Is the Bible Totally reliable ? The Nativity

The Easter stories are easy to reconcile, just impossible to convince the already convinced. For instance, I went to a protest last week and debated and discussed with a guy from the "Free Thinkers" at the University of Arkansas. Now if you ask my friend Pat, he may tell you WE went to the same protest and spoke to TWO guys from the "Free Thinkers." Pat mostly spoke to one guy, I mostly spoke with another. I spoke to a guy, we both spoke with two. Both accounts are actually true.And I left out the fact that John was with me the first time I was there, but I had to leave and come back. Nevertheless, my first statement was still correct. I DID go to a protest and speak to a guy from the "Free Thinkers." Now substitute angels for Free Thinkers, and Mary Magdalene for John and you're on the right track. All the while remembering you are reading a personal story, not a comprehensive recreation.ANYWAY, as to the census deal. I thought this excerpt was pretty good. Had several references etc...This void in extant information that would provide definitive archaeological confirmation notwithstanding, sufficient evidence does exist to postulate a plausible explanation for Luke’s allusions, thereby rendering the charge of discrepancy ineffectual. Being the meticulous historian that he was, Luke demonstrated his awareness of a separate provincial census during Quirinius’ governorship beginning in A.D. 6 (Acts 5:37). In view of this familiarity, he surely would not have confused this census with one taken ten or more years earlier. Hence Luke claimed that a prior census was, indeed, taken at the command of Caesar Augustus sometime prior to 4 B.C. He flagged this earlier census by using the expression prote egeneto (first took place)which assumes a later one (cf. Nicoll, n.d., 1:471). To question the authenticity of this claim, simply because no explicit reference has yet been found, is unwarranted and prejudicial. No one questions the historicity of the second census taken by Quirinius about A.D. 6/7, despite the fact that the sole authority for it is a single inscription found in Venice. Sir William Ramsay, world-renowned and widely acclaimed authority on such matters, wrote over one hundred years ago: [W]hen we consider how purely accidental is the evidence for the second census, the want of evidence for the first seems to constitute no argument against the trustworthiness of Luke’s statement (1897, p. 386).In addition, historical sources indicate that Quirinius was favored by Augustus, and was in active service of the emperor in the vicinity of Syria previous to and during the time period that Jesus was born. It is reasonable to conclude that Quirinius could have been appointed by Caesar to instigate a census-enrollment during that time frame, and his competent execution of such could have earned for him a repeat appointment for the A.D. 6/7 census (see Archer, 1982, p. 366). Notice also that Luke did not use the term legatusthe normal title for a Roman governor. He used the participial form of hegemon that was used for a Propraetor (senatorial governor), or Procurator (like Pontius Pilate), or Quaestor (imperial commissioner) [McGarvey and Pendleton, n.d., p. 28]. After providing a thorough summary of the historical and archaeological data pertaining to this question, Finnegan concluded: Thus the situation presupposed in Luke 2:3 seems entirely plausible (1959, 2:261).Luke, Quirinius, and the Census - Apologetics Press

then try this oneWhen did the Luke 2 census occur? - ChristianAnswers.NetHow can the Bible be correct (in The Gospel According to Luke, chapter 2, verse 2) when claiming that the great census decreed by Rome's Caesar Augustus about the time of Jesus' birth circa 4-5 B.C. occurred "when Quirinius was governor" if Quirinius (or Cyrenius) didn't even become governor until the year 6 A.D.?! Isn't this a clear case of the Bible being in error on matters of history?Sensible SolutionNo so fast. Critics used this text for many years to make their case for a Bible that is unreliable. But no more. Today, there are a number of reasons for giving Luke the benefit of the doubt. Over and over (in references to 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands) the doctor has proven himself to be a reliable historian, as demonstrated by famed scholar and archaeologist, Sir William Ramsey.See ChristianAnswers' Web Bible Encyclopedia: What is a census?
To date, the only census documented outside the Bible near this time under Quirinius is the one referred to by the historian Josephus (Antiquities XVIII, 26 [ii.1], which he says took place in 6 A.D.But notice that Luke 2:2 says that the census taken around the time Joseph and Mary went down to Bethlehem was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. This implies that there was a later census--most likely the one referred to by Josephus--which Dr. Luke would have also certainly known about.There is good reason to believe that Quirinius was actually twice in a position of command (the Greek expression hegemoneuo in Luke 2:2 which is often translated "governor" really just means "to be leading" or "in charge of") over the province of Syria, which included Judea as a political subdivision. The first time would have been when he was leading military action against the Homonadensians during the period between 12 and 2 B.C. His title may even have been "military governor."A Latin inscription discovered in 1764 adds weight to the idea that Quirinius was in a position of authority in Syria on two separate occasions. There was definitely a taxing during this time and therefore, quite possible, an associated census, the details of which may have been common knowledge in Luke's time, but are now lost to us.Scholars have advanced a number of other altogether viable explanations which would allow Luke's record (and therefore the Bible) to continue to be regarded as 100% trustworthy....................I think 2000 years from now, historians may find it quite unlikely that the United States elected president Bush via a Supreme Court decision, but nevertheless every once in awhile, unlikely events occur.

I just posted an article. I haven't made any claims about a latin inscription, the article did. Your quote, "I am sure that Luke meant the census in 6 c.e.," is circular reasoning. As long as Luke MEANT this, THEN the Bible is incorrect. Of course, if he didn't...
The argument is from a lack of documentation from a period when there is simply not much to begin with, over a collection of books that in other cases, has proven itself correct when later discoveries were found. The Bible USED to be wrong about the Hittites, and half a hundred other things, until more discoveries were made.According to this website:
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/J/Ju/Judea.htm...Judah became part of the Roman Province of Judea in A.D. 6. But why did it? According to the history because "Herod Archelaus, ruled Judea so badly that he was dismissed by the Roman emperor Augustus Caesar, after an appeal from his own population."I doubt it was business as usual to dismiss a governor because of an appeal from the population. Neither is it normal course of business for the Romans to conduct two census' so close together. Yet the evident incompetence of Herod makes it NOT fanciful that there had been problems that would have required some out of the ordinary measures.The argument is still... there was a census in A.D. 6. We don't know of another one from any other source other than the Bible. The Bible must be wrong. The History of trying to prove the Bible wrong is not on your side.This message has been edited by adrenalinejunkie, 06-18-2005 11:45 AM

You guys know so many absolutes from ancient times it's amazing.The account of Matthew and the wise men who likely came from Babylon took place up to 2 years later than the account of Luke. The Bible itself records Herod giving the order to kill children age 2 and under. The wise men came to a house, not a stable, and wherever they came from, they had traveled quite a ways. The magi were leaders themselves, advisors to kings in the east, and at the time, were upset with Rome. They rarely traveled with less than a 1000 calvary, and had likely become familiar with the scriptures because of the influence of Daniel who became their leader during the captivity. Also might explain why the Babylonians have a flood story that mirrors the Jewish one. Anyway, the stories do not take place at the same time, therefore are not mutually exclusive on the face of it.Some more things to think about. First, about the idea people didn't have to travel: From this website http://www.orlutheran.com/census.htmlBut we have evidence to show that such traveling was indeed done with a Roman census, in Egypt at least. A Roman census document, dated 104 A.D., has been discovered in Egypt, in which citizens were specifically commanded to return to their original homes for the census.6 Another census document from 119 A.D. has been found in which an Egyptian man identifies himself by giving (1) his name and the names of his father, mother, and grandfather; (2) his original village; (3) his age and profession; (4) a scar above his left eyebrow; (5) his wife's name and age, his wife's father's name; (6) his son's name and age; (6) the names of other relatives living with him. The document is signed by the village registrar and three official witnesses.7 This latter document is of special interest, because it gives us an idea of the kind of information that Joseph and Mary would have had to provide for the census.This page also presents a couple of good analysis' of the text which I thought were interesting. The most common mistake Christians and others make in regards to these debates are the assumptions of what the Bible is saying, without giving any consideration to the actual meanings and uses of the Greek and Hebrew words. We jump to conclusions based on a translation in other words, instead of the actual text which often may have words with different shades of meaning. If we do not at least consider these meanings, we are artificially proving the Bible right or wrong. -depending on our slant. The webpage said this:What exactly was it that Caesar Augustus decreed, according to Luke 2:1? The King James Version of the Bible says, "that all the world should be taxed." Most other translations say something like "that all the world should be registered" (NRS) or "that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world" (NIV). The Greek verb is apographo, which literally means to "enroll" or "register" as in an official listing of citizens.2 What was it then, a census or a taxing? Both: It would have been a census taken in part for the purpose of assessing taxes. But only in part. Augustus was very interested in the number of citizens in his empire; he was especially interested in whether that number was growing. This probably was the primary reason for the census (see below).But what of the census that Luke 2:1 speaks of? Is there any record outside of the Bible that Augustus ever issued such a decree? Yes. As a matter of fact he authorized three censuses during this reign. How do we know this? The three censuses are listed in the Acts of Augustus, a list of what Augustus thought were the 35 greatest achievements of his reign. He was so proud of the censuses that he ranked them eighth on the list. The Acts of Augustus were placed on two bronze plaques outside of Augustus's mausoleum after he died.The three empire-wide censuses were in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and 14 A.D. In all probability the one in 8 B.C. is the one the Luke mentions in the Christmas story. Even though scholarship normally dates Christ's birth between 4 and 7 B.C., the 8 B.C. census fits because in all likelihood it would have taken several years for the bureaucracy of the census to reach Palestine.The only apparent difficulty with identifying the census that Luke mentions in the Christmas story with the one in 8 B.C. is, ironically, something Luke seemingly included to clarify the dating. He tells us in 2:2 that "this was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governing Syria." Seems simple. All we have to do is find out exactly when Quirinius was governing Syria and then we will know exactly when the census was given, right? Right. But the problem is, according to records available to us, Quirinius was governor of Syria in 6-7 A.D. -- eleven years too late!We know this because ancient historians have quite a bit to say about our man Quirinius. Roman historians Tacitus, Seutonius, and Dio Cassius, as well as Jewish historian Josephus all wrote of him.3 His full name was Publius Sulpicius Quirinius (d. 21 A.D.), who was what the Romans called a "new man." This means that he came to hold his political office on the basis of his own merits rather than by family tradition and inheritance. It was through his military conquests in Cilicia and elsewhere that Quirinius had been exalted by the emperor to the holding of governor in Syria in 6-7 A.D.Does this mean that Luke is in error? Not at all, especially when he shows himself to be such a careful historian throughout both his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, his other historical work. Besides, we believe Luke's Gospel to be inspired by the Holy Spirit!The key to solving this alleged puzzle, is in the phrase "first census" in the sentence, "This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governing Syria." What does Luke mean by a first census? One theory offered is that the Greek word for "first" (prote) is sometimes translated "prior to" or "before." This is a viable solution because the Greek text of Luke 2:2 can indeed be translated, "This census was before Quirinius was governing Syria."A second theory holds that by saying "first census" Luke is telling his readers that there was another census that Quirinius oversaw. Was there a second one? Yes, and Luke mentions it in the Acts 5:37! The second census mentioned in Acts would have taken place in 6 A.D. Since it is well known that the Romans often held provincial censuses every fourteen years, it would follow that the "first census," the one at the time of Christ's birth, would have been held in approximately 8 B.C. -- if the fourteen year census cycle was in place at this time. The problem with this second solution is that Luke is specifically saying that the first census (the 8 B.C. one) took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria; and from all available extrabiblical sources, he wasn't. According to E.M. Blaiklock, however, evidence has been found that shows that Quirinius was in Syria for an earlier tour of duty, right around the time that Christ was born. He wasn't there as governor but in some other leadership capacity.4 Therefore, it is possible that Luke is alluding to this in 2:2.Of the two theories the first has more to commend it, in my opinion. Ultimately, however, Luke was much closer to the historical sources and claims to have "investigated everything carefully" (Luke 1:3) and he did this under the Holy Spirit's inspiration. The bottom line is that the evidence that we have points to 8 B.C. as the date when the "Christmas census" would have been authorized.That's some of the article.This message has been edited by adrenalinejunkie, 06-18-2005 12:21 PM

Well, I agree, but I'm a Biblical literalist.Doesn't stop me from challenging my beliefs though, and it doesn't stop me from listening to other opinions respectfully. Unfortunately, I think the impression you've received from Christians has been an accurate one, though.

4 B.C.... is after the census. -During the 4-7 B.C. time period when most scholars believe Jesus was born, and near the 8 B.C. time period when the world wide census mentioned was decreed. Herod was still alive when my "source" said the census was being taken. Say the census reached Palestine in 7 B.C. ...two years later it's 5 B.C. Herod gives the order to kill kids. Mary and Joseph run off to Egypt until Herod dies a year later.This message has been edited by adrenalinejunkie, 06-18-2005 12:33 PM

I have been talking about the world-wide census of 8 B.C., which IS before, like I said. The article you claimed was "proven" wrong because of the date of Herod's death was also talking about the 8 B.C. census, not anything in 6 A.D. So we're arguing apples and oranges a bit here. It's a fairly common belief that Luke was referring to the 8 B.C. census, -probably THE most common belief since most Bible scholars place the birth of Christ between 4-7 B.C. Not saying conclusively that they're right, it's just the common belief. Luke doesn't specify a date, just who was ruling at that time. Archaeological evidence is there (reportedly) to support the idea that Quirinius was governor previous to the census in 6 A.D. although I'm sure it is disputed since that would take away some of the argument against Luke. It is not a stretch, however, to believe that Herod's jurisdiction was included in the 8 B.C. census which netted something like 4.2 million Roman citizens, and our assumption that no taxation could happen until 6 A.D. seems a bit suspect to me.This is a direct quote from Josephus, concerning the break up of Herod's kingdom after his death:So Caesar, after he had heard both sides, dissolved the assembly for that time; but a few days afterward, he gave the one half of Herod's kingdom to Archelaus, by the name of Ethnarch, and promised to make him king also afterward, if he rendered himself worthy of that dignity. But as to the other half, he divided it into two tetrarchies, and gave them to two other sons of Herod, the one of them to Philip, and the other to that Antipas who contested the kingdom with Archelaus. Under this last was Perea and Galilee, with a revenue of two hundred talents; but Batanea, and Trachonitis, and Auranitis, and certain parts of Zeno's house about Jamnia, with a revenue of a hundred talents, were made subject to Philip; while Idumea, and all Judea, and Samaria were parts of the ethnarchy of Archelaus, although Samaria was eased of one quarter of its taxes, out of regard to their not having revolted with the rest of the nation.This was prior to Judea becoming a province, nevertheless here we have Caesar making decision in the region concerning taxation.It's also interesting to note two things. At least to me.First, a sarcastic one. I can find no mention of Quirinius, or Quintarsis as you wrote, when doing a search of Josephus' works "The Wars of the Jews" or "The Antiquities of the Jews." Using the current arguments, I suppose that means that Quirinius never actually existed since holding such an important position would have surely been noted by the Jewish historian! After all, no way a census could have taken place without such a mention either. -according to the current debate.Secondly, since we are giving Josephus such weight in this debate, does this also mean the book of Daniel has now been proven prophetic and written previous to Alexander the Great's conquests? Josephus gives a record of the priests at Jerusalem showing Alexander (as he marched on Jerusalem) where he was prophesied in the Book of Daniel, upon which Alexander was so impressed he not only spared the city of Jerusalem, but allowed the Jews to continue to practice their religion.

Paul, you artifically concluding the Bible wrong by insisting Luke is referring to the census in A.D. 6. If your assumption is correct then yes, but most Bible scholars don't believe Luke is referring to that census. Most Bible scholars from everything I've been reading believe the birth of Christ came between 4-7 B.C. and therefore believe Luke was referring to the census in 8 B.C. One of the 3 world-wide census' taken by Augustus.Quirinius is the real issue I would think. The question is probably whether or not the Greek phrase used by Luke should be translated "prior" or "before" he was govenor, which it can be and has been in other places, although I would probably think in this case it has been correctly translated the way it is. Which then leads to the question of if Quirinius was a governor or leader of some sort during the census of 8 B.C. EDIT: Actually, as in the post below, I'm a little more inclined to believe that Quirinius only served ONE term, and that Luke was stating in Luke 2:2 that the taxation didn't come into being or take affect until Quirinius. So perhaps the issue isn't Quirinius but what we assume from what Luke actually wrote.This message has been edited by adrenalinejunkie, 06-20-2005 04:33 PM

I'm going to do something weird and look at what the Bible is actually saying here. (sorry about the KJV version)Luk 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
Luk 2:2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
Luk 2:3 An all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.Hey by the way, I did find a reference to Cyrenius who "took account of the estates of the Jews" in Josephus so I guess that's the name he's under. That's all it said though in either of the two books I was looking in.Verse 1 makes it plain this order went out into all the world from Augustus. This was not portrayed as something just for the Jews since they had become a province in A.D. 6, but seems to indicate to me it would be one of the 3 census' taken by Augustus, which he listed as part of his 35 greatest achievements. What I've read said those census' were in 28 BC, 8 BC and 14 AD.The word taxed used in these verses literally means to enroll, tax, or write -like copy or list.The second verse is a paranthesis: (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) That was interesting because a paranthesis is always an aside to clarify something that needs to be understood. The word taxing was related to the above one, of course, but in this case literally means: this enrollement or this assesment was first (which literally means the foremost, best, something first as in most important, beginning.) So this enrollment was foremost or of primary importance made (made literally means: caused to me, come into being) when Quirinius/Cyrenius was govenor of Syria.So Augustus has a census in 8 B.C, but as people have claimed, no way a tax could be placed on Judea until Quirinius was governor in AD 6. However, if we pay attention to the Greek here, Luke says this taxing, assesment, enrollment primarily came into affect, when Quirinius was governor of Syria... which... agrees with history.Suddenly I'm wondering what all the fuss is about. This baby isn't nearly as cut and dried as we've all been claiming.

Nobody tells a Bible commentator what to write about. Just their own thoughts and study and research. The Scofield Study Bible, the John MacArthur commentaries, the Dake Study Bible, the Ryrie, Matthew Henry, Andrew Murray, Charles Spurgeon, and literally hundreds more... just wrote what they thought, the conclusions of their own studies. Simple as that really.

Oh, I think proposing a conclusion that is false, then claiming there can be no other conclusion therefore the Bible is false... is ignoring evidence and truth.I think making all sorts of claims of what the Bible said in English, when it was written in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, and determining beforehand a translation to English that will contradict itself, then claiming the text is false because of the translation you chose, is ignoring evidence and truth.I think claiming Biblical scholars presuppose an idea when the majority of scholars actually do not, is ignoring evidence and truth.Bottom line is, all I did was look up the Greek words, which it was originally written in. Can't really help it, if that changes people's assumptions. What you should have come back with is a question about how Mary and Joseph could have been counted if they weren't Roman citizens, or that there is no evidence the 8 B.C. census was applied to Quirinius or somehow made part of his "assesment." Because even taking the Greek into consideration, those questions would remain. But.... you really had nothing but insults. No evidence, not truth, no real discussion.What does that say about your world view? (your question, not mine) I'm sorta bound by what the text says myself -seeing how it was written in Greek and all, can't just claim the Bible says something it doesn't, or read into the text something that isn't there. Never said a thing that wasn't in the Greek definition of the words I was looking at. It's that evidence and truth thing again.This message has been edited by adrenalinejunkie, 06-21-2005 12:16 AM

Evidently Augustus listed the census in his 35 greatest achievements. You still didn't say what you thought about Caesar making taxation decisions while Judah was still a "seperate" kingdom as you put it. And I assume by your "there is no evidence" line that you don't believe the archaeological evidence which has been claimed to support Quirinius was governing twice. I'm skeptical too, though. Gotta run. enjoy.

Here ya go. Some more evidence for taxation by Caesar and for the census from 8 B.C. Now ya gotta read the bottom part at least because Augustus himself says he took a census in 8 B.C. I know it doesn't answer all the questions, but maybe it's a start.Josephus records that the Jews were being taxed by the Romans with commands coming from Syria as early as 44 B.C. And the task of raising the funds fell upon the Jewish rulers in power at the time. For example Josephus records: "Cassius rode into Syria in order to take command of the army stationed there, and on the Jews he placed a tax of 700 silver talents. Antipater gave the job of collecting this tax to his sons . . ." Jewish Antiquities XIV 271History also records Judea was being taxed highly under Herod the Great, who was appointed King of Judea by Caesar Augustus, and Herod was subservient to him. After he died, Josephus records the following:"Archelaus grieved over the death of his father for several days and then . . . from his throne of gold, he gave a speech to the crowd . . . pleased by his words, the people immediately began to test his sincerity by requesting certain favors from him. Some pleaded for their yearly taxes to be reduced . . . while others asked that he would only take away the excessive sales taxes that were being levied on goods being brought or sold." Jewish Antiquities XVII 200He also recorded that the common people hated Herod for taxing them so much. He states: "The amount of people, to whom he lavished his money, were very numerous. And because of this, he was forced to collect it through unjust means. Because he was aware that his subjects hated him for these crimes he committed against them, he did not think it would make any difference to treat them kindly, for it might harm his revenue; he therefore, knowing that his subjects feared him because of his harshness, continued on in pursuit of financial gain. Antiquities XVI 150-170
To get an idea of how much he taxed the people, when he died he left ten million pieces of silver to Augustus Caesar and five million to Caesar’s wife Julia and others. (Jewish Antiquities XVII 190)
We also know that Augustus Caesar ordered a Census in 8 B.C., this would have taken a good two to three years to implement and complete in all the provinces under direct and indirect control of Rome. The following is an account given by Augustus of the census:". . . during my sixth term as consul (28 B.C.), I along with my comrade Marcus Agrippa, commanded a census be taken of the people. I directed a lustrum, the first in forty-one years, in which 4,063,000 Roman citizens were counted. And once again, with imperial authority, I single handedly authorized a lustrum when the consuls of Rome were Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius (8 B.C.), during which time 4,233,000 Roman citizens were counted." (Res Gestae 8 - The Deeds of Augustus by Augustus)

I don't know much about a stone that was obliterated. That may have been in an article I put a link to, but I've already quoted from Josephus about the taxation. In fact, because of this discussion, I've ended up with the entire works of Josephus on my computer today! :-)

You can check this excerpt on this link hopefully:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0310262119/...Gives some pretty reasonable answers to these objections:1. Nothing is known in history of a general census in the time of Augustus2. In a Roman census, Joseph would not have had to travel to Bethlehem but would have registered in the town of his principle residence and Mary would not have traveled at all.3. No Roman Census would have been made in Palestine during Herod's reign. (has a case of just such a thing happening during that time with another nation in the same situation of Palestine)4. Josephus records nothing about a census taken in Palestine during Herod's rule, -rather the census in AD 6-7 was something new to the Jews.5. A census under Quirinius could not have occured during Herod's reign because Quirinius was not governor of Syria yet.You can't finish the chapter with this excerpt, and it won't let me copy and paste, but it's a detailed look at the time period. {Shortened display form of URL. Also added some blank lines. - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 06-21-2005 01:59 AM