The Gospels and Acts as History
Do the Gospels and Acts present accurate history? In this talk, originally presented for Reasonable Faith Belfast, Dr. Timothy McGrew explores five tests for historical credibility for the Gospels and book of Acts. This is one hour and ten minutes of content-packed analysis followed by thirty minutes of Q&A.
Views: 212
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by john mac on -
Dave;
Ahhh History...my favorite subject. I must confess-World History and Church History I am not as good at. But tonite it is late. This looks like a fun post....I think I shall throw some out on this one! Soon....
John Mac
-
Permalink Reply by James Robertson on -
-
Permalink Reply by Dave Gosse on -
Good video James. I'm quite impressed with young Pr. Fisk. He manges to blend good theology into a format which will appeal to the iPad crowd. It's quick, pithy, and witty.
-
Permalink Reply by James Robertson on
-
Hat tip to Becky.
Dave Gosse said:Good video James. I'm quite impressed with young Pr. Fisk. He manges to blend good theology into a format which will appeal to the iPad crowd. It's quick, pithy, and witty.
-
Permalink Reply by James Robertson on
-
No secret; just internet protocol. To give a hat tip(HT:) is to give/share credit to/with some one else. You posted the video on another discussion. I saw that it fit this discussion also and so posted it here. I felt credit was owed to thee, the original poster. So no wrong, two wrights.
Becky said:James,
What did I do wrong? Tell me the secret, please! ;-)
-
Permalink Reply by Becky on -
Thanks. I guess I missed that this was a different discussion. What I meant was, how did you post the video? On the other discussion that's what I wanted to do, but only the link appeared.
-
Permalink Reply by James Robertson on
-
Check thy email for the answer.
Becky said:Thanks. I guess I missed that this was a different discussion. What I meant was, how did you post the video? On the other discussion that's what I wanted to do, but only the link appeared.
-
Permalink Reply by James Robertson on
-
Becky said:Thanks!
-
Permalink Reply by James Robertson on
-
Permalink Reply by James Robertson on
-
Quirinius’ Census: Thoughts on an Old Problem
November 28, 2011 by Dr. Frederick Baltz - Here I Stand(ILT.org)One of the objections introduced by critical scholars against placing confidence in the historical trustworthiness of the Luke’s Gospel is the problem of Quirinius, whom the NRSV says was “governor of Syria” (Luke 2:2.) Luke reports that the registration which brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem took place when Quirinius governed the Roman province of Syria.
Numerous works on Luke’s Gospel inform us that Quirinius was involved in a military action in Africa around 14 B.C. They say that he became a consul (one of the rulers of the city of Rome who served in pairs for a term of one year) in 12 B.C. They report his involvement in the Homonadensan war in Galatia which they date somewhere variously between 8 and 3 B.C. All tell of his entry into Judea in 6 A.D. to conduct what appears from Josephus to be the first actual Roman census there, and to liquidate the property of the now-banished Herod Archelaus. The Quirinius problem, simply stated is this: If Jesus was born in Herod’s reign, (1) Quirinius was not in the area at the proper time to have conducted the census Luke reports, and (2) there is no census reported in historical sources for this time. This problem has led to the conclusion that Luke was mistaken about the circumstances of Jesus birth–off by ten or twelve years if he truly thought the birth was during Quirinius’ infamous Judean census. This causes scholars to judge Luke an inaccurate historian, effecting the way they judge the rest of what he reports.
It is unfortunate that the rest of Quirinius’ story is so often omitted. These are not the only significant references we have to Quirinius. Another topic relevant to these discussions deserves its own article another time, and that is the actual year of Herod’s death. 4 B.C. is still the year found in almost all books for the demise of the tyrant whose vandalized burial place has recently been found at the Herodium. No ancient writer gives an actual date for Herod’s death, but Josephus says it followed a lunar eclipse. For this and other reasons, scholars have long held to the 4 B.C. date, because such an eclipse happened in March of that year. But a host of problems makes the 4 B.C. eclipse impossible. An eclipse in January of 1 B.C. must be the correct event. The late Professor Jack Finegan, a chronologist of the highest stature, was persuaded of this toward the end of his career. This is of vital importance to the Quirinius matter, because it gives us a time window in the years 3 and 2 B.C. for the birth of Jesus. That happens to be when the early Christian witnesses all said Jesus was born. Where was Quirinius then?
Historians all agree: Quirinius was in Syria in 1 A.D. He was appointed Rector for Gaius, the Emperor Augustus’ adopted son. Gaius was being groomed to succeed Augustus. Political unrest in Armenia demanded Rome’s attention, and Gaius left with several dignitaries on his round-about-way journey to Armenia: Marcus Lollius, Velleius Paterculus, and Sejanus. But missing from the list of dignitaries is Quirinius.
If Quirinius was not with Gaius when he left Rome on January 29, 1 B.C., but served as Gaius’ Rector when Gaius was in Armenia, we must suppose that Quirinius joined Gaius’ party along the way. This would strongly suggest that Quirinius was already in Syria when Gaius arrived there on his way to Armenia. This is not simply an attempt to “save Luke,” it is the result of an application of Ockham’s Razor. On the basis of this evidence, we can place Quirinius in Syria within, at the most, four years of Jesus’ birth.
Tertullian claimed that records of a census conducted by Saturninus at the time of Christ’s birth could still be seen in Rome. This fits the 3/2 time window, but names a governor other than Quirinius. Justin Martyr’s Apology may provide the solution to this problem. His very early witness refers to Quirinius as Procurator. Indeed, what Luke actually says is this: αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου (SBL text). He uses a genitive absolute construction to say that Quirinius was governing in Judea. Governing is a participle, a verb, not a title. Luke later uses the same expression of Caesar himself.
Then why would Luke refer to Quirinius at all if he were not the actual Governor, but a lesser person? First of all, he was probably not inferior to Saturninus in any way. He is the only person Josephus refers to as dikaiodotés. More to the point, Quirinius would become associated with his 6 A.D. census on into the future. That event became a general dating bench mark for the people of the region, like 9/11 is for us today. It was the event by which Judea came under direct Roman rule. Scholars debate whether the protos in Luke’s sentence may mean “This registration happened before Quirinius was Governor of Syria,” rather than “This was the first registration when Quirinius was Governor of Syria.” Even if the grammarians who argue for the latter are correct, we must realize that Luke may be differentiating the registration of which he writes from the infamous 6 A.D. census, known to all. “It’s not the Quirinius registration everyone has heard of, but another before that.”
The problem of the absence of a Roman census for the time in question is a problem no longer. Luke employs the word apografé which means registration. Now evidence has come to light of a registration that happened in our new time window to proclaim Augustus Caesar the Father of the Country. It was ordered throughout the Empire. From Paphlygonia an inscription describes the necessity of travelling to where the Emperor’s image was set up. People took a loyalty oath in the presence of Caesar’s image. Their names were recorded. This inscription dates from 3/2 B.C. Paul Orosius, an early church historian far less known than Eusebius, said a worldwide registration to hail Caesar as first of all men brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem. A careful reading of Josephus yields evidence for a loyalty oath in Judea in the last days of Herod.
In summary, if Herod died in 1 B.C., and Jesus was born in 3/2 B.C. as all early Christian witnesses say he was, we can place Quirinius in Syria no later than four years after that event. Unless he arrived in Syria with Gaius, it is logical to think Quirinius was already in Syria before 1 A.D. A registration was indeed being conducted throughout the Empire at this time. If Quirinius was Procurator, not Governor, his duties would have involved the conducting of the registration in Syria. In fact, this may have been the very reason he was sent there.
The text of Luke, when properly translated, is supported by historical fact.
© 2012 Created by Norm Fisher.
Powered by
