Changes

Many Biblical scholars hold, instead, that Luke intended to place the governing of Quirinius and the kingship of Herod the Great as contemporaneous.  Often, these scholars then go on to argue that on this matter Luke made a factual blunder.  Most of these scholars have spent their careers developing a body of work that depends upon a rejection of Biblical inerrancy.  The list includes ex-priests such as Geza Vermes and John Dominic Crossan,<ref>Geza Vermes, ''The Nativity'', Penguin 2006, p.96; Richard G. Watts and John Dominic Crossan, ''Who is Jesus?: Answers to Your Questions about the Historical Jesus'' (Westminster John Knox Press 1999), p. 18.</ref> liberal theologians such as R. E. Brown,<ref> R. E. Brown, ''The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke''. London: G. Chapman, 1977, p. 554.</ref> and, of course, the psuedo-scholars of the Jesus seminar.  However, the widespread nature of this position cannot be denied, and it includes historians such as Fergus Millar,<ref>Fergus Miller, ‘Reflections on the trials of Jesus’, in ''A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History'', ed. P. R. Davies and R. T. White (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), pp. 355-81.</ref> Peter Richardson,<ref>Peter Richardson, ''Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans'', (University of South Carolina Press, 1966), p. 31.</ref> and even A. N. Sherwin-White, who otherwise vindicated the accuracy of Luke on all manner of points.<ref>A. N. Sherwin-White, ''Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 166-167.</ref>  Indeed, a kind of secular orthodoxy has developed, where dissenting voices are more likely to be dismissed without consideration, aptly evidenced by the statement of J. P. Meier, who curtly characterized the “attempts to reconcile Luke 2:1 with the facts of ancient history” as “hopelessly contrived”.<ref>John P. Meier, "A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus" (Doubleday, 1991), v. 1, p. 213.</ref>

Many Biblical scholars hold, instead, that Luke intended to place the governing of Quirinius and the kingship of Herod the Great as contemporaneous.  Often, these scholars then go on to argue that on this matter Luke made a factual blunder.  Most of these scholars have spent their careers developing a body of work that depends upon a rejection of Biblical inerrancy.  The list includes ex-priests such as Geza Vermes and John Dominic Crossan,<ref>Geza Vermes, ''The Nativity'', Penguin 2006, p.96; Richard G. Watts and John Dominic Crossan, ''Who is Jesus?: Answers to Your Questions about the Historical Jesus'' (Westminster John Knox Press 1999), p. 18.</ref> liberal theologians such as R. E. Brown,<ref> R. E. Brown, ''The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke''. London: G. Chapman, 1977, p. 554.</ref> and, of course, the psuedo-scholars of the Jesus seminar.  However, the widespread nature of this position cannot be denied, and it includes historians such as Fergus Millar,<ref>Fergus Miller, ‘Reflections on the trials of Jesus’, in ''A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History'', ed. P. R. Davies and R. T. White (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), pp. 355-81.</ref> Peter Richardson,<ref>Peter Richardson, ''Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans'', (University of South Carolina Press, 1966), p. 31.</ref> and even A. N. Sherwin-White, who otherwise vindicated the accuracy of Luke on all manner of points.<ref>A. N. Sherwin-White, ''Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 166-167.</ref>  Indeed, a kind of secular orthodoxy has developed, where dissenting voices are more likely to be dismissed without consideration, aptly evidenced by the statement of J. P. Meier, who curtly characterized the “attempts to reconcile Luke 2:1 with the facts of ancient history” as “hopelessly contrived”.<ref>John P. Meier, "A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus" (Doubleday, 1991), v. 1, p. 213.</ref>

Many of those who contend that Luke blundered accuse their critics (i.e. those who believe Luke did not make a mistake in this regard) of poor scholarship resulting from  bias stemming from their belief in inerrancy.  But perhaps the most frustrating element of this dismissive attitude is the unwillingness to acknowledge the historical difficulties in assuming that Luke erred on this matter.  Here we will observe the points of Mark D. Smith.  Smith himself did not accept the historical accuracy of the Gospel of Matthew, and so he can be accused of no such bias.  Of course, in referencing his points we in no way make a concession to the blatantly anti-Christian position that believers in inerrancy cannot be scholars.  But dismantling the absurdity of this view is not something that can be undertaken here, and, given the arguments of Smith, it is not immediately necessary.

Many of those who contend that Luke blundered accuse their critics (i.e. those who believe Luke did not make a mistake in this regard) of poor scholarship resulting from  bias stemming from their belief in inerrancy.  But perhaps the most frustrating element of this dismissive attitude is the unwillingness to acknowledge the historical difficulties in assuming that Luke erred on this matter.  Mark D. Smith makes a number of points regarding this matter and Smith himself did not accept the historical accuracy of the Gospel of Matthew, and so he can be accused of no such bias.  Of course, in referencing his points we in no way make a concession to the blatantly anti-Christian position that believers in inerrancy cannot be scholars.  But dismantling the absurdity of this view is not something that can be undertaken here, and, given the arguments of Smith, it is not immediately necessary.

Smith pointed out that it would be impossible to accept that Luke would have included such a mistaken account at the beginning of his Gospel.<ref>Mark D. Smith ‘Of Jesus and Quirinius’, in ''Catholic Biblical Quarterly'', vol. 62, no. 2 (April 2000).</ref>  The events concerning the census of Quirinius in A.D. 6, and the ensuing Jewish rebellion of Judas the Galilean, were well-known ‘cataclysmic events’.  Luke himself, as shown by historian R. P. C. Hanson, was “remarkably well informed about the geographic distribution and governmental structures and officials of Roman provinces.”<ref>R. P. C. Hanson, ''The Acts in the Revised Standard Version'' (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967), pp. 2-3; Mark D. Smith ‘Of Jesus and Quirinius’, in ''Catholic Biblical Quarterly'', vol. 62, no. 2 (April 2000), pp. 283.</ref>  Information about the date of Quirinius’s census would have been readily available to Luke, and thus a chronological error of no less than a decade by the evangelist is difficult to accept.  Smith wrote, “…for first-century Jews to confuse those two events would be akin to twentieth century Americans confusing World War II and the Koran War.<ref>Mark D. Smith ‘Of Jesus and Quirinius’, in ''Catholic Biblical Quarterly'', vol. 62, no. 2 (April 2000), pp. 282-283.</ref>  And Luke did know of the revolt of Judas the Galilean and its relationship with a census, mentioning it in Acts 5:37.   

Smith pointed out that it would be impossible to accept that Luke would have included such a mistaken account at the beginning of his Gospel.<ref>Mark D. Smith ‘Of Jesus and Quirinius’, in ''Catholic Biblical Quarterly'', vol. 62, no. 2 (April 2000).</ref>  The events concerning the census of Quirinius in A.D. 6, and the ensuing Jewish rebellion of Judas the Galilean, were well-known ‘cataclysmic events’.  Luke himself, as shown by historian R. P. C. Hanson, was “remarkably well informed about the geographic distribution and governmental structures and officials of Roman provinces.”<ref>R. P. C. Hanson, ''The Acts in the Revised Standard Version'' (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967), pp. 2-3; Mark D. Smith ‘Of Jesus and Quirinius’, in ''Catholic Biblical Quarterly'', vol. 62, no. 2 (April 2000), pp. 283.</ref>  Information about the date of Quirinius’s census would have been readily available to Luke, and thus a chronological error of no less than a decade by the evangelist is difficult to accept.  Smith wrote, “…for first-century Jews to confuse those two events would be akin to twentieth century Americans confusing World War II and the Koran War.<ref>Mark D. Smith ‘Of Jesus and Quirinius’, in ''Catholic Biblical Quarterly'', vol. 62, no. 2 (April 2000), pp. 282-283.</ref>  And Luke did know of the revolt of Judas the Galilean and its relationship with a census, mentioning it in Acts 5:37.