Is the Bible Totally reliable ? The Nativity

Faith claims elsewhere that the Bible is completely reliable as history. I'm going to dicusss one example where the evidence is that the Bible is not reliable.While there are a number of discrepencies in the Nativity accounts of Matthew and Luke, this one involves the historical evidence. I am prepared to discuss the other discrepencies in this thread, but only after the main point introduced here has been dealt with.Here are the facts:1) Matthew dates the birth of Jesus to the latter years of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:22 makes this certain).2) Luke places Jesus' birth during a Roman census of Judaea (at the least) under Quirinius the then Governor of Syria, in the reign of Augustus3) In Antiquities 18 Josephus records a Roman census of Judaea under the new Governor of Syria, Quirinius - when the Romans annexed Judaea. This ended the reign of Herod the Great's successor (in Judaea), ArchelausJosephus' story makes sense - with Judaea incorporated into the Roman province of Syria a census would be needed for the Roman taxes. It would not be needed before, because client states raised money as they saw fit, although they did pay tribute to Rome.Given that the census recorded by Josephus is a good match for Luke's story, and it is not very likely that there was an earlier census at all, we should take it as the one referred to by Luke unless we have a better match.I present the following challenge.Can anyone show extra-Biblical evidence of a Roman census in Judaea, under Quirinius during the reign of Herod the Great ? Or indeed of any census that is a better match for Luke's story.Quirinius was an important man in his time and a census of a nominally independent state would be a significant event that should not have escaped the attention of the historians (especially Josephus). If it had actually happened we should be able to do better than simply assuming that both the Nativity accounts are accurate (since they appear to disagree on other points this is not a safe assumption anyay). If we cannot then the evidence does not support the accuracy of the Bible of this point - on the face of it, one or both of the two Nativity accounts is probably wrong.Two pieces piece of advice: Remember to take into account the fact that the people of Judaea were not Roman citizens (nor indeed were most of the people in the provinces). Also remember that the challenge is to produce extra-Biblical evidence, not speculate on how it might have happened.(edited to correct title)This message has been edited by PaulK, 03-29-2005 05:42 PM

I'm not sure what your problem is.I'm simply asking for better historical evidence than an attempt to harmonise two divergent accounts. What's your problem with that ?Are you really suggesting that providing valid evidence is beyond the capabilities of a fundamentalist ?

Since there is zero evidence for the alleged "two reigns" and evidence that contradicts it it is hard to say that it has any merit. The more so since the first "reign" would have to include a census that is likewise unmentioned.

The fragment fits Calpurnius Piso better and it does not state that the person it refers to governed Syria twice. The site linked to below includes an illustration of the stone and a translation and it does not seem that there is room for there to be to governorships of Syria - let alone appointments inbetween.Richard Carrier Quirinius » Internet InfidelsThe site you refer to makes a number of errors. Here is one:

quote:

---

...the taking of several empire-wide censuses is one of the accomplishments which Augustus commanded to be engraved on his monument.

---

The censuses referred to - on the Res Gestae - are the supposedly regular Lustrum censuse of Roman citizens. The count of Roman citizens is clearly stated on the monument. These cannot be Luke's census - even after the Romans annexed Judaea the ordinary inhabitants would not have been citizens of Rome.If he author had bothered to do basic research he would have dicovered this. Likely he simply copied it from someone else who had not bothered to properly investigate the issue either.

There are a number of problems with the apologetics press article,.Firstly there is no reason to assume that Luke confused the censuses - the 10 or more years previously is based on Matthew - not on Luke.The reading of Luke appaealed to ahs been identified as an unacceptable misreading by at least three of the sources I have looked up - one himself a Conservative Christian scholar.The claim that the census is questioned simply because there is no specific reference to it is a misrepresentation. Such a census would be highly unlikely. Quirinius seems to have been elsewhere (fighting a war in modern Turkey) - and there is no indication that he was in Judaea at the time. Of course the lack of any historical record is imprtant given that it would have been an important political event (a serious threat to Herod's continued rule) so the absence of any record is not insignificant. The evidence for the census of 6 AD, however is hardly accidental. It is recorded by Josephus, as we would expect for an important political development. Moreover it is entirely expected that the Romans would hold a census to assess taxation on annexation of the province.I repeat again that there is no major evidence internal to Luke to suppose that he refers to any census but that of 6 AD. That census is as good a match as we can expect to find, it is unlikely that there was any earlier census nor is it especially probable that Quirinius specifically would be sent to run a census in the likely event that one had taken place. In short the 6 AD census fits and it is unlikely speculation to say that there was an earlier census at all - let alone one that fits as well as the known census of 6 AD.

That one is even worse.The census of 6 AD was almost certainly the first - but there is no implication that a later one was also taken under Quirinius.The vague reference to inscriptions discovered in the 17rh Century is probably the so-called "Antioch Stones" discovered in Turkey and referring to "Pisidean Antioch", a local town or city. I've seen translatiosn of these inscriptions and they don't seem to relate to a Governorship in Syria - more likely they relate to Quirinius command of the war in the region where they were discovered

Well the methodology of your side certainly appears to be sleaxy.First there is the misrepresentation of the problem.It is not argued that Luke claimed that there was a census prior to 6 AD. Rather it is argued that Luke was referring to the 6 AD census. The primary argument is not even that Luke was wrong - just that his account conflicts with that of Matthew.Your side continually refers to unreliable apologetic sites, rather than doing any serious investigation of the facts. For instance the site you refer to does not state the context or the significance of the lustrum census. He fails to indicate that it was a tradition falling into neglect and that Augustus had a program of expanding Roman citizenship. Thus Augustus' use of the lustrum indicates a respect for tradition and a measure of his success in increasing the number of citizens. At least he admits that the lustrum census was restricted to Romans - unlike other sources quoted by adrenalinejunkie who try to claim that they are censuses of the entire Roman Empire.Your "best evidence" however is that Biblical commentators did not notice the problem. From that you argue that the whole issue must be a fabrication. However the problem clearly is real. If Biblical commentators failed to notice it, then at best it indicates that their interests did not extend to the sort of investigation that would reveal the problem. I can say that I did not rely on a single book - nor did Richard Carrier whose essay I have previously referred to (carrier is - like Lane Fox - a historian, and has produced a more detailed investigation, including quoting from relevant primary sources). I have also read the relevant parts of Josephus, and sought out the Res Gestae, as well as investigating what historians had to say about the lustrum census. The latter is something the apologists quoted by adrenalinejunkie clearly failed to do - and something you and adrenalinejunkie also fail to do. It is your side which relies on quoting the arguments of others. So your argument here is to falsely accuse your opponents of acting as you do. Now THAT is sleazy.And you do it again. It is your side that attemptds to produce "imaginative reconstructions" rather than dealing with the evidence. Outside of the Bible there is nothing that even hints of an earlier census that could fit. There is no evidence that Quirinius was even in Judaea prior to being sent there in 6 AD. That doesn't stop you. On my side we have the fact that the census of 6 AD is a good match for what Luke wrote, there is no sign of anything better and therefore we conclude that Luke meant that census. Obviously your argument depends more on "imaginative reconstruction"Obviously then you know that your sides arguments should be dismissed. But rather than do that, you pretend that your opponents are using the same sort of arguments - and accuse them of indulging in sleazy tactics.

Again I see a lack of any honest attempt to address the evidence.The only person who says that this is a "huge conflict" is you. And the only way to see it is to compare the Gospel accounts against each other and the historical evidence. If none of the commentators you are familiar with bothered to do that then they wouldn't notice. And by the time the Gospels were written we already know that the events weren't that fresh - there is no sign that the author of Luke knew the story in Matthew or that the author of Matthew knew the story in Luke.

quote:

---

But I'm not in this argument. It's a huge waste of time and just another excuse to bully Christians.

---

The truth is that the argument is valid and it isn't an excuse for anything. And you jumped in with your own bullying tactics because the "Christian" arguments were so obviously weak.

quote:

---

And again I see a lack of any honest attempt to recognize the goal of this power game you are playing about "evidence."

---

There is no "power game" - at least not on this side. Simply an honest discussion of the evidence. The goal is to reveal the truth - that the evidence is against your assertion.That you should call it a "power game" only illuminates your own psychology. As does the way you choose to "play".This message has been edited by PaulK, 06-19-2005 02:39 PM

How many times does it need to be pointed out that Luke didn't give a date for the census and that the 6 AD census is a reasonable match for the information he does give us ?THe argument is not that Luke is wrong. it is that Luke does not agree with Matthew.

No, there is nothing artifical at all in my reasoning. If Bible scholars reject that idea (and we have no evience that serious scholars do - the websites that have been referred to so far are strictly amateur). And nobody who believes that the Lustrum censuses of the Res Gestae represent "world-wide" censuses is worthy of the title of scholar. Those were restricted to Roman citizens - the main purpose of them is the correct allocation of voting rights. As I have already explained - so you have no excuse for producing this falsehood yet again.If Qirinius is the issue you lose again. Because we know that he presided over the 6 AD census. And there is no evidence that he was even in Judaea prior to that.The attempt to make Luke say that the census was before that of Quirinius is also rejected as an invalid translation by three sources.But here is what one BIble scholar - a conservative Christian has to say:Page not found | Bible.org

So your answer is that there is no problem - provided you don't care about the evidence or the truth.That in itself says plenty about your religion, doesn't it ?

Well I looked over the objections

quote:

---

1. Nothing is known in history of a general census in the time of Augustus

---

His answer here is unclear. He doesn't say specficially what Augustus is supposed to have done. So far as I can see the "censuses in different times and places" are just business as usual.

quote:

---

2. 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.

---

His evidence is an Egyptian papyrus which supports the objection. His next piece is the claim "Jews property is part of the father' estate" but he offers no clear explanation. Whose father was in Bethlehem, and how does he know ? And if that is the reason why doesn't Luke say so ?

quote:

---

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)

---

Richard Carrier deals with the case of Apamea in the link already provided
Richard Carrier Quirinius » Internet Infidels The coins are something of a red herring even if they were rpoduced by the correct Apamea - which is far from certain.He also deals with Cappadocia, poinitng out that this was an unusual case, Carrier states that Cappadocia was under greater Roman control. However reading his source I find that it had been reduced to the status of a province nearly 20 years earlier and that a Roman Governor had been appointed (Tacitus [I]Annals[I] 2:42, 2:56)
The order to reduce the Samaritan taxes, applies only to the Samaritans as a group - and it does not reflect control and certainly not administration of individual taxation.The remaining objections are not answered in the text on Amazon.On the basis of this it is certainly NOT a detailed look at the the period. The answers to the first objections are vague and lacking in detail. The answer to the third has more information but raises a red herring (the coinage) and does not mention the true status of Apamea or of Cappadocia. The other point is not directly relevant to the actual question either.

I am aware of Luke 1:5. There are two possilb eanswers you need to deal with.Firstly it could be a reference to Herod Archelaus - "King" is not the correct title but it could be a "correction" made by a later scribe or a small error.Secondly there could be a significant time period between the events. Certainly there is no need to mention Herod dying when it has nothing to do with the story - especially when the Nativity is tied to a major event, the annexation of Judaea.As for your assertion that there is no need to mention that the census was the furst there is an obivous reason to do it - to reinforce the identification of the census as the first - the census of 6 AD. It is the idea of an earlier census that needs "more records". After all we have no candidate for an earlier census so why imagine that the audience of the time would automatically know of an event too obscure to appear in any of the records that have survived ?

quote:

---

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.

---

a) A conclusion that you dislike is not automatically false. Forget the self-worship.b) Don't misrepresent my claim. My claim is NOT that "there can be no other conclusion therefore the Bible is false". My claim is that the evidence supports the conclusion that the Bible is not entirely reliable.As for your other claims you have raised no valid points based on your study of Greek words. Even if you did it would be questionable if you coul even achieve a result even as good as the actual translations we have.And I don't need to ask about why Mary and Jospeh would be included in the lustrum census. They wouldn't. Your sources misrepresent the lustrum census as a "worldwide" census covering all subject to the Empire - even in places that had nominal independence. But since the lustrum census is part of the Republican voting apparatus such a conclusion is clearly invalid. Even a simple read of the Res Gestae in translation shows that the only count reported is for Roman citizens.What does that show about my worldview - that I hold a greater care for the truth than you and your sources. Your sources did not perform the basic checks that I did (at best). You ignored the information presented to you and repeated the false claim.And please don't tell me that you can't read something into the Biblical text that isn't there. Fundamentalists do it all the time. Certainly don't tell me that ALL the arguments you quoted were based on your study of Greek words ! Are you going to tell me that your study of Greek words gave you a list of URLs that you should take as reliable sources ? If you never said a thing that wasn't in the definition of the Greek words then where does the idea that Augustus held a census of Judaea in 8BC come from ?This message has been edited by PaulK, 06-21-2005 03:22 AM