Toto

M and L could only be reconciled if Herod's reigh overlapped Quirinus' governorship. That would be like Batman being born when Kennedy and Nixon were both president, no?

Denis Giron

Another way to put it is, Matthew and Luke contain at least one historical error if it is impossible for Jesus to have been born both during the reign of Herod and the governorship of Quirinus. Now, as I said when I first entered this thread, I'm ignorant of this subject (thus these preliminary questions are essentially a request for more information). So, is Herod reigning and Quirinus being governor at the same time as ridiculous Kennedy and Nixon being President of the US at the same time? If so, can you explain why, i.e. provide more information (so that the issue is more clear)?

Toto

source that came up on google

Quirinus was the first of these Roman overlords, and one of his first acts was a census.

Herod's descendants were still around, but with a Roman governor, they were not Kings, and certainly not the King of Judea as mentioned in Matthew.

I think that Richard Carrier's article goes through all the possibilities and will answer your questions.

Amaleq13

I understood your question but not why you didn't read the article.

Neither statement exists in a vacuum so this statement seems to me to lack relevance.

To my knowledge, there is no good reason to doubt Josephus on either point.

JoeWallack

JW:
Hi Denis and as Baruch WillsUs said in the classic Die Hard, immediately after disposing of a Fundamentalist Terrorist, "Welcome to the party pal."

Without using External sources as references it's much more difficult to convict "Matthew" and "Luke" of the sin of direct (as opposed to Implications from silence) Contradiction regarding their supposed Infancy Narratives. The one that's still there is what exactly was the Territory of the King Herod in each Infancy Narrative.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Luke_1:5

"There was in the days of Herod, king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abijah: and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth." (ASV)

According to "Luke" the Territory is Judea.

"Matthew" never Explicitly refers to his King Herod here as "King of Israel" but that's the Implication from his Infancy Narrative with the strongest individual implication probably:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Matthew_2

2:19 "But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying,

2:20 Arise and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead that sought the young child`s life.

2:21 And he arose and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel."


So only looking at "Matthew" and "Luke", "Luke's" King Herod only has Judea as territory while "Matthew's" King Herod appears to have all of Israel.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

JoeWallack

JW:
The following is a Summary of why "Matthew" and "Luke" Contradict each other on the supposed year of Jesus' birth. The Key time markers are established by Josephus, the most famous historian of the applicable time period and generally considered an authority for the applicable time, place and people by everyone including Christianity.

Josephus:

--Herod the Great receives Kingdom

----AJ 14.389 & 14.487 & Appian BC 5.75

--Succession by Archelaus of Herod the Great

----AJ 17.191 & WJ 1.665

--Archelaus removed after ten years

----AJ 17.342

--Archelaus removed and Quirinius was made responsible for his
--territory at the time Quirinius was made Governor of Syria.

----AJ 17.354, 18.1, 18.26, 20.102

----Cassius Dio 55.27.6 (removal)

--Roman coins minted in Judea start around 6 CE which is when --Quirinius became Governor of Syria.

The next step is to match up any information from the birth accounts of "Matthew" and "Luke" that correspond to time markers found in Josephus.

Matthew:
1) Per "Matthew" Herod the Great was King when Jesus was born.

2) Per "Matthew" Archelaus succeeded Herod the Great as to part of the Kingdom when Herod the Great died.

Luke
1) Per "Luke" Jesus was born after Quirinius became Governor of Syria and started a Census.

Contradiction
Using Josephus as a Time reference "Matthew" dates Jesus' birth before Archelaus succeeded Herod the Great while "Luke" dates Jesus' birth after Archelaus succeeded Herod the Great and had ruled for ten years.

When Truth-challenged advocates for that guy from the Christian BIble who's name escapes me at the moment but I think starts with a "J" or "Y" come calling on these holy boards they can be presented with the above summary to demonstrate that, as Bill Murray said in the classic Stripes, "Something is verry wrong here."

Follow up detail information for Objective Truth seekers can be found at:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...quirinius.html
(by Richard Carrier, one who speaks with Authority)

and

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php...nds&rcid=41896

and

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Luke_2:2


The purpose of ErrancyWiki is to serve as an Archived Reference source documenting error in the Christian Bible with convenient Summaries and detailed support. This prevents having to re-argue the same apologies and arguments here over and over again Ad Nazorean.

To the Moderators - I'd like to see more of the above Type Summary presenting error in the Bible here. This makes it easier for Newbies to get up to speed and harder for Chrisbies to do all those long words that Spin uses that start with "O". Just think of how nice it would be explaining to an Apologist why Daniel was written in the second century BCE by only having to look at one Post rather than every post ever written on the subject going back to the sixth century BCE.



Joseph

"I thought I made a mistake once but it turned out I was wrong." - JW

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

FreezBee

:rolling: Ok, with that way of putting it, Matthew and Luke do not contradict each other. Neither of them clearly says that the other is wrong.

The problem for a reconciliation of the two gospels is that the Herod of Matthew clearly can be identified as Herod the Great (37-4 bce), while the Quirinius of Luke clearly can be identified with a Roman legate that governed Syria 6-9 ce. Judea was a kingdom 37 bce to 6 ce, after which it was made a Roman province governed by a prefect, who was subordinate to the governor of Syria.

These details we need to find outside of the two gospels. Josephus is our main source, but Roman authors have covered the period as well, though not so detailed about Judean and Syrian history as Josephus.

So, yes, the contradiction is only discovered by comparing the two gospels in question with other sources.

However, in Luke, Joseph and Mary travel from Bethlehem to Nazareth, because of the census, while in Matthew, Joseph and Mary appear to be living in Bethlehem and only move to Nazareth after having spent some time in Egypt.

So, internally, the two gospels do not fit too well together concerning the details about the birth of Jesus, even if they had agreed on the time.


- FreezBee

JoeWallack

JW:
Carlson's argument here (as opposed to "Defense") is that what's commonly translated as "first" in Luke 2:2 should/could be translated as "foremost". The related Apology is that Luke 2:2 distinguishes between the Census Joseph responded to ("Luke") and the census Josephus reported (when Quirinius was Governor of Syria).

Grammatically, the offending Greek word protes, while having a Primary meaning of "first" does also have an important secondary meaning of "foremost". Also, a translation of "foremost" for 2:2 does not directly violate any direct Greek grammatical rules like a translation of "before" would. The translation of protes in Luke 2:2 than needs to be determined based on Context.

I've listed in this Thread many reasons yielding a translation of "first". The main such categories are:

1) "First" is the Primary meaning. This is the dominant meaning in "Luke", the Christian Bible and Greek of the time and the understanding here of every known Church Father who commented. To not use the Default meaning of "First" there would need to be clear context indicating another meaning.

2) "Census" has a natural Context of Chronological and not qualitative.

3) "First" provides a Direct meaning here while "Foremost" gives an Indirect meaning. Comically, if "Luke" meant "Foremost" here than she used a word with a Primary meaning of "First" to describe a Census (Quirinius') that she wanted to communicate to us was not first!

4) "Luke" has an established pattern in the Infancy Narrative of providing famous Time markers for events described. If "Foremost" is used instead of "First" than the dating of Jesus supposed birth here goes from Definite to Indefinite.

5) The information "Quirinius governing Syria" is a natural Chronological Time marker.

6) "Foremost" leaves all the related serious problems such as no direct evidence that Judea had a Census before Quirinius.

Carlson first floated his translation at his site in December 2004. Since than he's received little constructive criticism there and mainly encouragment from sympathizers. Until this Thread Carlson used a translation of "while Quirinius was governor of Syria" which is a Natural Chronological marker. As a result of this Thread Carlson now understands this and two years later wants to change the translation.

Carlson's behavior in this Thread has been standard Apologetics. Minimize/Deny superior evidence and Cling to/Create inferior evidence. If a Translation guide goes against Carlson he will Ignore it or plead it's not a rule trying to Narrow what he postures would be good evidence against him. On the other side Carlson freely Broadens Translation guidance until he thinks it favors him and than proof-texts it as support. Carlson's effort here is representative of the one-way flow of Apologetics. Only search for evidence that Defends aganst error.


Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

JoeWallack

JW:
In General Josephus is usually confirmed by other ancient authors. Specifically here we have the following confirming Josephus from

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Luke_2:2

CASSIUS DIO

55.27.6

"6 These were the events in the city that year. In Achaia the governor died in the middle of his term and instructions were given to his quaestor and to his assessor (whom, as I have stated, we call envoy) for the former to administer the province as far as the Isthmus and the other the remainder. Herod of Palestine, who was accused by his brothers of some wrongdoing or other, was banished beyond the Alps and a portion of the domain was confiscated to the state."


STRABO

''Geography'' Book XVI, Chapter 2

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...rabo/16B*.html

"46 Now Pompey clipped off some of the territory that had been forcibly appropriated by the Judaeans, p299and appointed Herod121 to the priesthood; but later a certain Herod, a descendant of his and a native of the country, who slinked into the priesthood, was so superior to his predecessors, particularly in his intercourse with the Romans and in his administration of affairs of state, that he received the title of king, being given that authority first by Antony and later by Augustus Caesar. As for his sons, he himself put some of them to death, on the ground that they had plotted against him; and at his death left others as his successors, having assigned to them portions of his kingdom. Caesar also honoured the sons of Herod and his sister Salomê and her daughter Berenicê. However, his sons were not successful, but became involved in accusations; and one of them122 spent the rest of his life in exile, having taken up his abode among the Allobrogian Gauls, whereas the others,123 by much obsequiousness, but with difficulty, found leave to return home, with a tetrarchy assigned to each."


APPIAN

Appian, BC 5.75

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...l_Wars/5*.html

"75 After these events Octavian set forth on an expedition to Gaul, which was in a disturbed state, and Antony started for the war against the Parthians. The Senate having voted to ratify all that he had done or should do, Antony again despatched his lieutenants in all directions and arranged everything else as he wished. He set up kings here and there as he pleased, on condition of their paying a p507prescribed tribute: in Pontus, Darius, the son of Pharnaces and grandson of Mithridates: in Idumea and Samaria, Herod:"


JW:
I'm not aware of any significant disagreement between Josephus here and any other ancient author.

The problem Christians have with Josephus is because of the Gospels they start with the position that any ancient writing should be presumed to be true. They than have to confess that specifically Josephus is the best History we have for 1st century Israel. And ever since Eusebius! (said like Denzel Crocker says "Fairy God Parents!") claimed Josephus claimed it was claimed that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, Christianity has had a Vestament interest in Preserving and Defending Josephus. So now they are stuck with Josephus. Mah Tzede oh my's Revenge!



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

JoeWallack

JW:
More evidence that The Fathers read 2:2 as "first" and understood "Luke" as saying his Jesus was born while Quirinius was Governor of Syria can be seen from the Evil & Wicked John Chrysostom and his On The Day Of The Birth Of Our Saviour Jesus Christ (translation from the dissertation of Beth Dunlop):



JW:
Chrysostom is relatively late as a witness here (4th century) but should have a little extra weight regarding Syria. Note that he apparently refers to Justin's claim that the related record still exists in Rome and postures that it still is available in his time presumably because Justin said it was there 250 years ago. Sure, and some of John's best fiends are Jewish.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page