Comments on: Problems in the book of Matthew http://www.goatstar.org A guide from an ex-Christian to Bible errors, Bible contradictions, Bible atrocities, etc... as well as general problems with Christian beliefs Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:57:42 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Shasiti http://www.goatstar.org/the-author-of-matthews-problems/comment-page-1/#comment-66302 Shasiti Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:08:28 +0000 http://www.goatstar.org/?page_id=18#comment-66302 Quirinus was NEVER Governor TWICE!! II. Was Quirinius Twice Governor? Some have tried to reconcile Matthew and Luke by inventing a second governorship of Quirinius, placing it in the reign of Herod the Great. However, we have no evidence at all that Quirinius served as governor of Syria twice, much less that he did so when Herod was king of Judaea. Moreover, no one ever governed the same province twice in the whole of Roman history, making the very proposal implausible. Three inscriptions and a coin have been used to imply otherwise, but none of these items contain any of the information claimed by those who want Quirinius to have been twice governor, and they offer no support to the theory. We also know who was governing Syria between 12 and 3 B.C. and therefore Quirinius could not have been governor then (or before, since he was not qualified before the year 12). Also, in section 3 it will be shown that there was never any such thing as a dual governorship, nor could there have been, given the nature of Roman political and social organization, and even if Quirinius had been governor or co-governor of Syria at an earlier date, no census could have been conducted in Judaea while Herod or his successor Archelaus were alive. Some Christian apologists, following extremely outdated scholarship, have tried to argue (or have even stated as if it were a fact) that Quirinius was actually governor of Syria on two different occasions--the first time, conveniently, while Herod was alive. Therefore, this argument goes, the census Luke is talking about happened in the days of Herod the Great. Unfortunately, this fails to solve the other contradictions between Luke's and Matthew's accounts. It is also both groundless and implausible. Nevertheless, every single piece of evidence we have about Quirinius has been twisted into "evidence" of a second or earlier governorship of Syria, and evidence has even been invented wholesale--once by an innocent mistake, and once by pseudoscientific insanity. This "evidence" consists of three inscriptions and one coin, which I will examine in detail. But first I will mention the several preliminary reasons why this "theory" is absurd. First, we know that Quintilius Varus, not Sulpicius Quirinius, was governor of Syria from 6 B.C. to beyond Herod's death in 3 B.C. (and possibly longer), and before him Sentius Saturninus held the post from 9 B.C. to 6 B.C., and he took the post immediately after Marcus Titius, who probably held the post since 12 B.C. (since three years was the average length of a governorship).[4.1] There is no room here in which to fit Quirinius. And since we know he first attained the consulship in 12 B.C.,[4.1.5] and only ex-consuls held the governorship of Syria in the time of Augustus, he could not have governed before that year. This means one would have to propose that Jesus was born between 12 and 10 B.C. even for this theory to be remotely possible, but that still would be ad hoc, involving a truly maverick position regarding the chronology of Jesus, presuming an unusually short tenure for Titius, inventing a spot for Quirinius nowhere attested, and still not solving the problem of the census (below). Second, we do not even have any evidence that anyone ever served as governor of the same consular province twice in the whole of Roman history, so it would have been extremely unusual and quite remarkable--so much so that it would be odd that no one mentions it, not even Josephus, or Tacitus who gives us the obituary of Quirinius in Annals 3.48, a prime place to mention such a peculiar accomplishment. It is certainly unheard of.[4.2] Now for the reputed evidence to the contrary. Go to <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html" rel="nofollow">infidels.org/Lukes Nativity</a><a> for more information!</a> Quirinus was NEVER Governor TWICE!!
II. Was Quirinius Twice Governor?
Some have tried to reconcile Matthew and Luke by inventing a second governorship of Quirinius, placing it in the reign of Herod the Great. However, we have no evidence at all that Quirinius served as governor of Syria twice, much less that he did so when Herod was king of Judaea. Moreover, no one ever governed the same province twice in the whole of Roman history, making the very proposal implausible. Three inscriptions and a coin have been used to imply otherwise, but none of these items contain any of the information claimed by those who want Quirinius to have been twice governor, and they offer no support to the theory. We also know who was governing Syria between 12 and 3 B.C. and therefore Quirinius could not have been governor then (or before, since he was not qualified before the year 12). Also, in section 3 it will be shown that there was never any such thing as a dual governorship, nor could there have been, given the nature of Roman political and social organization, and even if Quirinius had been governor or co-governor of Syria at an earlier date, no census could have been conducted in Judaea while Herod or his successor Archelaus were alive.

Some Christian apologists, following extremely outdated scholarship, have tried to argue (or have even stated as if it were a fact) that Quirinius was actually governor of Syria on two different occasions–the first time, conveniently, while Herod was alive. Therefore, this argument goes, the census Luke is talking about happened in the days of Herod the Great. Unfortunately, this fails to solve the other contradictions between Luke’s and Matthew’s accounts. It is also both groundless and implausible. Nevertheless, every single piece of evidence we have about Quirinius has been twisted into “evidence” of a second or earlier governorship of Syria, and evidence has even been invented wholesale–once by an innocent mistake, and once by pseudoscientific insanity. This “evidence” consists of three inscriptions and one coin, which I will examine in detail.

But first I will mention the several preliminary reasons why this “theory” is absurd. First, we know that Quintilius Varus, not Sulpicius Quirinius, was governor of Syria from 6 B.C. to beyond Herod’s death in 3 B.C. (and possibly longer), and before him Sentius Saturninus held the post from 9 B.C. to 6 B.C., and he took the post immediately after Marcus Titius, who probably held the post since 12 B.C. (since three years was the average length of a governorship).[4.1] There is no room here in which to fit Quirinius. And since we know he first attained the consulship in 12 B.C.,[4.1.5] and only ex-consuls held the governorship of Syria in the time of Augustus, he could not have governed before that year. This means one would have to propose that Jesus was born between 12 and 10 B.C. even for this theory to be remotely possible, but that still would be ad hoc, involving a truly maverick position regarding the chronology of Jesus, presuming an unusually short tenure for Titius, inventing a spot for Quirinius nowhere attested, and still not solving the problem of the census (below). Second, we do not even have any evidence that anyone ever served as governor of the same consular province twice in the whole of Roman history, so it would have been extremely unusual and quite remarkable–so much so that it would be odd that no one mentions it, not even Josephus, or Tacitus who gives us the obituary of Quirinius in Annals 3.48, a prime place to mention such a peculiar accomplishment. It is certainly unheard of.[4.2] Now for the reputed evidence to the contrary.

Go to infidels.org/Lukes Nativity for more information!

]]>