How to Explain the Contradiction of Matthew 2:1 and Luke 2:2

  • Thread starter Thread starter daraku
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

daraku

Guest
THE DATE
According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1).

According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2).

This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod’s death.
Some Christians try to manipulate the text to mean this was the first census while Quirinius was governor and that the first census of Israel recorded by historians took place later. However, the literal meaning is “this was the first census taken, while Quirinius was governor …” In any event, Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until well after Herod’s death.

DID YOU NOTICE:
THE CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN LUKE AND MATHEW?

How to refute this statament?
 
daraku said:
THE DATE
According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1).

According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2).

This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod’s death.
Some Christians try to manipulate the text to mean this was the first census while Quirinius was governor and that the first census of Israel recorded by historians took place later. However, the literal meaning is “this was the first census taken, while Quirinius was governor …” In any event, Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until well after Herod’s death.

DID YOU NOTICE:
THE CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN LUKE AND MATHEW?

How to refute this statament?
Click to expand...
Where does it say he died in 4BC?..I bet that is where the problem resides right there.
 
THE CENSUS OF QUIRINIUS
The Historicity of Luke 2:1-5

Ronald Marchant
Feasterville, Pennsylvania

ibri.org/DVD-1/RRs/RR004/04census.htm
The “problem” which this passage has posed is the result of our lack of historical information outside Luke and of several assumptions which have been made about the relation of these events to similar ones in secular sources. The foundation of the critics’ attacks on Luke is a false correlation of his account with Josephus’ account of the later census in AD 6. The correlation rests on two facts: (1) a census in Judea, and (2) the mention of the name of Quirinius. It ignores Luke’s words **“this is the first census made while Quirinius was ruling Syria.” **
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top