Birth of Jesus and Archaeology
Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2017 9:43 pm
Luke's gospel and Matthew's offer up an apparent contradiction on the dates of Jesus' birth. (from what we know, Quirinius was governor almost a decade after Herod died, thus creating a problem due to what is said by many about the archaeology. It wouldn't be a problem if Herod and Quirinius were around at the same time, with Quirinius' rule as governor two years ahead of Herod's death). I've done some online research, looked through at least seven different sites (not really getting any information) and what is true and false on this issue seems to be at least somewhat incoherent. Sites such as:
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/onlin ... each-other
http://christianthinktank.com/infancyoff.html (this one basically doesn't even touch on the specific issue, but rather outlines in a very drawn-out manner what early skeptics argued, why they were erroneous, etc., and makes no claim of the scholars attacking the Quirinius-Herod birth issue)
https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/census.htm (this is the passage that was taken from a book meant to outline the contradiction and defend it's status as being inconsistent with history)
http://www.veritas.org/can-classicist-b ... christmas/ (Somewhere in this, the Professor of Mathematics claims that "no Roman texts from the mid-first century were preserved." However, sources did write about the history, and likely historians kept records despite this)
Offer up things that either don't seem to help or are argued against in the uidaho page. I'm looking to see if there are any other sources on the dates of Jesus' birth, which any of you might know more about. That, or I could try and buy The Case for Christmas, and it might have something to dismiss the contradiction.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/onlin ... each-other
http://christianthinktank.com/infancyoff.html (this one basically doesn't even touch on the specific issue, but rather outlines in a very drawn-out manner what early skeptics argued, why they were erroneous, etc., and makes no claim of the scholars attacking the Quirinius-Herod birth issue)
https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/census.htm (this is the passage that was taken from a book meant to outline the contradiction and defend it's status as being inconsistent with history)
http://www.veritas.org/can-classicist-b ... christmas/ (Somewhere in this, the Professor of Mathematics claims that "no Roman texts from the mid-first century were preserved." However, sources did write about the history, and likely historians kept records despite this)
Offer up things that either don't seem to help or are argued against in the uidaho page. I'm looking to see if there are any other sources on the dates of Jesus' birth, which any of you might know more about. That, or I could try and buy The Case for Christmas, and it might have something to dismiss the contradiction.