My own assessment is that Luke 2.1, taken by itself, should most likely refer to the census’ expansion beyond Italy in 27 BC. If that’s fair, it would give us a 40 year span in two verses – a lot to sprint past, if Luke were wanting us to dwell mostly on the end point of that span.

Btw, Matthew’s Herod is called the father of Archelaus, rules Jerusalem, and dies before Joseph learns that Archelaus is ruling. What am I missing that could make us uncertain of Matthew’s opinion on this point?

I do not think that he was confused; he was aware of the tradition that Matthew also records, that Jesus was born in the year of Herod the Great’s death (Luke 3.1). (Of course, I am assuming that Matthew’s Herod is Herod the Great, which is not certain.) What I am suggesting is that Luke sacrificed chronology to create a contrast between a violent transition and the coming of the prince of peace.

Yet, you may be right that Quirinius was responsible for a peaceful transition.

(Separately, if you’re suggesting Luke knowingly placed Jesus’ birth around 6 AD, do you suppose Luke was confused about when Herod died?)

I suspect Quirinius was remembered not because there was much fighting, but precisely because there was not. The peaceful transition, in stark contrast to that of 4 BC, must have been something the populace was very glad to enjoy, especially with such recent memories of Varus’ brutality.

At any rate, Josephus’ interest in Judas the Galilean seems more focused on the philosophical seed he planted which only sprouted five or six decades later. You rightly note “the rebellion cannot have been widespread”. I suggest that for all we know, the rebellion could well have been nipped in the bud.

It’s a sad thing that Western civilization has taken Herodotus account of Greek vs. Persian history as unconditional truth. He had a clear bias, and he enjoyed very much the freedom of expression when he strolled around the Persian empire to criticize it (compared to Greece where, despite “democracy” there were little freedom).

Contrasting Herodotus is Xenophon, and his fictional biography of Cyrus the Great, Cyropaedia.

Get well soon!

Anyhow, I agree with the OP about the dispute. As a Greek, I don’t particularly mind that a neighboring country uses an “unhyphenated” Macedonia as its name or even that it constructs its own national myths, like all nations do, even though they are expressed in an ugly fashion at times.

On the other hand, a little disagreement isn’t always bad, eh? I can’t agree with views that, for example, consider the possibility that the Babylonians heard the “Macedonian” form of Alexandros as “Alexandar” while they surprisingly heard every other Macedonian name with its Greek termination. Kidding, Livius, I like your work – most of the time.

Judith

Roman Mithraists seem to have done the same thing with Mithra/s – taken an exotic Persian deity and plugged him into the familar matrix of Greco-Roman mystery religions. I sometimes wonder if something similar happened with Roman Christianity.