How do you respond when critics attack the Bible stating that Luke can’t be accurate because it put Quirnius as governor of Syria when Jesus was born. Quirinius was governor of Syria in 6/7 AD yet Herod was also alive at the time as well, but he was thought to have died in 4 BC ?
Every year I read the Xmas story for the spiritual perspective and I did this year as well. However I also looked at it from the historical perspective. It appears that Luke makes no mention of Joseph and Mary’s journey to Egypt and Matthew makes a big deal of it. The two accounts seem to contradict in that Lukes has him going to be circumcised and Matthews has him on the road to Egypt. While there is not a very descriptive time line in Matthew’s gospel and the circumcision just may have happened and not been mentioned it seems that Matthew’s account gives the impression this happened right away. Just wondering what your thoughts were.
About Quirinius, I have gotten this question multiple times. I have copied and pasted a couple of the questions and my responses below. One of them has more than one question, but you can see the relevant information for yourself. The quick response is that the evidence supports Luke’s statement but does not prove it to be true. Any apparent contradiction is only that: apparent, but not real. There are obviously many events and facts mentioned in the Bible which are not mentioned elsewhere. This is the weakest conceivable evidence that there is an error in the Bible. Given Luke’s astounding reliability on other matters, it is reasonable to accept his description as reliable. Of course it is true that the different gospel accounts include different information. In fact, if they had identical information, what would be the need for four different gospels. The four gospels are separate, largely independent eye-witness (or, in the case of Luke carefully researched) accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. I have been a juror in more than one trial. It is my experience that different eye-witnesses to the same event notice significantly different details. However, if they are not lying or grossly biased, their accounts can fairly easily be justified. This is exactly the case with the four gospels.
The birth narratives of Luke and Matthew are a case in point. Any apparent contradiction is only that, an appearance which disappears when one realizes that we have two different accurate accounts from two different people. So, let me get to the details. The fact that Luke does not mention the trip to Egypt does not mean it did not happen. Luke chose material from a great amount of possible information available to him about the life of Jesus. Many commentators believe he interviewed Mary and/or other members of Jesus’ immediate family. It is very unlikely that he would have gotten such a thing wrong if he was doing what he claimed to do, which is produce an accurate account of what happened (Luke 1:1-4).
Luke has Jesus presented in the temple on the eighth day. The timeline seems quite specific. Besides, this was a tradition, especially for boys born so near to Jerusalem. Then, Luke has Joseph and Mary returning to Bethlehem with their little boy. Most likely, Luke included the ceremony on the eighth day because of the his desire to mention Simeon and Anna. The next scene in Luke has Jesus already twelve years old. Matthew has the birth of Jesus followed by the visit of the Magi. Our Christmas traditions have the Magi coming to the cave/barn where Jesus was born. This is definitely not the case. They came to the house where Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem. Most likely, this was a few months or perhaps even as much as a year or two later. I assume that it took time for the Magi to travel from Mesopotamia to Judaea where Jesus was born. Surely the circumcision of Jesus had happened quite a long time before they came to visit the King of the Jews. Our Christmas traditions cause many to become confused here. It was only after Herod got wind of the birth of a new king of the Jews that he sought to destroy the child. The escape into Egypt was from several months to as much as a year or even two years after the circumcision of Jesus. There is nothing in Matthew which implies that the visit of the Magi immediately followed the birth of Jesus. It is our tradition which causes the appearance of a contradiction.
I am a student at Florida Christian College writing a paper on Chapter 3 of Richard Dawkins Book "The God Delusion." In his book he makes a claim that there is no historical evidence for the divinity of Christ. I was wondering, as I read from your article, that Quirinius had two different office terms. One from 2 to 6 BC as governor, the other after 6 AD as an imperial legate. I was wondering if you had the sources for this statement. It would help me out a lot. I would cite you, but your degree is in chemical physics, it wouldn’t go over well as an authority on the historicity of Luke. Thanks in advance.
In my opinion, Richard Dawkins is a very poor source on the divinity of Jesus, given that his world view is completely inimical to religion and he uses an assumption of naturalism which precludes the divinity of Jesus before he even begins the investigation. What does the time of the governorship have to do with whether or not Jesus was divine? This is just a smoke screen. Anyway, please forgive my ranting about Dawkins. Here is the information you asked for: This comes from Wikipedia (for which your professor may not be impressed), but it includes references. My comments are below.
In 12 BC he was named consul, a sign that he enjoyed the favour of Augustus. Some years later, he led a campaign against the Homonadenses, a tribe based in the mountainous region of Galatia and Cilicia, around 5 – 3 BC, probably as legate of Galatia. He won by reducing their strongholds and starving out the defenders. For this victory, he was awarded a triumph. 1. ^ Erich S. Gruen, ‘The Expansion of the Empire under Augustus’ in The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume X: The Augustan Empire, 43 BC – AD 69, (Cambridge University Press, 1996) pages 153-154; see also Ronald Syme, The Roman Revolution, (Oxford University Press, 1939, reissued 2002), page 399. Justin K. Hardin, Galatians and the Imperial Cult, (Mohr Siebeck, 2008) page 56, suggests that it is uncertain whether Quirinius actually served as legate; he may have served only as a military general. 2. ^ Justin K. Hardin, Galatians and the Imperial Cult, (Mohr Siebeck, 2008) page 56.
The evidence is that Quirinius was a legate with wide military powers in eastern Asia Minor in the crucial year 5 BC. Quite likely he had military rule over the province of Syria, which was the neighboring province. I cannot prove that his powers included Syria, but we know that he was ruling in the area and, as they say, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. The question of the divinity of Jesus does not depend on where Quirinius was in 6-5 BC. Like I said, this is a smokescreen. However, my conclusion is that the historical evidence is not inconsistent with Luke’s account. The evidence for the divinity of Jesus is his fulfillment of historical prophecies of the Messiah, the overwhelming evidence of his thousands of public signs and miracles and his resurrection. This is not the only evidence, but it is a good start.
Dawkins assumes that miracles do not happen. Even if he is right that Jesus is not deity, the fact that he assumes the answer (ie that there is no deity, and therefore Jesus is not deity) before he asks the question disqualifies him as a legitimate witness to the question. Such circular reasoning is not valid. In other words: Dawkins: We know that Jesus is not deity. Q: How do we know this? Because there is no such thing as deity. The premise is being used as evidence to support the premise, which is circular reasoning.
A lot of anti-Christian biblical skeptics often use this objection to the Bible: "The Bible tells the story of Jesus being born when Herod was king (Matthew) and traveling to Bethlehem (Luke) for the census as if the two accounts were compatible but, they are actually ten years apart. Luke has Jesus born at the time of the census when Quirinius was governor of Syria. This census was recorded by the Romans as occurring in AD 6. Matthew has Herod the Great still alive. Both Roman and Jewish records show that Herod died in 4 BC." How can this objection be answered/refuted?
This is is a common criticism of the accuracy of the Bible. It sounds like a good example of a biblical inaccuracy if you only listen to the critics. However, these folks conveniently fail to notice a few facts. First of all there is the fact that Luke is a fantastically careful and accurate historian. He gets dozens of cities in the right place, titles of the rulers correct, and an almost unlimited number of historical details correct. In one case, he got the title of an Asian leader right when Cicero gets it wrong. Based on the reliability of Luke, we would be wise to give him the benefit of the doubt and ask how we might see that he may be accurate. If we do this, we will not be disappoined.
First of all, from records we know that Augustus ordered the taking of censuses every twelve years. One of these was in 8 BC. The other two were 20 BC and 6 AD. Probably it took 2-3 years for one fo these censuses to complete. Almost certainly th3 8 BC census was the one which sent Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem which was the prophesied birthplace of Jesus (Micah 5:2). Most likely, the birth of Jesus was in 6 BC, although 5 BC is also possible. Herod died in 4 BC, so the timing is just right. The date of 0 BC was set several hundred years later, so you should NOT assume Jesus was born at that time (actually, there was no 0 BC!). Now, about Quirinius. It is true, and we can confirm this from Roman records, that Quirinius was governor of Syria in AD 6. This does not disprove Luke. I lived in San Diego 1986-1992, after which I left. Does that prove that I do not live in San Diego now? I moved back in 2000. There is no proof to date that Quirinius was governor of Syria in 6 BC but we know that he was a military governor in Cilicia, the province next to Syria starting in 8 BC. Given the broad powers of Roman consuls, it is possible that he was considered "governor" of Syria by virtue of his military overlordship. It is also possible he was actually appointed a temporary governor of Syria, but we do not have proof of that, so that would be a bit speculative. Well, actually, it would not necessarily be speculative at all. The most reliable historical document we have from the Roman Empire at this time mentions this governorship. I am talking about the New Testament. It is ironic that skeptics automatically give other sources the benefit of the doubt but they always assume the Bible is wrong, unless it is proved correct. This blatant double standard is not the result of evidence, but because of a prejudice on the part of skeptics. I hope this helps.