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.
Since Christmas is approaching, we will be hearing the nativity accounts in Matthew's and Luke's which do not appear elsewhere.
But some questions arise immediately. Is this an historical event or only a story?
Matthew 2 claims that Jesus was born during the life time of King Herod who died about 4 B.C.
Luke 2 claims that Jesus was born during the census of Judea conducted by the Roman governor of Syria, Quirinius (when Herod's son and inheritor Archelaus was exiled) in 6 AD (see Josephus, Antiquities).
Because there is a ten year difference, at least one of these accounts isn't historical.
Since Christmas is approaching, we will be hearing the nativity accounts in Matthew's and Luke's which do not appear elsewhere.
But some questions arise immediately. Is this an historical event or only a story?
Matthew 2 claims that Jesus was born during the life time of King Herod who died about 4 B.C.
Luke 2 claims that Jesus was born during the census of Judea conducted by the Roman governor of Syria, Quirinius (when Herod's son and inheritor Archelaus was exiled) in 6 AD (see Josephus, Antiquities).
Because there is a ten year difference, at least one of these accounts isn't historical.
Which is it? How can we tell?
The exact dates are moot. What really matters is the concept and the story.
There is nothing in the stories to indicate that the authors intended them to be anything but history. I don't see why I would take them as anything else.
Again...the writers used actual historical markers--pointing out who was in power, the census, etc. It just seems that it would be too easy for a 1st Century Jew living in Palestine to speak up and say "well, gee....Quirinius didn't do a census...."
The Nativity narratives are just stories, but they are beautiful stories written by good people and, like the rest of the bible stories, we can learn a lot from them.
Since Christmas is approaching, we will be hearing the nativity accounts in Matthew's and Luke's which do not appear elsewhere.
But some questions arise immediately. Is this an historical event or only a story?
Matthew 2 claims that Jesus was born during the life time of King Herod who died about 4 B.C.
Luke 2 claims that Jesus was born during the census of Judea conducted by the Roman governor of Syria, Quirinius (when Herod's son and inheritor Archelaus was exiled) in 6 AD (see Josephus, Antiquities).
Because there is a ten year difference, at least one of these accounts isn't historical.
The precision with which Luke reported historical detail has been documented over and over again through the centuries by archaeologists and biblical scholars. In every instance, where sufficient archaeological evidence has surfaced, Luke has been vindicated as an accurate and meticulously precise writer. Skeptics and critics have been unable to verify even one anachronism or discrepancy with which to discredit the biblical writers’ claim of being governed by an overriding divine influence.
However, observe the above stated criterion that serves as the key to a fair and proper assessment of Luke’s accuracy: where sufficient archaeological evidence has surfaced. Skeptics frequently level charges against Luke and the other Bible writers on the basis ofarguments from silence. They fail to distinguish between a genuine contradiction on the one hand and insufficient evidence from which to draw a firm conclusion on the other. A contradiction exists when two statements or facts cannot both be true. Skeptics frequently make the mistake of issuing the charge of contradiction against the Bible writers when two statements or facts simply differ with each other. McGarvey articulated this principle clearly in 1891: “Two statements are contradictory not when they differ, but when they cannot both be true” (3:31). A charge of contradiction or inaccuracy within the Bible is illegitimate, and therefore unsustained, in those areas where evidence of historical corroboration is scant.
In light of these principles, consider the following words of Luke: “And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria” (Luke 2:1-2). Some have charged Luke with committing an error on the basis of the fact that history records that Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was governor of Syria beginning in A.D. 6—several years after the birth of Christ. It is true that thus far no historical record has surfaced to verify either the governorship or the census of Quirinius as represented by Luke at the time of Jesus’ birth prior to the death of Herod in 4 B.C. As distinguished biblical archaeologist G. Ernest Wright of Harvard Divinity School conceded: “This chronological problem has not been solved” (1960, p. 158).
This void in extant information that would provide definitive archaeological confirmation notwithstanding, sufficient evidence does exist to postulate a plausible explanation for Luke’s allusions, thereby rendering the charge of discrepancy ineffectual. Being the meticulous historian that he was, Luke demonstrated his awareness of a separate provincial census during Quirinius’ governorship beginning in A.D. 6 (Acts 5:37). In view of this familiarity, he surely would not have confused this census with one taken ten or more years earlier. Hence Luke claimed that a prior census was, indeed, taken at the command of Caesar Augustus sometime prior to 4 B.C. He flagged this earlier census by using the expression prote egeneto (“first took place”)—which assumes a later one (cf. Nicoll, n.d., 1:471). To question the authenticity of this claim, simply because no explicit reference has yet been found, is unwarranted and prejudicial. No one questions the historicity of the second census taken by Quirinius about A.D. 6/7, despite the fact that the sole authority for it is a single inscription found in Venice. Sir William Ramsay, world-renowned and widely acclaimed authority on such matters, wrote over one hundred years ago: “[W]hen we consider how purely accidental is the evidence for the second census, the want of evidence for the first seems to constitute no argument against the trustworthiness of Luke’s statement” (1897, p. 386).
In addition, historical sources indicate that Quirinius was favored by Augustus, and was in active service of the emperor in the vicinity of Syria previous to and during the time period that Jesus was born. It is reasonable to conclude that Quirinius could have been appointed by Caesar to instigate a census-enrollment during that time frame, and his competent execution of such could have earned for him a repeat appointment for the A.D. 6/7 census (see Archer, 1982, p. 366). Notice also that Luke did not use the term legatus—the normal title for a Roman governor. He used the participial form of hegemon that was used for a Propraetor (senatorial governor), or Procurator (like Pontius Pilate), or Quaestor (imperial commissioner) [McGarvey and Pendleton, n.d., p. 28]. After providing a thorough summary of the historical and archaeological data pertaining to this question, Finnegan concluded: “Thus the situation presupposed in Luke 2:3 seems entirely plausible” (1959, 2:261). REFERENCES
Archer, Gleason L. Jr. (1982), Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Finegan, Jack (1959), Light From the Ancient Past (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
McGarvey, J.W. (1891), Evidences of Christianity (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1974 reprint).
McGarvey, J.W. and Philip Y. Pendleton (no date), The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: The Standard Publishing Foundation).
Nicoll, W. Robertson (no date), The Expositor’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Ramsay, William M. (1897), St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1962 reprint).
Wright, G. Ernest (1960), Biblical Archaeology (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Alleged Discrepancies" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.
For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:
I am indeed impressed!!! Good scholarship about a different opinion which serves as an apologetic.
In response, the nativity stories found in Matthew and Luke only, are about getting Jesus to Bethlehem in order to fulfill prophecy. After those initial stories, Bethlehem is not seen again in either gospel, and is mentioned in John only in 7:42. In fact, both Matthew and Luke thereafter call Jesus the Nazarene.
The reason that there was no 90 mile journey to Bethlehem aboard a donkey should be quite clear. Women were not needed for tax collection or even census, and Mary was eight months pregnant. A journey of that distance on the back of a donkey, medically, would most likely have resulted in a miscarriage or early birth.
The hillside hamlet of Nazareth was so small, so insignificant that it is not even mentioned in any ancient Jewish source before about the third century C.E. It's not in the Hebrew Bible, not in the Talmud, not in the Midrash, not in Josephus. But Jesus' birthplace, Nazareth, was where every one of His contemporaries identified Him. He was known as the Nazarean. Jesus was actually a very common name in that time so it was not unusual for a "Jesus" to be identified by the town or village of his birth.
In John 7:42 lies the secret of how the nativity stories came about. When Jesus first began His ministry and people heard Him, some said, "This is the Christ." But others mocking said, "Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Has not the scripture said that Christ comes from the seed of David and out of the town of Bethlehem where David was?" So there was a division among the people. And this was not the ONLY division. In verse 27 of the same chapter, some claimed Jesus could not be the Christ because "we know from where this man came: but when Christ comes, no one knows where he will come from." Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Now I believe this was an oral tradition about Bethlehem that was passed down to counter the argument of some Jews. And there were many early scoffers who said Jesus could not be the Christ, even after His death and resurrection, because He was not from Bethlehem. Mark records nothing of Jesus upbringing except that He came from Nazareth. But by the time of writing of Matthew and certainly Luke, the cry of those Jews denying Jesus was the Christ was great enough to call for a response. So it was crafted in the the nativity stories to place Jesus birth in Bethlehem, and a long series of conflicting lineage in the two books written to make Him from the lineage of David.
Further, I would respectfully disagree with Dr. Miller's assertion regarding TWO censuses. First, a census took a long time. Second, the census takers were there not to count people, but to collect taxes--and the Roman government could not really count what a man owned in order to tax him if that man was called away from wherever he lived to another town 90 miles away. He couldn't carry what he owned!!! To think that tax collectors then or now would simply accept a taxpayer's statement about what he owned is ludicrous.
The truth is the prophecies, if you want to call them that, say both things about the Christ coming from Bethlehem and the lineage of David AND that no man will know from whence the Christ came. Prophets such as Jeremiah, Micah, and Amos are actually making veiled criticisms of their current king and the present order, which they imply fall short of the Davidic ideal. There is another thing about the OT prophecies of the messiah that goes against Christian thought. He is a human, not divine. His messianic works occur on earth, not in heaven. To fit Jesus as a divine messiah into the jumbled prophecies requires you to choose which of the many texts, oral traditions, popular stories, and folktales you want to consider. How you answer that depends in large part on what you want to say about your messiah.
The need to have Jesus' parents flee to Egypt to escape Herod's massacre is to fulfill the words of the prophet Hosea: "Out of Egypt I have called my own son," (Hosea 11:1). The story is not meant to reveal any fact about Jesus as messiah, it is meant to reveal another truth, that Jesus is the new Moses, who survived Pharaoh's massacre of the Israelites' sons, and emerged from Egypt with a new law from God (Exodus 1:22). And I actually like the latter interpretation a lot, because Jesus did bring a new law.
But the nativity stories still convey a meaning of hope and peace which I do not deny, and I sing the songs with joy and praise every year.
I am much impressed that you are doing some homework, Priscilla. It will either make you a stronger Christian or drive you away from the faith. Exactly what the Word of God is intended to do---bring people to a decision.
Some material extracted from Zealot, The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, by Reza Aslan, copyright 2013 Aslan Media, Inc. Chapter 3 "You Know Where I Am From", pages 25-33.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 10-25-2013 at 09:57 AM..
Reason: punctuation, copyright info
I am indeed impressed!!! Good scholarship about a different opinion which serves as an apologetic.
In response, the nativity stories found in Matthew and Luke only, are about getting Jesus to Bethlehem in order to fulfill prophecy. After those initial stories, Bethlehem is not seen again in either gospel, and is mentioned in John only in 7:42. In fact, both Matthew and Luke thereafter call Jesus the Nazarene.
The reason that there was no 90 mile journey to Bethlehem aboard a donkey should be quite clear. Women were not needed for tax collection or even census, and Mary was eight months pregnant. A journey of that distance on the back of a donkey, medically, would most likely have resulted in a miscarriage or early birth.
The hillside hamlet of Nazareth was so small, so insignificant that it is not even mentioned in any ancient Jewish source before about the third century C.E. It's not in the Hebrew Bible, not in the Talmud, not in the Midrash, not in Josephus. But Jesus' birthplace, Nazareth, was where every one of His contemporaries identified Him. He was known as the Nazarean. Jesus was actually a very common name in that time so it was not unusual for a "Jesus" to be identified by the town or village of his birth.
In John 7:42 lies the secret of how the nativity stories came about. When Jesus first began His ministry and people heard Him, some said, "This is the Christ." But others mocking said, "Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Has not the scripture said that Christ comes from the seed of David and out of the town of Bethlehem where David was?" So there was a division among the people. And this was not the ONLY division. In verse 27 of the same chapter, some claimed Jesus could not be the Christ because "we know from where this man came: but when Christ comes, no one knows where he will come from." Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Now I believe this was an oral tradition about Bethlehem that was passed down to counter the argument of some Jews. And there were many early scoffers who said Jesus could not be the Christ, even after His death and resurrection, because He was not from Bethlehem. Mark records nothing of Jesus upbringing except that He came from Nazareth. But by the time of writing of Matthew and certainly Luke, the cry of those Jews denying Jesus was the Christ was great enough to call for a response. So it was crafted in the the nativity stories to place Jesus birth in Bethlehem, and a long series of conflicting lineage in the two books written to make Him from the lineage of David.
Further, I would respectfully disagree with Dr. Miller's assertion regarding TWO censuses. First, a census took a long time. Second, the census takers were there not to count people, but to collect taxes--and the Roman government could not really count what a man owned in order to tax him if that man was called away from wherever he lived to another town 90 miles away. He couldn't carry what he owned!!! To think that tax collectors then or now would simply accept a taxpayer's statement about what he owned is ludicrous.
The truth is the prophecies, if you want to call them that, say both things about the Christ coming from Bethlehem and the lineage of David AND that no man will know from whence the Christ came. Prophets such as Jeremiah, Micah, and Amos are actually making veiled criticisms of their current king and the present order, which they imply fall short of the Davidic ideal. There is another thing about the OT prophecies of the messiah that goes against Christian thought. He is a human, not divine. His messianic works occur on earth, not in heaven. To fit Jesus as a divine messiah into the jumbled prophecies requires you to choose which of the many texts, oral traditions, popular stories, and folktales you want to consider. How you answer that depends in large part on what you want to say about your messiah.
The need to have Jesus' parents flee to Egypt to escape Herod's massacre is to fulfill the words of the prophet Hosea: "Out of Egypt I have called my own son," (Hosea 11:1). The story is not meant to reveal any fact about Jesus as messiah, it is meant to reveal another truth, that Jesus is the new Moses, who survived Pharaoh's massacre of the Israelites' sons, and emerged from Egypt with a new law from God (Exodus 1:22). And I actually like the latter interpretation a lot, because Jesus did bring a new law.
But the nativity stories still convey a meaning of hope and peace which I do not deny, and I sing the songs with joy and praise every year.
I am much impressed that you are doing some homework, Priscilla. It will either make you a stronger Christian or drive you away from the faith. Exactly what the Word of God is intended to do---bring people to a decision.
Some material extracted from Zealot, The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, by Reza Aslan, copyright 2013 Aslan Media, Inc. Chapter 3 "You Know Where I Am From", pages 25-33.
I've never looked at The Bible as a history text. Those that do are missing the point. I think there are two main ways to read The Bible. One is without the Holy Spirit, one is with. I'm not looking for pats on the back or bragging, but for the last 40+ years I have read through The Bible cover to cover each year but two. There was a time I read it and quite frankly got little from it. Then, when I became truly saved and born again on 11-22-85, the Scriptures suddenly had meaning. For me, every word does not have to meet some litmus test. The authors' intent was, as you put it in another thread, to spread The Good News.
Scoffers and skeptics abound and are similar to those in Jesus' day. I say similar, because back then they didn't have The Bible, but Jesus himself to doubt. Both, though, throw the baby out with the bath water every opportunity they got or get. Apologists can get too wrapped up in trying to defend The Bible's every word and formulate ideas that don't always stand up to close scrutiny and are in some cases downright outlandish. Their intent is good though, and someone needs to do it.
It wasn't The Bible, my church, my church attendance, my works, or my once good looks that saved me. It was God. It happened at the lowest point in my life when I was stripped bare and had nowhere else to turn. I was broken and only God could fix me. I wrote in another thread about my atheist brother who, when he found out he had terminal bladder cancer and only months to live, turned to God. He hated God because our dad died when we were in grade school from a heart attack. My brother waited until death was literally at his doorstep before he forgave Him.
Wow, talk about getting off topic. I'm going to get you for that Wardendresden.
I've never looked at The Bible as a history text. <snip>
And neither have I!!! I see the Bible as a faith book. A book written by men about their faith, a book designed to be read with faith, a book that reveals itself to the faithful. That's why the nativity stories remain important. To those early Christians, Jesus was everything, and the message that He was not needed to be refuted.
I personally don't care if Jesus was born in Bethlehem or lived most of His life as a simple peasant in Nazareth. His Spirit made a change of heart in me.
I grew up in a racist tradition. Born in Alabama with many relatives in Louisiana. I was saved in a Mississippi Baptist Church where an evangelist was preaching a revival and asked this question of the congregation--"Where are the black people of the community? Why aren't they attending this church of nearly 300 people? In other communities they are at least allowed to sit in the balcony. God came to save them, too! Don't you think those of us here have a spiritual responsibility toward them?"
Talk about a quiet church!! Our sin had been exposed by an outsider. There was a nativity scene in that moment as something new began to form in my heart. A couple of nights later I went forward at the altar call to ask Christ into my life.
That is the kind of life changing moment that Jesus brought when He came to live among us, and what, regardless of scholarship, needs to remain the defining moment in every Christian's life.
And neither have I!!! I see the Bible as a faith book. A book written by men about their faith, a book designed to be read with faith, a book that reveals itself to the faithful. That's why the nativity stories remain important. To those early Christians, Jesus was everything, and the message that He was not needed to be refuted.
I personally don't care if Jesus was born in Bethlehem or lived most of His life as a simple peasant in Nazareth. His Spirit made a change of heart in me.
I grew up in a racist tradition. Born in Alabama with many relatives in Louisiana. I was saved in a Mississippi Baptist Church where an evangelist was preaching a revival and asked this question of the congregation--"Where are the black people of the community? Why aren't they attending this church of nearly 300 people? In other communities they are at least allowed to sit in the balcony. God came to save them, too! Don't you think those of us here have a spiritual responsibility toward them?"
Talk about a quiet church!! Our sin had been exposed by an outsider. There was a nativity scene in that moment as something new began to form in my heart. A couple of nights later I went forward at the altar call to ask Christ into my life.
That is the kind of life changing moment that Jesus brought when He came to live among us, and what, regardless of scholarship, needs to remain the defining moment in every Christian's life.
This is just too much to be coincidental. Just last week I watched a cable newsman interview former US Ambassador to the UN, Andrew Young. Mr. Young talked about his work with Martin Luther King, his growing up in the South during WWII, the issues facing America today, etc.. One thing he stressed is it's not Black America and White America, but America. It was a powerful interview by a man able to see both the big picture and yet dissect the issues like a laser. I actually was reduced to tears. I emailed the interviewer who I felt was excellent at pulling out Mr. Young's answers. To my amazement the interviewer emailed me back this morning to thank me. I'm hesitant to reveal the newsman's name for many people ridicule him and the news station he works for.
I personally don't care if Jesus was born in Bethlehem or lived most of His life as a simple peasant in Nazareth. His Spirit made a change of heart in me.
Exactly!!!
Quote:
A couple of nights later I went forward at the altar call to ask Christ into my life.
That is the kind of life changing moment that Jesus brought when He came to live among us, and what, regardless of scholarship, needs to remain the defining moment in every Christian's life.
This is how Fundamentalists do it. I never had that moment because i grew up Christian (Catholic) so there is no need for an Epiphany.
I fully agree with your views on the Bible. I enjoy reading your posts!
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.
