Part of this written dialogue is below:

At this point, I think it would be helpful to clarify where our approaches agree and disagree, so I will summarize from my perspective, and you can comment on anything you think I got wrong. This will be a long post, so I have broken it up. Here is the outline

1. WHAT IF QUETZALCOATL WROTE, “I AM GOD IN THE STARS”?
   1. Summary: God showing up would not be enough. “Empiricism” alone will not tell you whether or not God exists.
2. WHAT DOES SCIENCE TELL US?
   1. Summary: We agree that there is an all-powerful, all-creative, infinite non-contingent cause
3. WHAT WOULD WE EXPECT IF THE CAUSE WAS PERSONAL?
   1. Summary: A personal non-contingent cause must also be relational for us to know him.
4. SHOULD WE BRING OUR OWN ASSUMPTIONS
   1. Summary: Because we have flawed brains, we should not bring our assumptions into the question of God’s existence.
5. WE CANNOT ASSUME GOD’S GOAL IS FOR US TO BELIEVE HE EXISTS
   1. Summary: God’s goal is not for us to believe, but instead to have a relationship with him through the Gospel.
6. GOD IS RELATIONAL AND SPEAKS
   1. Summary: God has given us a means to test the veracity of his existence – the Bible. And this is the pivotal point where we disagree.
7. WHAT ARE THE STRONGEST ARGUMENTS FOR GOD FOR ME
   1. Summary: At the moment, atheist arguments are the strongest proof for me that God exists
8. YOU MUST PROVE GOD EXISTS
   1. Summary: Blind skepticism will not accept evidence, but seeks a way to not have to deal with the evidence. Christian scholars because of the eternal consequences work hard to face the strongman arguments atheists have.
9. BEST EXPLANATION FOR THE EVIDENCE
   1. Summary: The Christian God is the best explanation given the evidence that when all are added together approaches 100%.

WHAT IF QUETZALCOATL WROTE, “I AM GOD IN THE STARS”?

I appreciate your understanding that we cannot trust our brains alone. Although I do not hold to solipsism, where we agree is that our brains are severely flawed and that we are often faulty interpreters of the world around us. I think this is why you hold “empiricism” in such a high esteem. The scientific method is something outside of ourselves though not independent of the brain that helps to hold us accountable and helps to mitigate these flaws. Though not perfect it provides checks and balances and helps us to get a better foundation on what is true. Because of this we both believe that the scientific method is a reliable means of finding truth. But “empiricism” alone has its limits. You asked, “What if the stars read, ‘I am Quetzalcoatl, the flying serpent, creator of all’? would you accept this?” No, I would not. I have told you that I understand this skepticism that atheists have. My point in presenting this example of atheists saying that even if God showed up they would not believe was not to show that a certain amount of skepticism here is inappropriate, but that “empiricism” alone could not tell you the difference between whether or not this being was God or just a vastly superior being with greater technology or whether you have gone mad or not (although mass hallucinations like this don’t happen, so this really is not possible). The “Three Body Problem” fictional story even posits that a sufficiently advanced civilization would be able to alter our ability to do science. So, regardless of what “miracles” were performed or what great physical feats were presented “empiricism” will always allow for a means to not believe in God. Or in other words the “science in the gaps” will always allow for another possible explanation. If you have the perspective that as long as one can provide a “science in the gaps” argument, that that one should not believe in God, then “empiricism” will always lead to atheism. This kind of criterion is not an open-minded query, nor does it allow for the best explanation based on the data. We have both demonstrated this weakness of “empiricism”. Given this fact, it would be unwise to hold onto only “empiricism”, for it can only lead to one closed conclusion. It is clear that we need to look to more than “empiricism” to fully explore this question. In order to explore a question, one must allow for the full range of possibilities. I do believe that science provides evidence that is consistent with and points to the Christian God. But I would also argue that scholarly arguments outside of science but are well established and accepted lines of inquiry and evidence in academia provide sound evidence that the Christian God exists and give us a fuller picture of what that might mean and is a fuller explanation of the data we find, without having to appeal to an “in the gaps”.

WHAT DOES SCIENCE TELL US?

What can we know with science? I think it would be helpful to qualify what we both agree we can know through science about the creation or eternal existence of our universe. The more we learn about our universe, the more we discover that our universe has fine-tuning and design. Despite that this has been used to bolster the argument for God, an argument that has its beginnings long before we knew what we know today in science, but has grown stronger the more and more we do learn about science, because of the repeatable and measurable evidence for fine-tuning it is something that is generally agreed on within the scientific community, though the terminology may be different. This growing evidence for fine-tuning has forced atheists to address this issue and grapple with what it means. Saying fine-tuning exists doesn’t establish a cause and obviously the atheist and theist have come to different conclusions.  But both atheists and theists would agree that there must either be an eternal non-contingent cause or an eternal cyclical cause and effect. And this is where the atheists and theists look to try to explain fine-tuning. Another condition that must be met is that this non-contingent cause must be able to explain the probability that we see within the fine-tuning and design within our universe without falling into the gambler’s fallacy. This gets into a more complicated argument than we have room for here, but all this is without calculating the probabilities needed for evolution to occur or for the information found within the universe, which from what we can tell most likely cannot be preloaded into the universe at the beginning and so would be outside of the physics and cosmological constants that existed at the beginning of the universe. Here is a summary of the probabilities that must be overcome:

• Must be able to explain fine-tuning at every step.
• Must be able to overcome the gambler’s fallacy.
• Must be able to explain the directive nature of evolution and information, which from what we can tell cannot be pre-loaded into the universe at the beginning.
• Must be able to explain the information found in our universe.
• Must be able to explain design or apparent design at every step.
• Must be able to explain either the beginning or eternal aspect of nature

But to put it simply there are a lot of odds to overcome that go beyond the beginning of our universe without falling into the gambler’s fallacy. But here we come to another point where both atheists and theists agree. In order to overcome this, the non-contingent cause must be all-powerful, capable of creating infinite universes, but not only infinite universes but be able to generate a full spectrum of universes in sufficient amounts to overcome the probabilities. This can be done by either having a full spectrum infinite multi-universe generator or using a process that weeds out all other possibilities but our own before creating our universe. Currently with what we know the first option could be both impersonal or personal. The second option is most likely personal. But let’s pause on where we do agree for a moment. We both agree that our universe was created by an invisible, eternal, all-powerful force. Interestingly, this conclusion reminds me of a quote from the agnostic Robert Jastrow, “He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. God and the Astronomers” (1978), p. 116; (p. 107 in 1992 edition). What we can agree on and what we know to be true reminds me of the verse that says, “By faith we understand that the world has been created by the word of God so that what is seen has not been made out of things that are visible” (Hebrews 11:3). Neither the atheists nor theologians have specific 100% proof within science for their positions here. We just don’t know enough about science yet. But despite not having 100% proof both the scientist and the theologian believe or have faith that something eternal, all-powerful, and invisible created our universe. We agree that our universe “has not been made out things that are visible”. And we both believe that our universe was made out of something eternal and infinite. Science shows us that there is an all-powerful, eternal, invisible cause to our universe, but we still have to ask ourselves whether or not there is a personal cause behind this. Atheists believe that evidence will come to show that a self-existing multi-universe generator is possible. A directive force or a specific beginning is not something that atheists at this time support. Theists are open to either a self-existing multi-universe generator or a directive force behind our universe. I do think there are good arguments that show that science does point to God and has stronger explanatory power than that the atheist’s position, but I feel that I am not yet equipped to argue these points yet. I am still in the middle of my research, so I would rather leave the argument here, where I feel like we both have agreement. Regardless, the question remains whether or not the initial non-contingent cause of our universe is impersonal or personal. We cannot prove a non-personal or a non-relational personal cause, but if the cause is not only personal, but is also relational, we would suspect that this non-contingent cause could be found and known. But then we must ask how would this personal and relational non-contingent cause reveal himself?

WHAT WOULD WE EXPECT IF THERE IS A PERSONAL GOD?

If the non-contingent cause is personal, we would only know this if that non-contingent cause chose to reveal himself. An all-powerful being could make a universe purely using science. Therefore, for us to know God, one of the things we could expect is that this God is both personal and relational. If this personal non-contingent cause were not relational, it would also probably be a moot point, since neither the atheist nor theist could have a relationship with this kind of god. So, I would argue that if there is a God, for us to have a relationship with this god, it would be important that this god be relational. And if the cause of the universe is relational, we have to ask ourselves, how would we come to know this creator? Afterall, we have both concluded that if God showed up “empiricism” would invalidate such an attempt. Though showing up would be a means of revealing himself, we would want more, since we are dealing with our flawed brains. So how would we come to know God given our flawed brains?

SHOULD WE BRING OUR OWN PRESUMPTIONS?

One certain way to not know this God is to trust our flawed brains. Since a non-contingent cause is powerful enough to create a universe that is so far beyond us, that we are just getting started in exploring its depths, we cannot assume we can fully understand this God on our own power with our flawed brains. We would need this God to condescend and reveal to us who he is. One of the flaws of the atheist is that they bring in their own presumptions to this question. They trust their flawed brains and determine for themselves what this God ought to be like. You will often here questions phrased in the format of

1. If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving etc., then he would . . . (fill in the blank)
2. Since God has not done . . . (fill in the blank), God does not exist.

Some examples are (fill in the blank) God would . . .:

• not be hidden.
• God would be clear in his revelation of himself
• would reveal himself in such and such a way.
• want me to believe.
• find a way to get me to believe.
• Prove himself 100% through empirical means.
• provide one definitive argument for God.
• not allow . . .
• not allow for suffering or evil
• not have done this.
• has not made the church I believe he said he would.
• have perfect church without disagreements on theology.
• conform to my interpretation of scripture.
• fit my expectations of what a god ought to be.
• Etc.

Like “empiricism” this approach presumes or forces a conclusion rather than performing an objective and open query. God must meet these made-up arbitrary requirements in order to exist. This is a deeply troubling approach for a group that states that they have a scientific approach and who state that we cannot trust our brains because they are flawed. These presumptions are flawed because they start with what our flawed brains assume God would be like. In my communication on the topic of the hiddenness of God I demonstrated that these presumptions are flawed and cannot stand up to scrutiny (for more go here). A scientific approach would not presume that we could bring our presumptions into this query. An all-powerful, all-creative, infinite relational being is not a “one-dimensional” being that we can presume to understand either what he is like or how this being would reveal himself. We are having enough difficulty understanding the physical universe or relationships in our lives. These are flawed arguments from flawed brains. As in science we can’t start with pre-conceived criteria or have an unmovable conclusion and expect to get anywhere. Because we have such flawed brains in order to know God, we would need something outside ourselves which like the scientific method would allow for accountability, evaluation, and testing.

WE CANNOT ASSUME GOD’S GOAL IS FOR US TO BELIEVE HE EXISTS

We will get back to the question on how God has revealed himself, but first we need to address one of the errors atheists make first. They assume the goal God has for humanity is for them to believe that he exists. Or that there ought to be some definitive absolute evidence they can look to. This is a fallacious assumption. Atheists argue that God would know how to prove that he exists, with no effort. I agree, but that is not his goal. Atheists also argue that the Bible ought to be clearer. Again, you assume God’s purpose is to be clear. It is not. His goal is not for us to believe he exists or for the church to have perfect doctrine. His goal is to bring a people into relationship with himself through the power of the gospel. In our dialogue earlier on the “hiddenness of God”, I demonstrated that these assumptions atheists make would not be the goal of a perfectly loving God. I won’t go into it and rehash those arguments here. You can reread what I sent you (or go here). But for God to be both perfectly loving to those who come to him and to those who reject him, he must be “hidden”. And this fact in itself, his “hiddenness”, is evidence for God’s existence, for only a perfectly loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God could accomplish this.

 GOD IS RELATIONAL AND SPEAKS

If God is relational, we can assume he would reveal himself. And I would argue he has in many sundry ways, some of which includes science, logic, philosophy, beauty, and personal experience. And for many this revelation is so extraordinary that it is enough for them to believe. But though he has revealed himself in these ways, these things alone can only tell us so much. For us to know God in a relational way, God must reveal himself in a relational way and in a way that does not violate his “hiddenness” which protects us. We intuitively know this in our own relationships with others. “Empiricism” is not relational. Even though we would not expect science to be inconsistent with God, if God were to reveal himself, certainly it would not be through “empiricism”, for as shown earlier “empiricism” would not be an effective means. We have both agreed that just showing up and even writing in the stars would not work. But we have also agreed that because of our flawed brains, we would want something outside of ourselves, something that can be evaluated, scrutinized, and tested. I have talked with my children on how personal experiences or hearing a “voice from heaven” would not be a valid means in of itself for God to reveal himself, since it is limited in the ways it could be evaluated or tested. People are flawed. There are conditions where people here voices that are not real. Many have “heard god”, only for it to be clear that they had not, whether from madness, selfishness manipulation, or from other voices. And our feelings and experiences as well can skew our thinking. And from these experiences there are many religions in the world. How do we know which one is true?

We must be careful not to take this too far and on the other side to say things like science and experience are not useful in coming to know God. Like science, experiences can point us to God, and we would expect these things to be consistent with God, but also like science because of our flawed brains we would need to be cautious. For example, the fine-tuning, design, and information arguments are extremely powerful arguments for God that have only grown stronger the more we have learned about science. But I think for the both of us, we would like to something more, we want something that takes into account our flawed brains, something that is subject to scrutiny and rigorous analysis and evaluation, after all how would we distinguish it from all the other religions as the true religion. Thankfully, God does not intend for us to rely on our flawed brains. The most powerful means by which God has revealed himself to us is through the Bible. The Bible is something that can be scrutinized, evaluated, and tested to see if its claims hold up and are true. It can be evaluated against other religions. It can be evaluated against science, logic, philosophy, and academia. It is something that can be evaluated outside our flawed brains. The reason I would not believe in Quetzalcoatl in the scenario above is because there is no such evidence. If Jesus showed up on the other hand I would already have enough vast and extraordinary evidence to believe.

And here is the pivotal point where we disagree. You do not believe that the Bible holds up to scrutiny. I believe it does. You don’t believe that the Bible conforms with the world you see around you, with science, or even is consistent with itself. I on the other hand do believe that the Bible is consistent with the world I see around me, with science, and is consistent with itself.

WHAT IS MY STRONGEST ARGUMENT FOR GOD – ATHIEST ARGUMENTS

You asked me what my strongest argument for God is. For me it is the integrity of the Bible. A follow up question might be what for me is the strongest argument for the integrity of the Bible. At this moment, for me, the strongest argument for the integrity of the Bible are atheist arguments. I have mentioned to you before that I believe in putting the strong men in the ring and letting them fight to the death. Atheist arguments rather than doing this stick a strawman in the ring and fight against that. Within this group though I have not read everything posted, from what I have read, I have not seen one argument that actually attacks the Christian faith or the Bible. We have both determined that the brain is flawed and is often not a reliable interpreter of the data. There are both atheists and theists who believe in a “flat earth” and they claim to have science to back them up. You will say that they are not using science correctly. Bingo! This is my point. When atheists make claims against the veracity of the Bible, they fail to use the Bible correctly, just as flat earthers fail to use science correctly. This is why when coming to the scriptures we must rely on proper hermeneutics and rigorous scholarship and an open mind. It is clear when atheists talk about the Bible, they have no clue what they are talking about, nor does it seem that they are willing to do the arduous work to understand. You state that there are 1000s of inconsistencies in the Bible. Let’s be honest, we both know that there are only a handful worth talking about, and of those none of them touch doctrine or faith. What I have found in atheists’ arguments is a very narrow understanding of the Christian faith and a lack of engagement with the robust scholarship within Christian community to the point where most of the arguments I have come across can only be described as slander. Sure, perusing the internet or social media you will find poor Christian answers, but I am talking about the well-studied, professionally researched, scholastic work that has been done. The stuff that requires more than a casual engagement and requires years and years of challenging work. When I sent you a link to videos, you said there were a lot. The reality is you will probably not do the hard work. And I understand the challenge and the difficulty of what I ask, you are a busy person. And what I sent was basic stuff, it would only begin to touch the work done to answer atheists’ questions. But this is the type of scholastic work that atheists fail to address against the Christian faith, because they don’t have the inclination to do this kind of work. Because you have not done the work, you have not been able to present a legitimate argument against the Bible or the Christian faith.

And this is why I believe the Bible; it has been tested. It has been tested by the harshest critics, the strongest strongmen atheists have to offer, and it has stood up to that test. You have not been able to provide not even one valid argument against the Christian faith but insist on believing that you do have a good argument. On the other hand, Atheist arguments have consistently demonstrated errors in logic and scholarship. Here are a few.

Places where Atheists violate proper literary textual analysis

• Authorial intent errors
• Cultural
• Wooden literalism
• Assumption of presentism
• Genre Fallacy
• Contextual analysis error
• Etymology error
• Synchronic meaning error
• Syntactic Fallacy
• Symantec range Fallacy
• Argument of Silence Fallacy
• Description is not prescription
• Assume a different definition
• Assume a static scene
• False dilemma
• Fallacy of false equivocation
• Elephant hurling
• Species fallacy
• Sweeping generalization fallacy
• Subset fallacy
• Genetic Fallacy

YOU MUST PROVE GOD EXISTS

You will say, “Well it is on you to prove to me that God exists. I have a lack of belief, It should not be hard to prove your case”. Have you ever tried to reason with someone who believes in a “flat earth”? The reason people believe in the “flat earth” is not because they are stupid. The problem is actually the opposite. The problem is that our flawed brains are quite intelligent and able to come up with arguments to support what we believe. Despite the evidence you give “flat earthers”, and despite the fact that it is common sense evidence, they are smart enough are able to come up with an answer to why that evidence is irrelevant, without having to actually address the evidence itself. And this is often how blind skepticism works. Most of the arguments you have given me are reasons why you don’t have to evaluate the evidence. If skepticism is your foundation, evidence becomes a lot less relevant in the discussion. Whatever evidence is produced, blind skepticism can explain it away or ignore it, without facing and addressing the actual arguments or evidence.

You might ask, “How do I know that I have not done the same with my arguments for God?” Because I and other Christian scholars work hard to try to understand the depths of atheists’ arguments and represent them fairly. If I have misunderstood one of your arguments, I want to know. Remember we have stronger eternal motives in wanting to convince atheists to believe in God. We cannot do this well if we don’t understand what atheists believe and actually address the questions they are having. Good Christian scholars work hard to put the strongest man for the atheists in the ring. Not only do they try to fully address atheist strong man arguments, but they also try to make atheist arguments even stronger. Christian scholars work hard to allow atheists to put the strong man into the ring. I don’t see the same rigor among atheists. Again, I have not seen one post in this group that actually attacks the Christian faith. After seeing the Bible time and time again put these strongman arguments to death, you start to develop a trust in its veracity. When time and time again you see atheists putting strawman and fallacious reasoning into the ring, the less and less you feel like you can take their arguments seriously. I believe the Bible because there are objective means outside my brain that allow me to test its veracity. Christianity is probably the most scrutinized religion and the Bible the most scrutinized book. Both have held against that scrutiny. And I am not talking about the fact that Christianity still exists. I am talking about the fact that Christianity actually addresses strong man arguments put up against it. Take our conversations, I have been able to demonstrate several points of fallacious reasoning within your arguments. I don’t think my arguments are perfect either, but you have not been able to do the same with my arguments.

BEST EXPLANATION FOR THE EVIDENCE

Why do I believe in God. I believe in God because given the evidence in the science, in philosophy, in psychology, in history, in art, the presence of evil, morality, ethics, personal experience and the experience of others, and in the Bible, the Christian God has the fullest and best explanatory power for what I see in this world. I can’t give you one definitive proof that God exists, but all these things put together the probability that God exists approaches 100%.

How would I convince you that there is a God? I don’t know. I am not naive, just as “flat earthers” have their answers to evidence presented to them, so too atheists have their answers. The reality is I am not going to be able to provide you a one fits all definitive argument to suddenly convince you that God exists. This is not how our flawed brains work. This is not how you would convince a “flat earther” even though we both know that the evidence for the globe is overwhelming and is absolutely right. I think these things just happen over time as we dialogue.  But I suppose this is not surprising if God cares more about relationship than belief.

                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)

                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.

“Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him” (Proverbs 30:5).

For many there is a tendency to take the scripture with a grain of salt, take in the parts they like, ignore the parts the don’t. They might buy into popular ideas of erroneous errors or harmful teaching within the scriptures, regardless of the evidence to the contrary. It can be popular and feel freeing to deconstruct the Bible. Either by abandoning it or fitting it into our context our world view. Love demands more . . . . A God of love does not speak to us with wavering speech. Though are hearts and minds are not clear, we cannot say this of God’s heart and mind. It is ludicrous to even imagine an all-powerful God who loves giving us weak and untrustworthy words. Paul says the scriptures are God breathed, what God speaks comes from his heart. You cannot say God is love and go on to say that the scripture is erroneous. God’s word is not only love, but also life. John begins his Gospel with these words, “In the beginning was the Word . . .. in him was life”. Quoting Moses, Jesus said, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” God’s word points us to the one who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Jesus said, “You examine the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is those very Scriptures that testify about Me” (John 5:39).

Sadly, “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14). When you reject the scripture or interpret them in your own way, you are rejecting Jesus. “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32). Don’t buy the attacks people make on the scripture, these are arguments of weak-minded people, who may of struggled, but have not wrestled deep enough. Coming to know the scripture is a war, the scripture is at war for are hearts and minds. When the scripture describes the word of God as a double-edged sword, it is the sword used in close combat where men are wrestling for life. Do not be week-minded, allow the sword to pierce you. Hold on and wrestle like Jacob till you are overcome. “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12).

See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven.  At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.” This phrase, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of things that are shaken—that is, things that have been made—in order that the things that cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire. (Hebrews 12:25–29)

epilogue: When I say weak-minded, I have a lot of compassion for those who struggle with the inerrancy of scripture. I know it is tough, draining, sometimes the hardest battle you have ever been in. I’ve been there and because of my own foolishness still have to battle. But we must not let go till God’s word wins. The admonition of the scripture is to “wait on the Lord”.

• Interpreting the scriptures through your own morality or truth, determining what is good and evil and what wisdom is and then manipulating the scriptures to fit your standard of morality and truth.

• Stating that the scripture or the writer is inconsistent and fitting that into an argument around your determination of truth. This is a pretty sure test that the person has poor scholarship and hermeneutics, is not open minded, and is trying to fit their interpretation into the text, instead of allowing the scripture to speak for itself.

• The facts are ignored either do to laziness or because they don’t like the truth and prefer to be closed minded.

• Ignoring the fact the scripture is God breathed and written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

• Ignoring the marriage of Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology.

• Ignoring the Gospel.

• Proof texting, taking scriptures out of context.

• Not being open minded and using and having poor scholarship. Good scholarship is not quoting “experts” and “papers” that in reality are horrible and have poor scholarship or do much of what is written here. A degree or paper does not make one a good scholar or open minded.

• Being a wooden literalist – both liberal and conservatives do this.

• Changing the original language definitions of words to fit their perspective.

• Ignoring the perspective of proven and tested godly men throughout history.

• Thinking in extremes or in the middle. Scripture is holy, totally other; it does not fit on a scale.

• Taking the text out of the whole of the Bible.

Since, true interpretation of the scripture is against our fallen nature, we must die to ourselves, lay our bodies down as living sacrifices, turning away from comfortably to this world and our own interpretations, and instead look to the only true God, so that we come to understand and discern the goodness, beauty, and truth of God’s will, through the testing of His word.

If you want to hear God’s voice you must love and pursue true, sound, and deep doctrine. Hearing God’s voice requires dying to oneself and trusting God’s Word, the scriptures. Growing in love and growing in knowing another, requires pursuing who they are. If you say you want to hear God’s voice, but do not pursue the scriptures diligently as a treasure and as a delight, you are wanting you own ends, not His voice. May we spur one another, sharing with one another the word of Christ.

His own, He loved. And He loved us first. And in this truth, we can love Him. It is the Gospel that allows us to have peace with God. And it is the power of Christ’s work that enables and performs righteousness.

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. (Romans 12:1-2 ESV)