Against so-called Bible contradictions about the birth of Lord Jesus Christ
- Oleg Grossu
- Feb 15, 2016
- 14 min read
By God's help, wisdom and grace by His son and my Lord Jesus Christ,
I will answer the so-called biblical contradictions related with his birth.
From the following source by user Lighting the Way to Reality on yahoo answers.
Most biblical contradictions that are presented are just of pairs of verses. I am going to present a much more significant set of contradictions that are so great they can't be reconciled.
Here is the evidence you want.
Because they were independently fabricated, the birth stories of Jesus in the gospels in Matthew and Luke grossly contradict each other. The contradictions are manifest and there is no way they can be made compatible.
According to Matthew the family of Jesus lived in Bethlehem when Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Herod died in 4 B.C.).
Matthew relates of a threat to Jesus and a trip to Egypt and that, when they returned to Palestine after the death of Herod, the family of Jesus bypassed their original home in Bethlehem and settled in Nazareth so that Jesus would fulfill a prophecy (a prophecy that is non-existent in the Old Testament, by the way).
Response: I should note that the date of 4 BC is based only the testimony of Josephus Flavius.
“When he had done these things, he died, the fifth day after he had caused Antipater to be slain; having reigned, since he had procure Antigonus to be slain, thirty-four years; but since he had been declared king by the Romans, thirty-seven;”
(Antiquities of Jews, book 17, ch 8)
This is the same Josephus Flavius whose testimony about Jesus is considered forged partially or totally.
Yet somehow when trying to make the Bible seem wrong, such bible critics accept Josephus' dates without question or other supporting testimony for cross-verification.
If you instantly doubt the Bible, yet pass a single source as absolute truth, then I can also doubt unproven dates and events from Josephus.
According to Luke, Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth before the birth of Jesus and went to Bethlehem during the Syrian governorship of Cyrenus (that's the Greek spelling; Quirinius is the Latin, and he began his governorship in 6 A.D.) because of an enrollment for taxes that required that everyone had to go to the city of their ancestors. Not long after the birth of Jesus the family returned to their home in Nazareth.
Response: Once again the date of 6 AD is taken only from Josephus, not being supported by other claims (according to wiki the victory at Actium was in 31 BC).
He does not say that Quirinius began his governorship in 6 AD, but that he finished the census/taxes in this year.
“WHEN Cyrenius had now disposed of Archelaus's money, and when the taxings were come to a conclusion, which were made in the thirty-seventh year of Caesar's victory over Antony at Actium”
(Antiquities of Jews, book 18, ch2)
Biblical contradiction: according to Luke the home of the family of Jesus was Nazareth, while according to Matthew it was Bethlehem.
Response: Let's see closely what Luke and Matthew say on this:
“Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth,
to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary”
(Luke 1:26-27)
“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.
Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly.
But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”
(Matthew 1:18-21)
It shows that Mary and Joseph did not live together first, but Mary lived in Nazareth still.
Then it seems Joseph took her to live in Bethlehem, where Jesus was born (according to both Matthew and Luke).
After flight to Egypt, when Herod the Great did die and Archelaus started reigning alone in Judea, they moved to Nazareth.
So it is not a contradiction.
“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,"
(Luke 2:1)
It does not say that what their family home was before Jesus' birth, but that Mary and Joseph did not come together yet.
So Luke just mentioned that Mary lived in Nazareth before Jesus' birth in Bethlehem.
Biblical contradiction: According to Matthew, Jesus was born before the death of Herod in 4 B.C., while according to Luke Jesus was born when Quirinius was governor of Syria in 6 A.D.
Response: The date of Herod's death 4 BC is dependent on Josephus only, not confirmed anywhere else, thus possibly wrong.
Luke does not say in which year Quirinius was governor of Syria. It is Josephus who mentions the date 6 AD at the end of census of Quirinius:
Let's see what Luke says:
“And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered.
This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria.
So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city.
Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David,
to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child.
So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered.
And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.”
(Luke 2:1-7)
According to the deeds of Augustus, the dates of censuses were
“8. When I was consul the fifth time (29 B.C.E.), I increased the number of patricians by order of the people and senate. I read the roll of the senate three times, and in my sixth consulate (28 B.C.E.) I made a census of the people with Marcus Agrippa as my colleague.
I conducted a lustrum, after a forty-one year gap, in which lustrum were counted 4,063,000 heads of Roman citizens.
Then again, with consular imperium I conducted a lustrum alone when Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius were consuls (8 B.C.E.), in which lustrum were counted 4,233,000 heads of Roman citizens.
And the third time, with consular imperium, I conducted a lustrum with my son Tiberius Caesar as colleague, when Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Appuleius were consuls (14 A.C.E.), in which lustrum were counted 4,937,000 of the heads of Roman citizens.”
(The deeds of Divine Augustus)
If indeed the 2nd census started at 8 BC, we lack the information how exactly how this census was going on.
We lack information if Herod the Great did conduct censuses when gathering taxes.
In attempting to reconcile the contradictions in the two accounts, apologists try to place the enrollment for taxation mentioned in Luke to the time of Herod the Great's reign.
However, historically, there was no such enrollment during that time.
The Romans taxed only the provinces they had direct control of, such as Egypt and Syria. They did not tax the provinces controlled by client rulers such as Herod the Great.
Response: What we know is that the greek word used in Luke 2:2 is prote, derived from protos, which can be used both in the senses of "first" and "before".
Possibly the sense is "This census took place before Quirinius' government of Syria. "
We know by the Bible that even Moses and king David made censuses of Israel.
Is it possible that Herod the Great made some sort of census while gathering taxes,
either with the help of Quirinius or whose data was used later by Quirinius in his own census? Yes.
Lack of mention of something does not mean it did not happen.
Most ancient information is lost.
For instance we don't know what exactly was Quirinius doing most of his life before the mention regarding his the census.
Does it mean he did nothing? No.
But what is mentioned is that Herod did gather large taxes
and using it to give large sums of money to romans, to buy ranks or secure his power,
or against his enemies. Ex:
"but Herod having enjoyed a country that was very fruitful, and that now for a long time, and having received great taxes,
and raised great armies therewith, got together a body of men, and carefully furnished them
with all necessaries, and designed them as auxiliaries for Antony."
(Antiquities of Jews, book15, ch5)
or recollections of Herod's deals after his death:
“And besides the annual impositions which he laid upon every one of them, they were to make liberal presents to himself, to his domestics and friends, and to such of his slaves as were vouchsafed the favor of being his tax-gatherers, because there was no way of obtaining a freedom from unjust violence without giving either gold or silver for it.”
(Antiquities of Jews, book17, ch11)
Furthermore, there is no historical evidence that there was a Roman enrollment for taxation in Judea during Herod's reign, and attempts to prove otherwise are without basis.
In addition, Saturninus was Governor of Syria from 9 BC to 6 BC, and Varus from 6 BC until after the death of Herod. Again, Quirinius was not governor of Syria until 6 A.D.
Response: Again, lack of mention does not mean something did not happen. If i eat something in the morning and never tell anyone or the information about it is lost, does it mean it did not happen?
It could have happened or not.
However according to Josephus the Romans were very involved in Herod's rule, who was very dependent on them, having to go to Rome twice and defend himself, bribing their officials, to not lose his rule.
It depends on the official positions which Quirinius held after his consul job mentioned in 12 BC.
Tacitus and other ancient writers do mention he was involved in places around Judea - from Asia to Armenia.
The user thinks that only one governor could exist at the same time in Syria, yet Josephus mentions two at same time, including Saturninus and Volumnius.
“Obodas aside, and managed all by himself, denied that the robbers were in Arabia, and put off the payment of the money; about which there was a hearing before Saturninus and Volumnius, who were then the presidents of Syria”
(Antiquities of Jews, book16, ch9)
This way it is possible that Quirinius was in some governing post before 6 AD.
For instance the wikipedia list of Roman governors of Syria only mentions Saturninus, but not Volumnius.
Also it shows a gap with unknown governor between 4 and 1 BC.
Is it possible Quirinius was a governor or some sort of subordinated governor or prefect then? Yes.
So we should not deny the Bible, pretending that the single fallible source of Josephus Flavius, which cannot be checked by others, is somehow perfect when dating and declaring things against the Bible,
nor should people twist it to say into something it does not.
Josephus does not say that Quirinius began his governship in 6 AD, but that he ended the census then, not speaking when he began and how long it was going, and we can't verify his dates by other sources.
When Herod died in 4 BC, the Romans divided up his territory of Palestine and gave Judea, Idumea, and Samaria to his son Archelaus to rule, and the other parts of Palestine to his other two sons. Archelaus was brutal as ruler and his subjects appealed to Rome. As a result, Rome deposed Archelaus in 6 AD and took over direct rule of Archelaus's territory. In so doing they instituted taxation of that territory, and Quirinius, as the newly installed governor of Syria, was tasked to oversee the taxation, hence the enrollment. This taxation did not include Galilee, which was ruled by Herod's son Antipas, so Joseph, as a resident of Galilee (according to Luke's story) would not have been required to go to Bethlehem for the enrollment. (Contrary to Luke's exaggeration, the taxation was not world wide and did not require everyone to return to the city of their ancestors. The practical Romans would never have required such a return because there would have been absolutely no reason for it, and it would have disrupted commerce. The Romans taxed on the basis of residency, not ancestry).
Response: People like above, constantly try to find fault with the Bible, by using Josephus' claims against it, as if he is infallible when needed.
Was he? No, he was just a man.
Ask yourself, how he did end up being spared from execution as former enemy of Rome by future emperor Vespasian?
How did he end up being first a slave, then a freedman, taking the Flavian surname, thus being close to the emperor and the government?
What favors did he do for Vespasian the emperor and his family? Did not he declare him to fulfil the Messianic prophecies as seen below?
The following Jewish encyclopedia article declares that Josephus Flavius twisted the Messiah prophecy into a fabrication and propaganda for Vespasian as emperor to save his life, for which result he was spared.
The stakes were very high and consequent emperors most likely knew of it and certainly knew of Jesus proclaimed Messiah by Christians, since Nero's persecution at least.
Could they have convinced Josephus to change dates or were the dates referring to the death of Herod the Great and census of Cyrenius changed in later manuscripts by enemies of Christian faith trying to discredit it? It is very possible.
Vespasian was known to promote the imperial cult, along with Domitian who did persecute Christians,
and during whose reign the Jewish Antiquities of Josephus Flavius are considered to be written:
Naturally since Christians deemed worship of emperors as idolatry and worshiped God by faith in his Son Jesus Christ,
the emperors had all incentive to try to discredit their faith, including by Josephus' works.
In contradiction to Matthew's story, Joseph originally lived in Bethlehem, and that some time after the birth of Jesus, Herod posed a threat to Jesus.
Joseph and his family therefore went to Egypt (which Matthew made up to appear to fulfill prophecy), returning after the death of Herod.
Using the brutal reign of Archelaus as an excuse, Matthew had Joseph and his family bypass their home in Bethlehem and instead settle in Nazareth.
As the KJ Bible says, "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."
That indicates that Joseph was making a new home for himself and his family there.
Again, there was no such prophecy. Matthew just made it up to give a reason for Joseph to settle in Nazareth.
Response: By logic the following cases are possible:
1) Matthew is retelling the fulfilled prophecy
2) Matthew made up the Gospel by false information
There are no actual contradictions in Matthew and Luke given above.
It might seem a contradiction only if a person believes that Matthew states that Mary and Joseph did always live in Bethlehem until Jesus was born,
which would then contradict Luke's mention of Mary living in Nazareth before Jesus' birth.
But Matthew does not say so.
It is possible for Joseph and Mary to live in multiple places at different times.
An actual contradiction and sign of being made up will be something like this:
1) The family lived in Bethlehem their whole life without moving
2) The family lived in Nazareth their whole life without moving
This way the user is providing his personal unsupported belief only.
The prophecy of Nazarene can be linked to the terms Nazirite/Nazarite and Branch in the Bible.
Branch is called nay-tser in hebrew:
Near the beginning of his story, Luke refers to "Herod King of Judea" (Luke 1:5), which would have been Herod Archelaus, not Herod the Great
(upon their father's death, both Archelaus and Antipas took on their father's name as a title for themselves). Herod the Great, referred to in Matthew, was king of all of Palestine, not just Judea.
Response: Let's see what Luke says
“There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah. His wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth”
(Luke 1:5)
There is no specification here to know which of the Herods exactly is given here.
If both Matthew and Luke are correct, by showing the full picture, then it would be Herod the Great.
If Matthew is wrong (Jesus is not born during King Herod the Great) and Josephus is right (Herod the great died before Jesus' birth and Archelaus was reigning instead), then Archelaus.
If the events described in Luke chapter one were supposed to have occurred near the end of Herod Archelaus's reign (which I described above),
the beginning of chapter two would be referring to events just after Archelaus was deposed and the Romans took direct rule over Judea and initiated the enrollment for taxation.
The historical time frame of Luke's story is therefore self-consistent, and the attempts by apologists to place Luke's story during Herod the Great's reign are without foundation.
Thus the contradiction with Matthew still exists.
Luke continues his story in chapter two by relating that Joseph and Mary traveled from their home in Nazareth to Bethlehem because of the enrollment for taxation.
Not long after their arrival in Bethlehem, Jesus was born, and after performing the ritual requirements according to the law of Moses, which was forty days, Joseph and his family returned to their home in Nazareth.
So there is a significant set of contradictions, and they are not taken out of context.
Response: as was noted, the supposed contradictions depend on the following conditions:
1) Josephus speaks the truth about the rule of Herod and his sons
2) Josephus speaks the truth about the dates of death of Herod the Great (4BC) and the end of census of Quirinius (6AD).
3) Matthew states that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (before 4BC)
4) Luke states that Jesus was born after death of Herod the great and during the census of Qurinius (finished in 6AD).
In reality we depend only on the testimony of Josephus Flavius who was known for pro-roman, imperial propaganda, including the twisting of messianic prophecies in Vespasian's favor,
while the emperors of Rome held a hostile attitude to Christian faith and had interests to discredit it.
We do not have other third independent testimony to verify who is correct between Bible and Josephus Flavius.
So this way the possible cases are:
The Bible is true and Josephus is false
The Bible is false and Josephus is true, but who is as we noted is not accepted to be completely true by unbelievers, who doubt or disregard the validity of references to Jesus Christ.
Both the Bible and Josephus are false.
Let's check the conditions how the Bible can be true:
Mary did indeed live in Nazareth before moving in together with Joseph, as mentioned by Luke,
even if not mentioned or not known by Matthew.
Mary and Joseph moved to Bethlehem where Jesus was born before death of Herod
[census took place before/during Quirinius' Syrian government]
[Josephus' dates and information are wrong about death of Herod/census dates]
Herod did conduct a census/tax-gathering or Romans had power in Herod the Great's kingdom to conduct a census during his reign.
Possibly accounted and finished by Quirinius either during or after death of Herod the Great.
Herod sent soldiers to slaughter babies around Bethlehem, while Mary and Joseph with Jesus ran to Egypt
Family with Jesus returned to Nazareth after death of Herod the Great and reign of Archelaus
Conclusions
The Bible accounts of Jesus Christ's birth can only be declared as contradicting if:
1) Josephus Flavius is absolutely correct in his claims, which in fact cannot be verified by other sources,
while already believed to be partially interpolated or forged by Christians regarding Jesus Christ,
while also writing the books while being in the pagan Roman emperor party, which had the interests to destroy and discredit Christian faith
2) Matthew declares that Mary did not live in Nazareth before Jesus' birth (but he does not).
3) We would have detailed knowledge of all the ruling positions of Quirinius and the census dates he participated in or ruled during
4) Luke claims that Jesus was born after Herod the Great's death (which he does not)
Since the user above did not prove such claims, the alleged Bible contradictions are just his personal beliefs.
Comments