Agnapostate! Reply!

[Eusebius]

The user Agnapostate fancies himself a "textual critic" of the New Testament and continues to claim that Scripture cannot establish an accurate claim of Christ's birth, specifically regarding the Gospel of Luke's claim that Jesus was born around the time that Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was governing Syria. He claims that since Quirinius governed Syria from A.D. 6-9, the Gospel of Matthew's report that Herod the Great attempted to kill Jesus through the Massacre of the Innocents is incorrect, since he died in 4 B.C. This serves to indicate his ignorance of the career of Quirinius, as I noted with reference to an article on the matter.

Quirinius, at the time of King Herod's death was doing military expeditions in the eastern provinces of the Roman empire (Tacitus , Annals 3:48; Florus, Roman History 2:31), with some evidence indicating that he either was a co-ruler with the governor of Syria (the somewhat inept Quintilius Varus) or at least placed in charge of the 14-year census in Palestine. Varus was famous for the later fiasco at the Teutoburger forest in Germany (9 ad) and at his appointment as Gov.. of Syria in 7 BC was largely 'untested'. The census was due in 8-7 BC, and Augustus could easily have ordered his trusted Quirinius (fresh from subduing the Pisidian highlanders) to assist in this volatile project. Herod I had recently lost favor of the emperor and was probably dragging his feet on taking the census--a process with always enraged the difficult Jews! This would have pushed the timeframe into the 5 BC mark, which fits the general data.

When I told him this, he ran away and did not return. I know he posts on this political discussion forum, so perhaps he's able to comment on it here if he's such a skilled textual critic.

 

[Agnapostate]

What is this nonsense? As has already been explained to you, Quirinius's position as procurator in the B.C. era fails to explain why he was "governing" Syria in the Gospel of Luke, even if he did aid with administering the census. (Which is an unlikely scenario, incidentally.) Gamaliel did indeed report in Acts 5:37 to the Sanhedrin that there was turmoil regarding the census (though it was unlikely that he referred to the census in 8-7 B.C.), but this is a shoddy explanation for claiming that the Gospel of Luke is accurate, and most implausible. It also conflicts with the accounts of early Church fathers and writers on the historical date of Jesus's birth.

 

[Eusebius]

On the whole, that's a rather poor summary of the likelihood of Quirinius potentially being the figure involved. Indeed, the source that I referred you to (which you evidently chose to ignore), summarized the likelihood of Quirinius being governor of Syria primary to his rule of A.D. 6-9, including acknowledment of that possibility by a number of scholars, such as William Ramsey.

The possibility that Quirinius may have been governor of Syria on an earlier occasion (*Chronology of the NT) has found confirmation in the eyes of a number of scholars (especially W. M. Ramsay) from the testimony of the Lapis Tiburtinus (CIL, 14. 3613). This inscription, recording the career of a distinguished Roman officer, is unfortunately mutilated, so that the officer’s name is missing, but from the details that survive he could very well be Quirinius. It contains a statement that when he became imperial legate of Syria he entered upon that office ‘for the second time’ (Lat. iterum). The question is: did he become imperial legate of Syria for the second time, or did he simply receive an imperial legateship for the second time, having governed another province in that capacity on the earlier occasion?...The wording is ambiguous. Ramsay held that he was appointed an additional legate of Syria between 10 and 7 bc, for the purpose of conducting the Homanadensian war, while the civil administration of the province was in the hands of other governors, including Sentius Saturninus (8-6 bc), under whom, according to Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 4. 19), the census of Lk. 2:1ff. was held.

The Lapis Tiburtinus, of course, was found in A.D. 1764 in Tivoli and contains mention of an official twice governor of Syria and Phoenicia while Augustus was emperor. This official could have very likely been Quirinius.

Even so, your larger criticism of the dating of the sentence is without cause, as Egyptian records indicate that that there was a worldwide census ordered in 8 B.C., and considering the political turmoil involved in the region, this census could have been delayed for two to four years.

 

[Agnapostate]

Similarly ignorant claims. The official referenced is considered by most modern scholars to be Quintilus Varus, not Quirinius.