When was Jesus born? - Contradiction between gospels

[skepticlogician]

Let me say up front that I am not a Greek language scholar and this verse was originally written in that language.  According to some Greek scholars however, a very strong case can be made that the verse should have been rendered:

2 (This taxing became most prominent when Quirinius was governing Syria.)

The reason it makes sense, having been added in parenthesis the way it was, is that this AD 6 event was very onerous to the Jews and became a large factor leading to the war that occurred years later.

Thanks SN, for taking the time to respond. But it would be really great if you could share with us the links or references in which you are basing this explanation.
Thanks!

[alihaymeg]

Let me say up front that I am not a Greek language scholar and this verse was originally written in that language.  According to some Greek scholars however, a very strong case can be made that the verse should have been rendered:

I am quite familiar with Greek, and you are correct that the rendering could have been translated that way. It wasn't though. Never in Greek, Latin, German, English.........well, you get the picture. It is a stretch to say that it should have been. Don't get me wrong, the Bible is replete with mistranslated passages and later additions that were not in the earliest and best manuscripts.

You can disappoint the "snake handlers" by pointing out that Mark 16:9-18 are missing from the earliest and best manuscripts. Sorry guys!

You can shoot down the Catholics by showing that the earliest and best manuscripts do not contain  1 John 5:7, otherwise known as the "Comma Johanneum" ("For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.") This is an obvious later edition and has been proven to be so.

The reason for the incredibly creative ways in which the authors place the family in Bethlehem for the birth even though they lived in Nazareth is simple. They both wanted to make it appear that an OT prophecy concerning the Messiah could be connected with Jesus. They both do it in very different ways though, and both stories cannot be relegated with one another. It is impossible for them to have been where they say they were and when. Mathew and Luke both used Mark (the oldest) as a source among other sources in common. Mark is not concerned with the birth narrative because it had not been developed yet. It wasn’t part of his message or beliefs.
 

[Wootah]

At worst it just doesn't seem like a game breaking contradiction to me. :shrug

[jetson]

At worst it just doesn't seem like a game breaking contradiction to me. :shrug

It's not, it's just a bright light on the lies Christians want the whole world to believe, in order to sustain their fantasy about an after-life.

[velkyn]

At worst it just doesn't seem like a game breaking contradiction to me. :shrug

what else in the bible could be simply wrong then if this is?  This is supposedly some great book of "truths".  How do you tell which to believe in?  Your magic decoder ring that allows you to accept whatever you personally like?  That seems to be about it.

[jedweber]

At worst it just doesn't seem like a game breaking contradiction to me. :shrug

what else in the bible could be simply wrong then if this is?  This is supposedly some great book of "truths".  How do you tell which to believe in?  Your magic decoder ring that allows you to accept whatever you personally like?  That seems to be about it.

That just seems like the "all or nothing" argument of a fundie coming from an atheist perspective. But many Christians don't approach the Bible that way in the first place - they don't assume that it's "truth" should necessarily extend to historical details in a literal way. This kind of argument won't touch them, unless you could show that the basic core message of salvation through Christ is a lie.

[velkyn]

That just seems like the "all or nothing" argument of a fundie coming from an atheist perspective. But many Christians don't approach the Bible that way in the first place - they don't assume that it's "truth" should necessarily extend to historical details in a literal way. This kind of argument won't touch them, unless you could show that the basic core message of salvation through Christ is a lie.

I don't agree but I can see how you see that.  If the book is coming from God in anyway shape or form, then at least some of it supposedly is what God "meant".  If one of the parts is suspect, that throws all of it in question since even liberal Christians claim a divine origin for it.  Let's take the basic core of salvation through Christ.  If historical parts aren't correct, what evidence is there to believe that Christ existed? If he didnt' exist, then he can't be sacrificed and thus there is no salvation.  Salvation doesn't come from just belief, there are actual events that must occur, a long line of them in fact.   

[JesusHChrist]

If one of the parts is suspect, that throws all of it in question since even liberal Christians claim a divine origin for it.  Let's take the basic core of salvation through Christ.  If historical parts aren't correct, what evidence is there to believe that Christ existed?

Well, except THAT bit. That bit is certainly divinely inspired. 

[CutePuppy]

At worst it just doesn't seem like a game breaking contradiction to me. :shrug

I dunno, since Christianity is about Christ, seeing his supposed birth date contradict sounds like a significant issue to me.

But I don't think this is a contradiction at all. We're forgetting that we're talking about:
--- The one and only, magnificent Jeeee "ReBorn" Suuuus! ---

The man is known for being reborn for crying out loud. Why couldn't he have been born, then magically re-enter Mary to be (re)born again? Jesus is the son of God. He can do anything.

[Woland]

Hi Wootah

At worst it just doesn't seem like a game breaking contradiction to me. :shrug

I thought that you were one of those whose faith would be shattered if it was demonstrated to you that the Bible had errors and contradictions in it, because obviously this implies that it's unlikely an omnimax deity had anything to do with it (even if modern religionists deal with this in different ways).

Do you or do you not hold the Bible to be the inerrant word of God?

If you do, should it be demonstrated to you that this (or anything else really) is a real contradiction and not a mistranslation or whatnot (and I must say that although I am not a language scholar, there are contradictions in the Bible that are undeniable), would you admit that at least some of the rest of the Bible could be flawed and made-up?

If you are not afraid of the implications of this potential contradiction proving to be true, why do you blindly believe that Noah's Ark and all that nonsense is historically factual and recent, as Adam and Eve etc without any evidence at all whatsoever when all the mountains of evidence at hand consistently point towards those events being false and made-up (Young Earth etc.) and given most Christians aren't Young-Earthers and have no problem with the age of the Earth and making up "symbolics" excuses to "harmonize" reality with the Bible? I don't mean to side-track the conversation, so if you just want to answer this question properly I'll leave it at that.

Woland

[velkyn]

I'm curious if Wootah will respond.  We've had many Christians on here making all sorts of claims and promises and they nearly all renege on them.  Promises of deconversion if a contradiction is found, promises of "evidence" of their claims of miracles.  Considering the number of these instances, I find that Christians are often some of the most dishonest people I have ever met and it does seem that the religion causes this. 

[skepticlogician]

A nice explanation of the difficulties bible-inerrant xians have to deal with on this Quirinius-Jesus birth matter.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmRd6OKwcR4[/youtube]

And the second part:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMTLaCIakrw[/youtube]

Enjoy!

[Snagglefritz]

No matter what bible text a Christian may use to calculate the year of Christ's birth, you can instantly find three other biblical texts that contradict it:

Matthew (2:1) says Jesus was born while Herod was King of Judea and, since Herod ruled from 37BC to 4BC, it is clear that the Nativity occurred during this period. The experts who accept Matthew's story have guessed that perhaps Jesus was born in 6BC.

In Luke (2:2), however, we are told that Jesus was born at the time of the census when Quirinius was Governor of Syria - and the historical record shows that this occurred in 6AD.

But the same Luke also tells us (in Luke 3:1-23) that John started baptising in 29AD, “in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,” when Jesus was “about thirty” – which means that Jesus was born in about 1BC.

But when we turn to John 8:57 we discover that “The Jews said unto him (Jesus), Thou art not yet fifty years old.” It’s a fairly vague statement, but surely they’ve got to be talking about someone over forty (and probably closer to forty-five), in which case Jesus could have been born as early as 15BC.


[I have posted this same item in several places during the last couple of years - just letting you know in case you come across it and wonder what is going on.]

[Joshua]

I know you all know that there are tons of contradictions one can find in the Bible.
But I'm particularly curious about what theists have to say about this one (SmartNoodles, this one is for you too ).
So, here it is:

Was Jesus born before 4 BCE, as it can be deduced from Matthew 2:1, or was Jesus born after 6 CE, as Luke suggests in Luke 2:1??

Here are the quotes:

Matthew 2:1
"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem..."

You just need to go find in history when did King Herod live. Although I'm sure you can find it elsewhere, Wikipedia is a very reliable source, so if you look it up, you can find that Herod the Great died in 4 BCE (although other sources point to 1 BCE, but this shouldn't make a big difference since Jesus was born when Herod was still alive, which means his birth happened before 4 BCE). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great


Luke 2:1-2
"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.
2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)"

And we all know that this Census was the reason for Joseph and Mary to go to Bethlehem where Jesus was born. So, let's apply the same criteria here and go to history to figure out when this Census happened. And Luke clearly gives hints about this by mentioning that this happened "when Cyrenius was governor of Syria". So, let's go to Wikipedia one more time, and we can find that this census happened in the year 6 or 7 CE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius


So, clearly these two gospels are contradicting each other.
Theists, SmartNoodles, what are your answers to this?

Edit: typo

Wikipedia!!!??? Not too reliable source, nontheless...

Cyrenius (correction on the name is "Quirinius") was an officer of Syria NOT JUST ONCE, BUT TWICE. The first time he was an officer was in 3/2 BCE when he was govenor over Augustus' the census.

Yahshua was born Tishri 15, 3998...or September 26, 3BCE This date will line up perfectly with all of the other records and proofs. As well as astronomical proof (if anyone's interested, I'll share it).

[Joshua]

But the same Luke also tells us (in Luke 3:1-23) that John started baptising in 29AD, “in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,” when Jesus was “about thirty” – which means that Jesus was born in about 1BC.

The 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar was in the year 27CE...and the phrase "began to be about thirty" is ???? [Hosei], which means "reaching the point of but not yet". Yahshua was in the middle of his 29th year when he was baptised. Counting backwards 29 years this puts his birth year in 3 BCE (remembering that there is no zero year...the birth year IS the 1st year, biblically).

But when we turn to John 8:57 we discover that “The Jews said unto him (Jesus), Thou art not yet fifty years old.” It’s a fairly vague statement, but surely they’ve got to be talking about someone over forty (and probably closer to forty-five), in which case Jesus could have been born as early as 15BC.

You must remember that there weren't any modern grooming tools back then. A fella would let his beard grow. I starting growing facial hair at 16...and if one lets it grow - uncut - for 13 years, one would have a pretty long beard. Men look older than they really are when they have facial hair. So can you at least entertain the possiblilty that these Pharisees (who did not initially know Yahshua) could only - at best - assume that this man was younger than fifty?

[pianodwarf]

You must remember that there weren't any modern grooming tools back then. A fella would let his beard grow.

Excuse me, but this is beyond crap.  The first razors were invented during the time when copper tools were first developed, which was about five thousand years ago.  During Jesus' time, and for quite some time before that, in fact, shaving was common.

Try again.

[Historicity]

Excuse me, but this is beyond crap.  The first razors were invented during the time when copper tools were first developed, which was about five thousand years ago.  During Jesus' time, and for quite some time before that, in fact, shaving was common.

Right.

My mother passed on a quote 3rd hand from one of her history professors from some Roman poet who said his barber had cut him so often that he looked like an old gladiator.

Greeks and Jews had beards.  Romans were clean shaven.  An exception among the Greeks was Alexander, whom you can see on any of his coins, was clean shaven.

[Historicity]

Ultimately I use the bible as a guideline for moral behaviour.

Uh oh.

What's wrong with that.  Just this week I was wondering if I should kill a Philistine with the edge of a bronze sword.  I read the Bible and the answer was yes.

[pianodwarf]

Ultimately I use the bible as a guideline for moral behaviour.

Uh oh.

What's wrong with that.  Just this week I was wondering if I should kill a Philistine with the edge of a bronze sword.  I read the Bible and the answer was yes.

I'm not seeing a problem here, either.  Several months ago, I met a woman who was gorgeous and smart and funny and all that, and I decided I wanted to marry her.  She turned down all my advances, so I raped her and paid a fine to her father, and she became my wife anyway.  What a bargain!

[Joshua]

You must remember that there weren't any (1) modern grooming tools back then. A fella would let his beard grow. I starting growing facial hair at 16...and if one lets it grow - uncut - for 13 years, one would have a pretty long beard. Men look older than they really are when they have facial hair. So can you at least entertain the possiblilty that these Pharisees (who did not initially know Yahshua) could only - at best - assume that this man was younger than fifty?

We're talking about Hebrews right? Not Greeks or Romans...Hebrews; ancestors of jewish orthodoxy.

Hebrews. Those who were under the thumb of Rome, who didn't assimilate (though they were allowed to continue in their own culture).

You make the mistake of mixing Hebrew culture and Roman (& greek). Hebrew men (a) allowed their beards to grow [out of culture/belief] and (b) didn't get the benefits of modern shaving tools; they would NOT assimilate into Rome.

[pianodwarf]

You make the mistake of mixing Hebrew culture and Roman (& greek). Hebrew men (a) allowed their beards to grow [out of culture/belief] and (b) didn't get the benefits of modern shaving tools; they would NOT assimilate into Rome.

Are you seriously trying to say that shaving, which was invented somewhere around the year 3,000 BCE, was unknown to the Jews because the Greek and Roman civilizations, which didn't even exist until millennia after shaving was invented, prevented them from knowing about it?  In the immortal words of Zaphod Beeblebrox, "Put your analyst on danger money, baby."

The things you're saying here are so mind-bogglingly stupid that I'm beginning to wonder whether you really believe them, or whether you're trolling.

[Joshua]

You make the mistake of mixing Hebrew culture and Roman (& greek). Hebrew men (a) allowed their beards to grow [out of culture/belief] and (b) didn't get the benefits of modern shaving tools; they would NOT assimilate into Rome.

Are you seriously trying to say that shaving, which was invented somewhere around the year 3,000 BCE, was unknown to the Jews because the Greek and Roman civilizations, which didn't even exist until millennia after shaving was invented, prevented them from knowing about it?  In the immortal words of Zaphod Beeblebrox, "Put your analyst on danger money, baby."

The things you're saying here are so mind-bogglingly stupid that I'm beginning to wonder whether you really believe them, or whether you're trolling.

You're missing my point. I'm say they were Hebrews; a set-apart people, who (for the majority of them) believed in being "set-apart". In society, cultures "benefit" from one another by mixing, but the Hebrews (for the majority) DID NOT MIX. Am I saying Rome (or greek) said, "HAHA! since you will not assimilate, we'll keep razors from you"? No! That's silly. But did Hebrew men shave their faces like Roman (greek) men? No. They didn't. Look at Rabbis of today, or even normal males of Jewish laity in Jerusalem who continue the tradition.

In a way (and this is my personal assumption), a man's beard almost signifies "glory" (being a man), in that culture. At least it seems that way to me from all the research.

[Historicity]

Wikipedia!!!??? Not too reliable source, nontheless...

Cyrenius (correction on the name is "Quirinius") was an officer of Syria NOT JUST ONCE, BUT TWICE. The first time he was an officer was in 3/2 BCE when he was govenor over Augustus' the census.

Yahshua was born Tishri 15, 3998...or September 26, 3BCE This date will line up perfectly with all of the other records and proofs. As well as astronomical proof (if anyone's interested, I'll share it).

This is a classic example of the pseudointellectual's old friend:  The Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam.  It works this way.

Your source of information is in some way defective.
I give no source at all for my information.
Therefore my information must be true.

You state speculations as "proofs" and your opinions as facts.  Such as this junk:

The 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar was in the year 27CE

Tiberius took the office in 14 CE.  14+15 = 29. 

I checked some websites.  Some said that it had to be 10 CE because Dio Cassius said there was an eclipse before it.  But Dio Cassius was writing around 200 CE and there were earlier historians.  Roman historians gave dates of events by stating who were the consuls for that year.  We have a complete list of the consuls.  1st century historians were contemporary with the era.  Dio Cassius mistake about an eclipse is not proof.

You made the absurd statement that razors did not exist.  I pointed out that anyone can think of ancient coins with clean shaven men.  When that was proven false you did not admit your error but pretended you had not said it.

You claim detailed knowledge which no one else has and say if we beg you, you'll be kind enough to tell us where you got it.

You don't impress me.  I don't think you know much about this.  You sound phony.

[Joshua]

Wikipedia!!!??? Not too reliable source, nontheless...

Cyrenius (correction on the name is "Quirinius") was an officer of Syria NOT JUST ONCE, BUT TWICE. The first time he was an officer was in 3/2 BCE when he was govenor over Augustus' the census.

Yahshua was born Tishri 15, 3998...or September 26, 3BCE This date will line up perfectly with all of the other records and proofs. As well as astronomical proof (if anyone's interested, I'll share it).

This is a classic example of the pseudointellectual's old friend:  The Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam.  It works this way.

Your source of information is in some way defective.
I give no source at all for my information.
Therefore my information must be true.

You state speculations as "proofs" and your opinions as facts.  Such as this junk:

The 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar was in the year 27CE

Tiberius took the office in 14 CE.  14+15 = 29. 

I checked some websites.  Some said that it had to be 10 CE because Dio Cassius said there was an eclipse before it.  But Dio Cassius was writing around 200 CE and there were earlier historians.  Roman historians gave dates of events by stating who were the consuls for that year.  We have a complete list of the consuls.  1st century historians were contemporary with the era.  Dio Cassius mistake about an eclipse is not proof.

You made the absurd statement that razors did not exist.  I pointed out that anyone can think of ancient coins with clean shaven men.  When that was proven false you did not admit your error but pretended you had not said it.

You claim detailed knowledge which no one else has and say if we beg you, you'll be kind enough to tell us where you got it.

You don't impress me.  I don't think you know much about this.  You sound phony.

Did you know that ANYONE can edit wikipedia's entries? Isn't Wikipedia defective?

And then  you quote "some websites", doing exactly the same thing I did.

Then I said "modern" shaving tools didn't exist (and they didn't)...I didn't say "saving tools didn't exist". Please be accurate and read exactly what I wrote.

...but if I sound phony that's fine.

[Historicity]

@OP:  Tertullian, one of the early church fathers said that Jesus was born when Saturninus was in charge of the area.  He said it in the essay, Against Marcion:

http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-31.htm#19_10

But there is historical proof  that at this very time a census had been taken in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus, which might have satisfied their inquiry respecting the family and descent of Christ.

Tertullian lived about 200 AD.  Tertullian's writing sounds like a Roman lawyer.  Some have interpreted the quote above to mean he had access to records now destroyed. Of course he could have been misinformed or just guessing.

Here's a site that cites its evidence:

http://www.christianthinktank.com/quirinius.html

The first option is defended by Ernest Martin in CKC:90[1]:

    " A Latin inscription found in 1764 about one-half mile south of the ancient villa of Quintilius Varus (at Tivoli, 20 miles east of Rome) states that the subject of the inscription had twice been governor of Syria. This can only refer to Quintilius Varus, who was Syrian governor at two different times. Numismatic evidence shows he ruled Syria from 6 to 4 B.C., and other historical evidence indicates that Varus was again governor from 2 B.C. to A.D. I. Between his two governorships was Sentius Saturninus, whose tenure lasted from 4 to 2 B.C. Significantly, Tertullian (third century) said the imperial records showed that censuses were conducted in Judea during the time of Sentius Saturninus. (Against Marcion 4:7). Tertullian also placed the birth of Jesus in 3 or 2 B.C. This is precisely when Saturninus would have been governor according to my new interpretation. That the Gospel of Luke says Quirinius was governor of Syria when the census was taken is resolved by Justin Martyr's statement (second century) that Quirinius was only a procurator (not governor) of the province (Apology 1:34). In other words, he was simply an assistant to Saturninus, who was the actual governor as Tertullian stated."

1.	Chronos, Kairos, Christos: Nativity and Chronological Studies Presented to Jack Finegan, Jerry Vardaman and Edwin Yamauchi, eds. Eisenbrauns:1989.

[Doctor X]

Did you know that ANYONE can edit wikipedia's entries? Isn't Wikipedia defective?

Non sequitur et argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam et Poisoning the Well: a triumph of fallacies!  My compliments!  Unfortunately, while "Wiki" is not, itself, an authority, the information summarized in quote from skeptilogician is accurate.  You should address it . . . if you can.

And learn to quote.



And get yourself a REAL guitar. . . .

--J.D.

[Joshua]

And learn to quote.

Jab. lol (and tie your shoes...)

[Doctor X]

Your inability to reply with substance noted.

--J.D.

[Operator_019]

All,

I'd like to request not quoting the entire nested conversation, especially if you aren't going to address anything contained in the quotes.  If anyone needs help learning to separate the quoted material, go here. 

Thanks.

019