Wednesday Bible Study: Q is for Quirinius

Since the whole point of this week's study is the accuracy of the Bible, I feel I should start with the just-learned by me fact that there are indeed 2 Biblical persons who start with the letter Q, and neither gets much of a mention.  Quartus is one of Paul's 'buddies' in Corinth when he penned Romans.  Quirinius is a proven historical figure.  But according to those who don't believe, Luke gets his dates wrong and 'invalidates the whole Bible'.


Luk 2:1  In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. 
Luk 2:2  This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. 
Luk 2:3  And all went to be registered, each to his own town. 

Most of you know this line; this is why Joseph had to (we assume) hoist 9-months pregnant Mary up on a donkey and cart her to Bethlehem, as they were both of the lineage of David and thus had to go to HIS home town.  But Biblioskeptics point out, but Jesus was supposedly born while Herod the Great was alive, and he died some ten years before the 'census when Quirinius was governor'.

Let's look to the facts, ma'am, and get to the bottom of this.

First off, let's take just a quick look at the credibility of the sources.  Luke was trying to build an unbiased account to prove where Jesus fit in in the historical narrative.  The seculars lean on Josephus, a former Jewish rebel who was trying to ingratiate himself with Rome after the city of Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70-71- by which time he had 'turned traitor.'

Luke wrote his Gospel some 20 years before Josephus began to write his Histories of the Jews, and was in Judea gathering information; Josephus was writing from a comfortable traitor's bed in Rome.

The earliest extant fragment of Luke dates from 175-225 AD.  The earliest copy of Josephus is 11th century- a millennium later.

And Luke has had many things questioned by 'historians' which he was proven right on by archaeology.  I want to go to one of those next.

From wiki: There are major difficulties in accepting Luke's account: the gospel links the birth of Jesus to the reign of Herod the Great, but the census took place in 6 CE, nine years after Herod's death in 4 BCE; there was no single census of the entire empire under Augustus; no Roman census required people to travel from their own homes to those of distant ancestors; and the census of Judea would not have affected Joseph and his family living in Galilee, there is no time in the known career of Quirinius when he could have served as governor of Syria before 6 CE, the Romans did not directly tax client kingdoms, and the hostile reaction of the Jews in 6 CE suggests direct taxation by Rome was new at the time.

Au contraire, mon frere!  First off, let's look at this notion of the 'no census that required people to travel.'  From BibeHistory.net:

The following is a record of a census taken in the year 104 A.D. which contains similar wording to that found in the Gospel:

      "From the Prefect of Egypt, Gaius Vibius Maximus. Being that the time has come for the house to house census, it is mandatory that all men who are living outside of their districts return to their own homelands, that the census may be carried out  . . . "

       Another census was uncovered from 48 A.D. which also records a return of the people to their native land for the census. It reads as follows:

      "I Thermoutharion along with Apollonius, my guardian, pledge an oath to Tiberius Claudius Caesar that the preceding document gives an accurate account of those returning, who live in my household, and that there is no one else living with me, neither a foreigner, nor an Alexandrian, nor a freedman, nor a Roman citizen, nor an Egyptian. If I am telling the truth, may it be well with me, but if falsely, the reverse. In the ninth year of the reign of Tiberius Claudius Augustus Germanicus Emperor."

So not only do we see that there WERE censuses that required people to return to ancestral homes, but that there were SEVERAL of them!  The main problem secularists have is that Josephus links the census in Luke to the one in 6 AD, when Quirinius HAD taken the place of the deposed Herod Archelaus.  But, in point of fact, Luke mentions this census in Acts:

Act 5:36  For before these days Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. 

Act 5:37  After him Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him. He too perished, and all who followed him were scattered. 

Act 5:38  So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; 

Act 5:39  but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!" So they took his advice...

Here Luke is recounting the speech of the teacher Gamaliel urging the Jews to let Peter and John off.  Judas the Galilean revolted because of the census that WAS taken in 6 AD.  But Josephus was in error about that being the SAME census.  Josephus was a sloppy historian more interested in what fit his narrative, and didn't bother to check his sources, which apparently Luke did...

Two well-respected leaders from the early church, Justin and Tertullian, also believed that a record of the census, along with the registration of Joseph and Mary, could be found in official documents from the reign of Augustus Caesar. In their writings they mention that if anyone were to question the Lord’s virgin birth they should go and checkout the Roman state records for themselves.

So, but, they say, Quirinius STILL wasn't governor of the area until after Herod Archelaus was dumped by Rome, right?  Guess again.  The problem was with what exactly a 'governor' meant... here, wiki, prove the point:

His name was stated the earliest in the inscription from 12 BC discovered in Antioch Pisidia known as Res Gestae ('The Deeds of Augustus Caesar by August') 10, stating: "A great crowd of people came together from all over Italy to my election,... when Publius Sulpicius (Quirinius) and Gaius Valgius were consuls."[12] Two other inscriptions also found in Pisidian Antioch (Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae 9502 & 9503) mentioned Quirinius as a Duumvir, when Marcus Servilius was a Roman consul in 3 AD.

So Quirinius had SOME kind of power in the area at the very least several years before the birth of Jesus.  From Cold Case Christianity:

Interestingly, archaeological discoveries in the nineteenth century seem to confirm Quirinius (or someone with the same name) was also proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 BC to the death of Herod. Quirinius’s name has been discovered on a coin from this period of time (as cited by John McRay in Archaeology and the New Testament), and on the base of a statue erected in Pisidian Antioch (as cited by Sir William Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament). Quirinius may actually have ruled Syria during two separate periods and have taken two separate censuses. This is consistent with Luke’s account. In Luke 2:2, Luke refers to the “first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria” (describing Quirinius’ rule as the governor’s procurator), and in Acts 5:37, Luke describes a second census taken most likely between 6-7AD (as described by Josephus) when Quirinius was the formal governor of the region. Both Josephus and Luke link this second census to an uprising under Judas of Galilee. Only Luke’s sources were present during the actual events; as a result, Luke’s description of two separate censuses is reasonable.

Think, Pilate and Herod of Jesus' time- a Roman official over the shoulder of a native ruler.  Quirinius served in this role until AD 1, when Augustus ( the former Octavian) sent him to Armenia to teach Augustus'  grandson the ins and outs of administration.  Then, Augustus recalled him at Archelaus's fall to take over as formal governor- and his first act was the census that Judas of Galilee rebelled against, coming so soon after their complaints finally dethroned the hated Archelaus.

   So why didn't God have Luke just EXPLAIN all this?  Because, God tells us that He will be found if you DILIGENTLY SEEK Him.  I realize archaeology isn't everybody's idea of diligently seeking- but you know, it wasn't God's idea for everyones' 'diligent seeking'.  Some of us seek through prayer, some through service, some through history.  But God leaves it just enough open that those who WANT to know can find out, and those that choose not to can ignore.  See, God gives you a free-will choice: seek or ignore.  Those that seek, God will reach out to; those that don't...

Mat 13:13  This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 

Mat 13:14  Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: "'You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive. 

Mat 13:15  For this people's heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.' 

Mat 13:16  But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. 

Mat 13:17  For truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.