2 different JW and Ant with each other.
The Greek version was written for the favour of the Romans, the other was written for the favour of the Jews and they do not tell the same story, in one version or the other much has been left out of the other. So if I was to follow your reasoning with the Gospels we would have to throw them both out.
How valuable a discussion it was, however, as the Mysterious dark years of 4 - 1 BC now seem clearer with Varus (while Archelaus was in Rome) cleaning up the revolts in Judea, and if anyone but him was acting as governor, Josephus doesn't mention him. And Pneuma's references to the reliable Josephus (when it suits him) on the wealth of Herod and his son, the appeals to reduce the tax burden and the references to the tax on commerce in fact firmed up the case for a Herodian census tax secretly organized by Qurinus being quite unhistorical. I wonder whether we should offer him an honorary commission in the atheist army? He is surely worth a battallion (1) to us.
(1) another of those words which, however you spell it, Spellcheck says it's wrong.
One "l"? It says that's wrong too. I don't need you to explain what causes an eclipse, and your piccie worked, but what it is supposed to prove I don't know. So far as I can tell, the partial of 4 BC and the annular of 1B.c were both visible in Judea and not 'penumbral'. You are welcome to look at the table yourself and correct me if I am wrong, but you will see that 4 B.C eclipse is optimum visibility in Judea and the 'penumbral' areas are a thousand miles way. If you really understood this matter you couldn't dismiss it as 'just how to looks to me'.
The point you made about 6. A.D was based on the apparent re-appointment of Joazar. Since you failed to make a case for Josephus being "all over the map" on dating, we have to credit that.
You are still re-stating claims 'There was a Registration in Herod's kingdom in 3 B.C" without anything to back it up. I suppose I'll have to look at the Nabatean (I mean Armenian) thing to see what the 3 B.C census actually was.
I know what you meant about comparing Jewish war and Ant. And they broadly compare and even seem to use the same material. The revolt of Judas missing from one (can't recall which) but given in full in the other has been noted and ascribed to Christian editing, though I am not convinced. Neither am I convinced that it was left out not offend the Romans. Whatever the reason, it does not make Josephus unreliable in what he does write.
Well, I can't find much to check. The 2nd year of Agarbus of Armenia is 3 B.C sure enough, but what this 'census' was is open to question. The setting up of images in the Temples sounds like the loyalty oath rather than tax collecting which shouldn't apply to Armenia with its own king.
So what you need to do is - like the loyalty oath in Herodian Judea (including Galilee as well) is show that this 'registration' in Judea and 'census' in Armenia was in the form of the residents of client kingdoms going to their own homes to sign on a census -roll. If you have that, you have a case, (1) though not one that would bring Joseph from Galilee to Bethlehem or even make Luke more like this than like the 6 AD tax -census, which Josephus says was when Quirinus was governor of Syria, which does not appear to be 4 -1 B.C.
You are throwing lots of stuff at me for sure, but none of it makes a case for you, you just claim that it does.
P.s the claim that Josephus makes the reign on Archelaus 9 years and then ten is odd, as one of the arguments about Josephus' dating is his rounding up of years (as we all tend to do in history -lists), so a quibble about a year is neither here nor there. What is more worthy of your attention is the glaring contradiction of the nativities - which you ignore in favour of trying to wangle a 'census' into Herodian Judea (and Herod was dead by 3 B.C anyway) and trying to discredit Josephus - except where he is useful to you, like the airy mention (I question whether it's anything but a guesstmate) of '6000 Pharisees' which you not only credit but insist it represents a head count.
(1) the passage on the loyalty -oath of the Pahplagonians shows a swearing that was not a head -count, as was said before, nor can the refusal of "6,000" Pharisees to take the oath be made to look like a head -count despite your efforts to do so.
"The people of Gangra assembled to take the oath in the marketplace, the center of Greek civic life. This may indicate that Gangra, being a city was relatively Hellenized and had adopted many Greek customs of civic organization. In contrast, in the countryside, people assembled at temples to Augustus."
In fact it seems that what this involved was putting up his own images in his own temples in Roman provinces and in local temples in client or allied kingdoms like Armenia, but presumably not in Jerusalem. While the 3. B.C date fits nicely with 'nought B.C' this event does not look like the Lucan registration. The 6 A.D Tax census does.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-13-2016 at 06:05 AM..
Moses of Khorene's history, while I'm posting is far later than anything Josephus wrote
"The date of his birth is unknown, but the above fact would indicate that he was born towards the end of the fourth century, and his death is generally placed about the end of the fifth. The following works are attributed to him: "Treatise on Rhetoric"; "Treatise on Geography"; "Letter on Assumption of B. V. M."; "Homily on Christ's Transfiguration"; "Oration on Hripsinia, an Armenian Virgin and Martyr"; "Hymns used in Armenian Church Worship"; "Commentaries on the Armenian Grammarians"; and "Explanations of Armenian Church Offices". The most celebrated work, however, is the "History of Armenia Major", practically the only work preserving the early history and traditions of pre-Christian Armenia, but like other histories of this kind abounding in legendary and fictitious narratives, historical inaccuracies, etc..." (Catholic Encyclopaedia)
Despite the name 'Moses", his writings show a Christian slant and who can say that his application of the term 'Census' doesn't reflect the Christian view? The account of Roman emissaries setting up images in the temple as part of the registration is a bit odd but credible, so I will credit it. But this requirement for a loyalty oath to Augustus has to be shown to be a listing of family families before we can say 'Registration' means 'Census' in the way required to backdate Luke's account to 3 B.C. And even then Pneuma had to have Herod alive till after then, and the eclipse doesn't do it.
One "l"? It says that's wrong too. I don't need you to explain what causes an eclipse, and your piccie worked, but what it is supposed to prove I don't know. So far as I can tell, the partial of 4 BC and the annular of 1B.c were both visible in Judea and not 'penumbral'. You are welcome to look at the table yourself and correct me if I am wrong, but you will see that 4 B.C eclipse is optimum visibility in Judea and the 'penumbral' areas are a thousand miles way.
Like I said you keep saying as far as I know or I see or something alone those lines.
However like I pointed out a couple of times now the experts on eclipse say the 4BCE eclipse was a P-TYPE ECLIPSE, which is a Penumbral lunar eclipse and as you can see by the picture the human eye cannot tell the difference between a full moon and a P-type eclipse.
Here again is what the experts state:
Justin Schove in his book Chronology of Eclipses and Comets states:
"We find that the overall partial p-type [such as occurred on March 12/13, 4 B.C.] eclipses of Oppolzer were never noticed, and even the annular r-type were often missed. Most of the early records [such as Josephus] relate to eclipses THAT WERE TOTAL, either at the place of observation or within a few hundred miles of the track of totality.....Total eclipses are rare; at any one place the average is three times in a millennium..." (1984, p. x).
Thus the experts tell me one thing about the eclipse of 4BCE and you tell me another thing about the 4BCE eclipse; guess who I am going to believe?
As the saying goes a picture says a thousand words and the picture of the Penumbral lunar eclipse of 4BCE speaks volumes proving what you think or what you see is in error.
Quote:
If you really understood this matter you couldn't dismiss it as 'just how to looks to me'.
And if you would take into account what the experts say you would see that it only looks that way to you. Are you seriously suggesting you know more about eclipse then the experts?
Quote:
The point you made about 6. A.D was based on the apparent re-appointment of Joazar. Since you failed to make a case for Josephus being "all over the map" on dating, we have to credit that.
I gave more then just that Trans, you need to reread some of my posts.
Quote:
You are still re-stating claims 'There was a Registration in Herod's kingdom in 3 B.C" without anything to back it up. I suppose I'll have to look at the Nabatean (I mean Armenian) thing to see what the 3 B.C census actually was.
I have backed it up, you just do not like it. What you are suggesting is that even if there was a oath/census/registration everyone else but Judea was involved in it. Come on.
Quote:
I know what you meant about comparing Jewish war and Ant. And they broadly compare and even seem to use the same material. The revolt of Judas missing from one (can't recall which) but given in full in the other has been noted and ascribed to Christian editing, though I am not convinced. Neither am I convinced that it was left out not offend the Romans. Whatever the reason, it does not make Josephus unreliable in what he does write.
Yet that is the exact same point you use to say the gospels are not credible. You have stated that because John, Mark and Matthew all record an event but Luke does not then we have to throw the whole thing out because one out of four does not mention it. It is the exact same thing you do with the nativity stories, Mark does not have it so the nativity stories are made up, so we have to throw them out.
So that being the case when Josephus omit something from his JW or Ant or adds something to his JW and Ant, we can throw it all out as being unreliable. However you do not do that with Josephus; you only do that with the gospels. Thus you treat your historical bible in a far different manor then other historical writings. If you are going to do it with one you have to do it with all, you can't pick and chose which is reliable and which is not as you are doing.
Quote:
Well, I can't find much to check. The 2nd year of Agarbus of Armenia is 3 B.C sure enough, but what this 'census' was is open to question. The setting up of images in the Temples sounds like the loyalty oath rather than tax collecting which shouldn't apply to Armenia with its own king.
Luke says nothing of a tax, he only mentions registration/census. Like I said you are trying to back date a tax from Ad/6 ( which I am not sure even happened then) to the 3BCE registration/census Luke was speaking of.
Quote:
So what you need to do is - like the loyalty oath in Herodian Judea (including Galilee as well) is show that this 'registration' in Judea and 'census' in Armenia was in the form of the residents of client kingdoms going to their own homes to sign on a census -roll. If you have that, you have a case, (1) though not one that would bring Joseph from Galilee to Bethlehem or even make Luke more like this than like the 6 AD tax -census, which Josephus says was when Quirinus was governor of Syria, which does not appear to be 4 -1 B.C.
You are throwing lots of stuff at me for sure, but none of it makes a case for you, you just claim that it does.
And again that is because you rely solely on one mans opinion over everyone else's.
If you used ALL historical writings you would see how it all comes together nicely.
Quote:
P.s the claim that Josephus makes the reign on Archelaus 9 years and then ten is odd, as one of the arguments about Josephus' dating is his rounding up of years (as we all tend to do in history -lists), so a quibble about a year is neither here nor there. What is more worthy of your attention is the glaring contradiction of the nativities - which you ignore in favour of trying to wangle a 'census' into Herodian Judea (and Herod was dead by 3 B.C anyway) and trying to discredit Josephus - except where he is useful to you, like the airy mention (I question whether it's anything but a guesstmate) of '6000 Pharisees' which you not only credit but insist it represents a head count.
Apologetic for Josephus misdating things? You need to read what he actually wrote, in each account he goes into a big story of a dream of corn (or something, can't remember off the top of my head) that showed 9 or 10 years respectively.
Now if we were talking about the bible doing this you would not shove it off so easily.
Quote:
(1) the passage on the loyalty -oath of the Pahplagonians shows a swearing that was not a head -count, as was said before, nor can the refusal of "6,000" Pharisees to take the oath be made to look like a head -count despite your efforts to do so.
"The people of Gangra assembled to take the oath in the marketplace, the center of Greek civic life. This may indicate that Gangra, being a city was relatively Hellenized and had adopted many Greek customs of civic organization. In contrast, in the countryside, people assembled at temples to Augustus."
In fact it seems that what this involved was putting up his own images in his own temples in Roman provinces and in local temples in client or allied kingdoms like Armenia, but presumably not in Jerusalem. While the 3. B.C date fits nicely with 'nought B.C' this event does not look like the Lucan registration. The 6 A.D Tax census does.
What makes you think it was not in Judea also? The eagle statue, which represented Roman military power I.E. Augustus; was most likely the eagle that was torn down and what caused the rebellion in Judea before the death of Herod the great.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
as the Readership will have noted that your selection of a 3 B.C date for a head -count and a 1 B.C date for Herod's death out of all possible dates just happens to fit Luke's census fitted to Matthew's Herod -story. 
