In the passages of Mark, Luke, and John it is clear that the stone was rolled away before the women arrived at the tomb . . .

When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. And they were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?”

(Mark 16:1-3, ESV)

But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices they had prepared. And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.

(Luke 24:1-3, ESV)

Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.

(John 20:1,ESV)

Matthew, however, tells the story a little differently,

[1] Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. [2] And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. [3] His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. [4] And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men. [5] But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. [6] He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay.

(Matthew 28:1-6, ESV)

Some have taken Matthew’s account and have assumed that it describes the women having been present while the stone was rolled away. However, nowhere in Matthew’s account does it clearly say that the stone was closed when the women arrived at the tomb or that the women were present and saw the stone rolled away. It is likely the stone was rolled away at Jesus’ resurrection, which clearly had already happened before the women arrived since Jesus’ body was not there.

The Greek participle γάρ is often used when providing an explanation for something. Here it seems to be explaining the cause of the earthquake. “Descended” is also in the aorist participle, which allows it to be read as “had descended”. This allows verses 2-5 to be read as a parenthesized account (a common literary device at this time), put in to explain the earthquake. This is further emphasized by the fact that when Matthew picks up the story of the women again, he contrasts the angels effect on the soldiers and their fear to the angel’s effect on the women, “Do not be afraid”. He purposefully goes back to tell what happened before the women arrived at the tomb not only to explain the earthquake but also to provide this stark contrast between the effect of the angel on the guards and the women. It is a beautiful and effective literary device that wouldn’t work if he told the story in absolute chronological order.

A legitimate understanding of this passage, if you include the grammar and the literary devices Mathew uses, could be:

Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And behold, [on the way] there was a great earthquake, ([This earthquake occurred] because an angel of the Lord had descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men.) In contrast [to the guards, when the women arrived] the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified.”

It is also important to note that it appears that Matthew got the story from at least two sources and is combining those accounts here. Verses 2-5 appear to be an account of one of the guards, who described the events of the stone being rolled away, for we see later Matthew giving an account of the guards meeting with the Jewish leaders. This account could be from the guard or one of the Jewish leaders, or someone present at the meeting who heard the guard’s account firsthand. Either way, this description is specific to that time when the guards were present, and the stone was rolled away and does not necessarily describe, for example, the position of the angels at the time of the women’s arrival. We cannot read the Gospel accounts as if no one ever moves and they were just a panorama and static. No, the events of the Gospel were dynamic, and they describe people being in different places within the account. And this is what you would expect to see if multiple witnesses were giving their account of an event, emphasizing the things that stood out specifically to them, providing further evidence that the Gospels are indeed based on eyewitness accounts.

• Was the tomb opened or closed when the women arrived? | Is Jesus Alive?
• Bible Contradiction? Was the tomb opened or closed when the women arrived? | The Domain for Truth (wordpress.com)

“And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is cursed by God. You shall not defile your land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance.

(Deuteronomy 21:22–23, ESV)

According to the law of Moses, if they did not “bury him the same day”, the land would have been defiled. They might not have cared about a man on a cross, but they cared about not defiling their land and would have obeyed this law. It was Roman policy to be respectful of local customs whenever it was reasonable, and this custom was most likely upheld. And the evidence does support that it was. There is evidence of crucified victims being buried in the area as well as writing to support this. Could he have been buried in a mass grave that was just covered up? This is also unlikely giving the care given to burial customs. Josephus wrote, “The Jews are so careful about funeral rites that even malefactors (criminals) who have been sentenced to crucifixion are taken down and buried before sunset”(Jewish Wars 4.5.2; cf. Ant. 4.265). “We must furnish fire, water, food to all who ask for them, point out the road, not leave a corpse unburied, show consideration even to declared enemies” (Against Apion 2.211, cf. 2.204). The Temple Scroll among those writings found at Qumran calls for the burial of crucified victims (DSS: 11QT 64:7-13a, 4Q524 frag. 14, lines 2-4). This “care” on how bodies were buried makes it unlikely that they were buried in a mass grave. Could he have been buried in an unmarked grave? It doesn’t matter if there were eyewitnesses to his burial, they would have been able to come back to the spot. Added to this, there is archeological evidence that crucifixion victims were buried in tombs, even with the name written on the ossuary dating to 20s CE. Because of the evidence, we can confidently say that the idea of Jesus being placed in a tomb after his crucifixion is not outlandish but is instead expected.

As far as I know, there are no early accounts of this objection. If it were true, you would expect this to be a common argument against the resurrection from the very beginning, especially among the Jews. After all, it is a more plausible explanation than “the disciples stole the body”. It would be hard to believe that the disciples could have taken down or bribed well-trained Roman soldiers. And it is hard to believe any, let alone all, of these Roman soldiers would have fallen asleep considering the consequences for doing so. “The disciples stole the body” is a pretty poor excuse, especially if they had the option of saying that Jesus’ body was lost in a mass grave. It is way more believable that dogs and carrion came and ate the body, or that the body had been lost in a pile of bodies. The Jewish leaders were smarter than that and would have used this excuse if they could. Even if they were unaware of the events at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion, as Christianity grew and became more of a problem for them, this would have been a reasonable objection for them to bring up, even if it was years after the event. If we can think of it, they would have especially having been more aware of what happened with the bodies after crucifixion. But you do not see this objection raised by people who were closer and more aware of the customs of the time. Instead, from what I can tell, this is a recent argument against the resurrection.

Based on the evidence, it is likely that Jesus was put in a tomb. Ironically, in a backhanded way, this claim has produced additional evidence for the empty tomb. If it were a viable objection, you would expect it to be raised early and held on to throughout history. But it is not. It is most likely that this objection was not raised, because it was well known that this was not the custom and that crucified victims were buried. We don’t see objections to his burial, only to his resurrection.

Information on evidence for burial after crucification below:

• Burial of Jesus: Supposed Biblical Error #15 – YouTube
• Matthew 28:11-15 — Matt Whitman and The Ten Minute Bible Hour (thetmbh.com)
  • Episode 0785, 0786
• Refutting the no tomb theory, the idea that Jesus was not burried in a private tomb but a mass grave. (doxa.ws)
• Is it likely that Jesus’ body was not buried? | Questions.org

What motivated the guards to spread the rumor?

It has been argued that the Roman guards would not have spread the rumor that they had fallen asleep while Jesus’ disciples stole the body, because the punishment for both offenses would have been severe. However, if the resurrection is true, the actions described in Matthew’s account are the actions we would expect from these soldiers, given the situation.

The tomb had been officially sealed. And the guards’ sole purpose for being at the tomb for three days was to make sure that the seal was not broken and that the body remained in the tomb. But now the body was gone, the seal was broken. They might keep silent, but there would have been no way to cover up their failure. If a report was to get back to Pilate, if he sent someone to investigate, there would be nobody to find. They could go to Pilate and give him a report, but either way, this would have been a clear case of the soldiers being negligent in their duties. It was not in the guards’ best interest to go to report to Pilate or simply be silent; they had failed in their duties and would have been at risk for a severe punishment or possibly death. This being the case, it makes sense that they would instead go to the chief priests to find an ally either to corroborate their story with Pilate or help them get out of it and conceal their failure. After all, the Jewish leaders clearly had a stake in the outcome of this event. On hearing their story, the chief priests and elders also did not want Pilate to get a report of this. They did not want this story to get out. This tale would provide fodder for the claims that Jesus was the Messiah, and “the last fraud [would] be worse than the first”. The Jewish leaders were not able to provide an unsealed tomb or a body, so they needed an explanation. In collaboration, they decided to promote the rumor that Jesus’ disciples stole the body.  Since only the guards and the Jewish leaders knew what happened and the three days had passed that the guards were to keep the tomb sealed, Pilate would have no reason to assume anything had happened, if both the guards and the Jewish leaders kept silent. The only concern would be if the rumor reached Pilate’s ears. Keep in mind, they did not ask the Roman guards to publicly announce this but to tell it to people in a way that would start a rumor, in a way that might not even reach Pilate’s ears. If it did reach Pilate’s ears, the Jewish leaders would spin another story that would validate the soldier’s integrity. The Roman guards didn’t have a lot of options, they could report to Pilate for certain punishment, or they could go along with the Jewish leaders demands and have them help protect them. They were also being paid a lot of money, which alone could have been enough incentive to spread a rumor, especially where the leaders have agreed to protect you. They may have simply seen the money as being worth the risk. The behavior of the Roman guards is not surprising if you take into account the context.

                There are some who look at the accounts of Paul’s conversion in Acts and after a casual reading of the accounts assume that they are in conflict with each other.

Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven shone around him. And falling to the ground, he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. Saul rose from the ground, and although his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. So they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. (Acts 9:3–8, ESV)

“As I was on my way and drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light from heaven suddenly shone around me. And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?’ And I answered, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And he said to me, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting.’ Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me. And I said, ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ And the Lord said to me, ‘Rise, and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all that is appointed for you to do.’ And since I could not see because of the brightness of that light, I was led by the hand by those who were with me, and came into Damascus. (Acts 22:6–11, ESV)

“In this connection I journeyed to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. At midday, O king, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, that shone around me and those who journeyed with me. And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ And I said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles—to whom I am sending you to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me. (Acts 26:12–18, ESV)

They say because these accounts differ with one account having the men standing, another them falling, one them hearing, another them not hearing, and one them seeing, another them not seeing that these accounts must be contradictory with these multiple discrepancies. However, these discrepancies are only there if the texts are read casually, and proper scholarship is ignored.  

Errors in looking at the accounts of Paul’s conversion

When the Gospel writers were writing their accounts paper was a limited resource. They were limited in the words they could write. Because of this, writing wasn’t an exhaustive play-by-play description of the event. Instead, their writing took as if it were snapshots of a movie. They were also more concerned with the accurate gist of the story rather than a detailed account of an event. For example, for a speech, you won’t necessarily get a word-by-word account, but you will get the heart of the message. They were also translating all this into Greek, so catching the heart of the message was key. When we see slight differences in the gospel it is because they are taking different gist snapshots of the story. Yet some read the accounts and think these gist snapshots are the movie. The characters and scenes and events are not like mannequins in a shopping window. Yet we treat these stories that way. And when you see the Gospels this way, you will see errors where there are none. It is the same with those who presume the accounts of Paul’s conversion are in contradiction.

Another error is assuming language is wooden and a word must mean the exact same thing everywhere. This is not how linguistics and literature work. One word can have a dynamic range of meanings which we ascertain by looking at the context. A word can mean one thing in one place and something else in another.

Another error is assuming Luke is a fool. Luke is known for his accuracy, and we ought to give him the benefit of the doubt. To assume that he was unaware of any differences in his accounts is assuming we are more observant than Luke. Luke a companion with Paul would have been familiar with Paul’s account. It would be unlikely for him to make the mistakes that people claim, especially when the descriptions he gave fit well with what we would expect to have taken place.

Also, the fact must be dealt with that an author is less likely to contradict himself in a short book. If it is longer, a little more likely. If writing another book, then a little more likely. If the two books are several years apart, a little more likely. If written by two different authors then more likely. The point being Luke contradicting himself in the book of Acts is unlikely and it is in the prerogative of those who believe there is a contradiction to provide definitive evidence for if there is a good explanation for the differences then that explanation is more likely to be true than believing Luke contradicted himself.

Seeing/not seeing

                Acts 22 states that the men saw a light and Acts 9 states that the men saw no one. A light and a person are not the same things. Together this just tells us that the men saw the light but did not see anyone. There is no contradiction. The fact that this is used to support the case that these accounts are in conflict demonstrates the poor scholarship of those who take this position. A scholar does not present false evidence to support their claim. The fact that some feel the need to do so only makes them look foolish. Act 26 helps to bring Acts 9 and Acts 22 together. Acts 26:13 says, “I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, that shone around me and those who journeyed with me” inferring again that all the men and Paul saw the light. But in 26:19 Jesus says, “But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you”. “You” here is singular referring to only Paul. So, Jesus confirms that only Paul could see him. Other verses confirm that Paul saw Jesus (Acts 9:27, 22:14, and 26:16).

Hearing/not hearing

                Another error in their scholarship is the failure to understand how language works. They look at these accounts and claim that in Acts 9 the men heard Jesus’ words, but in Acts 22 they did not hear Jesus’ words. The word used in both of these passages is a form of “ἀκούω” which can mean either to hear or to understand. It can be used in much the same way as when someone is talking to me and I hear the noise but don’t understand them and say, “Sorry, I didn’t hear you.” Or if someone is whispering and we say, “Sorry, I can’t hear you”. Or when someone spaces out or simply wants to clarify if someone understood, we might say “Did you hear me?” Language is dynamic with a semantic range and not wooden it is in the context of the story that we understand its meaning. In other passages we see “ἀκούω” being used in these two distinct ways. It is used to mean the process of hearing in Matthew 13;16 and 2 Timothy 2:2. It is used to mean understanding in Matthew 11:15, 1 Corinthians 14:2, and in Galatians 4:21. Since we use the word “hear” this way, it should be no surprise that Luke does the same. Also, in Acts 22 Luke is translating Aramaic into Greek and used the Greek word he saw as a natural translation.

Also, the term for “voice” in these passages is a form of “φωνή” which can refer to a voice or sound, depending on the context. In other passages we see “φωνή” being used this way. It is used to refer to a voice in John 5:25, John 10:4, and in Luke 17:15. It is used to refer to an indistinct sound or noise in 1 Corinthians 4:7 and Revelation 14:2.

The purpose and context of Acts 9 and 22 are different with different emphases. To further confirm that Paul meant “understanding” in his Acts 22 speech, he says in Acts 22:14, “And he said, ‘The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice from his mouth;” (Acts 22:14, ESV). He is telling the account to juxtapose the fact that just as the men heard the voice but did not understand, so too the Jews have heard the voice of God and have seen the light but have not understood. Not only in these two places but throughout his speech Paul uses “ἀκούω” both to mean the process of hearing (vs. 2, 22), and the process of understanding (vs. 1, 7, 9, 14, 15, 26) and demonstrates that there is a difference between the two. Paul understood the message, the Jews though hearing have not understood. In just one speech it is clear that Paul uses “ἀκούω” in these two ways. Paul’s speech would not make sense and would sound ridiculous if you try to apply a wooden semantic definition for “ἀκούω” throughout his speech. Paul is emphasizing what Jesus told him, “they will not accept your testimony about me”.  Obviously, since it is clear that “ἀκούω” is used in this manner, there is no problem with listening to or reading Acts 9 and Act 22 and understanding that they are doing the same.  

Those who insist on a wooden semantic don’t understand how language works and ignore how Paul is using the term in his speech. Also, they have to claim that Luke who is careful in his writings was careless. What makes more sense is that those insisting that this is a contradiction are the ones who are being careless.

Standing/falling

                It is claimed that Acts 9 states that the men were standing and Acts 26 states that they had fallen, and both cannot be true. Really? Are the men mannequins in a store window who are frozen in time? Surely not. This view of these passages is quite silly. In the account of the group of men coming to arrest Jesus in the garden, we get this description in John,

So Judas, having procured a band of soldiers and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, went there with lanterns and torches and weapons. Then Jesus, knowing all that would happen to him, came forward and said to them, “Whom do you seek?” They answered him, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus said to them, “I am he.” Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them. When Jesus said to them, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground. So he asked them again, “Whom do you seek?” And they said, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. So, if you seek me, let these men go.”  (John 18:3–8, ESV)

In this account, the men fell and since they arrested Jesus, they got back up to do so. The description of these men falling does not mean that they had permanently fallen or had stayed fallen through the whole scene. The men did indeed fall but got back up and were standing by the time Jesus finished talking with Paul.  

How these accounts fit together

                On Paul’s way to Damascus, all of the sudden a bright light appears. Either before or as Jesus starts speaking all present fell to the ground. The men with Paul saw the light and heard a noise but did not understand the voice nor saw a man. Not seeing Jesus and not hearing what he was saying they stood baffled and trying to figure out what was occurring. Paul having seen Jesus and hearing what Jesus said did what most do in that situation. He remained on the ground. After Jesus finished speaking with Paul was blind. Notice Acts 26:16 says that all the men fell, but in verse 19 Jesus tells Paul alone to stand because the other men were already standing, “But rise and stand upon your feet.” When Paul moved to stand, the men who were already standing nearby were able to come to him quickly and help him to his feet and led him to Damascus.

Articles to read/Videos to watch:

• Saul of Tarsus / the Apostle Paul’s Conversion in Acts – YouTube
• Heard but Not Understood? and Differing Views of Biblical Inerrancy | Robert M Bowman Jr. – Academia.edu
• Did They Hear a Voice or Not? – Peter Goeman
• φωνή | Page 2 | billmounce.com
• The Meaning of Act account of Paul’s conversion Explained (scripturespeaks.org)

An objection to the historical accuracy of Matthew’s account of Jesus’s birth is that there are no historical records outside the Bible of Herod killing infant sons in the city of Bethlehem. However, though this is a valid question, this is not proof that the account in Matthew did not happen.

Bethlehem as prophesied in Micah 5:2 was a small village with a small population at the time of Jesus’ birth. The population is estimated to have been around 300-1500, the number of boys under two years in a population this size would not be that many, some estimates being around 7-50, and this in a time where young children died at young ages more often than they do now. If Herod wanted to hide this by threatening families to silence it may have not been widely known. Josephus also was writing with a Greco-Roman culture in mind where infanticide was a form of birth control, he may have thought that it would have seemed insignificant to his audience and therefore did not include it. (Paul L. Maier, 1998:179) We also know that Josephus did not write an exhaustive list of Herod’s atrocities and this one would not be surprising for him to have left out, since it probably would not have mattered much to his audience.

We however know that this event is well within Herod’s personality. Herod violently reacting to a rumor over the threat to his throne was a pattern. We also know that in the last four years of his life when this event is claimed to have occurred, he was at his worst. It is an event that fits well with his character at the time. In the article The Slaughter of the Innocents: Historical Fact or Legendary Fiction? it states:

In 1988 I was attending a lecture at the Jerusalem Center for Biblical Studies by Dr. Isaiah Gafni, a leading authority on the Second Temple period at the Hebrew University. His topic was the life of Herod the Great. Sitting next to me was Dr. Bruce Narramore, a Christian psychologist from Biola University.

Dr. Gafni recounted a seminar that was held at Hebrew University a few years before. Attending it were historians and archaeologists of the Second Temple period as well as psychiatrists and psychologists. They laid out (figuratively speaking) Herod the Great on the psychiatric couch and preceded to psychoanalyze him. The historians explained a recurring pattern in the life of Herod. He would hear a rumor that somebody was going to bump him off and take over his throne, but Herod would kill that person first. He would then go into depression. After awhile he would come out of his depression and would build, build, build. He would hear another rumor and would kill that person, then go into another depression. After awhile he would come out of this depression and would build, build, build. This cycle repeated itself a number of times in which numerous people were killed, including one of his ten wives as well as three of his sons! The shrinks diagnosed Herod the Great as a paranoid schizophrenic.

After the lecture I turned to Dr. Narramore and asked his analysis of Herod: “Well, do you think he was a paranoid schizophrenic?” Bruce laughed and said, “No, he was a jerk!” [That is a direct quote!]. Recently a historical / psychological analysis was done on Herod the Great and he was diagnosed with Paranoid Personality Disorder (Kasher and Witztum 2007:431).

The time before Herod’s death was full of uncertainty about who would inherit his kingdom and uncertainty about his status within the Roman empire. It was also a time of unrest with “messiahs” rising up and unrest and rebellion. So, for a man who did not want the eye of the empire on him and already was paranoid about being usurped, the news the Magi brought him that the king of the Jews had been born would have been disturbing. Not only would it have been disturbing to him, but also to Jerusalem which had already experienced his reactions to rumors of another king rising not in his line. Herod around this time killed Pharisees who had prophesied that Herod’s line would decline and the line of Pheroras would rise after Pheroras’ wife paid a fine placed on the Pharisees. So, we have a time when anticipation for the Messiah was high, there was instability in Herod’s own house, there was tension for Herod to please Rome, and Jerusalem had already seen how Herod had responded to potential threats to his kingdom. So, it is no wonder that Matthew used the word “troubled” to describe the mood when this news was brought to Herod. Herod would not only want to kill these infants who he saw as a potential threat to his throne but seeing that the rumor extended outside his court would also want to squash any rumors of a possible king of the Jews.  We know historically that fear can be a powerful motivation in keeping people silent. Even without any interference, there would be fear to talk about another king, not in Herod’s line. Squashing the rumor would not be out of the realm of possibility.

The story would however have been known to Jesus and his family. Both Jesus and his family walked intimately with those who would become the church and would have been asked to tell their story. Thus, this becoming common knowledge in the church would be expected. And through the church, this event became common knowledge to the world. Since this story came early in church history, those that were still alive would have been able to discredit it if it were not true. And even after this, those who had known the family of Jesus and had heard the stories firsthand would have been able to discredit the story. Yet you see no early writing questioning this account. But then I would suppose this would be an argument from silence, which cannot be used to discredit this story.

It might be argued that Matthew made up the story to fit it into prophecy. But why would he need to do that? His gospel alludes to many prophesies already, and there are other prophesies he did not include that he could have used. Matthew’s account is not an exhaustive study of how Jesus fulfilled all the prophesies. Why add a made-up story when it would not be necessary? And if you are going to make up a story, why add in the Magi? Magi would have been controversial. They weren’t just “wise men” for the word magi refer to people who practice magic or astrology, something contrary to the Jewish culture. If the Jewish scribes were able to ascertain the place of the messiah’s birth, why have a heathen magi come and determine the timing of the birth? Many of the day were already anticipating that the messiah was near. Why not use a wise Jew, after all, Jesus said that the scribes and Pharisees ought to have understood the signs of the time? Why not use Simeon and Anna who were aware of the coming birth of Jesus, and even proclaimed it to others? Why not have Herod hear these rumors after Anna and Simeon told others and then . . .?

The silence found in history is not proof that it didn’t happen, it is a question to be addressed, but not proof. Anyone purporting it to be such is claiming to know more than reason can allow. Claiming it as proof creates its own questions that have to be ignored in order to hold on to that stance as absolute fact. The argument of silence has been used many times before only later to find evidence to validate the Biblical account. I am not saying that the argument of silence cannot ever be used, but it must be used carefully. It is within reason and probable for the story to come out and to have been told in history the way it did through the gospel of Matthew. Therefore, there is no proof whatsoever that this account is false or a contradiction in the Bible.

Video to watch:

• Matthew Didn’t Invent the Massacre of the Innocents – YouTube
• Refuting Biblical Arguments from Silence – YouTube

Mark and John seem to give two different hours for the death of Jesus.

“And it was the third hour when they crucified him.” (Mark 15:25)

“Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour. Pilot said to the Jews, ‘Behold your King!’” (John 19:14)

The Jews broke up the twelve-hour night into four watches from sunset to sunrise each lasting about three hours. We see this idea possibly in Mark 13:35-36, “Therefore stay awake – for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or in the morning – lest he come suddenly and find you asleep.” Likewise, during the daytime, the twelve hours (“Are there not twelve hours in the day?” (John 11:9)) were broken into four periods. When stating times in the Gospels, we see that they generalized those times to these three-hour periods of the day and spoke of the “third”, “sixth”, and “ninth” hours (Matt. 20:3, 5; 27:45, 46; Mark 15:33, 34; Luke 23:44; Acts 2:15; 3:1; 10:3,9, 30; 23:23). Mark says Jesus’ crucifixion occurred in the third hour. John says, it was “about the sixth hour” which could mean it was coming up or approaching on the sixth hour, meaning Jesus’ crucifixion probably occurred near the end of the third hour quarter of day, so during the transition from the third hour quarter and the sixth hour quarter. Each of these accounts rounding off to on or the other quarter of the day and are consistent with how one spoke of time. These statements also help us to narrow down when Jesus died to the latter part of the third hour.

In the previous article we tackle whether or not John agrees with the synoptic Gospels on the day of Jesus’ death: The day of Jesus’ death

Articles to read:

• You Asked: What Time Did Jesus Die? (thegospelcoalition.org)
• Is there a Bible contradiction in Mark 15:25 (cf. John 19:14)? (defendinginerrancy.com)
• When was Jesus Crucified: Supposed Bible Contradiction #21 – YouTube

                The question arises, did Jesus eat the Passover meal and as a consequence what day of the Passover week did Jesus die? The Synoptic Gospels speak of Jesus eating the Passover with his disciples on the day the Passover Lamb was sacrificed

“And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb” (Mark 14:12)

“Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed” (Luke 22:7)

“Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus saying, “Where will you have us prepare for you to eat the Passover?” (Matthew 26:17)

However some have claimed that John gives a different account, implying that instead of eating the Passover meal on the day the Passover Lamb was sacrificed, Jesus ate the meal the day before and died when the Passover Lamb was sacrificed. Below are the passages they use to support this claim.

“Now before the Feast of Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end.” (John 13:1)

“It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor’s headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover.” (John 18:28)

“Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour.” (John 19:14)

Can John be reconciled with the Synoptic Gospels? We will look at John’s account to determine whether John is claiming that Jesus died at the same time as the Passover lamb. Is the claim of a contradiction valid?

The Day of Preparation

                Both John and the Synoptic Gospels record that Jesus died on the day of Preparation before the Sabbath. They also agree that the day before Jesus’s death, Jesus ate his last meal with his disciples in the upper room and in between these they were on the Mount of Olives where Jesus was arrested and taken trial and brought before Pilot to be crucified.

“And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath.” (Mark 15:42)

“It was the day of Preparation, and the Sabbath was beginning.” (Luke 23:54)

”The next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate and said, ‘Sir, we remember how that imposter said, while he was still alive, ‘After three days I will rise’.” (Matthew 27:62-63)

“Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day),” (John 19:31)

“So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there.” (John 19:42)

We can see that there is not discrepancy on what day of the week Jesus died and was buried. Each of the Gospel’s states that this occurred on the day of Preparation before the Sabbath.

The term “Passover” is used to refer to the whole week of the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. So in order to know what part of this week “Passover” is referring to one must look at the context. Below are examples of “Passover” referring to the whole week.

“The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem” (John 2:13)

“Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews was at hand” (John 6:14)

“many went up from the country to Jerusalem before the Passover to purify themselves.” (John 11:55)

Intune with this, the phrase “the day of Preparation” refers to the day before the Sabbath. When John states, “Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover.” He is not talking about the day when the Passover lamb was slain, but the day before the Sabbath, or “the day of Preparation” during the Passover week. Notice John highlights the Sabbath as a “high day”, also emphasizing its occurrence during the Passover. So each of the Gospels agree that Jesus died on the day of Preparation.

We can further provide support that this is the case because John records, “It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor’s headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover.” Now if this was the day the Passover lamb was slain there would not be a problem since they could have bathed and at evening, they would have been ritually clean and could have participated in the Passover meal (Leviticus 11:24-28; 15:5-11; 17:15; 19:7-8). They would have been able to participate even if they had entered Pilot’s court. But is there a meal before evening that they would have wanted to remain clean for? And does that give us a clue to the day John record’s Jesus’ death? After the Passover lamb was slain and the Seder meal was eaten in the evening and night, during the day there was another meal that was part of the Passover celebration called the Hagigah, which occurred the midday after the Seder. It appears this is what John was referring to and if so John, like the Synoptic Gospels agree that Jesus died on the day after the Passover. And this makes sense because John does not explicitly try to synchronize the death of Jesus with the slaying of the Passover lamb as some have claimed. John who loves symbolism probably would not have been shy to have done so, if these two events occurred simultaneously. So the synoptic Gospels and John all agree that Jesus died on the day of Preparation which was after the Passover lamb was slain.

John 13:1

                So, some will question, but John says that Jesus had the last meal before the Feast of Passover? Did he? Since it is clear that all four Gospels agree that Jesus died on the day of Preparation, lets now look at John 13:1 and the phrase, “Now before the Feast of Passover”. This phrase is qualified by “when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world, he loved them to the end.” The Passover marked the beginning of the last hours of Jesus’ life.  John is stating that before this very moment of time as Jesus knew his death was approaching, that he was about to have his last meal with his disciples, he did not panic, but loved and fully gave of himself to his disciples till the very end. Notice this includes Judas. John is emphasizing that though Jesus knew what would soon take place, even though he knew this would be his last meal with his disciples, his focus was love. And he continues to model that love as in verse 2, as we have a transition, “During supper”, referring to the Seder meal. The final acts before his death had begun. In order to express his love, during the supper, Jesus knowing who he was and having loved his own, humbled himself and took on himself the role of a servant, in contrast to those who around him who were arguing who was the greatest. There is no reason to assume that this “supper” is not the Passover meal. John 13:1 states that Jesus had loved them before this meal, John 13:2 states that love for them continued as Jesus continued to serve and be focused on caring for his disciples, rather than caring for his own needs, despite knowing the suffering he was about to endure. And based on the evidence already given, this is the reading that makes the most sense. The synoptic Gospels and John are telling the same story and give the same timing for Jesus’ death. In the next article we will look at whether the Gospels of Mark and John agree on the hour of Jesus’ death: The Hour of Jesus’ Death

Articles to read:

• The Timing of Jesus’ Death | Catholic Answers
• What Day Did Jesus die? – Bible Contradiction #20 – YouTube

                The passages describing Judas’s death in Matthew and Acts are cited as an example of where two accounts in the Bible are incompatible with each other. Let’s look at these passages.

[3] Then when Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, [4] saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” They said, “What is that to us? See to it yourself.” [5] And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself. [6] But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, “It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is blood money.” [7] So they took counsel and bought with them the potter’s field as a burial place for strangers. [8] Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day. [9] Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, [10] and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me.” (Matthew 27:3–10, ESV)

[15] In those days Peter stood up among the brothers (the company of persons was in all about 120) and said, [16] “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. [17] For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry.” [18] (Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. [19] And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) [20] “For it is written in the Book of Psalms,

                “‘May his camp become desolate,

                                and let there be no one to dwell in it’;

                and

                “‘Let another take his office.’ (Acts 1:15–20, ESV)

These passages at a glance seem to be giving us two different descriptions of how Judas died and two different accounts of who purchased the land where Judas died.

Is the death of Judas only and allusion?

                Matthew 27:5 describes the events leading up to and the method of Judas’ death, “And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself.” The term “hanged” is a term that describes strangulation and is used when someone has hung themselves with a rope. This is the same Greek word used in the Septuagint when Ahithophel, a close confident of King David, hangs himself after betraying David. There is a clear parallel between these two accounts. It also parallels death of David’s son Absalom who betrayed him and ended up dying while hanging from a tree. Though not strangled it also parallels Acts account of Judas’ death in that after being pierced many times by Joab and his men, some of Absalom’s insides would have poured on the ground. It would have been bloody. But are these passages attempting to give us more than an allusion to betrayers and their deaths? Are these passages giving us an accurate picture of Judas’ death.

The death of Judas

                We can start off with what we know. Matthew states that Judas hanged himself. That is a pretty straightforward and very plausible means by which one would kill themselves. Combine this with the fact that it alludes to the death of both of the traitors of King David, we can be pretty certain this is an accurate account. But then what about Acts where it says, “falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.” An explanation proposed is that Judas hanged himself, but his body was not taken down but hung there for several days. The likelihood of him hanging there for several days is quite high. Remember the Jewish leaders refused to enter Pilots court so that they might remain clean. During the week of the Passover, people would have been hesitant to touch a dead body, therefore his body hanging for days would not be surprising. It is known that bodies whether human or animal if left out in the elements will bloat and will explode releasing the contents of the body. This is messy and not pleasant. Calling the plot of land the “field of blood” would have been an appropriate description as well as described his betrayal and giving Jesus over to death.

Falling headlong

                The skeptics to this scenario would say, the passage says that Judas’ burst open after “falling headlong”.  The point being is that “falling headlong” does not sound like the same thing as being strangled or hanging oneself. Consequently, is this phrase compatible with someone who has hung himself, gotten bloated, and had his innards fall out after exploding? So, this phrase is the crux of the argument. Can this phrase be reconciled with this scenario? In the Greek this phrase is “prēnēs genomenos”. The term “genomenos” which is translated “falling” does not mean “falling” it means “to become”. So if we are translating “prēnēs” as headlong, then the phrase would be “to become headlong”, not necessarily “falling headlong”. So, what does “prēnēs” mean?

Unusual phrase

                The phrase “prēnēs genomenos” is unusual. If Luke wanted to describe someone falling headlong and then bursting open and dying, a more appropriate Greek term rather than “genomenos” would be “pipto” and would make it clear that it was a fall that ended Judas’ life. Luke uses this word for falling multiple times in his writing, for people falling headfirst at Jesus’ feet (Luke 5:8, 5;12, Acts 8:28, 16:29) and for an actual fall (Luke 6:39, 8:5, 10:18, Acts 5”5, 510, 9:4, 9:18, 20:9). These passages include the description of a boy falling out of a window to the ground and dying. We would think Luke would use similar language if Judas fell on something and his bowels burst open. But Luke doesn’t say he fell, he only says he became “prēnēs”. Interesting this phrase in of itself, does not give us any definitive cause of death, only that Judas’ body became “prēnēs” and burst open.

Manuscript error?

                Before we get into the meaning of “prēnēs”, some have posited that there may be a manuscript error here. It is believed that the original word may have been “prestho” which means “swollen”, making the phrase “having become swollen he burst open”. If this is true, then the contradiction is solved. It would fit in well with the scenario above.

Headlong

                Could the term “headlong” or “head fore-most” be referring to the focus of where the death occurred. When one is hanged death occurs through strangulation and possibly breaking of the neck. The focal point being the head. It is also the focal point of where the body was hanging. So, in other words having been hanging there “headlong” his body burst open. I figure this is the most unlikely of the possibilities to explain this term, since it is just a thought I had. I am not using this as a serious attempt to explain this passage. I only have it here out of curiosity in case if by chance an expert in the Biblical Hebrew language reads this article and could verify or discredit for me this position. Below are more plausible explanations of what Luke is describing here.

Bloated

                But what if “prēnēs” is the word in the original text, is it still compatible with Matthew 27? The author of the article, The Death of Judas: A Contradiction between Matthew and Acts? argues that the etymology of the word “prēnēs” can include the concept of “to inflate” or “to swell”. Luke having had been a doctor would probably have been aware of this process. Whereas Matthew focused on the cause of death, Luke focused on the ghastly results of the death. Both aspects reflecting the horror of Judas’ betrayal, foreshadowed through Ahithophel and Absalom. The author of the article shows how the word “prēnēs” is translated as “swelling” in transcripts referring to this text. He also refers to descriptions of this this tale which develop with a legend that Judas’ body did in fact swell up. The Louw-Nida lexicon mentions “swollen” or “distended” as a possible meaning of the word “prēnēs”. A Pocket Lexicon to the Greek New Testament by Alexander Souter states that “prēnēs” is “(a medical term, denoting a disease, and corresponding to πίμπρημι, which see), swollen up, inflamed.” Luke being a doctor would have been familiar with this use of the “prēnēs”. If this is what Luke meant her in this passage, then just as if he had originally used “prestho” there is no contradiction, and the description is a fitting description of what occurred.

Prostrate

                The word “prēnēs” can also be used to mean “prostrate” in the sense that when lying prostate your face is facing downward. (The IGEL, CDWGTHB, Louw-Nida, DBL Greek, LEH LXX Lexicon, LXGRCANLEX, and LALS support this as a definition of “prēnēs”). This is the least disputable of the meanings. In 3 Maccabees 5:43 and 50 we see this term being used to describe both the destruction of the temple and its being leveled to the ground and people prostrating themselves in prayer to God. In 3 Maccabees 6:23 as well as Wisdom of Solomon 4:19 this term is used to describe people lying prostrate. Since Luke doesn’t specifically tell us how Judas died, it is possible that after Judas’ death his body hung long enough for it to have bloated and that eventually Judas’ body either fell or was cut down and having fallen prostate with is face to the ground the impact of the fall caused his body to burst open. Interestingly Joab after killing Absalom while he was hanging in the tree, later through his body into a pit or ravine or gorge. In the traditional place of Judas’ death there are cliffs.

Conclusion on “prēnēs”

                It is easy to see that this term “prēnēs” is an apt description of what happened to Judas’ body and that Matthew and Luke come together to describe the gruesomeness and accursed nature of Judas’ death. They are not contradictory accounts, but instead each highlight aspects of Judas’ death. Matthew highlights the cause of Judas’ death while Luke highlights the gruesomeness of what happened to Judas’ body after death. Both alluding to stories of King David being betrayed by those who were close to him.

Who bought the field?

                The other contention with this passage is the claim that Matthew states that the chief priests bought the field, while Acts states that Judas acquired the field. Here are the passages,

But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, “It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is blood money.” So they took counsel and bought with them the potter’s field as a burial place for strangers. (Matthew 27:6,7)

Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness . . . (Acts 1:18)

So, let’s look at what these passages imply. Matthew states that the chief priests took the money Judas had thrown temple and later took it and used it to buy the field where Judas’ body was found. They did this because it was “blood money” and not lawful to have been put into the treasury. If it was unlawful for the money to have been placed into the treasury, it would have also been unlawful to use the money to officially buy something on behalf of the temple or priests. Having no where to place custody of these coins this money would have still have officially and lawfully belonged to Judas. Notice that Luke uses the word “acquired” and not “bought” as Matthew does. The term “acquire” just means to gain or obtain without referring to the means. This term would apply if the Priests not being able to buy the field on behalf of the temple instead bought it on behalf of Judas since technically the money still belonged to him, even though he had died. So, Matthew and Luke are not in conflict but are both describing the conundrum the priests had on how this money ought to be used and what they did to solve their problem.

Conclusion

                There is no contradiction between the passages in Matthew and Acts. They give the account of a man who betrayed Jesus, felt remorse, threw the money he gained into the temple, where it was picked up by the priests. He then left and hung himself, his body hanging for days and becoming bloated. Later his body fell or was cut down and on hitting the ground prostate his body burst open. During all this the priests took the money and not being able to use it for themselves or the temple nor transferring ownership of the money to anyone other than Judas, bought the field where Judas died on his behalf.

Articles to read:

• The Death of Judas: A Contradiction? (bible-apologetics.com)
• The Death of Judas – Bible Contradiction #19 – YouTube
• The Death of Judas: A Hopeless Bible Contradiction? (crossexamined.org)

As discussed in the previous article, these scenes are not static and chromatic, simple scenes, but instead are vibrant, and full-color events. Yet each gospel writer is only giving us gist snapshots of this dynamic event. It is good to look at what the denials are not. They are not Peter getting one question and then giving one denial each time, but instead three occasions where there are conversations in which Peter denies Jesus. This is also not a scene like mannequins in a store window where the characters remain in the same place and are immobile. There is a lot of movement and a lot of talking. So for example when one author speaks of sitting and another standing, the answer is yes. There is a fire in the middle of the courtyard with a group of people over several hours. There will be a movement among those people. Sometimes they will be standing, sometimes sitting, and probably at one time, you will have both. The Gospel writers are writing the gist of the story. If we were there and giving a gist, we would have described it in similar ways and with many people telling the story would have it told as it is told in the Gospels. Peter is also in distress, most in this kind of emotional distress do not remain still for long. So in the first denial, we see the gatekeeper servant girl start asking him questions and then following him to the fire and continuing her questioning multiple times as Peter sits and stands or stands and sits is a scene we would expect. It looks like she at least asked him three times. Peter’s denials are broken up into three periods of denials where a conversation occurred where Peter was questioned more than once and he responded more than once as he was questioned. So in other words, three dynamic periods of questioning with three dynamic responses or denials. If we only saw a one-question-one-reply response, the skeptics would be complaining that that is not how real conversations work and would be calling the story fake. Also, remember Peter was in distress, people in this kind of distress typically can’t stay still and will pace. Not only is he in distress but he is also trying to protect himself and get away from the questioning. So in the second scene, a possible scenario is that he leaves the fire, the gatekeeper servant girl takes advantage of this and questions him again and as he tries to get away from her and head back to the fire another servant girl nearby comes in on the questioning, they are both saying this to bystanders as well and others joined in in this episode of Peter’s second denial. Again on the third denial, we see a group of people questioning Peter, and Peter responds to those questions with cursing and denials. In between these episodes is a clear period of time in between each denial of probably about an hour. Which is fitting with what we would expect of the two rooster crows. So despite what some might complain the accounts in the Gospels of Peter’s denial are not contradictory.

Conclusion

The account of Peter’s denial makes sense if we understand the dynamic nature of normal life and conversations, there was a dialogue between Jesus and Peter and there were dialogues between Peter and his accusers. Peter was in distress and moving about. People were in a courtyard around a fire for hours and were also not static. This account also fits with what we know of how a rooster crows. Instead of being contradictory, these Gospel accounts give us a more realistic picture of what occurred.

God made us with the compacity of creativity. Because of sin, this creativity can be used wisely or foolishly, for good or evil. Skeptics no matter how the Bible is written will imagine faults and errors, it is human nature to deny God and it is human nature to creatively, though foolishly build arguments of what we think is evidence against God, for “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” When we say there is no God, we become like mannequins in a window. When we trust in the faithfulness of God we enter an adventurous and beautiful story.

Articles to Read:

• You Asked: Are the Differing Narratives of Peter’s Denials Reconcilable? (thegospelcoalition.org)
• MARKed – astonishing text variants – Page 2 – Biblical Criticism & History Forum – earlywritings.com
• Previous Article: The Rooster Crow

                The account of Peter’s denial is used as an example of how the Bible contradicts itself. In all the accounts but Mark, one crow is mentioned. But in Mark, there are two. And in the accounts of the three denials, is he sitting or standing, going toward the fire or away? We will look at these passages to show that they are indeed consistent and are not a good example for those trying to demonstrate errors within the Bible. We will first look at the rooster crows and then look at the events surrounding Peter’s three denials.

Circadian rhythm and the cockcrow

One of the iconic impressions that we have about morning arriving is the sound of birds cheerily singing in the background. Well, unless you have a rooster who’s cheerily singing is more like a buzzing alarm clock. Then you might associate a rooster crow with the morning. Most of us even though we haven’t been near roosters have heard of this phenomenon. Research in Japan (Circadian clock determines the timing of rooster crowing: Current Biology) demonstrated that roosters crow in the mornings in response to their circadian rhythms. Roosters had both a pre-dawn anticipatory crow two hours before light in this study as well as a crow stimulated by the first light at dawn. They will crow at other times of the night, but these times are timed by their circadian rhythm and are predictable.

Because of this habitual behavior of roosters, the term “rooster’s crow” has been associated with the dawn. If I were to say to someone, “I will meet you at the rooster crow.” It would be understood that I was saying I will be there at dawn. You would not assume I was referring to the anticipatory crow two hours before.

What if it wasn’t a rooster?

Some have suggested that this was not a rooster, since roosters were possibly not allowed in Jerusalem because of fear that they might defile the temple (there is no definitive evidence either way). The Mishnah has references to both a watchman and the blast of the trumpet being referred to as the cockcrow. In this case as with the rooster you would have the normal “morning wakeup call” at around sunrise, marking the beginning of temple worship, but also having other calls, such as calling the priests into the temple before the “morning wakeup call” to prepare the temple in the morning. Either way, there would be a main and general “morning call” for the general public and an earlier call before this main call to call the priests in to prepare the temple before the sunrise. Mark 13:35 also refers to the third night watch as being called the cock crowing, which would be appropriate for this time period whether it was a rooster or watchman.

Bible is not an exhaustive description, nor is it a movie

When the Gospel writers were writing their accounts paper was a limited resource. Writing wasn’t an exhaustive play-by-play description of the event. It would have been more of taking snapshots of a movie. They were also more concerned with the accurate gist than a detailed account of an event. For example, for a speech, you won’t necessarily get a word-by-word account, but you will get the heart of the message. They were also translating all this into Greek, so catching the heart of the message was key. When we see slight differences in the gospel it is because they are taking different gist snapshots of the story. Yet we read the accounts and think these gist snapshots are the movie. The characters and scenes and events are not like mannequins in a shopping window. Yet we treat these stories that way. And when you see the Gospels this way, you will see errors where there are none.

The ongoing dialogue

When we read the Gospels together it is clear that Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s denial is an ongoing denial. There was more than one discussion going on that night, but one that travels throughout the night with them is a discussion of “who is the greatest”. In midst of the disciple’s discussion of “who is the greatest” throughout the night, Jesus discusses how they will all fall away, that Judas will betray Jesus, and Peter will deny Jesus. Jesus is saying to them that they are not as great as they think they are. And it is clear that this ongoing conversation includes Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s denial. Below is a chart comparing the accounts in the Gospel.

Jesus’ discussion about Peter’s denial began while they were in the upper room and carried over to their travels to the Mount of Olives. And of what we know of Peter this makes sense. Jesus just told him that he would deny him, he wouldn’t have just let that go with a simple mannequin in the window conversation. And Jesus knowing the shame they would feel also would not have let it go making sure that they understood that he still wanted to see them despite their falling away.

The two rooster crows

Jesus and Peter have been having this ongoing conversation. It would not have been a stretch for Jesus to have told Peter both statements “the rooster will not crow till you have denied me” and “before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me”. Jesus could have started with the general understanding of the rooster crow at sunlight, telling Peter he would deny him before dawn. But when Peter continued to persist that he would not deny Jesus, Jesus might have added not only will you deny me three times before the rooster crow at sunlight, but you will do so despite also hearing the anticipatory rooster crow (or the call for the priests to come into the temple) beforehand as a warning, making his confidence in his strength even more contrasted with his fall. Notice Mark’s account is on the way to Mount Olives, so in the later part of the conversation so having a deeper dialogue on this would be expected. Another possibility is that Jesus mentioned both rooster crows throughout the night, but since the general gist was that denials would occur before sunrise, the other accounts just chose to refer to them happening before sunrise, which is true to the text and both accounts, and therefore not a contradiction. There is no need to add the anticipatory crow, since all three denials happened before the colloquial “rooster’s crow”. So, with either of these scenarios, it would not be surprising that when the other Gospel writers wrote the account, they left out the first rooster crow and only included the common understanding of the rooster crow at sunlight, simplifying the account, yet still accurate to the story.

Peter

It would make sense that Mark’s account would include the two rooster crows. Mark’s writing style is minimalistic, if something is added, it is probably for a reason. Mark was close with Peter, listened to him tell the story, and had a good grasp of Peter’s heart and emotions as the events played out. After the rooster crowed the second time, Peter went away, broke down, and wept bitterly. I don’t think his brokenness was just from the fact that he had denied Jesus three times. I can see him telling Mark, “I not only denied Jesus, but I also continued to deny him after hearing the rooster crow the first time, despite Jesus warning me and all my boasting, it did not stop me from continuing to deny Jesus”. You can see a man deeply broken by the depths of his sin and deeply in awe with the wonder and majesty of the grace of Jesus and insisting that Mark describe the depths of his depravity that Christ would be glorified, and the grace of the Gospel be evident. He was no longer a man that saw himself as the greatest of all the disciples. Either way and regardless of motives, since Mark talked with Peter directly, it is no surprise that he would give a more detailed account.

The timing

If we take into account, the timeline of Peter’s denial it would fit with the rooster crowing twice. At least for the roosters used in the study, the anticipatory crow was two hours before dawn when the rooster would crow a second time, the time most would associate with when “the rooster crows”. This would also fit with the timing between calling in the priests for temple duty and the general morning call. This first crow was probably ignored by most. But because of Jesus’ statement Peter noticed it. The first crow occurred after Peter’s first denial. The space between Peter’s first denial and his third denial appears to have been about two hours, the typical space between the anticipatory/first crow and the second/dawn crow.

Conclusion

All the accounts fit with what we know of how people spoke and what they meant by “before the rooster crow”. It fits with Mark having known Peter, therefore his giving a more detailed account. And it fits with what we know of the timing of rooster crows and Peter’s denials.

In the next post, we will discuss the denials and the supposed contradictions. Follow this link: (Peter’s Denial Pt.2 – My Beloved is Mine)

Other Articles to Read:

• Evangelical Textual Criticism: A Rooster Crowing Once and Twice – Mark 14
• How many times did the cock crow? (tektonics.org)
• BEFORE A ROOSTER CROWS ONCE OR TWICE? A Seemingly Intractable Contradiction in the Gospel Accounts Solved – Truth In My Days Ministry
• What is the significance of the rooster crowing in regards to Peter denying Jesus three times? | GotQuestions.org
• Peter’s Denial Pt.2 – My Beloved is Mine
• Peter and the rooster’s crow: A Contradiction? (christianworldviewpress.com)

[13] “And these you shall detest among the birds; they shall not be eaten; they are detestable: the eagle, the bearded vulture, the black vulture, [14] the kite, the falcon of any kind, [15] every raven of any kind, [16] the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk of any kind, [17] the little owl, the cormorant, the short-eared owl, [18] the barn owl, the tawny owl, the carrion vulture, [19] the stork, the heron of any kind, the hoopoe, and the bat.

[20] “All winged insects that go on all fours are detestable to you. [21] Yet among the winged insects that go on all fours you may eat those that have jointed legs above their feet, with which to hop on the ground. [22] Of them you may eat: the locust of any kind, the bald locust of any kind, the cricket of any kind, and the grasshopper of any kind. [23] But all other winged insects that have four feet are detestable to you.  (Leviticus 11:13–23, ESV)

[11] “You may eat all clean birds. [12] But these are the ones that you shall not eat: the eagle, the bearded vulture, the black vulture, [13] the kite, the falcon of any kind; [14] every raven of any kind; [15] the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk of any kind; [16] the little owl and the short-eared owl, the barn owl [17] and the tawny owl, the carrion vulture and the cormorant, [18] the stork, the heron of any kind; the hoopoe and the bat. [19] And all winged insects are unclean for you; they shall not be eaten. [20] All clean winged things you may eat. (Deuteronomy 14:11–20, ESV)

Atheists will say that since these passages, especially Deuteronomy 14:18, claim that bats are birds, the Bible has made a claim that is contrary to the truth of science. And if the Bible is making a claim contrary to science, then we cannot say that the Bible is inerrant. I will go through some issues and errors with this Atheists’ argument and show that it is based on a faulty and lazy reading of the passage and ignorance of basic concepts. If read carefully it is clear that passages are not in contradiction with modern science.

The Bible is not a science book

Some Atheists assert that God cannot use the understanding of the cosmology of the ancient world that the Bible was written. They say this because the cosmology of the ancient world is contrary to what we know of science, today. For them, if the Bible uses the cosmology of the ancient word it ceases to be inerrant because ancient cosmology has been proven wrong. But they fail to understand how the inspirations of the scripture took place or how it is defined. As God inspired the scriptures, he worked through men who lived in a particular time and culture and yes, with a particular understanding of cosmology and how the world works. God did not have them write in a trance or dictate the scriptures, and where he did speak to the prophets, he did so using the culture and understanding of those in that culture and time with whom He was speaking. He spoke personally to the people of that time in a way they would understand. The purpose of the Bible is to teach men about himself, God did not distract from that message by working to correct their science. The power of Biblical inspiration is that men wrote the Bible. This means they wrote it with all their cultural baggage and concepts and yet God used this to speak a truth that is more powerful than if he sought to correct their science. God takes their understanding of cosmology and uses it to tell us something about himself. It is within the prerogative of God to use imagery when he speaks. So, when we come to these passages, we expect God to use the language and the categorizing of animals that were used by the Israelites at this time.

Linguistic error

                When Atheists insist that in these passages the Bible claims that bats are birds, they show their lack of understanding of linguistics. After having just said that the Bible is not a science book if the Bible did indeed say that bats were the same thing as birds in our modern understanding of the word this would indeed be an error. But is that the case? The error is in their logic and their understanding of how linguistics works. In logic, a contradiction is when you have contradictory propositions that cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. So, to prove their case they would have to first prove that bats are being called birds, then they would have to additionally prove that these scriptures are using the term “bird” in the exact same sense that we use the word “bird”, today. They assume that an ancient word means the same thing as a modern word in every way. But again, does it? The problem is that Atheists ignore several aspects of how linguistics work. A basic concept of linguistics is that words when translated into different languages often don’t have a direct or exact one-on-one equivalence. So, the word for “bird” in an ancient culture may not have the same connotation or meaning as the word “bird”, today. We also know that language tends to be more general in concepts that are not used by cultures as frequently. You see this with words for colors. Or for example, snow, where the Eskimos have several words for different types of snow, yet here where I am from, we don’t, because we don’t see snow often and have little use for that specific terminology. In a culture where bats are not a big part of their culture, they may have just lumped them in with the term for birds. After all, it is the only flying mammal, where would you group them if you wanted to put them in a group? We cannot expect them to group animals in the same way as we do today. And we cannot expect them to use language in the same way we do. The term “bird” in English has come to mean what it means in taxonomy over time. The term “bird” has not always had the same meaning. And even in modern times the word is used in more than one sense, for example, “He was angry and gave him the bird.” When comparing words of a different language and time we must be specific in how we are defining our terms. For example, in this time and history, a statement, “That is bad” could mean either it was awful or awesome depending on the context. If you don’t care about the text, you tend to be sloppy with the text. Since Atheist don’t care about the text, they are often foolish and sloppy with the scripture. And that sloppiness makes them closed-minded. There is only a contradiction if they can show that the ancient Hebrew word is being used in an equivalent and exact way as the modern scientific understanding of the word “bird”. The Leviticus and Deuteronomy passages are not a contradiction because they were in no way making a modern scientific claim. Atheists feel free to claim that these words are equivalent, despite the obvious faulty logic, and somehow neglect to not provide any of the supporting evidence required to support their claim. The weight of their argument is on how it sounds to others, not on the facts.

Ancient people thought birds were bats?

The other problem with this Atheist claim is that they say the people of this time believed that bats were the same as birds, because they didn’t know any better. Really?  Do we really think that people of that time didn’t know the difference between bats and birds? Even though I am not an Eskimo and don’t have the words for it, I know that all snow is not the same. If I get that for something that is much more similar, I am pretty sure that people of that day even if they allowed bats to be included in the category of birds, did not think birds and bats are the same. We see that bats in these passages are placed in between birds and flying insects. This was purposeful because they did indeed know that bats and birds were not the same thing. This is an error of arrogance and pride, thinking that we are more observant and understand things more today than people in the past.

Why I labor on these points

                Why did I labor on these points? Because in other places these points are relevant. For example, these passages also speak of insects having four legs when we know they have six. A culture that eats insects gets a pretty good look at them and would have known the difference between four legs and six. When they use this general description, they are using a term that would have been understood not to have been accurate. They had a general term for creepy crawly things or things that swarm along the ground, which would include the category of bugs and even lizards. There are bugs with eight legs, some with six, and some with more. And not all the legs are the same. Some have jumping legs. If we include lizards in this category some have four legs. It would not be unusual to just use a general saying to cover all creepy crawly things or things that swarm along the ground. Again, were they describing the world from their culture in general terms and categories, or were they making a specific scientific claim? It is clear that they were describing the world in general terms. But in order for it to be a contradiction, you would have to prove that they are using these terms in the same sense and time as modern scientific terminology. They obviously were not, and it takes a fool to claim that they were. It is bad scholarship on the part of the Atheist to claim these things as contradictions.

These passages are not calling bats birds

Now I will show the evidence for the fact that these passages are not speaking in modern scientific terms but are instead using categorizations that were well known to the culture at the time these passages were written. As we read the Leviticus passage carefully, it gives us the categories it is using. And it is obvious that the list of animals is not organized with the same kind of taxonomy of modern science but is instead using a basic very general concepts of domain and appearance among these animals. The categories are given to us in Leviticus 11:46, “This is the law about beast and bird and every living creature that moves through the waters and every creature that swarms on the ground,” Listed below are the four catogies:

1. Beast (animals walking above the ground): Hoof cloven who chew the cud vs not
2. Water animals: with fins and scales vs not
3. Animals with wings (this category includes insects with wings not just bats)
4. Animals that swarm on the ground. (Isreal cannot eat anything in this category – important later)

These categories come directly from Genesis 9:2 when God tells Noah that the animals are given over as food.

The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. (Genesis 9:2–4, ESV)

In Genesis 9:2-4, all animals are given to mankind to eat, “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you”.  But now the Israelites are being set apart from the other nations and given restrictions on what they cannot eat among the animals. Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 do not randomly list animals, but purposely and fittingly harken back to Genesis 9:2-4. So, these restrictions are taking Noah’s mandate and its categories when animals were given to mankind as food and using it as a bases for the categories under which to list the added food restrictions for Israelites. We would not expect them to create a whole other system of categorization just to fit modern scientific taxonomy.

When we look at the Leviticus passage and explore the category of “animals with wings” we find that the word used to distinguish this category from the others is the word, “ʿôp̄”. The word “ʿôp̄” is a general term referring to winged animals. It is not a specific word for bird and therefore can encompass birds, bats, and insects as it does in this passage. So, in Leviticus 11, the passage is in no way shape, or form claiming that bats are birds. It is only saying that bats are winged animals. But there is also something else. We see two categories of flying animals, basically birds and bats (or flying animals with bony wings) vs flying insects (small swarming flying animals), though they are both included in the overall category of flying animals. Bats don’t fit in with the insects but being the only other animal with true boney wings other than birds, they fit well with that category.

But it is not in Leviticus 11 that we get the term for “bird” that is in dispute. The reason people get caught up in this claim is that Deuteronomy 14:11 uses a different word for bird, “ṣip·pôr”. Deuteronomy 14 is a summary of Leviticus 11. For example, it uses the same categories of Leviticus 11, but it leaves out the category of “animals that swarms on the ground” because after all none of the animals in this category can be eaten. When it comes to winged insects that can be eaten it just says “all clean winged things you may eat” expecting you to go back to Leviticus 11 for the detailed list. So it is important that in looking at this passages that we have Leviticus 11 in our head, since it is dependent on it. So when we get to verses 11-20, we are in the category of flying animals. Notice the structure of this passage.

So, when it comes to the winged animals category, Deuteronomy gives you two bookends listing things you can eat, “You may eat all clean “ṣip·pôr”. . . . All clean winged things you may eat” In between these two bookends, it lists winged animals including insects and bats that should not be eaten, who are among the category of winged animals. So, it is basically saying, clean winged “ṣip·pôr”, yes and clean winged animals, yes, anything in-between these two in this list don’t eat. So bats are clearly listed here within a category of animals with wings along with insects and birds. But there is also another indication that these sandwiched lists of winged animals are meant to be seen as a group in Deuteronomy 14 and associated with Genesis 9:2, for it is interesting to note that all the sandwiched winged animals on the list of what not to eat are connected by the Hebrew “וְ” or “and”, including “and all winged insects”. With the added sub-bookends consolidating this list with “But these are the ones that you shall not eat . . . . are unclean for you; they shall not be eaten. This supports the notion that all these animals are meant to be seen together as a Genesis 9:2 group, providing further support that bats were not being called birds in the modern sense. Peter Altmann in his article, Banned Birds, argues that because Deuteronomy relies heavily on Leviticus 11, Deuteronomy 14 also splits this into two subcategories, with the term “ṣip·pôr” fitting with the larger flying animals which would include bats and birds. A similar usage may be employed in Genesis 7:14. “and every bird, according to its kind, every winged creature” (Genesis 7:14b, ESV). If we look at the way animals are being categorized throughout the Pentateuch, this would be no surprise. The only animal besides birds that have wings is the bat, so this is the category you would expect it to be in. What is also interesting is that they indicate that despite categorizing bats with birds, they understood that bats and birds were not the same.  We know this because they listed them at the end. Owls have a unique body structure and yet are listed in the middle, so they understood also that owls have the same basic structure as the other birds. And this is what you would expect from this culture and how we see them use words. Bats are listed exactly where we would expect them to be listed. Atheist will claim that bats could have been categorized differently. Really! Only if you ignore Genesis 9:2-4 and their culture. No, this is the perfect place for them to list bats.

Although not needed to show no contradiction exists, another question arises, does the list in Deuteronomy 14:12-18 refer to “ṣip·pôr” or is it understood as referring to “ʿôp̄” or the general category of winged animals. This all depends on the pronoun “ē-hěm’” is referring to. Is it referring to the understood category of flying animals or is it referring to “ʿôp̄” or is it specifically referring to “ṣip·pôr”? Although not needed to prove that it is not contradictory, could the passages in the middle of the bookends not be referring to “ṣip·pôr” at all? Because dialogue is often more of the gist rather than a word for word dictation, literarily this is possible. But the syntax also matters in determining this. And this is where an expert in Hebrew language would need to step in. And so an interesting question for someone who is more of an expert than I. And so, I leave it there as a curiosity, though not needed to support our case.

Here is the issue, in order to provide proof that these passages are saying that bats are birds in the modern scientific sense, you first have to prove that “ṣip·pôr” is being used for more than a bookend and is in fact specifically referring to bats. Which can be argued. But then you are still stuck with the more difficult task of showing that linguistically the term for “ṣip·pôr” in an ancient language is exactly equivalent to our modern scientific word “bird” in English (that they are in the same sense) for there to be a contradiction. Based on the evidence this does not seem to be the case. As already mentioned, in response to this, I have heard some say well this may be true, but if God is all-knowing wouldn’t he use better categories? What? Saying, “I would categorize it differently” is an opinion, not evidence and is quite arrogant and foolish. It ignores proper scholarship. Bats are listed exactly where we would expect them to be listed given the context of Genesis 9:2 and Leviticus 11. We also see this same method of categorization in Genesis 1:30, 6:7, 7:8, 7:23, and 8:17, which bolster this case. We would be surprised to see them listed in an all-new category.

If we look closely at these passages the focus is on animals with wings, and that is the most anyone can say with any authority or certainty. Even insects are included in this category. If we were sitting around with a group of people playing a game and they said list as many animals as you can with wings, there would be no shock or discomfort if people listed bats or insects on their list. Even scientists playing this game would have probably put bats on their list. Some thinking they were extra smart probably included winged insects. If it is not a contradiction for scientists, it should not be a contradiction for Atheists. Imagine the response of the scientists to the Atheists, if the Atheists got up and started arguing that the scientists were claiming bats were birds. The Atheists would look foolish to the scientist. This is what we have here.

Conclusion

It is important that we read scriptures carefully and allow the text to speak for itself. If we don’t read them and process them carefully, we will find ourselves overlooking aspects of the text and making basic errors. Atheists have been quick and emphatic to make a claim that goes against the basic, very basic, understanding of logic, linguistics, and literature. Declaring something strongly or emphatically doesn’t make it right, it only makes them look foolish because they do not have the evidence to back it up when tested by scrutiny. In these two passages, you have to make too many leaps of logic and ignore basics to insist that the Bible is claiming that bats are birds in the modern scientific sense. And then you have to be even more ignorant to say that this claim is definitive and a fact, and not just an opinion. Atheists are simply wrong and have nothing to stand on. But because they don’t care about the text, they are sloppy in their scholarship in general when it comes to supposed contradictions. It is true what the Bible says, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt . . .”

Other articles to read:

• Banned Birds: The Birds of Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 on JSTOR
• Did the Bible Writers Commit Biological Blunders? – Apologetics Press
• Does the hare chew the cud? New info. Pro Bible – Apologetics – Worthy Christian Forums
  • EvC Forum: Does the rabbit chew the cud? Bible inerrancy supported!

Johnathan MS Pearce an atheist in his dialogue with Dave Armstrong gives ways hew believes would reconcile Luke in his comments on the proposed discrepancy between Luke 2:1-2 and Matthew 2:1-4 and the census of Quirinius and Herod. He states, “The Christian is left with several options: either question the date that Herod died, or that the census took place, or claim that Quirinius knocked around twice in the area, or had two censuses.” (Reply to Atheist JMS Pearce: Herod’s Death & Alleged “Contradictions)

Introduction

In Luke 2:2, we read, “In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria”. These words have caused many to assume that the Christian claim to the inerrancy of scripture cannot be true. For here it fails the test. They claim that the census of Quirinius would have occurred in A.D. 6 after he became governor of Syria, which is years out of range for the most accepted dates for the birth of Jesus. When trying to pinpoint the date of Jesus’ birth, we have both more precise dates and dates that are vague. This leaves us with ranges and probabilities rather than a precise date that everyone can agree on. But what we must prove is not a precise date but given the information we have could Luke’s writing about Quirinius have been accurate. In this writing, we will look at some of the possible solutions to show that Luke most likely documented history accurately and fits within what we know from Josephus’ writing. In this writing, I will not argue for a specific date or solution to this question but will show possible ways that would allow Luke to be consistent with the data that we have at this point as he is throughout his writing.

Dating Jesus’s Birth

Scholars use textual evidence within the Gospels and historical references outside the Bible to estimate the date of the birth of Jesus. It is noted that in Matthew, Herod on finding out about the birth of the King of the Jews, ascertained when the star appeared and killed all the boys in Bethlehem two years or younger. Since Herod would have been conservative in trying to destroy his rival, Jesus would have been born no more than two years before this event. Luke, in his Gospel, claims that John the Baptist began his ministry in “the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar” (Luke 3:1-2). We don’t know how long John ministered before Jesus was baptized. And we do not know the exact age of Jesus when he started his ministry, but we know that he was “about thirty years of age”. So, subtracting the “about 30 years” from the 15^th year of Tiberius Caesar helps to narrow down the time frame of the birth of Jesus. Another textual evidence, though more controversial is Luke 2:1-2 which discusses a census that was taken and Quirinius being in Syria. So, it is indicators like these that help us to get a range of when events could have occurred, but getting the exact dating of Jesus’ birth is not as easy.

For example, with “the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar”, when is a reign judged to begin? If a reign starts part way through a year, what year do you count as the first year? Or what about if there is a period of co-regency? For Jesus’ age when starting his ministry, what does “about 30” mean? How long after John started his ministry did Jesus’s ministry begin? How long before Herod’s death did the Magi come to Jerusalem? Based on the data through the range of years, people estimate for Jesus’s birth is 8 B.C. – 1 A.D, with the most likely candidates being 6-4 B.C, 3-1 B.C.

Dates Historically Proposed

Historically the most popular date options for Jesus’ birth have been 6-4 B.C., 3/2 B.C, and 1 B.C. Below is a chart adapted from Jack Finegan’s Handbook of Biblical Chronology from the article What year was Jesus born? The answer may surprise you by Jimmy Akin. The dates of 3/2 B.C. fit with what many of the early church fathers believed was the date of Jesus’ birth. The date 1 B.C. was made popular through Dionysius Exiguus’ calculations and his popularizing of the B.C./A.D. calendar system.

In the 1800s a German scholar Emil Schürer looked at the fact that Herod died in between a lunar eclipse and the Passover. He found that there had been a lunar eclipse in 4 B.C. that was visible from Jerusalem and so proposed 4 B.C. as the date of Herod’s death. Since Mathew has Jesus being born before Herod’s death and the fact that Matthew says he killed the boys in Bethlehem two years and younger Jesus’ birth was estimated to be around 6-4 B.C. His work on this and his dating has been popular thought in modern times.

15^th year of Tiberius’ reign

We will first look at Luke’s dating of the beginning of John the Baptist’s ministry which he ties in with the 15^th year of Tiberius’ reign and how it ties into the timing for Jesus’ birth. In Luke 3:1-2 we read,

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness. (Luke 3:1-2, ESV)

Augustus the Caesar prior to Tiberius died on August 19^th, A.D. 14, however, Tiberius co-ruled with Augustus as an equal starting in A.D. 12. So, depending on which of these points Luke saw as the starting point of Tiberius’s reign we are looking at a range of somewhere near A.D. 26 or A.D. 29 for the beginning of the ministry of John the Baptist. If we assume that Jesus’ ministry started immediately after the start of John’s ministry when he was about “about 30 years” and with that assumption subtract 30 years from those dates, we are left with an approximate date of 6-4 B.C. and 3/2 B.C. for Jesus’ birth, respectively. Because of the room for Jesus’ age and not knowing how long in between the dates John and Jesus started their ministries, there is room for a range of dates allowing 1 B.C as a valid date for Jesus’ birth based on this information. We will see that these dates also work with the proposed dates for Herod’s death as well. Interestingly, Pilot who is also mentioned came into Judea and Samaria in A.D. 25. He along with the other historical figures listed by Luke also fit within the range of the most likely dates for the birth of Jesus, as well as the start of his ministry.

We can rule out, A.D. 6 timing for Jesus’ birth as some have suggested in order to have it reconcile with Luke’s statement about Quirinius. This would make Jesus 23 years old is not near 30 years and is also younger than 25 years old, the age necessary for someone to start their service as priest (see here). We get the same issue if we attempt to get a later date for Jesus’ birth by assuming the Herod of Luke 1:5 is Archelaus instead of Herod the Great.

So, at this point, we still left with likely ranges of 6-4 B.C and 3/2 B.C with some wiggle room. Next, we will look at Herod’s Death.

Herod’s Death

Because both Mathew and Luke have Herod still alive at the time of the birth of Jesus (Matthew 2:1, Luke 1:5) knowing when he died would give us a date by which Jesus had to have been born. Matthew gives us the account of the Magi visiting Herod in order to find the King of the Jews. Since as we noted earlier Herod would have been conservative in trying to destroy his rival, we can assume that Jesus was born no more than 2 years before the visit from the Magi. Although Mathew does not say how long before the death of Herod the account of the Magi occurred, if we estimate around 30 years before Tiberius’ fifteenth year reign, we get within the range of around two years before Herod’s death. Josephus said that during the time of Herod’s death there was a lunar eclipse (Antiquities 17.6.4) and that Herod died sometime in between this eclipse and the next Passover. If we know which eclipse Josephus is talking about then this would help to provide an anchor date that we could use to help understand the timing of other events. There were only 4 lunar eclipses visible in Jerusalem during this time frame. They are listed in the table below with their attributes.

The eclipse that is most popularly assumed to be associated with Herod’s death in modern times is the 4 B.C. eclipse. The 4 B.C. eclipse on March 12-13^th was not complete, its maximum shadow only being 36%, and occurred late at night near the feast of Purim and was 29 days before the Passover. The March 4 B.C. eclipse has been questioned because Josephus gives us an account of several things that occurred after the eclipse and 29 days does not seem to be enough time to accomplish all that Josephus stated happened between the eclipse and Passover. Andrew Stienmann states that it “would have taken a minimum of 41 days” to accomplish these tasks (From Abraham to Paul, 231). These events are listed below.

1. Herod’s illness declined, with sores putrefied and breeding worms
2. Herod was taken to get treatments in warm baths about 10 miles away. After these treatments were unsuccessful, he returned home.
3. He ordered important men from the area to come to him, they arrived some coming from 70-80 miles away.
4. Five days before Herod’s death he executes his son Antipater.
5. After his death, his body was taken about 23 miles away to be buried.
6. A 7-day period of mourning occurred, followed by a feast
7. Another public morning also occurred to commemorate those who were killed by Herod on the night preceding the eclipse

The other three eclipses have more time for these events to have occurred. Given this and its maximum shadow being 36%, the March 4 B.C. date is not the most likely candidate. The eclipse on September 15^th, 5 B.C. was a total eclipse occurring near Yom Kippur, seven months before the Passover. This eclipse would render a death date for Herod of around 4 B.C. There were also two eclipses in 1 B.C. The January 10^th eclipse occurred near midnight and was a total eclipse. It occurred 89 days before the Passover.  Later that year, on December 29^th, there was an eclipse at moonrise with a maximum shadow of 53% and was most visible at around 6 p.m. This eclipse occurred around 101 days before the next Passover. Both of these eclipses would be viable candidates for the eclipse described before Herod’s Death.

Basically, with this information, the most likely points of both Herod’s Death and Jesus’s birth again fit within the 6-4 B.C., 3/2 B.C., and 1 B.C range.

Could the eclipse assumption be wrong?

                Here is a link to an interesting paper by Duncan Cameron that discusses the possibility that the eclipse may not be a proper event to use to help establish an anchor date: Target Fixation and the Eclipse of Josephus: towards a redating of Herod’s death | Duncan Cameron – Academia.edu

Conclusion

I am still reading on this subject, not sure where I stand on specifically which lunar eclipse occurred before Herod’s death. There are other criteria I want to look at more. However, all these eclipses fall within the range of the accepted possibilities of Jesus’s birth. We will continue to see that these dates fit within other expected criteria as well.

Articles to read:

• Herod’s Death, Jesus’ Birth and a Lunar Eclipse – Biblical Archaeology Society
• Reply to Atheist JMS Pearce: Herod’s Death & Alleged “Contradictions” | Dave Armstrong (patheos.com)
• The 100-year old *mistake* about the Birth of Jesus| National Catholic Register (ncregister.com)
• Jesus’ birth and when Herod the Great *really* died – Jimmy Akin
• Does Luke Contradict Himself on When Jesus Was Born? | Catholic Answers
• Ormond Edwards, “Herodian Chronology,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly  114 (1982): 29-42
• Andrew Steinmann, “When Did Herod the Great Reign?” Novum Testamentum 51 (2009) 1-29
• Microsoft Word download – ElapsedTimes with section 9 corrected (rcyoung.org)
• King Herod’s Death Year – 4 BC or 1 BC? | The Odds
• On the Time of Herod’s death (expreso.co.cr)
• The Beginning of the Christian Era Revisited: New Findings (semanticscholar.org)
• Yet Another Eclipse for Herod (johnpratt.com)
• Target Fixation and the Eclipse of Josephus: towards a redating of Herod’s death | Duncan Cameron – Academia.edu

Side note: Objection that there are no records of a massacre of infants by Herod. I deal with that in this post: Massacre of the innocents.

So, what about Quirinius?

Now, we come to the controversial passage of Luke 2:1-2.

In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria.

This passage regarding the timing of the birth of Jesus states, “In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria” (ESV). Objections have been raised by scholars that make them and others question the accuracy of these two verses. The objections are as follows,

• No known empire-wide census occurred under Augustus
• No census would have required Joseph to be in Bethlehem
• Mary would have not been required to be part of the census
• No census occurred under King Herod in Palestine
• Josephus only mentions Quirinius’ census in A.D. 6
• There are no known records of Quirinius as Legate over Syria during the time of Jesus’ birth

The most important of these objections is the timing of Quirinius and his involvement in a census occurring in Palestine during this time. There are no records of Quirinius as legate over Syria during the times given for Jesus’ birth. The only records we have that show Quirinius serving as legate over Syria is starting A.D. 6, after the banishment of the ethnarch Herod Archelaus. Josephus also records a census occurring in A.D. 6. Quirinius starting as Legate over Syria and this census is seen to be in direct contradiction to the fact that Herod the Great is said to be alive during the birth of Jesus. And as we have seen, Herod the Great died well before A.D. 6.

Matthew 2:1 states,

“Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem”.

And not only does Matthew states that Herod was alive during Jesus’ birth, but Luke also supports Matthew’s claim in Luke 1:5 when he says, “In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah”. And so, it appears that not only does Luke 2:1-2 seem to be in direct contradiction with Matthew’s account of Jesus’ birth, but that this statement also contradicts Luke’s own statement only shortly before. But would Luke make such an error only one chapter apart?

Luke seems to be aware of the intricacies of the politics during the time between Herod’s death and Quirinius’s governorship over Syria in A.D. 6 (Luke 3:1-2). He is also aware of the census Josephus describes along with the rebellion that had occurred with Judas the Galilean (Acts 5:37). Luke would have known that Herod’s rule over Judea and Quirinius A.D. 6 rule over Judea could not have occurred simultaneously. So why would Luke who is so careful in his writings miss such an obvious error and even contradict himself? Or would he? It would be a bold statement to say that Luke who proves himself diligent would be so egregiously careless. That being the case, we ourselves should not be careless by rejecting it only after taking a cursory reading of this passage, but instead should carefully and diligently investigate how Luke meticulously words his description of the events. He carefully uses words such as “protos” and “hegemoneuo” along with grammar style to express these events. The wording Luke uses in this passage is unusual, but as we look closer, we will discover possible solutions to this dilemma and proposed contradiction.

protos

Luke uses the Greek word “protos”, which is translated above as “first”, to qualify his statement about the census. He also uses a curious grammatical structure that presents interesting possible implications into what Luke is referring to. Because the phrasing and grammar Luke uses in constructing his sentence in Luke 2:2 is unusual and odd. He uses the genitive structure and odd grammar. If Luke was merely speaking of the census that occurred under Quirinius in A.D. there are simpler ways to say this. Why use a more difficult structure when a simpler sentence would suffice? Because of this, Scholars have suggested that this passage could be translated differently. The main alternative proponents are understanding “protos” to mean either “before” or “became prominent”. Each of these possibilities including as we will see translating it as “first” demonstrates that Luke was distinguishing this census from the A.D. 6 census.

So, in summary, the Greek allows for three possible translations for the qualifying word “protos”,

• this is the “first” of more than one census taken while Quirinius was serving in a government role while in Syria
• this is a census conducted “before” the census of Quirinius in A.D. 6.
• The census began earlier but became prominent later and was completed when Quirinius was governor of Syria

Each of these readings has evidence that supports these possible interpretations. Those who believe Luke is wrong would have to show in what sense Luke is using the word, “protos” and how Luke’s use of the genitive structure and odd grammar fits within this interpretive structure, and why Luke has chosen a more cumbersome way of saying this, when there are simpler options in the Greek.

“before”

NT Wright in his book, Who is Jesus? (pp 98-99) argues that in the specific use here “protos” can rightly be translated as “before”

In the Greek of the time, as the standard major Greek lexicons point out, the word protos came sometimes to be used to mean ‘before’, when followed (as this is) by the genitive case. A good example is in John 1.15, where John the Baptist says of Jesus “he was before me”, with the Greek being again protos followed by the genitive of “me”.[18] I suggest, therefore, that actually the most natural reading of the verse is: “This census took place before the time when Quirinius was governor of Syria.”…

My guess is that Luke knew a tradition in which Jesus was born during some sort of census, and that Luke knew as well as we do that it couldn’t have been the one conducted under Quirinius, because by then Jesus was about ten years old. That is why he wrote that the census was the one before that conducted by Quirinius.

This is also discussed in an article by James Keifer in The Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke (rowan.edu),

Turning to the word PROTOS, translated “first,” we note that it means “earliest,” but is also sometimes used to mean “earlier, prior, previous.” John the Baptist says (John 1:15,30), “he was first of me”, meaning, “he was earlier than I.” Greek regularly uses “of” (the genitive case) rather than “than” to express comparison. So that Luke’s words can be translated: “This enrollment occurred earlier than Quirinius governing Syria,” meaning, “This was the census just before the big one (the one that everyone knows about, because it started a rebellion) under Quirinius.” There are in fact three plausible ways of parsing the phrase: (1) We can read it as “the first census, Quirinius being governor of Syria.” This treats “Quirinius governing Syria” as a genitive absolute, similar to the Latin ablative absolute or the English nominative absolute as in “Jones took notes, the regular secretary being absent,” or the more frequent, “The picnic will be on Tuesday, weather permitting”. This is the construction assumed by most English translators. (2) We can read it as “the census earlier than Quirinius governing Syria.” This treats “Quirinius governing Syria” as a genitive of comparison. (3) We can read it as “the census earlier (than the census) of Quirinius governing Syria.” This assumes that Luke omits the second occurrence of the word “census”, as if I were to say, “My dog is smarter than his,” expecting people to understand that I meant, “My dog is smarter than his dog.” Such omissions of repeated words are standard in many languages. In John 5:36, we have, “The testimony I have is greater than (the testimony) of John.” In 1 Corinthians 1:25, we have “The foolishness of God is wiser than (the wisdom) of men, and the weakness of God is stronger than (the power) of men.” If this is the construction Luke intended, then “Quirinius” is an ordinary genitive of possession, modifying “census” understood. On either the second or the third interpretation, all difficulties vanish. George Ogg, who thinks that Luke is wrong about Quirinius, objects that there are no undisputed passages in which PROTOS followed by a participial phrase in the genitive case clearly means “before.” I think this is unreasonable. He does not deny that PROTOS often means “before,” or that participial phrases can occur in the genitive of comparison. I think his objection is little like questioning the authenticity of the Gettysburg Address on the grounds that Lincoln nowhere else uses “fourscore” to mean “eighty.” Even granted that he is right, this would eliminate the second construction listed above, but leave the third (which he does not consider) as a perfectly good possibility.

If this is true, then Luke can be read as having said that this census occurred before Quirinius was governor in Syria and the conflict is solved. Wallace argues against this in his article, The Problem of Luke 2:2 “This was the first census taken when Quirinius was governor of Syria” | Bible.org, but he doesn’t say that it is an impossible interpretation. I am not an expert on Greek, so cannot comment.

Articles to read:

• CADRE Comments (christiancadre.blogspot.com)
• The Lucan Censuses, Revisited on JSTOR

“prominent”

The other possibility argued for is that the grammar implies that the census became prominent while Quirinius was governor in Syria. Below is a quote from two articles. The first is, Did Luke get his nativity history wrong? by Ian Paul:

Intriguingly, this ties in well with a quite separate argument about Luke’s language here. Marshall notes that ‘the form of the sentence is in any case odd’ (p 104); why say something was ‘first’ when there is nothing to compare it with? Stephen Carlson has looked even more closely, and also noted that the verb egeneto also seems strange; why suggest the census ‘became’ something, rather than that it simply ‘was’? Carlson suggests that prote, rather than ‘first’ numerically, should be read as ‘of most importance’—much as we might say ‘so-and-so is Arsenal’s Number One player.’ This would then give the translation as:

This registration became most prominent when Quirinius was governing Syria.

or

This [decree to get registered] became the/a most important registration when Quirinius was governing Syria.

In the end, the mystery of the conflict between Luke and Josephus remains unsolved and (as Marshall puts it) ‘can hardly be solved without the discovery of fresh evidence.’ But these arguments at least offer a plausible explanation—and when considering questions of history, proof is rarely possible, but plausibility is an important measure. It certainly offers no grounds to write off Luke’s account, think it unhistorical or a fabrication, or see it as in conflict with Matthew. (Paul, Ian; Did Luke get his nativity history wrong?)

Here is the other quote from The Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke (rowan.edu):

Instead of supposing that Luke, or at least our present version of Luke, is wrong, we may question whether Luke has been correctly understood. The Greek reads: “This enrollment first occurred of Quirinius governing Syria.” Two words here require careful examination: (1) EGENETO, meaning “occurred” or “came to pass,” and (2) PROTOS, meaning “first” or “earliest.”

Luke uses EGENETO again in Acts 11:28, where a prophet predicts a famine, which Luke explains “occurred” (later) under the emperor Claudius. Thus, it is suggested, Luke may have meant that the census was commanded by Augustus and begun in about 7 BC, but completed under Quirinius, and hence known to historians as the census of Quirinius, or the census of 6 AD, or the like. The objection to this is that if Luke had meant “completed,” he should have said so. A strong objection, but not, I think, a fatal one. Luke may have been thinking in terms of a command by Augustus: “I want a list given me of all the property in the empire and who owns it.” A dozen years later, Quirinius says: “Here is the list, all checked out.” If one is thinking of the result (the whole empire organized on a rational, businesslike, efficient, bureaucratic basis), and not of the process of organization, the expression “occurred” is perfectly natural. Suppose that a speaker says, “Sports fans have long been waiting to see whether Hank Aaron would hit as many home runs as Babe Ruth, and this finally occurred on September 12, 1977.” No one takes this to mean that Aaron hit more than seven hundred home runs on the day mentioned, or that in place of “this finally occurred” the speaker ought to have said, “this feat was finally completed,” or something of the sort. I maintain that a perfectly possible interpretation of Luke’s statement is: “In those days, Caesar Augustus expressed a wish that the domains of King Herod might be completely surveyed and added to the tax rolls. In the days when Quirinius was governor of Syria, his wish was fulfilled.” Alternatively, we may suppose that Luke is using the word APOGRAPHE to refer, not to the preliminary surveying, registration, and assessment of real estate, but to the collecting of the taxes. In this case, we translate he statement somewhat as follows: “In those days, Augustus commanded that real estate everywhere should be taxed, and that the preliminary surveying and registration should begin at once. The tax was actually collected (in Palestine) in AD 6 when Quirinius was governor of Syria.” This interpretation has Luke using the same term for the registration and for the taxation, but this is not surprising in anyone not a tax lawyer. Given this interpretation, Luke’s use of “occurred” rather than “completed” for the events of AD 6 is above even the most nit-picking criticism.

If “became prominent” is the proper understanding of this verse, once again there is no contradiction.

Articles to read:

• Luke 2:2 and the Census (hypotyposeis.org)
• Parsing Luke 2:2 (hypotyposeis.org)
• Putting Luke 2:2 in context (hypotyposeis.org)

Conclusion to alternate Greek interpretations

Again, since I am not an expert on koine Greek and this is well beyond what I have learned so far, I cannot comment, but only present the data. But what I understand from what I have read, Luke’s use of grammar in this passage is quite unique with few examples of similar syntax in known koine Greek literature, and so the debate on the exact meaning of this phrase may have to continue or be on hold till we find more koine Greek literature that uses the same structure which will allow us to better support a specific interpretation. So, until we know for sure let’s move forward and look at what if “first” is the correct translation.

“first”

If we take “protos” to mean “first, then the phrase “This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria” assumes that there was at least one other census while Quirinius officiated over Syria. Josephus writes about the census in A.D. 6 under Quirinius, and this is what is used to show that Luke is in error. It is assumed that this is the only census or at least the first under Quirinius and since it is well past the time of Jesus’ birth, it in no way can be reconciled with the claim that Herod was still alive at the time of Jesus’ birth. However, Luke is not claiming that he is referring to the census in A.D. 6, which we have seen he was aware of. He is claiming that he is referring to the “first” census when Quirinius officiated in Syria. He could have used this term to clarify and distinguish it from the well-known census of A.D. 6. So rather than being evidence for the A.D. 6 census it is actually possibly evidence against it.

hegemoneouo

You might say, well we know that Quirinius was Legate over Syria starting A.D. 6 so that verifies that this must be the census. Not so fast. Luke doesn’t say the Quirinius was Legate over Syria. Luke is very careful in his terminology. The term he uses is “hegemoneouo”. The term “hegemoneouo” can be used to refer to more than one type of officiating office. So not only are we asking, was there a previous census, but also did Quirinius serve in any officiating compacity in Syria before A.D. 6? And since Quirinius was a high-ranking official, basically all that we need to show is that he could have been in Syria at this time. Thought we don’t have a definitive record of all his dealings with this area, this is an area he frequented and so it is reasonable to assume that this could have been the case. Again, Luke could be using the term, “hegemoneouo” to distinguish this role from when Quirinius was Legate in A.D. 6. Providing evidence that the census occurred at an earlier date.

So, in other words, the burden of proof is not to show that the census of A.D. 6 while Quirinius was Legate coincides with Jesus’ birth, any such effort is only sidetracking the issue, but rather for this to be a contradiction it must be shown that no other census occurred before A.D. 6 while Quirinius was in the area. And this is only if “first” is the correct translation for “protos”.

What Luke does not say about the census

Many of us have heard the passage in Luke 2 read many times. It is a popular passage during the telling of the Christmas story. As we hear this passage many of us have pictures in our minds of what the journey was about and what it was like for Mary and Joseph. As these issues are discussed it is important to not bring our assumptions into this passage. There are things that Luke does not say, and we should not assume.

• We should not assume that this census was for taxation purposes. The word Luke uses for “registration” could refer simply to a counting or a call for an oath of loyalty to Ceasar. And we will see that such a thing did take place during this time in Judea while Herod the Great was king.
• We should not assume that Mary was going with Joseph because she too was a part of the census. Luke does not state that. He only states that she went with him. We also see that they remained in Bethlehem for some time. If they were using this opportunity to make a move, it would make sense to take Mary.
• We should not assume that “each to his own town”, refers to everyone in the empire returning to the home of their ancestry. The passage doesn’t say that this was the case for all the empire, only that Joseph in this case went to Bethlehem because he was of the house and lineage of David, which could be based on lineage or family property in Bethlehem.
• We cannot assume that the census happened everywhere in the empire at the same time. It may have been decreed by Augustine at a time for the whole empire, but history shows that censuses could take years to complete. Transportation and communication did not occur as fast as they do, today. Also, we know that Augustine had a general policy of census taking, which this alone would fit in with what Luke wrote.
• Assume that Mary was at the final stages of her pregnancy. We don’t know how long Joseph and Mary were in Bethlehem before she gave birth. They could have left any time after three months into her pregnancy.

Was there a census before A.D. 6?

Since Augustus had an overall policy of registration and understanding the accounting of the Roman Empire, creating a culture where this was conducted throughout the empire, it would not be unusual for Luke to be referring any registration that occurred with Augustus and his policies. Augustus in his work Res Gestae describes how he initiated the taking of empire-wide censuses in the years 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and A.D. 14. Also, another census was taken throughout the empire culminating in Augustus being declared the “Father of the Country” on February 5^th, 2 B.C. Because censuses took years to complete and were conducted differently in different areas, the 8 B.C. census and the census declaring allegiance to Augustus fit well within a birth date of Jesus being around 6/5 B.C or 3/2 B.C. Would these censuses have affected Judea? Possibly. For a short time around 9 B.C. Herod lost favor with Augustus and Augustus for a short time took away Herod’s title as “friend of Caesar”. Herod also during this time had struggles within his family and assigning the heirs to his throne, something that required the consent and approval of Rome. So, even though he was a client kingdom and not necessarily required to participate, it is possible he did so to win favor with Augustus. Also, we know that at times censuses were imposed on client-states by Rome.

Dr. Jack Finegan, professor of New Testament history and archaeology and director of the Palestine Institute of Archaeology at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, CA, writes:

The question has been raised whether the Romans would have instituted census and taxation procedures in Palestine while Herod the Great was ruling as king of the Jews. That they would not have hesitated to do so is suggested by comparison with Apamea on the Orontes in Syria. The autonomy of this city-state is shown by the fact that it minted its own coins, yet Quirinius himself had a census taken there. A gravestone found in Venice carries the inscription of a Roman officer named Q. Aemilius Secundus. He states that by order of P. Sulpicius Quirinius, whom he calls legatus Caesaris Syriae, he himself conducted a census of Apamea, a city-state of 117,000 citizens. As for Herod, Josephus reports that in the time when Saturninus and Volumnius were the presidents of Syria, Caesar Augustus demoted him from ‘friend’ (φ?λος= amicus) to ‘subject.’ Saturninus was listed above as governor of Syria in 9-6 BC, and Volumnius was evidently associated with him. By comparison with Apamea and specially from the time of Herod’s demotion by Augustus, Palestine would scarcely be exempt from any census and taxation procedures the Romans wished to institute. (Finegan, J. 1964. Handbook of Biblical Chronology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, p. 237). (A Brief Comment on the Census in Luke 2 – Associates for Biblical Research (biblearchaeology.org))

Not only do we know that there were empire-wide censuses in general, but we also know that a census initiated by Augustus and requiring an oath of allegiance to Caesar and Herod was conducted in Judea about this time in the last years of Herod’s life for Josephus discusses it in Antiquities XVII.41-45:

There was moreover a certain sect of Jews who valued themselves highly for their exact knowledge of the law; and talking much of their contact with God, were greatly in favor with the women of Herod’s court. They are called Pharisees. They are men who had it in their power to control kings; extremely subtle, and ready to attempt anything against those whom they did not like. When therefore the whole Jewish nation took and oath to be faithful to Caesar, and to the interests of the king Herod, these men, to the number above six thousand, refused to swear.

This event could have occurred during either of these two census times, depending on when Herod’s death is dated. So, in fact, we do know that there were censuses conducted during the most likely time frames for Jesus’ birth and we know for at least one of them the region ruled by Herod participated.

Empire-wide census

Luke states, “In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered.” It must be noted that if Luke is claiming that this was an empire-wide census, none of these empire-wide censuses that we mentioned above were anywhere near the timeframe of A.D. 6. In fact the A.D. 6 census was a regional census following a transition in power, after the banishment of Herod Archelaus. It was sort of a settlement of Herod’s estate after his banishment and as it was being transferred to the Romans under Quirinius. Again, it was not an empire-wide census, which is contradictory to what Luke states. Because Luke is describing a world-wide census, this rules out the census in A.D. 6. Added to this, the A.D. 6 census also did not concern the province of Galilee, which was not under Herod Archelaus’s domain. Galilee is where both Joseph and Mary originally lived at the time of the census described by Luke. You would have to show why they would be required to take part in a census that was occurring in a region they did not live in. We have to remember Luke is a very careful historian and here we have not just one mistake but many. With the information Luke provides there is very little correlation with the census in A.D. 6. The reliance on this passage with the A.D. 6 census requires a lot of assumptions that are just unlikely given what Luke has said. It is much more likely that in Luke 2:2, Luke being aware of the A.D. 6 census is giving us ways to distinguish the census at Jesus’ birth from the more famous one in A.D. 6.

Therefore, saying that Luke is referring to the census in A.D. 6 doesn’t fit the description Luke gives nor would we expect it to if Luke understood the history of this time. So, to those saying it is contradictory to the A.D. 6 census, the answer is “Yes, it is. Didn’t you already understand that from reading the description Luke gave, for this is exactly the point Luke is trying to make?”

Traveling to one’s city of ancestry

It is also argued that no census required traveling to one’s city of ancestry and no census that required a woman to participate. But is this true? Were there occasions where this occurred. In fact, there are accounts of both people being required to go to their home city and women giving an account in a census. Below is a quote from the article, A Brief Comment on the Census in Luke 2:

Early in the twentieth century, a papyrus was discovered which contained an edict by G. Vibius Maximus, the Roman governor of Egypt, stating:

Since the enrollment by households is approaching, it is necessary to command all who for any reason are out of their own district to return to their own home, in order to perform the usual business of the taxation… (Cobern, C.M. 1929. The New Archeological Discoveries and their Bearing upon the New Testament. New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls, p. 47; Unger, M.F. 1962. Archaeology and the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, p. 64).

The same papyrus also confirms Luke’s assertion that a man had to bring his family with him when he traveled to his place of ancestry in order to be properly counted by the Roman authorities (Lk. 2:5). The document reads:

I register Pakebkis, the son born to me and my wife, Taas-­ies and Taopis in the 10th year of Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus Imperator [Emperor], and request that the name of my aforesaid son Pakeb[k]is be entered on the list’ (Boyd, R.T. 1991. World’s Bible Handbook. Grand Rapids, MI: World Publishing, p. 415).

This sheds light on why Joseph had to bring his highly pregnant wife along with him when he went to Bethle­hem. Such discoveries caused the late George A. Barton, Ph.D., Professor of Biblical Literature and Semitic Languages at Bryn Mawr and former Director of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem, to comment:

Luke’s statement, that Joseph went up from Nazareth to Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to enroll himself with Mary (Luke 2:4, 5), turns out to be in exact accord with the governmental regulations as we now know them from the papyri. (Barton, G.A. 1917. Archaeology and the Bible. Philadelphia: American Sunday-School Union, p. 435).”( A Brief Comment on the Census in Luke 2 – Associates for Biblical Research (biblearchaeology.org))

Even though this is an example of a wife coming alongside her husband for a census, these things are not necessary for Luke never says that Mary participated in the census. And based on the account it appears that Joseph and Mary already had the intention before leaving Nazareth of staying in Bethlehem after the census if anything at least for the sacrifices after the birth and to fulfill everything required by the Law of Moses. Perhaps Joseph’s family was in Bethlehem making it a good place for the wedding since Luke says they were still betrothed. There is good evidence is that the original plan was to stay in the area of Bethlehem, for after their flight to Egypt, on their return it appears that they originally were coming back to Bethlehem to live only to change their plans after being warned in a dream.

But when Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, “Rise, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the child’s life are dead.” And he rose and took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there, and being warned in a dream he withdrew to the district of Galilee. And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene. (Matthew 2:19-23)

So, it would not have been unusual for Mary to have accompanied Joseph, her betrothed on his journey to Bethlehem as they start their new life in a new place. Joseph may have also taken her with him because they were only betrothed, and her pregnancy would have been a scandal, he may have not felt safe leaving her behind with the possibility of her being punished as an adulterer. And this too may have been a motive to move to Bethlehem and leave Nazareth where the scandal was known. Since he was marrying a wife, we can assume that Joseph would have been able to have a home though probably not one of much means. Though we can’t know with 100% certainty why they stayed in Bethlehem, it is more likely than not that Mary would have come with Joseph on the trip.

Evidence shows that at times people did go back to the place of the ancestry for a census in local regions. Also, because the idea of a census would be odious to many Jews, Herod, having some autonomy as a city-state king, would have wanted to conduct the census in a way that made it more palatable for the Jew. Since historically and traditionally the Jews were numbered by their tribes and family, rather than the place of residence, Herod may have conducted the census with this format. This extra requirement could have only been a requirement in the Herod-ruled areas since the wording of Luke does not require it elsewhere. Another possibility is that Joseph’s family-owned property in Bethlehem and Luke is only giving us insight into why his family-owned property in Bethlehem and using this opportunity to add that Joseph was of the line of David adding this tidbit to our knowledge of the background of Jesus and the fulfillment of prophecy.

Conclusion on the census

In the end, based on the evidence it is unlikely that the A.D. 6 census is the census Luke is referring to. This leaves us with the censuses of 8 B.C. and 3/2 B.C. which both fit within the range we have been looking at for Jesus’ birth.

Articles:

• Non Issues in the Lukan Birth Narrative — Augustus’s Decree (Part 1) (christiancadre.blogspot.com)
• CADRE Comments (christiancadre.blogspot.com)
• Non Issues in the Lukan Birth Narrative — Registration in Bethlehem (christiancadre.blogspot.com)
• Is the Census in Luke’s Infancy Narrative Historical or Literary? (missiodeicatholic.org)
• An Unusual Roman Census Decree By Caesar Augustus | The Odds
• Did Augustus Tax the World? | Smoodock’s Blog (wordpress.com)
• Worldwide Census | Smoodock’s Blog (wordpress.com)
• The Enrollment of Jesus’ Birth – Jimmy Akin
• King Herod’s Enrollment (biblehub.com)
• Was Apamea subject to the Census as a free-city? (christian-thinktank.com)
• The Nativity Census: What Does Luke Actually Say? on JSTOR

Could Quirinius have officiated in Syria before A.D. 6?

The fact that there was a census around the time of the birth of Jesus fits with the information we have both from Josephus and Luke, but we are still left with understanding Luke’s statement that the census was conducted while Quirinius was governing in Syria. Could Quirinius have had an officiating role in Syria at the time of Jesus’ birth? Below is a list of the Legates of Syria and the time frame they served in.

Based on this, there is missing information between the years 4 B.C when Varus’ term ends, and 1 A.D when Gaius took over as Legate. However, we are also told that Varus was around after Herod’s death and if Herod’s death was in 1 B.C. or 1 A.D. does that change what this chart would look like? If Herod’s death is considered an anchor date, what other things would be changed? Even if this were not so, we are still left with the earlier dates for Jesus’ birth.

So, what do we know about Quirinius during this time frame? From 12 B.C. to 1 B.C. Quirinius directed a campaign against the Homanades in the mountains of Galatia and Cilicia. He was possibly Legate of Galatia between 5-3 B.C. And around A.D. 1 he was appointed to tutor Augustus’ grandson Gaius Caesar while Gaius was Legate of Syria. In the dates most probable for Jesus’ birth his exact whereabouts are uncertain. Is it possible that Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was Legate during part of or all of 4/3 B.C. to 1 A.D.? Perhaps and we must consider this a possibility, but having Quirinius serving as a legate of Syria is also not necessary to still make Luke’s statement about Quirinius accurate.

As noted earlier, the term for governor in Luke 2:2 is “hegemoneuo”. “Hegemoneuo” does not refer to a specific position within the Roman government but is a general term that can be used to refer to different positions within Roman leadership. Both Luke, Josephus, and even Caesar use this term this way (see: Quirinius, Governor of Syria When Jesus Was Born? | The Odds). Luke also does not directly say that Quirinius oversaw the census, just that it happened while he was in Syria. So, it is not necessary to prove that Quirinius was the Legate of Syria at this time, it only needs to be shown that he was in Syria in an official governing role. Also, we know that it is possible that more than one person could be “hegemoneuo” in Syria at one time. Josephus describes in one incident two governors of Syria, “Caesar had ordered the court to be assembled…The presidents set first, as Caesar’s letters had appointed, who were Saturninus, and Pedanius, and their lieutenants that were with them, with whom was the procurator Volumnius.” Tacitus states “Each province had its equestrian procurator who in the eyes of the provincials was almost as important as the governor himself.” (Tacitus, Aric., 15). So Quirinius could have had a role as a “hegemoneuo” even during the known periods where someone else was Legate of Syria. Luke who is careful with his terms may have used “hegemoneuo” instead of legate purposefully to distinguish between Quirinius’ two terms, the first term being one of an official position but not a legate and not referring to Quirinius time as Legate in A.D. 6.

The circumstances allow for Quirinius to have been serving in an official position in Syria at this time. Because the staging of the war with the Homandes could have been staged from more than one location, it is possible that one of those locations was Syria, where Quirinius could have been conducting other official business as well. The war was one of attrition, and so did not necessarily require local governance. We know it is probable from 5-3 B.C. that the Quirinius’ location was Galatia, for it is believed that in addition to his role in the war, Quirinius served as Legate of Galatia during this time. But since he was not legate before 5 B. C. and did not continue as Legate of Galatia after 3 B.C., we are still within the range for the possible dates for Jesus’ birth. Military facilities were only located in imperial provinces. It would not be unusual for a high-ranking officer to be stationed in these facilities. Syria hosted a sixth of the Roman Army and was an imperial province and the defense center for the eastern front of the Roman Empire. It also hosted a large army (the 3^rd largest). Syria would have been a good location for headquarters in a war in Asia Minor. We also know that Quirinius won the war with the Homandes through attrition, allowing him to have had time to help with other matters, such as overseeing a census. After all, he was both Legate of Galatia and conducted the war at the same time. We also know that Augustine would assign special assignments to people who were not legates, so that the legate would not gain to much power. So, it is possible that Quirinius played a part in the census conducted in Judea during Jesus’ birth at any point during this time. Having already had experience directing a census in a client-state and having had to deal with rebels unsatisfied with Rome, he may have been asked to help with a census in Judea during this time. His experience in this matter is also why he was probably entrusted to conduct the census in A.D. 6 as well. After the war, we know that he was assigned as tutor to Gaius during his Legate term in Syria. So, we are missing the exact whereabouts of Quirinius during the dates most likely associated with the birth of Jesus, and therefore cannot assume that Luke was wrong. Even, if we take out the possible time Quirinius served as Legate over Galatia, though he could have still helped with the census during this time, we can see that he could have served in an officiating role in Syria during the time of Jesus’ birth.

Articles to read:

• Quirinius, Governor of Syria When Jesus Was Born? | The Odds
• Augustus – More than Just the Nativity Story | The Odds
• Quirinius: An Archaeological Biography – Bible Archaeology Report
• A Brief Comment on the Census in Luke 2 – Associates for Biblical Research (biblearchaeology.org)
• Dating the two Censuses of Quirinius | Gerard GERTOUX – Academia.edu
• W.M. Ramsay: Was Christ Born in Bethlehem? – Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org)
• REFUTING Bible Contradiction #1: Jesus’ Birth Narratives, Herod and Quirinius – YouTube
• Quirinius – Encyclopedia of The Bible – Bible Gateway

Was Josephus wrong?

Due to Josephus occasionally conflating events he tells about in his histories, and there being three separate stories at three different times about a rebellion by Judas each with similar details that eerily match up, the question arises of whether or not these descriptions of a rebellion by Judas are based on one event. If this is the case, what does this mean for the timing of the census? Rhodes describes this,

During the last twenty-five years, Daniel Schwartz and others have developed some fruitful insights into the historiography of Josephus which have highlighted the susceptibility of Josephus to mistaken duplications and to reporting contemporaneous events from different sources as if they happened at different times.

In reviewing Andrew Steinmann’s book From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology, Rodger Young states,

The material on the Quirinius census should change forever the way this topic is dealt with by scholars. The problem is well known: Luke presumably made a mistake when he stated that Quirinius (Cyrenius) was governor of Judea when a census was taken that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem. However, it is “known” from Josephus that Quirinius did not come to Judea until A.D. 6. The approach of FATP is once again to start by examining the text. Luke does not strictly say that Quirinius was governor; the verb used means that he had governmental authority, not necessarily that he was the official governor of the province. After establishing the proper understanding of the text, Roman records are cited that are consistent with an empire-wide census taking place in 3 B.C. More significantly, Josephus gives contradictory information regarding Quirinius. He dates the coming of Quirinius to Judea just after the exile of Archelaus (A.D. 6) in Antiquities 18.1,2 (18.1.1) and 18.26 (18.2.1), but these passages also say that one of the acts after his coming was to depose the high priest Joazar from office. Joazar was installed by Herod the Great a few weeks before his (Herod’s) death in response to the golden eagle crisis, because Joazar cooperated with authorities in the matter of a census, and with Herod regarding his handling of the golden eagle incident. This made Joazar extremely unpopular with the people, and after the death of Herod they demanded that Joazar be removed from the high priesthood. This was done within a few months of Herod’s death, which means that Joazar, Quirinius, and the census are all associated together in the time shortly before the death of Herod and the time immediately thereafter, contradicting the A.D. 6 date for the coming of Quirinius to Judea. The internal contradictions of Josephus in these matters were pointed out years ago by Zahn, Lodder and other scholars, but new insights that help in unraveling the contradictory accounts of Josephus have been given by Dr. Steinmann’s colleague John Rhoads. FATP devotes 11 pages to sorting out the correct order of events and explaining why Josephus made the mistakes that he did in dating Quirinius and the census. These pages may require several readings to understand all the issues, but once this is done it is clear that the preponderance of evidence favors the enrollment associated with Quirinius to have been in 3 B.C., and perhaps continuing into early 2 B.C.” (Book Review: From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology: Part 2 – Associates for Biblical Research (biblearchaeology.org))

Are Sabinus and Quirinius the same person?

Rhodes also argues that Sabinus and Quirinius are the same person and that “Sabinus is a cognomen. The name Quirinius comes from the Sabine god of war. And Quirinius is from an area with a population of Sabines. There are also striking similarities between the two. They both were procurators and most likely both had consular rank. Both were concerned about the evaluation of the tax value of Judea, and both were sent by Augustus to secure and assess the value of Herod’s/Archelaus’ estate. If this is true it would provide evidence that Quirinius was in Judea and Syria regions at this time.

Census timing

Analyzing these passages of Josephus shows the possibility that the census done by Quirinius happened before Herod’s death and not in A.D. 6. Rhodes did a study ignoring the Luke account and only analyzing the data from Josephus to see what the likelihood of these accounts being the same event and if they are what is the most likely time frame they would fall into and it would fall within the 4 B.C. – 1 B.C. dates for Jesus’ birth.

Articles to read:

• JETS_54-1_65-87_Rhoads.pdf (etsjets.org)
• Did Luke Misdate the Census of Quirinius? – YouTube
• The Census of Quirinius – Biblical Error #1 – YouTube

What if the anchor date of 4 B.C. is wrong?

Though not a part of Rhode’s article, it is interesting to note that there is a gap in what we know about the Legates of Syria between 4 B.C. and A.D. 1, if we use the 4 B.C. date for the death of Herod. Since Varus was Legate of Syria during and after Herod’s death, for he put down a rebellion in Judea when Herod Archelaus failed to control it. Varus then crucified 2,000 people and destroyed the cities of Sepphoris and Emmaus. Soon after this Varus returns to Rome. If Herod’s death was around 1 B.C., which would mean that Varus’ governance ended in 1 B.C, or perhaps was his governance split with Quirinius ruling for a short time. This might explain the gap. Since we know Quirinius was in Syria in 1 B.C., this would put Quirinius in Syria around the 3/2 B.C. dates of Jesus’ birth. Basically, what if the anchor date of 4 B.C. is wrong how does this affect the dates and timing of these events? This is something to be explored, though not crucial to show that Luke is correct. It is just an interesting perspective on whether Jesus’ birth was 6-4 B.C. or more likely 3/2 B.C.

If you combine what Rhodes believed about Quirinius being around to perform a census around the time of Herod’s death and a 1 B.C./1 A.D. timing of Herod’s death this is what it would look like

It must be noted that because the 8 B.C. could have taken years to accomplish, it is possible that the 8 B.C. census, the 3/2 B.C. census, and the possible earlier Quirinius census all occurred at one time in Judea.

Accuracy of Luke

If Luke and Josephus were to being compared with each other for their accuracy in putting things together, Luke would be the one I would side with as being more accurate. Luke shows a significant firsthand understanding or firsthand reporting of people, places, and events he writes about. He would have interviewed actual eyewitnesses to the events and not just one eyewitness but multiple. He was well traveled. And he appears to have had access to people both in Herod’s and Caesar’s household (Luke 8:3, Philippians 4:22). Luke’s writing also had a more critical eye on it, both within the Christian community, but also with Theophilus (although this could be a pseudonym for the church), both of which could check his account for accuracy. His writings were read by people who were familiar with the events, times, and stories and would have been able to expose any errors. Luke’s account has been accused of being false because due to lack archeological or written evidence supporting what he wrote multiple times only later for that evidence to show up proving the veracity of his account. Textually our account of Luke is based on early transcripts that are close to the source (A.D. 175-225), whereas the earliest quote comes from Eusebius is in the 4^th century and the earliest manuscript of Josephus is ~1000 years after the original. Josephus is known to have a pattern of errors and is known to show Roman partiality. If Luke is in error in this passage, it would be a blaring error that based on Luke’s writing and reputation is unlikely for him to have made.

Even if you trust Josephus’ account more, based on Luke’s record and his reliability as a historian it would not be fair to treat him without the respect he deserves as an exemplary historian. As we have seen there are reasons to believe his account of Quirinius is accurate and that being said those saying he is not accurate here are left with the burden of proof. What makes a scholar pit one writing over the other? Specifically, Josephus over Luke. If Luke were not a Christian writing, would it be used to question Josephus based on these facts? Are we being fair? Certainly, the easy way out is just to say Luke is wrong but is this a fair evaluation? Should we not evaluate the possibility that he was correct? Yes, it is reasonable and fair to do so.

It is not intellectually congruent to use this passage and state that it is strong proof that the Bible is not inerrant. It simply isn’t. And those who state this make no serious inquiry into the grammar and vocabulary Luke used and pass over it as if it doesn’t matter. Nor do they take a serious look at what we do know about the history during this time. At the most one can only say as a scholar that there is no direct and specific evidence of Quirinius being an official in Syria at this time and there is no evidence that he was not an official in Syria at this time, although there are clues that this might be possible. But to use this verse as evidence against the Bible is faulty at best.

Videos to watch:

• The Gospels Were Written Early, Not After AD 70 – YouTube
• Undesigned Coincidences in the Passion and Resurrection Narratives – YouTube

Summary

The objections raised are not sufficient enough to invalidate the accuracy of Luke in his description of the nativity and therefore are not the strong proof against inerrancy that some scholars claim.

• No known empire-wide census under Augustus

Josephus describes a census where an oath of loyalty was required for Caesar and Herod in Judea during this time frame. Augustine had a general policy of census taking throughout the empire and any census including this one would have been considered a part of that policy.

• No census that would have required Joseph to be in Bethlehem

It is possible that Joseph was from Bethlehem and that his family-owned property in the area. There are records of this kind of thing happening. There would have also been some autonomy for local leaders to conduct the census in a way fitting to that region. The census in this region could have adapted the requirements to be more fitting to the Jewish culture, requiring them to be counted by families and tribes as was historically the case in Israel.

• Mary would have not been required to be part of the census

Luke does not claim Mary was required to be part of the census, only that she went with Joseph to Bethlehem, which would have been reasonable considering the situation.

• No census under King Herod in Palestine

As stated above Josephus describes a census under Herod in this time frame.

• Josephus only mentions Quirinius’ census in A.D. 6

He does in fact mention another census under Herod, but the census under Quirinius was significant historically and would have stood apart from the others. Also the absence of evidence doesn’t prove that it did not happen.

• No known records of Quirinius as Legate over Syria during the time of Jesus’ birth

Luke does not say Quirinius was Legate over Syria at this time only that he had an official position while in Syria. Based on what we know it is not improbable that Quirinius was in Syria during this time. It is an argument from silence. Luke could have very well been accurate in his description of where Quirinius was at this time.

So again, based on what we know, the objections do not provide strong proof that Luke was in error and therefore do not provide strong proof against the inerrancy of Luke’s account of Jesus’ birth. Those who purport this to be strong evidence of such are not arguing from as strong of a place as they often claim.

Conclusion

We must be careful in making absolute statements about Luke 2:2 and the Quirinius dilemma. We shouldn’t be quick to stand on any one solution without strong evidence.  Daniel Wallace has observed, “Evangelicals often have a tendency to find implausible solutions to difficulties in the Bible and to be satisfied that they have once again vindicated the Word of God. On the other hand, critical scholars tend to find errors in the Bible where none exist.” It is the tendency of both sides to believe that they have best, definitive or well-thought-out proof for their position. In this case, there is no definitive proof only possibilities, some that are more probable than others, but still only possibilities. In Rodger Young’s review of Steinmann’s work, he states,

“The scientific method as used by genuine scientists, however, is not the presupposition-based method of De Wette, Wellhausen, Noth, Hughes, and others who pursue current modifications of the discredited Documentary Hypothesis. True science starts with observation. This means assessing the data, and not rejecting any particular datum in the field of interest unless there is some compelling reason, based on the other data, to do so. The next step is to attempt to systematize the data by formulating a hypothesis. This was the procedure of all the early chronologers: Rabbi Yose, Africanus, Eusebius, Ussher, and the various writers of conservative Bible histories who attempted to give timelines for the events of the Bible. There are several prerequisites in pursuing this approach if it is to be credible. The researcher should be familiar with the languages in which the Scripture was written and with the modes of expression of those languages. He or she must also study the customs of the nations with whom the Hebrews had contact. It is essential to understand how these cultures counted the time, whether days, months, years, or reign lengths; formulating presuppositions in these matters that contradict the essential data (the method of the Documentary Hypothesis) is not acceptable.” (Book Review: From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology, by Andrew E. Steinmann)

It is important to have an openness to the data here. Perhaps evidence will be found that will help to put some of these theories to rest and perhaps give support and proof to a specific theory. But for now, we have what we have. People will differ on which theories they think is more probable, but before we claim that Luke was absolutely wrong from an argument of silence, we might pause, think as a scientist, and be careful not to make claims we cannot definitively support.