Right, this is the one that Luke screwed up about. By the way, he screwed the pooch in more ways than one. First off no such decree "went out" from Caesar Augustus. There was no one single all Roman census. They had gone on before his time and after his time. That was the first one in Judea. Can you understand the difference and your error there? We know when Quirinus had his first census. It was roughly ten years after Jesus was born.
Qurinius may have had more than one census. You seem to be having a hard time understanding how this does not matter. It is the first one that we are talking about that was ten years too late.
And the link that I gave refuted that nonsense. I asked you to find a valid source and you could not. My source is also biased, but they site actual experts that refute your Christian make believe site. Here it is again:
The Jury Is In: Luke and Quirinius
Here is all that your site says, without any references at all to what actual scholars say about that "fragment":
"The inscription, found near Tivoli in 1764, probably belonged to the tomb of
Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, "
Probably? No scholars that support the claim. Meanwhile the source that I used sited the work of experts in the field. For example:
"
Taxes were collected on a province-by-province basis, either by a local tax collection franchise (the publicans), or by tribute (e.g., during Herod's kingdom). There would be no Roman-administered census in areas controlled directly by Herod or his family, as was the case in both Judaea and Galilee during the years around the birth of Jesus.
There is absolutely no support to Luke's implication of worldwide census or a empire-wide tax. In fact, it is quite contrary to well-documented practice.
(T1) J.P.V.D. Balsdon. _Rome: The Story of an Empire_. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970.
Balsdon describes the organization of the Empire, in terms of Public provinces and Imperial provinces. Egypt is a special case. Judaea became an imperial equestrian province in 6 CE.
(T2) A. H. M. Jones. _The Roman Economy: Studies in Ancient Economic and Administrative History_. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1974. Reference to Luke 2 on p. 165, n. 81.
Luke is taken as evidence of taxation-related censuses, " ... (though his date is wrong, and he is mistaken, if he implies that the census was taken everywhere at the same time; Suidas s.v. apographe is worthless)."
Jones emphasizes that the 14 year tax cycles in Egypt does not apply to other provinces. Each province had a separate tax administration, often taxing different things, or at different rates.
"
Please, it is evident that reality poses a huge problem for you.
I already proved that at best he referred to the Census of Qurinius.
First off Luke specifically mentioned Quirinius. I sited several sources that put him in a military campaign in what is now Turkey at the time of Jesus's birth. That alone shows that Luke was wrong. Second the third source that I used explained why that Judea was not subject to Roman tax while Herod was king. They taxed through tribute which Herod would have collected himself. Third, and this one you have not been able to touch and my article that I linked twice now explains this t, one simply does not move too another city just to take a census. That is counter productive and rather idiotic. The Romans were not idiots when it came to their taxes.
I have provided multiple sources, both biased and neutral that refuted your claims. You found one extremely biased and bogus source (they could not support their work with any reference to scholars) that claimed a fragment might have been from Quirinius's tomb. I have met my burden of proof. You have merely flapped your arms and quacked.
EDIT: One more point about the Tivoli inscription. Even if it is from Quirinius's tomb, and there is doubt of that, your source misinterpreted the Latin. From my much better source (it refers to the scholars that its claims are based upon, yours had nothing in that regards):
"
The Tivoli inscription has nevertheless been cited to support the view that a second legateship for Quirinius would have been possible. This is actually a mistranslation; properly, it should say that the person, being a legate of Augustus for the second time, "he received Syria and Phoenicia." That is, the person performed public service twice, and the last time, he was legate to Syria (Anchor Bible, p. 403).
It is unheard of that a proconsul would become a legate of the emperor twice in the same province (see J. G. C. Anderson, _Cambridge Ancient History_ 10 [1934] 878; R. Syme, "Titulus Tiburtinus," 590)."
Quirinius was a legate twice in two different provinces. He was not a legate twice in the same province. We have a good history on the man. Where he was and when has been explained. You only have a mistranslation of a fragment.
