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.



Joseph

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

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

JoeWallack

JW:
To the Unfaithful,
I now have Richard Carrier's Classic:

Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth by Richard Carrier (2006)

in Final form at ErrancyWiki

Enjoy!

The next step is to have it Professionally Reviewed and that presents a Theoretical problem. Who is qualified to properly review an article that Mr. Carrier is propbably already the protes authority on? Dr. Gibson, JP Holding, Christ Price? Even worse is the Practical problem that I may actually have to pay someone to do it ([mutter]damn professionals[/mutter]).

I Am thinking of checking with Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace (who seems pretty reasonable - for a Christian). With a good chance that neither will so much as respond to me, any suggestions on who else I could check with for a Quality Review?



Joseph

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

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

JoeWallack

http://omega.cohums.ohio-state.edu/m...06/12/0014.php

"John Lupia wrote:

> --- "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000@COMCAST.NET>
> wrote:
>
> > John Lupia wrote:
> >
> > > --- Richard Burgess <rburgess@UOTTAWA.CA> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The census Luke refers to is the census taken of
> > the
> > > > tetrarch Archelaus'
> > > > old territory (Judaea proper) in AD 6 when it
> > was
> > > > annexed to Syria, the
> > > > governor of which at the time was Quirinius.
> > >
> > > You have conflated Matt 2:22 with Lk 2:2.
> > Archelaos is
> > > only mentioned once in the NT in Matt where no
> > census
> > > is mentioned but the return of Joseph and Mary
> > from
> > > Egypt with their child Jesus. This appears to have
> > > been years after the birth of Jesus, we have no
> > clue
> > > how many.
> >
> > Are you actually saying that because Archelaus is
> > only mentioned in Matthew there was no
> > census undertaken by the Romans in Judea after
> > Archelaus was deposed, let alone that the
> > census that Luke mentions cannot possibly be the one
> > that occurred at that time?
>
> No to both questions in your above bifurcation.

What bifurcation?

> I am
> not convinced that Luke refers to a census of AD 6.
> The main reason is the possibility of an alternate
> reading of Luke that says before Quirinius was
> governor.

But this is not an answer to what I asked.

> Even if this is considered weak or
> unconvincing most TC's would admit that since we do
> not have the original autograph text of Luke that all
> surviving copies could be miscopied by a single word,
> letter, or, omission that gives us the slant widely
> held that Luke erroneously refers to the birth of
> Jesus as having taken place AD 6.

They might admit that it is possible. But they would then have to assume, given the widespread and consistent attestation to the current reading, that this reputed scribal infelicity happened at the very beginning of the copying process? How else to explain that there's no actual evidence supporting your argument from silence? But is this likely?

>
>
> As for your asking me to explain how the alternate
> reading is possible surprises me since I gave the
> explanation twice in a discussion with Leonard Maluf
> on Synoptic-L on June 6 and 7, 2001, on a list for
> which you are moderator.

Once again, you have your facts wrong. I am not, nor have I ever been, a moderator of Synoptic-L.

> This is not a biblical list,
> but Late Antiquity. I wish to bother the list nomore
> about it.

But, leaving aside the questionable assumption that your doing what I asked would be bothersome to the list, let alone that a discussion of the text of Luke is off topic (is not Luke part of late antiquity?), I point out that you made your claim **here** and are therefore -- under the rubric of "he who asserts must prove"-- obliged to defend it **here** if asked to do so. (And if your criterion for what should be posted here is should deal with Late Antiquity, could I ask you to leave off from your signature the jingoistic tag petitioning God to bless America?).

So I ask again that you produce here your grounds for saying that your alternative reading is worth considering.

JG

--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)"


JW:
Even though the above reminds me of the classic "Repent Harlequin Said The Ticktockman!, I have to ask Jeff if this means he is not persuaded at this time by Carlson's related argument concerning Protus. (Yea Jeff, I know Lupia is "before" and Carlson is "foremost", so no need to posture that this is some monumental misconception on my part. Who else here would I have to make such an obvious disclaimer for).



Joseph

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

jgibson000

My name, yptz, is Jeffrey, not Jeff.

When has Stephen Carlson ever made an argument concerning "protus"? Does such a word exist in Greek?

Jeffrey Gibson

Denis Giron

I have some quick questions, which may seem like a stupid ones. As a bit of a dsclaimer, therefore, I admit up front that I am completely ignorant regarding this issue, and that I have not read Carrier's piece very carefully (nor have I done so for this thread). Nonetheless, here are my questions:

Is the argument that Matthew and Luke contradict one another, or that Matthew and Luke together contradict Josephus? And if it is the latter, do we have any other sources aside from Josephus relevant to this subject?

Thank you.

Amaleq13

Yes.

spin

Just a synopsis of the situation:

Matt tells us that Jesus was born in the reign of Herod.

Luke tells us that there Augustus had a census of the world. The writer also tells us that the ("first") census took place when Quirinius governed Syria.

Herod died in 4 BCE. Quirinius governed Syria from 6 CE and in that year he carried out a census of Judea to bring the recently annexed realm under Roman control. Ostensibly, there is a ten year difference in the date of birth of Jesus between the two gospels.

This is usually quibbled against by 1) trying to insinuate an earlier governorship of Syria by Quirinius, allowing for first to mean an earlier one than that of 6 CE, though Quirinius never governed Syria earlier (and here people invent procuratorships for Quirinius who was a patrician and therefore not a procurator), or by claiming that Lk 2:2 doesn't say what it appears to say -- this is the mystification through obscure language ploy to avoid admitting an error by the writer.

I'm yet to fathom just what exactly the christian component of this thread is actually arguing.


spin

Denis Giron

Thank you Spin, for this explanation. It seems that Amaleq13 might have misunderstood my question (with all due respect to him). Note that neither Matthew nor Luke give the dates provided above (mind you, I am *NOT* saying those dates are false). So, the statements in Matthew and Luke, in a vacuum, do not contradict one another. A contradiction only arises when one brings in further, outside, information.

As I understand it, then, the argument is that Matthew and Luke together contradict Josephus (and apparently reality as well). Hence the reason I asked if we have any other sources aside from Josephus to back up these dates. As I said, I am largely ignorant of this subject, therefore I don't know what the support is for the information which cotradicts the collective claims of Matthew and Luke.

spin

No. Luke contradicts Matt. Josephus merely provides background data to understand Luke, just as we use inscriptions to date Herod's death for Matt.


spin

Denis Giron

I would only say Luke contradicts Matthew if the statements themselves contradict one another, without recourse to outside information. Let me offer an analogy. Take the following two propositions:

(1) Person P was in place X at time T1.
(2) Person Q was in place Y at time T1.

These propositions (admittedly nothing more than skeletons at this point) do not contradict one another. And thus, the following propositions (of the same logical structure) do not, by themselves, contradict one another:

(1') Bruce Wayne was in Tokyo, Japan, at time T1.
(2') Bat Man was in Quito, Ecuador, at time T1.

However, we do get an inconsistent (i.e. logically contradictory) set of propositions if we add the following two statements:

(3') Bruce Wayne is the same single person as Bat Man.
(4') It is impossible for a single person to be in both Tokyo and Quito at the same time.

So I can't see on what grounds we should conclude that the propositions in Matthew and Luke regarding when Jesus was born contradict one another. However, if we combine the propositions found therein with the relevant propositions in Josephus, then it seems we get a contradictory set.

Hence the reason I asked my original question. Carrier has not demonstrated that Luke contradicts Matthew; rather he has demonstrated that Luke and Matthew together contradict Josephus. In other words, it is impossible for Josephus, Matthew and Luke to all be true simultaneously, as they, collectively, form an inconsistent set (but a set containing only Matthew and Luke would not form an inconsistent set regarding this issue as far as I can see). Hence, if Josephus is right, then at least one (and possibly both) gospels contain an historical error.

This is the line of thought which brought me to my next question: is there any sources other than Josephus regarding this subject?