Is the Bible 100% truth?

[Flamebearer]

I believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God. Since God defines right and wrong, He is Truth, and so his word is 100% truth. (When I say 'God' I mean Jehovah God as described in the Bible)

It's also a fact that the Bible is the most well-preserved work of any ancient literature. There are hundreds of surviving manuscripts from very early on that differ only very slightly, and the time elapsed between them and the originals is also small. This is especially significant when compared with works such as Homer's Illiad, and Thucydides' histories, which have very few manuscripts from ancient times, and the time lapse between them and their originals is comparatively large. (I can supply references if need be)

Definately an interesting topic!

-Flamebearer

 

[heretic888]

It's also a fact that the Bible is the most well-preserved work of any ancient literature.

After the Council of Nicea (circa 325 CE) determined what was and was not orthodoxy, then sure. . .

But, then again, that really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

There are hundreds of surviving manuscripts from very early on that differ only very slightly. . .

If by "very early on" you mean the late 300's onward and by "differ only very slightly" you mean things like the Gospel of Mark not containing any Resurrection scenes (the so-called "Long Ending"). . .

Then, sure.

. . . and the time elapsed between them and the originals is also small.

That depends on when you date the "originals". Most mainstream scholars (such as John Dominic Crossan or Burton Mack) date the canonical gospels to between 70 and 100 CE. We have a few fragments from around that time (the earliest dating to around 125 CE), but no full manuscripts until the 4th century.

Definately an interesting topic!

On that we can agree.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

Recently, there was an excellent post by Rod Green on the JesusMysteries discussion list on Yahoo:

"First, it is important to make a clarification before proceeding. There is a common error by most that the canon was established in the church councils of the late fourth century. This is not true. There were several councils that met on this subject, but their authority was only local and did not have an Empire-wide effect. There was no faith-wide vote on a canon. Also, and just as important, the Catholic Church did not view the “canon” as we do today, particularly as the Protestants view it. Their faith was a living faith updated and expressed within the views of Popes, Councils, and Traditions. Even the 'canon' could be overturned by continuing revelation. The Catholic Church actually had little need for a canon until the Reformation, and had never precisely drawn the boundaries of their canon until then. In fact, the chosen books were not all necessarily looked upon as inspired.

Even the Catholic Biblical Encyclopedia entry 'Canon' proclaims that twenty books of the NT are inherently worth more than the seven deuterocanonical ones (Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James Jude, and Revelations). The Catholic Church here uses the same terminology 'deuterocanonical' as they use for the OT 'lesser works,' probably indicating the same ambivalence toward the veracity and authenticity of these books.

So where does Revelations fit into this free–floating collection? Well, we know for certain that Revelations was disputed by Marcion, Dionysius of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, and the Synod of Laodicea in 360 CE. St. John of Crysomstom also argued strongly against its inclusion in the fourth century. Christians in Syria rejected it outright. Origen was ambivalent as was Eusebius who noted it as disputed. In 692, a council of Eastern Bishops endorsed BOTH Athanasius' list (which included Revelations) as well as the Synod of Laodicea (which rejected it!).

By the ninth century, Revelations was sill included in the list of 'disputed' books in the Stichometry of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and while the Eastern Church eventually allowed its inclusion, it remains the only canonical book not read within the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Likewise, the Syrian National Church used the Diatesseron for centuries, and it also refused Revelations. BTW, the Nestorian Christian Church of Syria still refuses admission of Revelations into their canon even today (They only accept 22 books).

Wescott notes that in the tenth century there were at least ten different canons being used within the Greek Church, most not including Revelations.

In 1516 Erasmus also disputed Revelations in his Annotationes. Zwingli, at the Berne disputation of 1528, denied that Revelation was a canonical book of the New Testament. Martin Luther rejected Revelations asserting that 'Christ is neither taught nor known in it.' Calvin appears to have agreed, and he refused to write an exegesis on Revelation, James, and Jude. Most people do not realize that many Lutheran Bibles did not include Revelations for two centuries. Others since the Reformation who rejected Revelations include Oecolampadius, Karlstadt, and Gustavus Adolphus.

Although Revelations has never actually been accepted by ALL Christian Churches, even today, it did not even become normative for the Greek Orthodox Church until after the tenth century. The early Protestant reformers almost universally rejected it. Revelations was a favorite of the Western Church particularly in Rome. Only as the Roman Church began to assert more authority over all Catholics did the Eastern Church begin to begrudgingly allow its inclusion, but only then as a compromise candidate not held in high esteem. After the deaths of the 16th century reformers, Protestants moved back toward the Roman Church as a 'correction,' and eventually returned Revelations to its canonical position, albeit in last place in the canon.

I believe the most pertinent question is, why did the Western Church embrace Revelations and the Eastern Church rejected it? It would seem that the East, the birth place of apocalyptic literature, would be the proponent, but that wasn't the case. The writings of the early proponents just don't offer much explanatory material."

Kinda puts a whole new light on the Left Behind series, don't it??

Laterz.

 

[Flamebearer]

mmm, yes, the question of the canon. First of all, I should point out that the First Council of Nicaea was not convened in order to determine which books should be included in the Bible. There is some documentary evidence that the Council of Nicaea did discuss whether or not the Old Testament apocrypha were canonical, but works such as the Historia Ecclesia (documentation of the actions of the church in that period) say nothing to indicate that the Council made pronouncements as to which books should be included in the New Testament. The final description of the canon as we know it came in AD 367 in a letter by Athanasius, and from a council held in Carthage the same year.

But the formal determination of the canon is not the point. To quote Dr. Bruce Metzger of Princeton Theological Seminary: "When the pronouncement was made about the canon, it merely ratified what the general sensitivity of the church had already determined. You see, the canon is a list of authoritative books more than it is an authoritative list of books ... For somebody now to say that the canon emerged only after councils and synods made these pronouncements would be like saying, 'Let's get several academies of musicians to make a pronouncement that the music of Bach and Beethoven is wonderful.' I would say, 'Thank you for nothing!'"

I have absolutely no problem with the dates that you quote in reference to the Gospels. Let me compare other ancient works to these - works that scholars have not had major disputes in calling reliable. Homer wrote the Illiad in ~700 BC, and we have about 650 surviving Greek manuscripts, dating from the second and third century AD and beyond. That's a time lapse of at least 900 years, and not all of these manuscripts are whole. Caesar's Gallic Wars was written at around 50 BC, and there is a time span of 900 years between the originals and the ten surviving manuscripts. Tacitus' Annals has a time lapse of 1000 years and twenty surviving manuscripts.

In contrast, more than 5000 New Testament manuscripts have been catalogued in Greek alone (not counting the early translations into Latin, Syriac, and Coptic). The time lapse between the originals and the earliest surviving fragment (which scholars count as manuscript) is at most 50 years. The time lapse between the earliest full manuscript (Codex Sinaiticus, ~350 AD) and the originals is about 250 years. This is pretty significant.

Dr. F.F. Bruce of the University of Manchester has stated, "There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament."

Hope this puts the canon in perspective. Apologies for the length - I condensed it as much as I could

-Flamebearer

 

[pstarr]

Well done!

 

[fightingfat]

Constantines' role in the story of Christianity is a turning point and extremely important as well. It's not all about historicity- it's a tradition that is still active and alive today!

 

[Raewyn]

I know we are supposed to back up what we say with a bit of fact from somewhere, but in regards to the bible ( speaking as a non believer) isnt the bible a basis for the faith???? There either is a god or there isnt?? Does the bible not chronicle this?? Please do not jump on me for my ignorance, Im just asking the question. Do we as people who belong to different religions read the same bible and interperet as we see fit?? Or are there different bibles for different religions? Where did the bible come from or should this be in a different thread? Why isnt the bible 100% truth??

 

[heretic888]

mmm, yes, the question of the canon. First of all, I should point out that the First Council of Nicaea was not convened in order to determine which books should be included in the Bible.

My understanding is that the purpose of the Nicene Council was to establish which "version" of Christianity was orthodox. Thus, the Nicene Creed which attempts to establish the "nature" of Jesus Christ vis a vis humanity and divinity.

The final description of the canon as we know it came in AD 367 in a letter by Athanasius, and from a council held in Carthage the same year.

No argument here.

But the formal determination of the canon is not the point. To quote Dr. Bruce Metzger of Princeton Theological Seminary: "When the pronouncement was made about the canon, it merely ratified what the general sensitivity of the church had already determined. You see, the canon is a list of authoritative books more than it is an authoritative list of books ...

If he is referring to the "general sensitivity" of most Christians by the fourth century, then sure. . .

Of course, even then, most of the Apostolic Letters and the Revelation of John were highly disputed and controversial texts. The Revelation is still rejected by many Christians living today (the Syriacs do not accept it and the Eastern Orthodox Church does not contain it in its liturgy).

I have absolutely no problem with the dates that you quote in reference to the Gospels. Let me compare other ancient works to these - works that scholars have not had major disputes in calling reliable. Homer wrote the Illiad in ~700 BC, and we have about 650 surviving Greek manuscripts, dating from the second and third century AD and beyond. That's a time lapse of at least 900 years, and not all of these manuscripts are whole. Caesar's Gallic Wars was written at around 50 BC, and there is a time span of 900 years between the originals and the ten surviving manuscripts. Tacitus' Annals has a time lapse of 1000 years and twenty surviving manuscripts.

In contrast, more than 5000 New Testament manuscripts have been catalogued in Greek alone (not counting the early translations into Latin, Syriac, and Coptic). The time lapse between the originals and the earliest surviving fragment (which scholars count as manuscript) is at most 50 years. The time lapse between the earliest full manuscript (Codex Sinaiticus, ~350 AD) and the originals is about 250 years. This is pretty significant.

Dr. F.F. Bruce of the University of Manchester has stated, "There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament."

Sure, but the reason for that is most likely due to the burning of the Alexandrian library.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

It's not all about historicity- it's a tradition that is still active and alive today!

Well, yeah, that's kind of what I've been saying for twelve pages now. . .

 

[heretic888]

I know we are supposed to back up what we say with a bit of fact from somewhere, but in regards to the bible ( speaking as a non believer) isnt the bible a basis for the faith????

It is to some people. . .

Of course, that depends on your definition of "faith" as well. According to St. John of the Cross, "true faith" or "perfect faith" is entirely "dark" (that is, emptied of pre-existing concepts or images).

There either is a god or there isnt??

That depends on what you mean by "God".

Does the bible not chronicle this??

As I said before, the Bible is unreliable as a historical document.

Please do not jump on me for my ignorance, Im just asking the question. Do we as people who belong to different religions read the same bible and interperet as we see fit??

You are free to interpret a text however you so wish, but that doesn't make your intepretations inherently valid. Hermeneutics is a science.

Or are there different bibles for different religions?

Different religions have different holy texts, yes.

Where did the bible come from or should this be in a different thread?

I addressed this in another thread.

Why isnt the bible 100% truth??

Because it was written by human beings.

Laterz.

 

[Flamebearer]

In context of the interview I was reading, I believe that Dr. Metzger was referring to the "general sensitivity" of Christians by the fourth century. But the one thing that they did not do was sit down, assemble a list of books that they thought should be in the New Testament, and then declare them to be the divinely inspired Word of God. Rather, those that were clearly the Word of God were included in the canon. The debate over Revelation is not whether it should be declared the Word of God; it is over whether it is the Word of God.

To quote Dr. Metzger again: "You have to understand that the canon was not the result of a series of contests involving church politics. The canon is rather the separation that came about because of the intuitive insight of Christian believers. They could hear the voice of the Good Shepherd in the gospel of John; they could hear it only in a muffled and distorted way in the Gospel of Thomas [a book excluded from the canon], mixed in with a lot of other things."

The "Christian believers" he is referring to is not just a council of bishops or an exclusive club. These books included in the canon were used repeatedly by Christians all over the known world and generally regarded as inspired by God. Their "insight" is not to be scorned, either; after all, if God truly exists, and has given us messages through inspired scribes, why should He not guide His followers in preserving His words? This action would be quite logical.

It's easy to say that the manuscripts of old works were destroyed, but so were some of the manuscripts of the New Testament. Such conjectures cannot add to our understanding of this topic.

In answer to Raewyn, yes, the Bible is the basis for Christian beliefs. That's why the issue of its validity is so important - if it's not true, then Christians everywhere and I in particular have based our hope and our lives on something that is utterly meaningless. The Bible describes a perfect God who sets the absolute standards for right and wrong, and cannot tolerate anything in his presence that is imperfect - and in fact demands death for any person that is. But, even though the human race is inherently imperfect, this God is merciful enough to provide a way for us to reach perfection: accepting that He came to earth as a man and died as a substitute for our imperfections - and then came back to life, under His own power, to prove His victory over death! It is only through this substitution that He will see us as perfect and able to enter His presence as a friend.

Fortunately, the Bible is not unreliable as an historical document. There is not only documentary evidence, but also archeological and corroborative evidence to prove this. Different portions of it have been "interpreted" by
many different people to mean many different things, but without a background of the God of the Bible, these interpretations merely become, at best, good relative morality.

"Why isn't the bible 100% truth?" Awesome, awesome question. The Bible itself claims to be inspired by God and to be truth. The only reasons it would not be are if: 1) There is no God. Therefore, it could not be His word, and any further claims are completely bunk. 2) Human corruption in copying from the true originals. We know, especially with the presence of the Dead Sea Scrolls, that the Old Testament is amazingly accurate. In relation to the New Testament, scholars such as Norman Geisler and William Nix say: "The New Testament ... has survived in a purer form than any other great book - a form that is 99.5 percent pure." With this in view, I have no qualms in saying that the original manuscripts, inspired by God, are indeed 100% pure and truthful, and that the Bible I have today is as close to the originals as humanly possible.

-Flamebearer

 

[pstarr]

I agree entirely.

The method of using "scripture to test scripture" has also provided a strong indication of the Bible's accuracy.

The prophesies made in the Bible have, with the exceptions of those involving "the last days", come to pass. No other book (or modern "prophet", fortune-teller, or otherwise) has even come close to this level of accuracy.

One such prophesy (actually, several together) which fascinates me has to do with the nation of Israel as a whole. Moses warned his people that if they failed to adhere to God's laws they would be scattered and hated throughout the earth.
And sure enough, that happened. The nations of Israel and Judah, per se, vanished entirely for some time.
However, God also said that He would (in the last days) bring them back to their land and restore their nation.
And in 1948 that very thing happened.

No other nation/culture has ever, in the history of man, been scattered hither, thither, and yon for several centuries...and survived as a nation/culture. Remnants of such groups may continue to exist but such groups have never, with the single exception of the Jews, re-established themselves within their former lands and maintained their cultural identities.

Archeological evidence has only served to validate the accuracy of the Bible. Not a single dig has provided any indication otherwise. One of my students is a Jewish scholar in this regard, born and raised in Israel.

Additionally, portions of (copies of) texts of the New Testament have been found and dated to within 50 years of the death of Christ. This means that some of the original writings were penned while many of the witnesses to the crucifixion were still alive.
What's more, translations of these writings are nearly identical to the (wording of) modern Bible.

 

[heretic888]

In context of the interview I was reading, I believe that Dr. Metzger was referring to the "general sensitivity" of Christians by the fourth century. But the one thing that they did not do was sit down, assemble a list of books that they thought should be in the New Testament, and then declare them to be the divinely inspired Word of God. Rather, those that were clearly the Word of God were included in the canon. The debate over Revelation is not whether it should be declared the Word of God; it is over whether it is the Word of God.

To quote Dr. Metzger again: "You have to understand that the canon was not the result of a series of contests involving church politics. The canon is rather the separation that came about because of the intuitive insight of Christian believers. They could hear the voice of the Good Shepherd in the gospel of John; they could hear it only in a muffled and distorted way in the Gospel of Thomas [a book excluded from the canon], mixed in with a lot of other things."

Historical revisionism at its finest.

Contrary to the claims of apologists like Dr. Metzger, the early Christian communities were characterized almost at their onset by pluralism, conflict, division, and partisanship. Many of the books that make up the so-called "Word of God" are actually 2nd and 3rd century pseudipigraphica authored to promote anti-heresy propaganda. The "Pastoral Letters", for example, were forged in Paul's name around the mid-2nd century to combat Marcionism, which was extremely popular and pervasive at the time.

So, yes, there were a series of political battles and contest throughout the 2nd and 3rd centuries. By the end of the 3rd century to the beginning of the 4th century, a general consensus of what was "canonical" had emerged among most Christian communities --- although their particular version of "Christianity" may have diverged greatly from one another.

The "Christian believers" he is referring to is not just a council of bishops or an exclusive club. These books included in the canon were used repeatedly by Christians all over the known world and generally regarded as inspired by God. Their "insight" is not to be scorned, either; after all, if God truly exists, and has given us messages through inspired scribes, why should He not guide His followers in preserving His words? This action would be quite logical.

This action is only "logical" if we assume that:
1) God exists.
2) The Bible is the Word of God.
3) God directly manipulates the course of human history, diminishing free will.

None of which, of course, can be falsified.

This is a big part of the problem I have with apologism. They begin with certain metaphysical presumptions about reality and then proceed to try to "prove" them from there. This is extremely poor science and extremely poor history. A similar approach is attempted in the natural sciences from proponents of "intelligent design".

This is also why a mainstream scholar such as John Dominic Crossan has come out and said that New Testament scholarship, for the most part, is really little more than a platform for doing theology while pretending to be doing history. Robert Price has gone even further and claimed that almost all Historical Jesus research involves not history, but Christology, with the emerging "Historical Jesus" looking a lot like the people doing the researching.

It's easy to say that the manuscripts of old works were destroyed, but so were some of the manuscripts of the New Testament. Such conjectures cannot add to our understanding of this topic.

Yes, but after the Nicene Council, the manuscripts of the New Testament were protected. It is not at all unreasonable to assume that much of our pre-Christian literature was lost during the multiple raids on the Alexandrian library.

In answer to Raewyn, yes, the Bible is the basis for Christian beliefs. That's why the issue of its validity is so important - if it's not true, then Christians everywhere and I in particular have based our hope and our lives on something that is utterly meaningless.

Or you could just interpret it differently. That is, not literally.

Fortunately, the Bible is not unreliable as an historical document. There is not only documentary evidence, but also archeological and corroborative evidence to prove this.

Ah, yes, the good old "just-so" assertions.

I have addressed many of the particulars regarding the errancy of the Bible as a historical document --- everything from the geographical and cultural muck-ups of the evangelicals to the lack of foundation for Old Testament motifs like the Exodus or the Davidic Empire. Simply saying "there's evidence" doesn't mean it's actually there.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

The method of using "scripture to test scripture" has also provided a strong indication of the Bible's accuracy.

The prophesies made in the Bible have, with the exceptions of those involving "the last days", come to pass. No other book (or modern "prophet", fortune-teller, or otherwise) has even come close to this level of accuracy.

Of course, these "prophesies" are extremely diminished when you realize that:
1) Many of them were written after the fact.
2) Many of them refer to very different things than what apologists say they do. The Revelation of John, for example, is used quite commonly to refer to some great World War III apocalypse scenario, but the author undoubtedly had the Romans in mind.

Archeological evidence has only served to validate the accuracy of the Bible. Not a single dig has provided any indication otherwise. One of my students is a Jewish scholar in this regard, born and raised in Israel.

Ah, yes. More vague generalizations and appeals to anonymous authorities.

I would be curious to as to references for archeological "evidence" for, say, the Exodus, a world flood, or the Davidic Empire. . .

Additionally, portions of (copies of) texts of the New Testament have been found and dated to within 50 years of the death of Christ. This means that some of the original writings were penned while many of the witnesses to the crucifixion were still alive.

Sorry, but I'm gonna call shenanigans on you here.

The absolute oldest fragment we have is believed to be from the Gospel of John and dates to around 125 CE. Anybody that tells you otherwise is, quite simply, lying to you.

It is generally agreed upon by scholars that the canonical gospels were authored after 70 CE (due to internal markers referring to the fall of the Temple) and that Matthew and Luke (and possibly John) used Mark as one of their source materials (i.e., no "eyewitnesses" here).

Furthermore, as I demonstrated earlier, the canonicals (especially Mark and John) screw up on Judean geography, laws, and customs so frequently that there is absolutely no way they could have been authored by a native of the region. They were most likely authored by Diaspora Jews. This is supported by the fact that whenever the evangelicals have Jesus quote the Old Testament, he always used the Greek Septugaint, not the original Aramaic.

What's more, translations of these writings are nearly identical to the (wording of) modern Bible.

Actually, you'd be surprised what Paul really says in Greek. It doesn't sound like mainstream Christianity at all.

Laterz.

 

[Beowulf]

Chronological Study of the Life of Christ
by Dennis McCallum

(excerpt)

1. Shortly before the death of Herod, Josephus says there was an eclipse of the Moon. This is the only mention that Josephus makes of an eclipse in his entire volume of History (thus demonstrating that he was not fanciful about omens in this area like other historians of the period). Through astronomical calculations we find that a lunar eclipse occurred on Mar.l2/l3, 4 BC We also know that no lunar or solar eclipse occurred in either 3 or 2 BC
2. Shortly after his death the Jewish Passover occurred (which in that year should have occurred on April 11, according to astronomical calculations). Therefore, Herod's death occurred between March l2 and April 11, in 4 BC Since Christ's birth occurred during his reign, it would must have occurred prior to the period from March l2 to April 11,4 BC
3. Matthew 2:l also states that, "certain Magi came from the East." Matthew 2:11 states that they came and saw the child. Matthew 2:l6 notes that King Herod ordered all male children under two years of age be slain. Considering the paranoia and brutality that are known to have been a part of Herod's character, we can be sure that he had good reason to limit the killing to less than two years old. The time that the Magi arrived was prior to the death of Herod, possibly very shortly before his death. Thus Christ was probably born no earlier than 6 BC which would be 2 years prior to Herod's death (Note that Herod had ascertained from the Magi the time that the star appeared, and apparently based his decree upon this information.) This line of reasoning will not give us an exact date for the birth, it only shows that he was likely born later than 6 BC, and earlier than 4 BC.
4. Luke 2:l,2-- At approximately this time a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken. We have no record of this census from secular Roman sources. However, there is indication from Egypt that a census was taken approximately every 14 years, and that a census had been taken shortly after 20 BC
5. Likewise, Luke says that this census was during the time that Quirinius was governor of Syria. We have no record of where Quirinius was at this time, but prior to 6 BC we know that he was fighting a war in Macedonia. Thus we know that the census referred to had not taken place prior to 6 BC Further, we know that in the early AD years Quirinius was Governor of Syria, and during the years 6-3 BC he was somewhere "in the East," (a passing comment in Tacitus). Syria was, of course, considered an Eastern Province by the Romans. He could have very easily been Governor of Syria at this time, there being no evidence to the contrary.
6. Justin Martyr and Tertullian say that this census can be verified in the archives in Rome. Even though these archives no longer exist, the fact that these contemporaries appealed to them suggests that they did exist at the time. In the l00's AD these men and others had access to this information and their writings could easily have been refuted if it were not so.

These considerations leave us with the following scenario:

 

[Beowulf]

IS LUKE WRONG ABOUT THE TIMES OF JESUS BIRTH?
Come Reason Ministries
(excerpt)


Listing the Facts
Let's look at the Biblical passage in question and then we'll take it apart to see what specific historical claims are made.

"Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And everyone was on his way to register for the census, each to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child. While they were there, the days were completed for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn."(NASB)
​

In the Biblical account, we know these facts are presented:

• Caesar Augustus ordered a census
• Quirinius was governing Syria (hegemoneuontos tes Syrias Kyreniou)
• Each family must register at their familial city of origin

Further, Matthew chapter 2 reports that Herod the Great ordered the slaughter "all the male children who were in Bethlehem and all its vicinity, from two years old and under"(Matt 2:16). We know that Herod died 4-2 B.C., so Jesus birth had to have been before his death - most likely by two or more years. Given these facts, scholars generally date Jesus' birth anywhere between 6 B.C. to 4 B.C.
Now, let's turn our attention to the Josephus passage. In 17.13.5 of The Antiquity of the Jews, Josephus writes:

"So Archelaus' country was laid to the province of Syria; and Cyrenius, one that had been consul, was sent by Caesar to take account of people's effects in Syria, and to sell the house of Archelaus."1
​

From the Josephus account we derive the following facts:

• Caesar ordered a census
• Cyrenius (Quirinius) was sent to account for Syria and sell the house of Archelaus
• Cyrenius (Quirinius) "had been consul"

We also know from other historical records that Herod Archelaus was deposed in 6 A.D., so this census must be about 6 or 7 A.D. So, the question goes, if Herod the Great died in 4 B.C. and Josephus tells us Quirinius' census wasn't until 6 A.D., then isn't this a contradiction?

MORE THAN ONE CENSUS

Although on its face we seem to have a difficulty here, there are several pieces that we must consider before jumping to the conclusion that Luke and Josephus were speaking about the same event. Indeed, it seems that Caesar Augustus was the type of leader who ordered many censuses in his day. Records exist to show that Roman-controlled Egypt had begun a census as early as 10 B.C. and it was repeated every 14 years. And Augustus himself notes in his Res Gestae (The Deeds of Augustus) that he ordered three wide-spread censuses of Roman citizens, one in 28B.C., one in 8 B.C. and one in 14 A.D.2 In between there are several other censuses that happened locally across Rome. Luke's account corroborates the idea of multiple censuses for Judea when he writes "This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria." Certainly, the word "first" implies that where was more than one census happened.
On another occasion, an enrollment of all the people of the empire happened to swear an oath of allegiance to Caesar. In Chapter 34 of Res Gestae Augustus also notes, "When I administered my thirteenth consulate (2 B.C.E.), the senate and Equestrian order and Roman people all called me father of the country, and voted that the same be inscribed in the vestibule of my temple".3 Josephus also mentions a time "When all good people gave assurance of their good will to Caesar".4 These types of tributes would also require an enrollment of individuals from across the empire. Orosius, a fifth century Christian, links this registration with the birth of Jesus saying that "all of the peoples of the great nations were to take an oath".5
Taking all of this together, we have at least three censuses in the area of Judea - one in 8 B.C., one starting around 2 B.C. and one in 6 A.D. The only point that is really in question, then, is whether Luke was mistaken in ascribing this census to the time when Quirinius was in the role of Syrian Governor. Since Quirinius wasn't governor of the Syrian province until after Archelaus was deposed, critics claim Luke misidentified the census as the smaller one, which happened some 8-10 years after Herod died. Either Luke is wrong on his dating of Jesus' birth or Matthew made up the story of Herod the Great and the killing of the infants. Is this an accurate objection?

THE GOVERNORSHIP OF QUIRINIUS

In studying this problem, there are two main solutions that Christian scholars offer, and each has some good merit. The first point is the terminology Luke uses when writing about Quirinius' governorship over Syria. In stating that Quirinius controlled the Syrian area, Luke doesn't use the official political title of "Governor" ("legatus"), but the broader term "hegemon" which is a ruling officer or procurator. This means that Quirinius may not have been the official governor of Judea, but he was in charge of the census because he was a more capable and trusted servant of Rome than the more inept Saturninus.
Justin Martyr's Apology supports this view, writing that Quirinius was a "procurator", not a governor of the area of Judea.6 As Gleason Archer writes, "In order to secure efficiency and dispatch, it may well have been that Augustus put Quirinius in charge of the census-enrollment in Syria between the close of Saturninus's administration and the beginning of Varus's term of service in 7 B.C. It was doubtless because of his competent handling of the 7 B.C. census that Augustus later put him in charge of the 7 A.D. census."7 Archer also says that Roman history records Quirinius leading the effort to quell rebels in that area at exactly that time, so such a political arrangement is not a stretch.
If Quirinius did hold such a position, then we have no contradiction. The first census was taken during the time of Jesus birth, but Josephus' census would have come later. This option seems to me to be entirely reasonable.

HEROD'S SLAUGHTER OF THE BABIES

You ask why, if Herod committed such an atrocity as killing all the male babies "two years old and under" as Matthew recounts, how could historians such as Josephus completely ignore it? Well, let's think about this for a moment. Bethlehem at the time of Jesus' birth was a very small city with no more than a few thousand people. The total number of infants who would have been murdered under Herod's edict could be pretty low. As James Patrick Holding writes "How many boys aged two and under could there have been in and around the tiny city of Bethlehem? Five? Ten? Matthew does not give a number. Josephus says that Herod murdered a vast number of people, and was so cruel to those he didn't kill that the living considered the dead to be fortunate. Thus, indirectly, Josephus tells us that there were many atrocities that Herod committed that he does not mention in his histories - and it is probable that authorizing the killing of the presumably few male infants in the vicinity of Bethlehem was a minuscule blot of the blackness that was the reign of Herod. Being that the events of the reign of Herod involved practically one atrocity after another - it is observed by one writer, with a minimum of hyperbole, that hardly a day in his 36-year reign passed when someone wasn't sentenced to death - why should any one event in particular have touched off a rebellion, when others in particular, including those recorded by Josephus, did not?"8
I hope these discussions have helped you further your understanding of the difficulties historians face when trying to piece together events from the limited records of the past. There is certainly no slam-dunk evidence that the Biblical accounts are wrong here. In fact, one must also remember that the Biblical accounts are themselves historic documentation and therefore have historic merit in themselves. The fact that we have outside corroboration of the possibility of multiple censuses strengthens Luke's report of the events as he has written them. To say that this is an error would be premature. God bless you as you seek Him.

 

[pstarr]

Very well researched! Thank you!

 

[Ray]

Of course, these "prophesies" are extremely diminished when you realize that:
1) Many of them were written after the fact.

Absolutely, an example is the re-establishment of Israel in these, the latter days, which took place somewhere after the 2nd world war.

2) Many of them refer to very different things than what apologists say they do. The Revelation of John, for example, is used quite commonly to refer to some great World War III apocalypse scenario, but the author undoubtedly had the Romans in mind.

You make the assertion that you know what "John" had in mind? Interesting...

 

[pstarr]

I agree! Exactly what John had in mind is still a matter of considerable controversy. To use the term "undoubtedly" is a bit presumptuous...

And the idea that "many of the prophesies were written after the fact" is equally incorrect, particularly as referencing the prophecies of the Old Testament.

 

[Brother John]

Of course, these "prophesies" are extremely diminished when you realize that:
1) Many of them were written after the fact.
2) Many of them refer to very different things than what apologists say they do. The Revelation of John, for example, is used quite commonly to refer to some great World War III apocalypse scenario, but the author undoubtedly had the Romans in mind.

Actually, you'd be surprised what Paul really says in Greek. It doesn't sound like mainstream Christianity at all.

Laterz.

OK....I'm realy interested to read your explanation of these things.
Since you yourself don't like things stated as fact w/out details concerning those facts, seems time to back up some of your own statements. ((I don't doubt you can give it a good swing))

What prophesies were written after the fact? How do we "Know" that they were written AFTER the fact?
What prophesies point to things other than their common interpretation? What do they actually point too? How do we "Know" that the common interp. is wrong and this other "obvious" one is correct?? (It is, after, the norm for prophesies to be very enigmatic. KNOWLEDGE concerning their true intent would seem difficult At Best.) For instance: Why does Revelation not point to end times but to the Roman Empire??

What does Paul "Really" say in Greek??? How does what he "really" say not jive with mainstream Christianity??

Thanks


Your Brother
John