Skeptical

Luke says:

"So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn." (NIV Luke 2:4-7)

There is no wiggle room here. Jesus is born during the census of Quirinius. It doesn't matter a whit what Luke 1 says about JtB, he unequivocally puts the birth of Jesus during the census of Quirinius in 6CE. Period. Herod died in 4BCE. There is clearly a problem between Mat. and Lukes accounts of the year of birth.

Really. You find them more problematic than the idea that Luke doesn't say the Jesus was born during the Quirinius census or that Herod was actually still alive in 6BCE?

Your other posts would indicate you are well read WRT the NT, so I am pretty suprised you are even trying to argue this one. This problem is about as clear cut as it gets. As Carrier says, all you have to say is Mat. got it wrong, which is only a problem if your trying to argue for NT inerrancy.

Layman

Yes, absolutely. As I explain below and have explained above. How many published scholars have taken Carrier' position re: the Herod reference?

If you had read my prior posts then you would have seen the arguments demonstrating that this passage is anything but clear, but is -- in fact -- worded very awkwardly in the Greek. So awkwardly and open to another reasonable interpretation, that some very respected New Testament scholars believe that the passage should read to indicate that the census to which Luke is referring occurred before the one under Quirinius.

Sauron

Which of course, is not what Toto said.

The point you are deliberately avoiding here is that you are citing Pearson, who has already been rebutted. Your source isn't working for you, as long as the rebuttal stands un-answered.

So you can either address the rebuttal head-on, or deal with the fact that your source has no credibility due to the rebuttal.

Sauron

And here we see Layman's shrillness rising in proportion to his level of desperation.

Skeptical

I guess that goes to show that intelligence is no match for cogntive dissonance. You are clearly reaching here and it doesn't become you. If by "Herod reference" you mean the one in Luke, as I stated it is irrelevant. We know that Herod died in 4BCE. I know of no serious scholar that disputes this. The phrase "days of Herod" is sufficiently vague that one could harmonize Luke internally, but you cannot harmonize Mat. and Luke since in Mat. Herod is specifically alive when Jesus is born.

I don't read Greek, so I cannot comment on the original grammar. However, I can use the biblegatway:

Luke 2:2

ASV: " This was the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria."

NASB: "This was the first census taken while [Gr Kyrenios] Quirinius was governor of Syria"

NIV: "(This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.)"

ESV: "This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria."

YLT: " this enrollment first came to pass when Cyrenius was governor of Syria --"

Awkward grammar or not, looks to me like the idea that the census is happening when Quirinius is governor of Syria is pretty clear in every translation we care to look at, which places the birth in Luke no earlier than 6CE. Again. Unless you want to argue that every single one of these translations is wrong, I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

BTW, who are these "very respected scholars" you mention?

Layman

Have you read Pearson's peer-reviewed and published article?

Layman

Well, I think this is a very important point, because Carrier and other skeptics seem to claim that such a census was simply impossible. By showing that it was possible, the argument for necessary error is greatly reduced.

Nothing about this theory requires that censesus' occur every other daoy. And it is very probably that many census' have escaped historical detection. The reason the census under Quirinius gained such noteriety is because it started riots and protests. If such a census were conducted not directly by Roman governors but by a Jewish client king, the same fires of rebellion probably would not have burned as hot.


But what Luke very well may be referring to in a general way is the new policy which August announced: the reinstitution of an Emperor wide census. So August did do something novel in that he RESUMED the taking of census's throughout the Roman Empire. Census in those days took years and did not happen everywhere at once. But history is clear that Augustus started the process in Rome, and then moved it to other parts of the empire. Luke very well could be referring to this well-known and unique aspect of August's reign--the resumption of the census.


Well, it was mostly God that got mad at King David. I do not remember the people revolting. And you are right that there was a lot of dissent when Quirinius did his census, but that was under direct Roman rule -- not under a Jewish client king known for efficient governance.

I'm not sure Carrier is correct that no inference of a census can be gleaned from substantial taxation, so I plan on reviewing this issue more closely when time permits.

But I point out that even if Pearson has less than compelling indirect evidence, you argument is still a fairly weak one from silence.

Well, I referred to some of my souces above. Are you asking for just this issue or Luke/Acts in general?

On the issue of the census:

Luke, Craig Evans, at 43 ("most commentators agree that Luke's use of the word 'first' is grammatically awkward.");

Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, at 23-24. ("This census was before the census taken when Quirinius was governor.").

N.T. Wright, Luke for Everyone and Who Was Jesus, at 89 ("This census took place before the time when Quirinius was governor of Syria.").

Brook W. R. Pearson, "The Lucan censuses, revisited", The Catholic Biblical Quarterly; Washington; Apr 1999.

Paul Barnett, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity, at 98-99.

I. Howard Marshall also accepts the reasonableness of the alternative interpretation.

On Luke/Acts generally:

Colin Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History.

Ben Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary.

I. Howard Marshal, The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary and Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text and Luke: Historian and Theologian.

Sauron

This is an excellent question. There is a whole body of information about Cyrus II which contains both factual data, and the "Cyrus myth". (Indeed, there is more than one 'Cyrus myth', and not all are mutually compatible).

As a national hero figure for Persians, untwining the legend from the historical facts can be a very touchy subject. Yet, in the interest of historical research, this must be done.

Why should the historicity of Christ be exempt from this same process?

Layman

How is the phrase, "In the days of Herod, king of Judea" vauge?

Look. I've posted about all of this. Are you just trying to make busywork for me? Please read the previous posts on this issue in this thread.

In short, the interpretations you site are the most commonly accepted ones. They are reasonable interpretations. But there is another reasonable interpretation -- which I discuss above -- which places the census before Quriunius' reign.

As for the respected scholars, I mentioned them above and re-mentioned them in a more recent post. You can save us both time if you simply read the discussion to date.

Sauron

Perhaps you should re-read Carrier. This paragraph seems aimed right at your claim:

Nevertheless, though Matthew's account looks and smells like a fantastical legend (see below), I do not see Luke's account as historically impossible, as some have tried to argue. To the contrary, I think Luke strained to force his story to seem more plausible than it already was when it got to him. But if one of the two authors must be correct, then Matthew is far more likely the one who has it wrong.