DanBZ

I have heard that one of the reasons to doubt the legitimacy of the Gospels is because they do not fit with history. Here are some examples I have heard:

Herod and Quirinus did not live at the same time (contradiction between Matthew and Luke).
The census is not mentioned in any Roman records, and even if there was one, Roman censuses were done differently (you reported in the town you lived in, not the town you were born in).
The evidence that Nazareth existed is vague (only mentioned in that manuscript that dates from after the destruction of Jerusalem)
The crucifiction (Roman courts would not have executed someone who was found innocent just so they could please the crowd)

My question is: is this true?

gregor

"Incominnnnnng . . ." (ducks under desk).

(Really, though, do a search request on both the discussion board and II, in general, and you'll see alot of information devoted to these questions. In particular, read Carrier's discussion of the birth narrative from Luke.)

RUmike

No, the contradiction is that Quirinus was not legate of Syria at the same time that Herod lived. Herod died in 4 B.C.E. and Quirinus did not become governor until 10 years later, in 6 C.E. Apologists claim that Quirinus was governor twice, but this has been refuted thoroughly.

Luke says the census was worldwide, but we know of no such census. We do know of a census that took place in 6-7 C.E. while Quirinus was legate of Syria, however. This is undoubtedly what Luke was thinking of. He may have remembered riots after Herod died and riots after the census and conflated the two events.

But we still have numerous problems with Luke's account of the census. First, the census would only affect Roman provinces, of which Galilee was not one (it was indirectly controlled by Rome through Herod Antipas, one of Herod the Great's sons). So there was no reason for Joseph to participate. Secondly, we know that in this census people were not made to go to their ancestral homes to register but to where they lived at the time. Furthermore, why would Joseph bring his 8 month pregnant wife with him on the long trek? Nothing of historical value can likely be found in this whole ordeal that Luke presents.

I'm not sure about this personally. I do know that the large majority of scholars don't have any issue with Nazareth existing during Jesus' time.

The account of Jesus' trial and crucifixion is the most blatantly false account in the entire New Testament. To learn some objections to this, go to the following post on an old Historical Jesus forum that my NT professor Mahlon Smith used to post on. This was written by him on the subject of Jesus' trial and execution. It's relatively short.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk/message/1592

My favorite passage from the above link is this:

During the Passover festival, Jews from all over came to Jerusalem. The large number of people made this an environment with potential for riots and the like. Pilate would have gone to the city with extra troops to make sure things were kept under control. The high priest (at the time Joseph Caiaphas) was considered directly responsible to the Roman governor (Pilate) for any problems, whether the high priest had anything to do with it or not. So if Jesus was causing any sort of trouble, this would undoubtedly force the high priest to hand him over to Roman authorities.

History tells us with rather high certainty that Pilate would have executed Jesus without hesitation, given his ruthless nature and the upcoming festival, and he certainly would not have been obedient and seemingly powerless to a Jewish mob. The fact that Jesus was executed under Pilate demonstrates that he was considered some sort of political threat or "rabble-rouser", and so was NOT convicted of blasphemy.

Steven Avery

Yet even Professor Lawrence Schiffman, an Orthodox Jew who is about as well versed in 1st century Judaism as anybody, and even has a bit of an "anti-missionary" background, specifically said that one would not have a good case against the night-time Sannhedrin trial. In a talk in Great Neck, Long Island, (at the time the Passion movie came out) Schiffman emphasized a number of different aspects in this regard. The rules laid out in the Talmud should not be taken as historical fact, and they would not necessarily have been followed. He pointed out that the Talmud has severe historicity problems, especially in areas like the timing of certain events, so it cannot be over-relied upon for any historical refutations.

Professor Schiffman emphasized that the Sanhedrin at that time was not a disciplined and holy group (my words.. also think of the fact that Jewish exegesis places the destruction of the Temple shortly thereafter as the result of "baseless hatred"). In all of this he emphasized that there really was not a case to be made against the unusual night-time Sanhedrin trial.

Then he emphasized that the Sannhedrin at that time was to a large extent beholden to, defacto a creature of, Rome, lackeys if you will. I was a little surprised at this view, but understood that it was an emphasis that would be well received in that environment (he was talking in a synagogue).

So to hear another historian use that as the
"biggest *historical* problem"
makes it look like the historian has some unreliable views.

Shalom shabbat,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Carr

I'm sure they did live at the same time.

The census of 6 AD is mentioned in Roman records. Sadly Herod had been dead for 10 years when that census took place.

Joseph is not reported by Luke as having been born in Bethlehem. David was born in Bethlehem, which is why Joseph had to go there. (which makes it even more weird, of course)

True, but this is an illegtimate argument from silence. There is no great reason why all small towns from the 1st century AD should be named somewhere.


Pilate could well have acted the way he is portrayed in the Gospels. It is not impossible by any means.

DanBZ

Yeah, I meant to say Herod and Quirinus did not rule at the same time.

Mountain Man

They don't agree with each other so how can they agree with history?:huh:

RUmike

Because you cited one person who disagrees doesn't make my professor's views "unreliable".

mikem

Legitimise them as what - historically accurate biographies? It is clear that they are not meant to be biographies. The gospel writers took the materials they needed to present the case for Jesus being the Messiah. It is unfortunate that fundamentalists have staked the authority of the Bible on it's supposed infallibility in historical matters. As far as I am aware not all Christians share that view.

What the gospels do is to present a broadly painted portrait of Jesus, a theologically informed portrait. They were written to inspire faith, not to provide material for scholarly dissertations.

I think that the broad historical outline contained in the gospels is reliable. For example, the trial and crucifixion. Scholars like Ed Sanders,and Geza Vermes have described the political and religious situation which provide the context for the execution of Jesus, i.e a puppet High priest, a volatile city, and a ruthless procurator, who would not fail to put down any show of political insurrection. Given that Jesus preached about God's kingdom, it was inevitable that something like what is described in the gospels would have happened.

countjulian

You don't even need to go that far. The fact that the gospels are so riddled with fanciful miracles discounts them from the historical record, as my post here demonstrates: