Census of Quirinius?

  • Thread starter Thread starter YHWH_Christ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

YHWH_Christ

Guest
If Jesus was born during the end of the reign of Herod the Great (6 B.C. - 4 B.C.), then how could there have been a census of Quirinius when that took place in A.D. 6, a whole 9 to 11 years after Jesus was born. There is no evidence Quirinius was governor of Syria before A.D. 6. Further, Judea was only a client kingdom at the time Herod the Great reigned (37 B.C. - 4 B.C.) and Rome did not tax client kingdoms. It wasn’t until Herod Archelaus was deposed by Augustus in A.D. 6 when Judea was made an official province in the Roman Empire. How do we reconcile these facts with the narrative in the Gospel of Luke and why does the nativity story in the New Testament seem to have so many obvious contractions (genealogies, for example)? How do we reconcile these facts with being Christians?
 
YHWH_Christ said:
If Jesus was born during the end of the reign of Herod the Great (6 B.C. - 4 B.C.), then how could there have been a census of Quirinius when that took place in A.D. 6, a whole 9 to 11 years after Jesus was born. There is no evidence Quirinius was governor of Syria before A.D. 6. Further, Judea was only a client kingdom at the time Herod the Great reigned (37 B.C. - 4 B.C.) and Rome did not tax client kingdoms. It wasn’t until Herod Archelaus was deposed by Augustus in A.D. 6 when Judea was made an official province in the Roman Empire. How do we reconcile these facts with the narrative in the Gospel of Luke and why does the nativity story in the New Testament seem to have so many obvious contractions (genealogies, for example)? How do we reconcile these facts with being Christians?
Click to expand...
On the Census:

http://christianthinktank.com/qr1.html (warning: This one’s lengthy)
Tektonics.org Bible apologetics and education (shorter examination that discusses the above)

Note the above writings are by Protestants. If you’d prefer a Catholic answer:


On the more general question of the “contradictions” in regards to the nativity stories:

http://www.tektonics.org/af/birthnarr.php

Or, again, if you would prefer it from a Catholic author:

Do Luke and Matthew Contradict Each Other? | Catholic Answers (shorter)
Do the Infancy Narratives of Matthew and Luke Contradict Each Other? | Catholic Answers (longer)
 
You have to decide if you are being a theologian or a historian.

The Gospels are not works of history, although they record historical events. They contain historical mistakes that are obvious. Luke, in particular, makes some mistakes. Fr. Raymond E. Brown, one of the finest Catholic biblical scholars of the 20th century, once wrote “most critical scholars acknowledge a confusion and misdating on Luke’s part.” Brown agreed, and his books on the subject received the official approval of the Church.

Catholics aren’t fundamentalists.
 
billsherman said:
You have to decide if you are being a theologian or a historian.

The Gospels are not works of history, although they record historical events.
Click to expand...
They should still be accurate, even if not focused primarily on history.
They contain historical mistakes that are obvious.
Click to expand...
We’re told that the Bible’s authors were guided by the guided by The Holy Spirit, who is not limited by time. He would know that people in the future would have serious concerns on how the timeline doesn’t add up and would likely make sure such a mistake that could potentially cause someone not to believe would be corrected.

Also, what other potential errors are there that might fundamentally change the way we understand what occurred during that time during Jesus’ life?
 
Mike_from_NJ said:
Also, what other potential errors are there that might fundamentally change the way we understand what occurred during that time during Jesus’ life?
Click to expand...
I don’t think there are any at all, but I suppose that’s a matter of your own theological inclinations. All of the errors in the Gospels are things like timelines and genealogies. None of these are truly significant to most people’s faith. Only fundamentalists should worry to much about them, and Catholics aren’t fundamentalists.
 
billsherman said:
I don’t think there are any at all, but I suppose that’s a matter of your own theological inclinations. All of the errors in the Gospels are things like timelines and genealogies. None of these are truly significant to most people’s faith. Only fundamentalists should worry to much about them, and Catholics aren’t fundamentalists.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I can agree with your assuredness that the only possible errors are incnsequential ones, or that for those things that can not be verified that they are without error.

Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin has written many books on historical figures. For something different she once wrote a book about growing up as a fan of the Brooklyn Dodgers I was listening to a sports show and they went through the various errors about the Brooklyn Dodgers that were in the book. One of the hosts rightly pointed out that if she can’t get right things that can be verified than how is she to be trusted when she states things about figures in the past like Abraham Lincoln which are much harder to verify.
 
Justin Martyr said that Quirinius, also spelled Cyrenius, was serving as a procurator in Judea at this time, which is why Luke calls him “hegemon.” He says that it is easy to go to the government tax records and find the records for Bethlehem. (First Apology, chapter 34.)

Given that Justin Martyr was from Nablus/Flavia Neapolis in Samaria, and given that he lived a lot closer to Jesus than we do, I think he might know.

Luke calls it the “first” enrollment.
 
Last edited:
Catholic Answers has written about this.


Another Christian Apologetics site has approached it from a more dismissive angle.

https://carm.org/was-luke-wrong-about-the-census-of-quirinius

Here is some insight into the genealogy of Jesus too.


www.catholic.com

Genealogy of Christ

Genealogy of Christ.—It is granted on all sides that the Biblical genealogy of Christ implies a number of exegetical difficulties; but rationalists have no soli...
www.catholic.com www.catholic.com
 
There are academics out there who produce a constant stream of books and articles addressing this very question about Quirinius’ census and Luke’s dates. Some of them have even argued that Luke’s reporting is accurate, including the Dominican biblical scholar M.-J. Lagrange, the founding editor of the Catholic quarterly Revue Biblique, though that was over a century ago now.
 
billsherman said:
You have to decide if you are being a theologian or a historian.
Click to expand...
As an aside and not any attack upon you … I’m reminded.

“History” bears the same relationship to Truth
As “Theology” does to God…
And that is, virtually nothing whatsoever to speak of.

Thing is. One man’s Truth is another Man’s Lie.

JESUS… is generally Acknowledged to have been born between 7BC and 4BC - using reasonably accurate knowledge of Herod, etc.

Our current “Year” is known to be off - due to some blunders occurring from those who had attempted to calculate it from… their knowledge of “History” as well as neglecting to include the year “0”…

On that note -

Astronomically is it known
that an Amazing triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn occurred over the course of 7BC

If memory serves me correctly
Ju / Jiu / Zeus / Deus / Dei / Theos- are cognate with the more ancient Djeus… - God…

Piter/Pater (Father) –

Greek Zeus - Roman Jupiter… (God the Father) - King of gods… Royalty…

and Saturn (Protector of Israel) -

occurred in the heavens in Pisces - house/people of Israel (Chaldean Astrology) _

and are considered by some to be the Star of Bethlehem…
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top