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

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

but once again, when the oportunity is presented for folk that make the claims about Biblical accuracy to defend their position, none of them show. But I wanted to personally thank you for at least attempting to begin a discussion on the subject. IMHO it's important for these things to be discussed and not just among the limited communion called Christianity. I hope some of these threads will also give Non-Christians a better understanding of Christianity and its foundations.Thank you sir. And maybe next time we can NOT discuss why the whole story of Mary Magdalene and Jesus sending out the disciples and saying that everyone who didn't buy in was damned and the stuff about casting out demons and speaking with tongues and taking up serpents and drinking poison was tacked onto the end of the Gospel of Mark.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Dammit, Jar (putting away Christian test kit containing asps and strychnine).

Part of the problem is you crippled the arguement from the on set. Your arguement went something like this. Can any evolutionist start a fire? But first you must tie your hands behind your back and hop on one foot.

Can you explain a bit more why you think that is?

Looks like we're straying way away from the Bible and the Nativity stories.

---

I think he's talking about PaulK's comment: When you ask a fundamentalist to stick to verifiable facts, you may as well be asking him to put on a gag.

Welcome to EvC. There are some links at the bottom of this post that will make your stay here more enjoyable.But, unless you are going to be able to tie that back in to the Bible and the Nativity stories, it probably should go in another thread. This is not about Evolution.

---

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 ?

While y’all are deciding what is and what ain’t relevant to the OP, here is a link that you may wish to read:The Census of Quirinius and the Birth of Jesus of Nazareth

I don't have time to offer extra-biblical evidence, but the idea there could be 2 censuses is entirely reasonable.Your argument reminds me a bit of an old friend that insisted the Bible was inaccurate because in one story Jesus fed 3000 and another 5000. He never realized that both stories are in one gospel as well, and that such events can happen more than once.Your argument is better, but it's basically an argument based on a lack of evidence. You think there should be some historical reference, and maybe there was, but that does not mean it survived, or that it was an important enough event to be recorded by Josephus.But another provocative answer could be both are true, and history is not static.

Well, that is the arguement to try to get them togather.However, there is also another piece of information. Legally, Augustus Ceasar would only be able to order a census in the Roman Empire. Until 6 C.E. Judah was not part of the Roman Empire,but it was another country that gave tribute to Rome.The first time Ceasar Augustus COULD order a census was when it became part of the providence of Syria, which happened in 6 C.E.That fact negates the 'two census' or 'quintaris was govenor twice' speculations. It makes those two attempts at appolgics irrelavent.

I haven't really looked into it in depth, but I thought the 2 reigns of Quintaris had merit when I looked at this some years back.Maybe you are right on Ceaser ordering the census, but I'd like to see some evidence there. I am not so sure he could not order a census of those that paid tribute as well, or something like that.

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.