The Virgin Birth Of Christ

✭✭

I have a question regarding the Virgin Birth. I have Gromacki's excellent book, and it has raised questions in my mind about the traditional 4 to 6 B.C. date, which I have on my site's timeline. www.errantskeptics.org\Dating-New-Testament-Events.htm.

Luke is very exacting in providing 8 historical markers in 3:1-2 as to when Jesus was baptized, which would fix that date firmly as 29 A.D.. In 3:23 he states Jesus was about 30 when he began his ministry. Giving 3 to 3.5 years for his ministry, that would put the date for the crucifixion at 33 A.D. Using the 4 to 6 BC as his birth that would make him 37 to 39 at his death. It appears to me Josephus was wrong about the date for Herod's death. I'm certain many of you have already worked this out, and I would appreciate your views.

✭✭✭

I have a question regarding the Virgin Birth. I have Gromacki's excellent book, and it has raised questions in my mind about the traditional 4 to 6 B.C. date, which I have on my site's timeline. www.errantskeptics.org\Dating-New-Testament-Events.htm.

Luke is very exacting in providing 8 historical markers in 3:1-2 as to when Jesus was baptized, which would fix that date firmly as 29 A.D.. In 3:23 he states Jesus was about 30 when he began his ministry. Giving 3 to 3.5 years for his ministry, that would put the date for the crucifixion at 33 A.D. Using the 4 to 6 BC as his birth that would make him 37 to 39 at his death. It appears to me Josephus was wrong about the date for Herod's death. I'm certain many of you have already worked this out, and I would appreciate your views.

Josephus was not wrong regarding the date of Herod's death. Don't attempt to support the bible by attempting to change established facts. Not only would you need to change the date of Herod's death, you would need to change the time when Quirinius was the governor of Syria. We are not called to believe that certain facts are the case; we are called to trust Christ.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

✭✭

Josephus was not wrong regarding the date of Herod's death. Don't attempt to support the bible by attempting to change established facts. Not only would you need to change the date of Herod's death, you would need to change the time when Quirinius was the governor of Syria. We are not called to believe that certain facts are the case; we are called to trust Christ.

George, I trust the Bible and Luke far more than Josephus. I believe Luke was right, and that leaves Josephus with a problem. There are many issues wtth the dates of Quirinius governorship. That said, I am simply trying to get at the truth.

✭✭✭

Josephus was not wrong regarding the date of Herod's death. Don't attempt to support the bible by attempting to change established facts. Not only would you need to change the date of Herod's death, you would need to change the time when Quirinius was the governor of Syria. We are not called to believe that certain facts are the case; we are called to trust Christ.

George, I trust the Bible and Luke far more than Josephus. I believe Luke was right, and that leaves Josephus with a problem. There are many issues wtth the dates of Quirinius governorship. That said, I am simply trying to get at the truth.

If you choose to hide your head in the sand and say that the evidence doesn't exist, that's your privilege, but I don't think that you'll gain any brownie points with God for that.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

✭✭

If you choose to hide your head in the sand and say that the evidence doesn't exist, that's your privilege, but I don't think that you'll gain any brownie points with God for that.

George, Luke is known as one of the greatest of historicans, Josehus isn't. Take another look at Luke 3:1-2/ Luke gives us 8 historical markers for the baptism of Jesus. How many historiians provide that many details. I have also read Josephus from beginning to end at least two times. I trust the Bible and Luke. Additionally, we are called to trust the Son and the record God has given regarding His Son. 1 John 5:10 That's my two cents.

✭✭✭

If you choose to hide your head in the sand and say that the evidence doesn't exist, that's your privilege, but I don't think that you'll gain any brownie points with God for that.

George, Luke is known as one of the greatest of historicans, Josehus isn't. Take another look at Luke 3:1-2/ Luke gives us 8 historical markers for the baptism of Jesus. How many historiians provide that many details. I have also read Josephus from beginning to end at least two times. I trust the Bible and Luke. Additionally, we are called to trust the Son and the record God has given regarding His Son. 1 John 5:10 That's my two cents.

If your mind was already made up, why did you ask the question? Did you simply wish to create a disturbance?

Luke, if indeed it was Luke who wrote this gospel, is known as a gospel writer and a writer concerning the apostles and not as an historian. As regards particularly Acts, there are many problems. His chronology doesn't precisely agree with what Paul himself tells us. So much for being "one of the greatest historians." I rather think the object of Luke was not so much to give a history but more like that expressed in the Gospel according to John

He who saw this has testified so that you also may believe.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Jeremy

✭✭

I don't know where I land on this particular issue, but Josephus is no less biased than Luke. Josephus has made errors that most scholars acknowledge. Quirinius is thought to have had to separate governorships and that confuses the dates.

✭✭✭

I don't know where I land on this particular issue, but Josephus is no less biased than Luke. Josephus has made errors that most scholars acknowledge. Quirinius is thought to have had to separate governorships and that confuses the dates.

I would never contend that Josephus is always correct in every respect, but he isn't the only source we have.

QUIRINIUS (PERSON) [Gk Kyrēnaios (

Κυρηναιος)]. When P. Sulpicius Quirinius, who appears to have been born in the fifties b.c., died in a.d. 21, he was one of the most powerful men in Rome. He was noted for his long service as a soldier and his long-standing friendship with the emperor Tiberius (a.d. 14–37). He has also long been the subject of intense controversy. This controversy stems from Luke’s statement that the birth of Christ took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria and Herod the Great was on the throne of Judea. The other evidence for Quirinius’ career, some inscriptions from Syria (which are not to be confused with the acephelous text from Tibur which has wrongly been thought to provide details of his career), Tacitus’ Annales, Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews, and Strabo’s Geography, reveal that Luke’s statement must be incorrect: Herod died in 4 b.c., but Quirinius was governor of Syria in a.d. 6/7.

Freedman, David Noel. The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday, 1996, s.v. "Quirinius (Person)"

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Jeremy

✭✭

I don't need something that is near historical certainty to alleviate this supposed error, but it is quite easy to find a proposed solution if you try. For instance the ESV Study Bible says,

"Some interpreters believe that because “governor” (participle of Gk. hēgemoneuō) was a very general term for “ruler,” it may be that Quirinius was the administrator of the census, but not the governor proper. Another solution is to translate the verse, “This was the registration before Quirinius was governor of Syria” (see ESV footnote), which is grammatically possible (taking Gk. prōtos as “before” rather than “first”; the Greek construction is somewhat unusual on any reading). This would make sense because Luke would then be clarifying that this was before the well-known, troublesome census of A.D. 6 (Acts 5:37). (One additional proposal is that Quirinius was governor for two separate terms, though this lacks confirming historical evidence.) Though the year cannot be determined with complete certainty, there are several reasonable possibilities which correspond well to Luke’s carefully researched investigation (Luke 1:3–4) and to the historical and geographical accuracy evidenced throughout Luke and Acts."

Nolland in WBC also has some good insights. "Lagrange has shown that there is no decisive objection from word order or from the use of the genitive participle to translating Luke 2:2 as “This registration happened before Quirinius became governor of Syria.” (On the basis, however, of the critique by E. Power, “John 2,20 and the Date of the Crucifixion,” Bib 9 [1928] 286, it is clear that Lagrange’s appeal to Sophocles, Antigone 2.637–38, must be dropped.) As a clarifying aside, such a statement would fit well. The governorship of Quirinius was an important turning point in Judean history, marking as it did the annexation of Judea, which was made profoundly visible by the census registration with which Quirinius’ governorship began. That registration was “the registration” (cf. Acts 5:37), and it is natural that Luke should distinguish from it a preliminary registration in the time of Herod the Great. On any reading, the Greek of Luke’s sentence is awkward (cf. Fitzmyer, 400), and perhaps no more so on the reading suggested here. This seems better than forcing an earlier governorship on Quirinius and more likely than the contradiction in the Lukan infancy narratives created by an identification of the census here as that of A.D. 6."

I hadn't studied this issue in a while, so I shouldn't have said that Quirinius had two governorships. I should have said the best translation could be "before."

✭✭✭

"Some interpreters believe that because “governor” (participle of Gk. hēgemoneuō) was a very general term for “ruler,” it may be that Quirinius was the administrator of the census, but not the governor proper. Another solution is to translate the verse, “This was the registration before Quirinius was governor of Syria” (see ESV footnote), which is grammatically possible (taking Gk. prōtos as “before” rather than “first”; the Greek construction is somewhat unusual on any reading). This would make sense because Luke would then be clarifying that this was before the well-known, troublesome census of A.D. 6 (Acts 5:37). (One additional proposal is that Quirinius was governor for two separate terms, though this lacks confirming historical evidence.) Though the year cannot be determined with complete certainty, there are several reasonable possibilities which correspond well to Luke’s carefully researched investigation (Luke 1:3–4) and to the historical and geographical accuracy evidenced throughout Luke and Acts."

Your attempts to be a peacemaker are noted and appreciated, but this is a matter of truth. There are many attempts to reconcile the statements, but none really work. As for taking prōtos as “before” rather than “first”, when used as an adv it would be πρῶτον rather than πρῶτη. As regards Quirinius, note what Plummer states

αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο. This may be accepted as certainly the true reading; and the meaning of it is not really doubtful."This took place as a first enrolment, when Q. was governor of Syria." The object of the remark is to distinguish the census which took Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem from the one undertaken by Q. in a.d. 6, 7, at which time Q. was governor of Syria. But was he governor b.c. 4, when Herod died? It is very difficult to establish this.
ἐπὶ Κυρηνίου, and in one place states that this can be officially ascertained ἐκ τῶν ἀπογραφῶν τῶν γενομένων (Apol. i. 34, 46; Dial. lxxviii.).
From b.c. 9 to 6 Sentius Saturninus was governor; from b.c. 6 to 4 Quinctilius Varus. Then all is uncertain until a.d. 6, when P. Sulpicius Quirinius becomes governor and holds the census mentioned Acts 5:37 and also by Josephus (Ant. xviii. 1, 1, 2. 1). It is quite possible, as Zumpt and others have shown, that Quirinius was governor of Syria during part of the interval between b.c. 4 and a.d. 6, and that his first term of office was b.c. 3, 2. But it seems to be impossible to find room for him between b.c. 9 and the death of Herod; and, unless we can do that, Lk. is not saved from an error in chronology. Tertullian states that the census was held by Sentius Saturninus (Adv. Marc. iv. 19); and if that is correct we may suppose that it was begun by him and continued by his successor. On the other hand, Justin Martyr three times states that Jesus Christ was born
However much one might wish to reconcile this, it cannot be done.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Jeremy

✭✭

Defend the truth til death...but there are a few exceptions. First of all this particular matter is a matter of probability, not truth. I realize that Quirinius' governorship is not as crucial a matter as say the death and resurrection of Jesus, but I find your way or trying to harmonize this so that Luke is doing history like the Gospel of John is (in light of Luke's statements in 1:1-2 I would disagree) far worse of a leap than the one I am trying to argue for is possible (which it certainly is in my opinion).

✭✭✭

I find your way or trying to harmonize this so that Luke is doing history like the Gospel of John is (in light of Luke's statements in 1:1-2 I would disagree) far worse of a leap than the one I am trying to argue for is possible (which it certainly is in my opinion).

The point is that I am not trying to harmonize this nor am I suggesting that Luke "is doing history like the Gospel of John." Quite the contrary, I am stating that neither was was writing history. They were writing a gospel "that you might believe ..."

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

✭✭

Henry Morris,, Ph.D. writing about Luke:- He is also recognized as a great historian, with his excellent accounts of the key events of the most important era in the history of the world. He also was undoubtedly a devoted Christian, a truth especially demonstrated by his unselfish service and companionship to the apostle Paul. Finally, he was probably the first Christian apologist, zealously concerned to defend and establish the absolute truth of the gospel of Christ.

William Mitchell Ramsay - "Our hypothesis is that Acts was written by a great historian, a writer who set himself to record the facts as they occurred, a strong partisan indeed, but raised above partiality by his perfect confidence that he had only to describe the facts as they occurred, in order to make the truth of Christianity and the honour of Paul apparent...It is not my object to assume or to prove that there was no prejudice in the mind of Luke, no fault on the part of Paul; but only to examine whether the facts are stated as trustworthy, and leave them to speak for themselves (as the author does). I shall argue that the book was composed by a personal friend and disciple of Paul, and if this be once established there will be no hesitation in accepting the primitive tradition that Luke was the author."W. M. Ramsay , "St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen" Fourth Ed. (London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1895) pp. 14.

John McArthur -
Luke's gospel, chapter 2. We're beginning a study of Luke. I thought we would move more rapidly than we are. I knew Luke was a great historian, and that is being verified as we go...fastidious, careful with detail. And I knew that Luke was something of a theologian but the more I'm studying this gospel the more I'm impressed with the depth and breadth and height and length of his theology. And when you're going through narrative passages, you can be content with the story but not if you understand the heart of the writer...both the heart of Luke and the heart of God the Holy Spirit who inspired it. It seems as though everything Luke says on the surface has beneath it massive amounts of supportive truth and history. And that is certainly the case in the text before us today.

Mark Driscoll, Mars Hill Church - And Luke, the great historian, funded by the generous Theophilus, does all of his investigative worth and writes for us the truthful, accurate, historical biography of Jesus

I honestly don't think I would have trouble finding at least 100 quotes labeling Luke a great historian.

✭✭✭