Bible Discrepancy 1: The Census of Caesar Augustus
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.
It seems to me there are rational questions and debates from both sides of the aisle. When you read the gospel of John, who was a contemporary of Jesus, disciple actually - As well as his other writings. You find a man who was an eyewitness. An eyewitness of Jesus, but also aware of his friends who were murdered because of their belief in Jesus. His exile to the island of Patmos is due to his belief, because of, directly related. YOu find a group of Men who were cowards and cursed Jesus. But then, are as fierce as lions dying for their faith because just as you and I they doubted, but then saw and knew finally Jesus wasn't a sham. He was who He said.
WHo do you think has the corner on the debate... the guy that was there, or others talking about thousands of years later?
It seems to me there are rational questions and debates from both sides of the aisle. When you read the gospel of John, who was a contemporary of Jesus, disciple actually - As well as his other writings. You find a man who was an eyewitness. An eyewitness of Jesus, but also aware of his friends who were murdered because of their belief in Jesus. His exile to the island of Patmos is due to his belief, because of, directly related. YOu find a group of Men who were cowards and cursed Jesus. But then, are as fierce as lions dying for their faith because just as you and I they doubted, but then saw and knew finally Jesus wasn't a sham. He was who He said.
WHo do you think has the corner on the debate... the guy that was there, or others talking about thousands of years later?
The ones who came later. They have more information. John for instance couldn't read the synoptics. We can.
You need more explanation. John was not there, he doesn't know more than us, in fact he knows less because he didn't see the synoptic gospels that contradicted him and showed that he was not an eyewitness, even though he may have has an eyewitness account before him. Or an account that he believed was eyewitness.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-19-2013 at 02:00 PM..
The ones who came later. They have more information. John for instance couldn't read the synoptics. We can.
[URL="http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con100.asp"]http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con100.asp[/URL] This web link sheds light concerning the nativity misconceptions that have been pointed out.
So you're saying people who are not eyewitnesses to Jesus have more information than an eyewitness who spent 3 years with Jesus? I don't think that would fly in a court of law.
John was a disciple of Jesus and wrote the account. As he also wrote 1 John - 3 John and Revelation.
I'm saying that the internal evidence of comparing the 4 gospels show that they were not eyewitness. Neither could have have been aware of the other gospels, so we who come later have more information.
We are in fact in a better position to understand the matter than they were. They probably believed everything they had been told, but we indeed are in a position to know better.
Yes, I know that it is constantly claimed that the gospels are eyewitness. After a full explanation I believe that only someone who prefers faith to facts could still believe that claim.
I'm saying that the internal evidence of comparing the 4 gospels show that they were not eyewitness. Neither could have have been aware of the other gospels, so we who come later have more information.
We are in fact in a better position to understand the matter than they were. They probably believed everything they had been told, but we indeed are in a position to know better.
Yes, I know that it is constantly claimed that the gospels are eyewitness. After a full explanation I believe that only someone who prefers faith to facts could still believe that claim.
John was an eyewitness. He wasn't writing based on what he was told. Luke states he was writing from an eyewitness perspectives. Luke was probably someoene like yourself. The claims seem outrageous. He was checking it all out for himself. interviewing and gathering evidence. He is still much more credible in court of law than those who have done an internal investigation thousands of years later.
and those who lived with Jesus for 3 years died for their belief in Jesus. SElf preservation is our strongest instinct. If it was all a lie they would have known. They would not have died for what they would know was a lie. And what for? Why die when you know it's all a lie. They didn't hesitate to curse Jesus and leave Him like cowards when he allows Himself to be arrested. Then they come back against the ROMAN EMPIRE mind you and die like valiant corageous men boldly to the death after Jesus is crucified? something happened. I've been where you are. I know a debate ain't gonna change anything. I'm not trying to prove you wrong. I just want to be on the right side. that's all
John was an eyewitness. He wasn't writing based on what he was told. Luke states he was writing from an eyewitness perspectives. Luke was probably someoene like yourself. The claims seem outrageous. He was checking it all out for himself. interviewing and gathering evidence. He is still much more credible in court of law than those who have done an internal investigation thousands of years later.
and those who lived with Jesus for 3 years died for their belief in Jesus. SElf preservation is our strongest instinct. If it was all a lie they would have known. They would not have died for what they would know was a lie. And what for? Why die when you know it's all a lie. They didn't hesitate to curse Jesus and leave Him like cowards when he allows Himself to be arrested. Then they come back against the ROMAN EMPIRE mind you and die like valiant courageous men boldly to the death after Jesus is crucified? something happened. I've been where you are. I know a debate ain't gonna change anything. I'm not trying to prove you wrong. I just want to be on the right side. that's all
That's ok. I want to be on the right side, too. If the gospel accounts were credible as eyewitness, I would rather know that than deny on some pretext or other.
But the fat is that comparison of the four accounts completely destroys their credibility as eyewitness, unless one is very partial in excusing, ignoring or explaining away the problems, contradictions and discrepancies.
I will have a look at you response to criticism. I believe I have seen them all, but am always willing to have a look.
No, sorry. The 'second census' argument doesn't stand up. The Quirinus census was the first - Luke says so. The only way it could have been held in the time of Herod is is Quirinus was engaged to conduct a census for Herod in his lifetime. The various efforts to wangle some kind of census - for -tax in Herod's time unknown to history, but known to Luke (but not to anyone else), and moreover, no mention by Luke of it being carried out in Herod's time, it just looks so much as though this was the only 'First' census in Judea - the 6 Ad one.
Further, I recall that Quirinus wasn't even there. Apart from fiddling the latin for 'governor' he was in the area at all in Herod's day.
Next the explaining away of the massacre. Herod's deeds are well documented, so a massacre of babies is not going to be overlooked even if it was a handful. A threatened massacre of Jews which didn't actually get carried out got a full description. But of the horrific Bethlehem massacre, not a whisper. Not only not in history, but not even in Luke, John or Mark.
Reason must say that ineffective efforts are made to try to make the two Nativities work. they do not, neither together nor solus.
I have to say that Matthew is notable for silly tales that appear in no other gospel, and there is a purpose to this story - it is needed to get Jesus to leave Judea and end up, via Egypt, in Galilee.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-20-2013 at 12:50 PM..
Let's look at the Biblical passage in question and then we'll take it apart to see what specific historical claims are made.
"Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And everyone was on his way to register for the census, each to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child. While they were there, the days were completed for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn."(NASB)
In the Biblical account, we know these facts are presented:
Caesar Augustus ordered a census
Quirinius was governing Syria (hegemoneuontos tes Syrias Kyreniou)
Each family must register at their familial city of origin
Further, Matthew chapter 2 reports that Herod the Great ordered the slaughter "all the male children who were in Bethlehem and all its vicinity, from two years old and under"(Matt 2:16). We know that Herod died 4-2 B.C., so Jesus birth had to have been before his death - most likely by two or more years. Given these facts, scholars generally date Jesus' birth anywhere between 6 B.C. to 4 B.C.
Now, let's turn our attention to the Josephus passage. In 17.13.5 of The Antiquity of the Jews, Josephus writes:
"So Archelaus' country was laid to the province of Syria; and Cyrenius, one that had been consul, was sent by Caesar to take account of people's effects in Syria, and to sell the house of Archelaus."1
From the Josephus account we derive the following facts:
Caesar ordered a census
Cyrenius (Quirinius) was sent to account for Syria and sell the house of Archelaus
Cyrenius (Quirinius) "had been consul"
We also know from other historical records that Herod Archelaus was deposed in 6 A.D., so this census must be about 6 or 7 A.D. So, the question goes, if Herod the Great died in 4 B.C. and Josephus tells us Quirinius' census wasn't until 6 A.D., then isn't this a contradiction?
More than One Census
Although on its face we seem to have a difficulty here, there are several pieces that we must consider before jumping to the conclusion that Luke and Josephus were speaking about the same event. Indeed, it seems that Caesar Augustus was the type of leader who ordered many censuses in his day. Records exist to show that Roman-controlled Egypt had begun a census as early as 10 B.C. and it was repeated every 14 years. And Augustus himself notes in his Res Gestae (The Deeds of Augustus) that he ordered three wide-spread censuses of Roman citizens, one in 28B.C., one in 8 B.C. and one in 14 A.D.2 In between there are several other censuses that happened locally across Rome. Luke's account corroborates the idea of multiple censuses for Judea when he writes "This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria." Certainly, the word "first" implies that more than one census happened.
On another occasion, an enrollment of all the people of the empire happened to swear an oath of allegiance to Caesar. In Chapter 34 of Res Gestae Augustus also notes, "When I administered my thirteenth consulate (2 B.C.E.), the senate and Equestrian order and Roman people all called me father of the country, and voted that the same be inscribed in the vestibule of my temple".3 Josephus also mentions a time "When all good people gave assurance of their good will to Caesar".4 These types of tributes would also require an enrollment of individuals from across the empire. Orosius, a fifth century Christian, links this registration with the birth of Jesus saying that "all of the peoples of the great nations were to take an oath".5
Taking all of this together, we have at least three censuses in the area of Judea - one in 8 B.C., one starting around 2 B.C. and one in 6 A.D. The only point that is really in question, then, is whether Luke was mistaken in ascribing this census to the time when Quirinius was in the role of Syrian Governor. Since Quirinius wasn't governor of the Syrian province until after Archelaus was deposed, critics claim Luke misidentified the census as the smaller one, which happened some 8-10 years after Herod died. Either Luke is wrong on his dating of Jesus' birth or Matthew made up the story of Herod the Great and the killing of the infants. Is this an accurate objection?
The Governorship of Quirinius
In studying this problem, there are two main solutions that Christian scholars offer, and each has some good merit. The first point is the terminology Luke uses when writing about Quirinius' governorship over Syria. In stating that Quirinius controlled the Syrian area, Luke doesn't use the official political title of "Governor" ("legatus"), but the broader term "hegemon" which is a ruling officer or procurator. This means that Quirinius may not have been the official governor of Judea, but he was in charge of the census because he was a more capable and trusted servant of Rome than the more inept Saturninus.
Justin Martyr's Apology supports this view, writing that Quirinius was a "procurator", not a governor of the area of Judea.6 As Gleason Archer writes, "In order to secure efficiency and dispatch, it may well have been that Augustus put Quirinius in charge of the census-enrollment in Syria between the close of Saturninus's administration and the beginning of Varus's term of service in 7 B.C. It was doubtless because of his competent handling of the 7 B.C. census that Augustus later put him in charge of the 7 A.D. census."7 Archer also says that Roman history records Quirinius leading the effort to quell rebels in that area at exactly that time, so such a political arrangement is not a stretch.
If Quirinius did hold such a position, then we have no contradiction. The first census was taken during the time of Jesus birth, but Josephus' census would have come later. This option seems to me to be entirely reasonable.
Herod's Slaughter of the Babies
Your second question is quite different in its format. You ask why, if Herod committed such an atrocity as killing all the male babies "two years old and under" as Matthew recounts, how could historians such as Josephus completely ignore it? Well, let's think about this for a moment. Bethlehem at the time of Jesus' birth was a very small city with no more than a few thousand people. The total number of infants who would have been murdered under Herod's edict could be pretty low. As James Patrick Holding writes "How many boys aged two and under could there have been in and around the tiny city of Bethlehem? Five? Ten? Matthew does not give a number. Josephus says that Herod murdered a vast number of people, and was so cruel to those he didn't kill that the living considered the dead to be fortunate. Thus, indirectly, Josephus tells us that there were many atrocities that Herod committed that he does not mention in his histories - and it is probable that authorizing the killing of the presumably few male infants in the vicinity of Bethlehem was a minuscule blot of the blackness that was the reign of Herod. Being that the events of the reign of Herod involved practically one atrocity after another - it is observed by one writer, with a minimum of hyperbole, that hardly a day in his 36-year reign passed when someone wasn't sentenced to death - why should any one event in particular have touched off a rebellion, when others in particular, including those recorded by Josephus, did not?"8
I hope these discussions have helped you further your understanding of the difficulties historians face when trying to piece together events from the limited records of the past. There is certainly no slam-dunk evidence that the Biblical accounts are wrong here. In fact, one must also remember that the Biblical accounts are themselves historic documentation and therefore have historic merit in themselves. The fact that we have outside corroboration of the possibility of multiple censuses strengthens Luke's report of the events as he has written them. To say that this is an error would be premature. God bless you as you seek Him.
Read more: [url=http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con100.asp#ixzz2vlZMtY2M]Is Luke Wrong About the Time of Jesus' Birth? - Come Reason Ministries[/url]
Scott- Thank you. In fact I was discussing this point with a pal and seeing whether the Quirinus census in Herodian times would given that Luke's 'when Quirinus was governor of Syria' should be read 'before Quirinus was governor of Syria'.
The Roman governors of Syria during the life of Herod ..Let's start with Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa Governor 23-13 BCE. ThenMarcus Titius 13/12 - 10/9 BCE
Then Gaius Sentius Saturninus 10/9 - 7/6 BCE. After him, Publius Quintilius Varus 7/6 - 4 BCE
4 BC was when Herod died.
If we are going to have Quirinus conducting a census in Herodian Judea and Galilee, then it is under the orders of one of those Governors.
Well, up to14 BCE, he was governor of Crete and Cyrene and would not have have been available to organize a tax census for Herod.
From 5-3 BCE he was legate of Galicia, and in 4 BC Herod died. So that is out.
The only dates available are 8 years from12 BC when Quirinus was made Consul, to 5 BCE. In fact the possible dates end two years before Herod's death for a reason we shall see. So we actually have half a dozen years under Titius, Saturninus or possibly Varus.
However, if we follow Matthew, we have to be pinned down to a particular date - two years before Herod's death or perhaps more. Since Joseph could have been in Egypt for a number of years. But since Matthew has them returning on the announcement of Herod's death and Herod had enquired of the wise men when the star had appeared (so he knew how old this royal messiah was and got the location out of scripture) we know that Jesus somewhere around 2 years old when they fled to Egypt. So the birth of Jesus. coinciding with this supposed Herodian tax registration, would be between 12 and 6 BCE at the maximum,
Of course, if we know that Quirinus was busy somewhere else during those dates, that puts paid to that, but so far, for all I know he could have been available. Moreover, Luke (describing the antecedents of John the baptist with Jesus a year later, places this in the time of Herod the King. Further, if that is so, Herod ruled Judea and Galilee too, so any census would apply also to Galilee, which was arguably not the case when Rome taxed Judea in 6 AD (Galilee was still a client kingdom under Antipas and not subject to the Roman provincial tax). Also this places it intot he context of the remark about Augustus 'taxing the 'world'. If this was the 6 AD tax it was applied a lot later than the other taxes but, in the time of Herod, it is a bit nearer the time when Augustus raised taxes from the Roman world,in general.
So, taking the best view, it is possible to to make a case for the '2nd census' argument, the one described in Josephus (6 AD) upon the Roman take-over when Quirinus was Syrian governor and the first (described by Luke) being carried out by consul Quriinus (before he was governor (1) during the time of Herod, on the orders of the Roman syrian Governer and this is at the same time as the Matthew account of course. Chronological discrepancy sorted. However there are some difficulties.
If Luke's census was carried out by Qurinus before he became governor, why give useless information? Why not say that it was carried out by Qurinus in Herod's Kingship while Varus or Saturninus or whoever it was was the Syrian governor at the time? Further, in the time of Herod, the kingdom was not a Roman possession. It was a client kingdom, under the Roman thumb, of course, but more likely to receive financial support than being taxed like a province. Furthermore, Herod raised his money by levying taxes on business and trade rather than head -count.
And then, if he did institute a rather secret census with the help of Consul Qurinus on the orders of the Syrian governor at the time, why does Josephus or Philo or any other historian know nothing about it? Luke blandly describes Joseph going to sign up as though it was generally known. How could it be known that Qurinus was requiring Herod's people to sign on for a census without any historian apparently knowing about it?
Then there is the doubt about Joseph trekking to Bethlehem I know there is evidence that people signing up for a tax had to do it in their own city. Let me give the document.
"Since the enrollment by households is approaching, it is necessary to command all who for any reason are out of their own district to return to their own home, in order to perform the usual business of the taxation…" (Cobern, C.M. 1929. The New Archeological Discoveries and their Bearing upon the New Testament. New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls, p. 47; Unger, M.F. 1962. Archaeology and the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, p. 64).
Yes, but that means going back to where you lived and worked where the tax could reasonably be collected. You didn't travel to some ancestral city miles away where nobody even knew you.The point about Bethlehem is that it was ancestrally Joseph's city because he was of Davidic lineage. (Luke 2.4) not because it made sense to enrol him there. The only reason is as a pretext to get Joseph and his wife, inexplicably taken along to watch while Joseph signed on into Bethlehem so that Jesus could be born there.
Matthew also has the same idea, but the problem there is not chronological - it is set in Herod's time, and no doubt about that. But the problem is geographical. Luke is clear. Joseph and his wife lived in Galilee and he had to be given a reason to be stuck in Bethlehem for the needful Bethlehem birth, after which having observed all the rites and customs, they went back home to Nazareth in Galilee.
But not according to Matthew. According to his account, they lived in Judea already. The Matthew nativity simply has a birth and no circumstances around it - why should there be? But it is afterwards (Matthew 2)we have the indications that Judea and not Galilee was where they lived. As mentioned above, Matthew's 2.7 suggests that the wise men had seen the star two years before or more before as Herod asked of them which is why he ordered the death of all boys of 2 years or more 'according to the time which he had ascertained from the wise men' (2)
This means that Joseph and family had been there in Bethlehem all the time - because that is where they lived. There was question of returning after a couple of ritual weeks to their own city, Nazareth as in Luke. 2.39 They were still living in Bethlehem when that absurd star comes to a dead stop over the roof so the wise men know which is the right house. They depart and Joseph and his wife and 2 year old son depart for Egypt. Herod arrives too late and supposedly in a rage slaughters all the kids.
This is Matthew being clumsy. The deliberate targeting of 2 year old and over boys was a surgical strike against anyone who even looked liked it could be the Messiah. Herod had deliberately asked (so Matthew builds his plot) so he knows just who to target. Oddly he seems to miss in his rage about how the wise men had tricked him.He had learned all he needed to from them (in fact he could have had them followed right to Joseph's door) but it is only fair to say that it would make sense if Herod knew that they had sussed him out and had warned Joseph that Herod was likely to be banging on the door very soon. That is the only way that tricking him makes sense.
It only remains to record that Herod dies in 4BC and Joseph returns to Bethlehem because 'those who sought the child's life are dead'. In fact, Joseph knew rather better than the heavenly administration as he was aware that Archelaus was as much a threat as Herod had been and rather belatedly the department of angelic warnings tells Joseph to go to Galilee where apparently Herod Anipater was not a threat.
That is why (ends Matthew) Jesus was called a Nazarene. Though he presents it as though it was a sort of prophetic thing.However the point is that there are still serious problems with the Herodian tax scenario and the contradiction in the two accounts about the circumstances cast serious doubt on both stories.
So, on balance, I am still seeing Josephus'6 AD census as the one Luke had in mind, as it doesn't really make sense anyway. And the two actually contradictory stories suggest strongly (to me at any rate) that they were concocted for the sole purpose of fulfilling what (embarrassingly) Jesus didn't - a Bethlehem birth - Matthew with a clumsy plot of miracles to get Jesus from Bethlehem into Nazareth and the other based on a bit that Luke read out of the history books and used as a method to get Jesus from Nazareth into Bethlehem
Now there may be other points that you consider not adequately addressed, so by all means bring them to my attention. However, (as Is general principles with me) I think this position is sound enough that I don't feel the need to go and research your link to find more evidence to help your case.
(1) the argument is that (Greek) 'pro' can mean 'before' as well as 'when' or 'while'
(2)The argument that this escaped historical attention because there might only have been a few little boys slaughtered does not convince, partly because the horror of the act would be talked about widely, not the numbers. Herod's threat to carry out a mass killing on his death was known to history, even though it was not carried out. But mainly, the doubt arises because none of the other gospels have it. If Matthew heard it, they all would have known it. In fact it is the impossibility of explaining convincingly why important events are left out by three out of four writers is the cornerstone of doubting the factuality of the gospels.
Bottom line is that the gospels are dated around 60 AD at the latest. If, as you probably believe, the gospels were fabricated stories, do you honestly think the writers would have intentionally left a known fallacy in it?
That is your bottom line, not any historian worth their salt. The earliest historians can place the first gospel, Mark is around 70 AD shortly after the sacking of Jerusalem. Matthew and Luke follow sometime circa 80 AD and John is placed somewhere around 90-100 AD.
KD,KD,KD....you are impossible. Consistent, but impossible.
To parody a well-known song,
"He ain't impossible...he's a Christian!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by herb06
John was a disciple of Jesus and wrote the account. As he also wrote 1 John - 3 John and Revelation.
John the Apostle did NOT write the account. It was written by an anonymous person to which the Church later added the label, "According to John". Nowhere in the gospel does John identify himself as having written it. He refers to himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and tradition has always interpreted that disciple to be John but there is absolutely no historical proof or any other outside references that that disciple who held special favor was John. Additionally, in Revelation John, supposedly the same John, never once uses that phrase. Accidental?
I think not.
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.
