An Examination of the Reliability of Biblical Scripture: Part One
Most Christians believe the Bible is inspired by God and is inerrant and infallible. To be inerrant means to be without error and to be infallible means to be incapable of error. Most Christians also believe our present canon of scripture is what has always been and never examine exactly how this particular grouping of writings came to be.
In this series of essays, we will examine the evidence for the reliability of the scriptures. We will study the issue of when the scriptures were written. We will discuss the dynamics associated with the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We will explore the methodologies used by the authors of scripture. We will look at the concepts of Biblical inerrancy and infallibility and address the issue of Divine inspiration. Lastly we will discuss the canonization process to show how the Bible, as we know it, came to be.
What is the Bible? The word Bible simply means books. The Bible is a collection of documents consisting of histories, poetic and prophetic literature, and letters. A wide variety of authors and writing styles are represented in the Bible. No original manuscripts exist. What we have are copies of copies that have come down to us through the centuries.
The Bible is different from other literature in that many believe it to be the actual word of God. Even though the documents represented in the Bible were written by human authors, it is largely believed that these authors were in some way led by God to write what they wrote. It is therefore believed that God is the real author of Biblical scripture and its human authors were simply scribes responding to the leading of God. It is because of this belief that many view the Bible as inerrant and infallible.
It is interesting to note that no Biblical author claims infallibility or that what they wrote is inerrant. You will not find such claims anywhere in scripture. What you will find is some authors of Biblical documents directly quoting God in their writings and if such quotes were written down accurately, we would have inerrant statements since God is infallible. Many Biblical scriptures, however, do not contain direct quotes from God but instead reflect the thoughts and reflections of the scriptural writers. The question that must be answered is simply this: When writers of Biblical scripture wrote what they wrote, were their thoughts in some manner directed by God or were they simple responding to their own thoughts as formed within the context of their personal, cultural, social, political, and religious beliefs?
For example, when Paul wrote his letters to the Christians at Corinth, he was writing to them about issues pertinent to them at the time and offering solutions based on his understanding of the will of God. Was God managing Paul's thoughts to insure what he wrote to the Corinthians was inerrant/infallible truth? Or was Paul simply expressing his own understanding of God’s will but not necessarily expressing a thought for thought reflection of God's mind and therefore not necessarily making inerrant or infallible statements. It is these kinds of questions that we will endeavor to answer in these essays. As we move along in this series, we will discuss what Paul said to Timothy about scriptural inspiration and what Peter said about prophetic scripture not being of private interpretation.
Since it is the Christ event that forms the foundation of Christianity, we will frame much of our discussion of Biblical reliability around this event as we move through this material. It is believed by some that the Gospels were written many years after the death of Jesus and this resulted in the development of a certain amount of legend about Him, including what some consider the myth of the virgin birth and His resurrection from the dead. Is there reason to believe that the stated authors of the Gospels were the actual authors and not just names used by later writers to make the information appear creditable? If it can be shown that the Gospels and letters that comprise the New Testament (NT) narrative were indeed written by the designated authors, is there reason to believe that what they wrote is truthful? Is there reliable information outside the Biblical record that can substantiate the Christ event? Before we discuss the dynamics of the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, let us examine the dating of the NT narratives. We will examine the dating and other dynamics relating to the Old Testament (OT) later on in this series of essays.
DATING THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS:
Church history reveals there were a number of so-called apocryphal gospels written in the latter part of the first century and well into the second and third centuries. Apocrypha is an “umbrella” term used to describe a multitude of non-canonical writings that purport to provide information pertaining to the Christ event. These writings were given names of well-known, exemplary persons who had been in close association with Jesus. The names of Peter, Thomas, James, Phillip and Mary are among the pseudo names used to give authority to the apocryphal writings. Because these writings occurred many years after the Christ event, it is felt the validity of these writings may be questionable. It is also felt that because these writers were willing to use names that were not their own to designate authorship of their documents, there may be questions as to their integrity and the integrity of what they wrote.
On the other hand, it is argued that Mark, who was a disciple of Peter, and Luke, who was a disciple of Paul, are the actual authors of the Gospels named after them. This conclusion is based on the fact that these men were not apostles or close associates of Jesus. Therefore, their names would not have had the level of authority or creditability requisite for being used as pseudo names applied to later documents. Likewise, it is felt that Matthew, who was a tax collector and therefore held in low esteem, would not have had his name used as a pseudo name. Therefore, it can be reasonably argued that these men are the actual authors of the narratives that bear their names. It is also argued that if they were indeed the authors, their material would have been written before the apocryphal documents and therefore closer to the events associated with Jesus. Therefore, their narrative could be considered a reflection of eyewitness accounts of the Christ events as gathered from oral sources or other written material. If indeed their material was written at an early first century date, it is felt that there would not have been enough time to elapse in order for legend to develop regarding Christ.
There are some exceptions to the foregoing methodology. There is an apocryphal writing from the fourth century called The Gospel of the Birth of Mary, which is purported to have been written by Matthew. The Gospel of John is named after someone who was probably the closest disciple of Jesus. Baring evidence to the contrary, it could be argued that this Gospel was written much later and the name of John was attached to the document to give it credibility. This matter is especially important in view of the fact John includes a lot more material about the divine nature of Jesus than the other Gospels. It is this very kind of material that some feel is part of the mytholization of Christ. On the other hand, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke also record supernatural events associated with Jesus which give attestation to His divine nature. If it can be determined that these three Gospels are early first century documents, it could be reasonably argued that John could be the author of record for the Gospel named after him.
The oldest testimony to the authorship of the Gospels comes from a man named Papies who wrote around 125A.D. Papies recorded that Mark had carefully and accurately recorded Peter’s eyewitness observations. Papies also records that Matthew had preserved the teachings of Jesus as well. The testimony of Papies gives reasonable credence to a first century authorship.
The church historian Irenaeus, who wrote about 180 A.D., makes this statement: “Matthew published his own Gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself, handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter’s preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned on His breast, himself, produced his Gospel while he was living in Ephesus in Asia”
Papies wrote less than a hundred years after the death of Christ and only about thirty years after the death of John if John died sometime in the 90's A.D. as is believed. Irenaeus wrote about a hundred years after the death of John. As far as historical writing goes, this is a relatively short period of time between the events and the reporting of events. While it can be argued that details of events can get distorted in a very short period of time, the basic essentials of an event are generally found to be accurately reported and preserved from one observer/reporter/writer to another.
For example, if five people witness an auto accident, it is very likely that there will be some variation in what they will report as having seen. But the essentials will be the same. They will all report that an accident did indeed take place. They will generally agree as to how many cars were involved and whether there were any injuries. They will also report, within a reasonable time frame, what time of day or night the accident happened. These would be the basic essential details of what happened. On the other hand, the color, make, and model of the cars involved, was the sun shining at the time of the accident, how many passengers were in each car are all details which may possibly be perceived differently among the five witnesses. If this accident is written up in a police file dated 1945 and a hundred years later somebody includes this report in writing a history of auto accidents in mid-twentieth century America, there would be no reason to disbelieve the accuracy of the historian reporting on the essential details of accidents in mid-twentieth century America, including the one in 1945. In like manner it would appear reasonable to trust the reporting of an Irenaeus or other early church historians as to their overall reporting of events in the first century. The fact that Irenaeus could write in 180 A.D. that Mark, Matthew and John were the authors of their respective Gospels is a reasonable indicator of these men being the actual authors and therefore their work being accomplished in the first century before their deaths.
Related to this issue is the matter of whether the authors of the Gospels wrote independently of each other or did they borrow from each other or some unknown source material? Biblical scholars are in general agreement that Mark was the first one to write his Gospel and that because of similarities of language and content, Matthew and Luke drew upon Marks narrative for their Gospels. In addition, some scholars believe that Matthew and Luke incorporated material from a third source called Q for the German word Quelle which means source. Q is primarily a list of sayings of Jesus Christ that appear to be similar in Matthew and Luke and therefore are thought to originate from a singular source. Since no such document as Q has ever been found, Q remains strictly an hypothesis. The existence or non-existence of Q does not affect the relative dating of the Gospels unless it could be demonstrated that the language, style of writing, etc. that hypothetically relates to Q is from a much later time than the middle of the first century. This has not been demonstrated.
So what can we conclude at this point? We have the testimony of Papies and Iranaeus, which would indicate a first century authorship. A first century authorship would place the Gospel accounts in good position as to being free of fabrication, legend and falsification. Luke wrote the book of Acts. The book ends with Paul under house arrest in Rome. We are not told what happens to Paul. This would indicate that Acts was written before Paul died which is thought to have occurred in the early sixties A.D. Since the first chapter of Acts indicates Acts is a follow-up book to the Gospel of Luke, the Gospel of Luke would have been written even earlier. If, as believed, Luke borrowed from Mark, this would place Mark earlier yet. We are therefore looking at the possibility that at least some of the material written in the Gospels may have been written as early as the fifties A.D. which would be only 20 to 30 years removed from the Christ events. Most scholars believe that the letters of Paul where some of the earliest Christian documents written and that they preceded the writing of the gospels.
Another consideration is the Roman war against the Jews. The temple, along with the city of Jerusalem and much of the land of Israel, was destroyed by the Romans between 66 and 73 A.D. In reading the works of the Jewish historian Josephus (37A.D. to 100> A.D.), this was a most traumatic time for the nation of Israel with over one million being killed and 100,000 Jews taken into captivity. Yet this disaster is not mentioned in the Gospels, the book of Acts or anywhere else in the New Testament. What you instead see is a great deal of reference by NT writers to the anticipated occurrence of this event. The eschatological teachings of Christ in the Olivet Discourse, as recorded in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 clearly predict the destruction of the temple and the fleeing of Christians. These events were fulfilled between 66 and 73 A.D. Many statements found in the Gospels and the letters point to a soon to occur judgement upon Israel.
Throughout the NT narrative we see the temple and Jewish worship system in existence. This was all destroyed with the Roman invasion. This creates several possibilities as to when the NT was written. We could conclude that the NT was written prior to the destruction because no mention is made of it in the NT. We could conclude that the NT was written many years after the war when the focus no longer would be on the war and the disruption it caused. Authors writing decades after the war could have focused solely on the Christ events and the development of the Christian Church. We do see the apocryphal writers of the second and third century writing about pre war events without mentioning the war, which by then would have been history to such writers. So we do see post war narrative about the Christ events and the development of Christianity without discussion of the Roman invasion in such narrative.
So what are we to conclude from all this? Apocryphal narratives were written decades after the events they record took place. Were the canonized NT narratives also written decades after the events they record? Some would argue that they were and therefore suggest that such writing does not accurately reflect the development of Christianity. Both Papies and Irenaeus indicate an early first century writing of what became canonized scripture. The war led to a massive disruption of Jewish culture and society and would have had great impact on the developing church, especially the Jerusalem church. One would think that if the NT were written shortly after the war, you would see reference to that event and its affect on the church. While there are apocryphal writings extant that discuss aspects of the Christ event without reference to the war, these documents were written long after the war and appear to have been written long after the documents that became the NT. The total silence in the NT relative to the Roman invasion is evidence for these narratives having been written a number of years before the destruction of Jerusalem. It should also be noted that there are no Christian documents extant for the approximate period of A.D. 70 to the beginning of the second century. Such silence would indicate a significant disruption in the Christian community as a result of the war.
While the NT is silent about the actual Roman invasion and subsequent destruction of the temple and city of Jerusalem, the scriptures are not silent regarding the anticipation of this event. I have already referenced the Olivet prophecy given by Christ. The prophecy given to John as recorded in the Revelation provides a great deal of symbolism relative to a coming catastrophic event. While many Christians see the Revelation as predictive of events future to us, a growing number of Christians have come to see the Revelation as predictive of the Roman war of 66 to 73 A.D. If the Revelation is dealing with the Roman/Jewish war, this would provide additional evidence for a pre 66 A.D. writing of the NT narrative.
The overall evidence would indicate a pre- 66 A.D. dating of the NT narrative with the Gospels and Acts written within 30 to 40 years after the Christ events. It appears at least some of the epistles were written even earlier. Establishing an early writing of NT documents is important. It provides evidence that reduces the likelihood of time affecting the validity of what was recorded. This does not, however, prove validity. Just because someone writes about events shortly after they occur doesn’t prove that what they wrote is accurate.
The NT deals with extraordinary events. The Christian system is built on very extraordinary events. The virgin birth of Christ is an extraordinary event. The resurrection of Christ is an extraordinary event. We must examine the evidence for these events having occurred as recorded. We will begin our discussion with an overview of the birth of Christ and in Part Two of this series address the virgin birth specifically.
THE BIRTH OF CHRIST:
Luke begins his gospel narrative in a manner that appears to be very scholarly. His stated intention is to carefully investigate the facts regarding the Christ event and write a truthful and accurate account.
Luke 1:1-2: “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”
The birth of Christ is recorded in the narratives of Matthew and Luke. Luke goes into great detail as to the events surrounding the birth. Matthew does not go into as much detail as Luke but sees in the birth of Christ what he perceives as OT prophecies being fulfilled. Nothing is said in Matthew’s narrative as to how he accumulated the information for his Gospel. Matthew’s use of OT material to give creditability to the Christ event raises some questions as to his methodology. Let’s begin by examining some of what Matthew wrote relative to the birth of Christ.
In Matthew the second chapter, we are told that Herod’s decree to kill all male children less than two years old fulfilled something Jeremiah said hundreds of years earlier.
Matthew 2:17-18: “Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: ‘A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more”
Jeremiah 31:15. This is what the LORD says: A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because her children are no more.
As can be seen, this prophecy is quoted from Jeremiah 31:15. A careful reading of Jeremiah chapters 29 through 31 will reveal that Jeremiah is dealing with the issue of Judah’s dispersion created by the Babylonian captivity and their returning from that captivity. It’s an entire message of hope and not one of mourning. In Jeremiah 31:16-17, the prophet answers his observation about a voice of weeping and mourning heard in Ramah.
Jeremiah 31:16-17: This is what the LORD says: "Restrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears, for your work will be rewarded," declares the LORD. "They will return from the land of the enemy. So there is hope for your future," declares the LORD. "Your children will return to their own land.
Jeremiah appears to be reflecting on the sorry state of the Babylonian captivity while offering hope of a return from that captivity which indeed did take place under Ezra and Nehemiah.
There is nothing in the context of Jeremiah 31 that foretells the killing of the children in Bethlehem The captives of Judah, hearing what Jeremiah had to say would not have understood it to refer to an event hundreds of years into the future. Neither is there any indication that Jeremiah had such a future fulfillment in mind or that there was some sort of duel meaning. as Matthew indicates.
There is no record of this killing of the children in secular history. First century historian Josephus, who wrote extensively about the life of Herod in his history of the Jews, makes no mention of Herod killing the children of Bethlehem. In reading Josephus it becomes apparent that he had little use for Herod and went out of his way to write about all the evil things Herod did. Yet there is no mention of the event recorded by Matthew. Luke, the other New Testament chronicler of the birth of Christ, makes no mention of this event.
Because of this apparent lack of prophetic connection and absence of secular historical verification, some scholars believe this event never took place. Defenders of Matthew’s account point out that the population of Bethlehem may have been very small and therefore only a small number of children were killed. Since Herod had a record of killing his enemies, the killing of some children in a small town would not have produced much of a stir and consequently historians of the time would not have paid any attention to this event. This is a reasonable argument for the Bethlehem killings not appearing in secular writings.
So how do we explain Matthew’s statement that the killing of the children is a fulfillment of Jeremiah’s statement when this statement does not appear at all related to this event? It is obvious that Matthew is putting a different spin on what Jeremiah wrote. If we are to conclude that God moved Matthew to apply Jeremiah’s statement as predictive of this NT event, we must then conclude that in God’s mind this statement had a duel meaning. Such a conclusion, however, is speculative and assumes the thing to be proved, namely that Jeremiah’s statement has a duel meaning.
It must be recognized that authors of scripture use a great deal of analogy, metaphor and rhetorical exaggeration (hyperbole) in their writings. Analogy is showing something to be like something else. It involves the drawing of parallels. Metaphor is using the non-literal to represent the literal. Metaphor often uses symbols to represent the real thing. Hyperbole is the use of metaphor in exaggerated ways to make a point. The Greek for “fulfilled” means, ‘to make full, to fill, and to fill up.” When Matthew says that the killing of the children fulfilled what Jeremiah said, he is not necessarily saying that this is a literal fulfillment of what Jeremiah said. Matthew could simply be using Jeremiah’s statement in an analogous manner to show a parallel between what happened in Bethlehem and what was being experienced during the time of Judah’s captivity.
The statement of Jeremiah as recorded in 31:15 is not prophetic in and of itself but is a commentary on the captivity extant at the time Jeremiah wrote and is included in the overall context of Jeremiah prophesying Israel’s return from captivity. Matthew does not say that the killing of the children is a fulfillment of a prophecy. Matthew is simply saying that the killing of the children in Bethlehem brings to the full or parallels what occurred during the time of Jeremiah. We see this method of expression used several times by Matthew in relationship to the birth of Christ.
In Matthew, the second chapter, it’s recorded that Joseph and Mary and the Christ child fled to Egypt and “so was fulfilled what the lord had said to the prophet: ‘Out of Egypt I have called my son.” (Matt.2:15). While Matthew doesn’t name the prophet referred too, it’s generally recognized that this quote is from Hosea 11:1 where the prophet quotes God as saying, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” When you read the context of Hosea 11 it becomes obvious that Israel is the son being referred to who was called out of Egypt at the time of the exodus. This statement by God as recorded by Hosea says nothing about Christ being called out of Egypt and is not even prophetic but historical in so much as it reflects on a past event in Israel’s history.
Matthew takes this statement and applies it to the Christ event as fulfilling what the Lord said through the prophet. Is Matthew implying that God, in reflecting on Israel’s history, was also looking forward to the exodus of Jesus Christ from Egypt? Nothing in the context of Hosea would suggest this. Matthew may simply be using events from OT history as examples of greater fulfillment in the life of Christ. There is one additional dynamic that must be considered. Christ plainly said that what was written in the OT scriptures spoke of Him.
John 5:39: You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me.
Luke 24:44-45: He said to them, This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms. Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.
It is true that a number of OT scriptures used by NT authors to relate to Christ have no apparent connection to Christ in there OT context. Yet Christ is recorded as saying that what is written in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms testify of Him. These are the three divisions of the OT scripture. This covers a lot of territory. Christ told his disciples the OT scripture testified as to what He was all about. When Christ made the statement recorded in Luke 24, He made this statement to the eleven disciples just before his ascension. That means Matthew was there. It is unlikely that Matthew would have unilaterally picked scriptures from the OT and applied them to Christ without some prior understanding as to their application to Christ. It is very likely Matthew learned such application from Christ Himself.
The killing of the children in Bethlehem and the escape to Egypt are tied to the account of the Magi visiting Herod and Herod inquiring about the location where Christ was to be born and the exact time the star had appeared. It could be ascertained from the narrative in Matthew the second chapter that this inquiry, and the Magi’s subsequent visit to Bethlehem to see the Christ child, took place two years after the child was born. After all, it is recorded that Herod killed, “all the boys in Bethlehem and the vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi.” It is because of the action of Herod toward the children of Bethlehem that Joseph, Mary and the child escape to Egypt. Therefore, it could appear from Matthew’s account that they lived in Bethlehem for two years before escaping to Egypt.
There is another way to view the matter of the star appearing to the Magi. Some feel that the star appeared at the time of the conception of Christ and that Herod, not wanting to take any chances, had the babies killed dating from that date forward up to two years. With this approach, Mary would not have arrived in Bethlehem until at least nine months after the star appeared Since Herod killed the babies in accordance with the time he learned from the Magi; it is possible nine months to two years may have passed since the star appeared. If the star appeared at conception, the baby should have been born nine months later and could have been somewhere between one and two years old at the time the Magi arrived. Since there is no absolute proof when Christ was born relative to the star appearing, we really can’t know for certain how old Christ was at the time the Magi arrived in Bethlehem.
Luke’s account of the events surrounding the birth of Christ is quite different and appears to be inconsistent and even contradictory to the account given by Matthew. Luke says, “When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord” (Luke 2:22). The purification period would have been thirty-three days after circumcism took place on the eight day, for a total of forty-one days (See Lev. 12:1-5). Then in Luke 2:39, it’s recorded: “When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own home town of Nazareth.” The implication is that once the circumcision and purification period were complete they returned to Nazareth. This would make perfect sense, seeing this is where they were from and they had only visited Bethlehem Matthew, on the other hand, has them leaving Bethlehem, escaping to Egypt, and living there for an undisclosed period of time and then first returning to Nazareth. Luke says nothing about a sojourn in Egypt. Therefore the Matthew and Luke accounts do not match and appear to be inconsistent.
As stated above, after forty-one days following the birth of Christ, Joseph and Mary took Christ to the Temple in Jerusalem to present Him to God. The Magi may not have arrived in Bethlehem until some time after Christ had been presented at the temple. Contrary to the manger scenes seen at Christmas time, the Magi apparently visited the Christ child sometime after His birth as Matthew records them arriving at a house and not a manger as such. The family could have gone to Jerusalem and returned to Bethlehem and then escaped to Egypt after the Magi left.
It is possible that Luke simply overlooked the Egypt event and wrote a more generalized overview of the activities of the Christ child and His parents subsequent to the birth. It is possible that Luke didn’t even know about the sojourn in Egypt. Like all historians, Luke would have picked out those details that he felt were most important while leaving other details out. Matthew, on the other hand, included the Egypt event because it apparently was important to him and he obviously knew about it. This variance in historical writing is common among all historians and so we should not find this unusual relative to what we find in scripture. Authors of historical events commonly select what they feel is most important and write accordingly. Recognizing this will be important as we later examine how scripture came to be.
In Matthew 2:23 it is recorded that Christ, upon returning from Egypt, went to live in the town of Nazareth and, “So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.” On the surface there appears to be a problem with this account in so much that there is no record in the Old Testament of any prophet ever having made a statement about Christ or anyone else living in Nazareth. In fact the word Nazareth or Nazarene does not appear in the Old Testament. From what “prophets” is Matthew quoting? Matthew could be quoting from the writings of an author whose work never became part of the OT narrative. There are examples in the canonized scripture of material being obtained from non-canonized writings. We can’t assume that because someone is quoted in scripture that it had to come from some other part of scripture. After all, scripture simply means writings. There were many writings extant in both Old and New Testament times. It’s a fact that writings that became canonized include information taken from writings that were not canonized and material from canonized writings was incorporated in non-canonized writings as seen in the apocryphal works.
According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod. Luke records that Jesus was born during the time that “The first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.” History shows that this census took place in six and seven A.D. History also shows Herod to have died in 4 B.C. It would therefore appear that the census took place after the death of Herod.
One possible solution to this apparent conflict may be that there were two separate individuals named Quirinius or the same Quirinius ruled on two separate occasions. Archaeologist Jerry Vardaman has found a coin with the name of Quirinius on it that places him as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11B.C. until after the death of Herod. Since history indicates a census was taken in six or seven A.D., and the indication is that a census was taken about every fourteen years, it is conceivable that a census was taken some time before the death of Herod which would have fit into the general time frame relating to the birth of Christ, approximately fourteen years before the census in six or seven A.D. Some scholars have pointed out that Luke’s text can be translated, “This census took place before Quirinius was governor of Syria”. This would also resolve the problem.
A similar confusion exists relative to the genealogy recorded in Matthew and Luke. Matthew begins, “A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham.” Matthew then begins with Abraham, runs through David and ends with Joseph as the husband of Mary. If this is recorded to tell us that Christ is a descendant of David through Joseph, we have a problem with the virgin birth. If Christ was born of a virgin, the genealogy through Joseph is superfluous. Joseph would not have had anything to do, genetically, with the birth of Christ. Therefore Christ would not be a descendant of David through Joseph as Matthew’s genealogy implies he is.
Luke’s genealogy is quite different from Matthews and is thought to belong to Mary even though the scriptures don’t prove that. So what are we to make of this? Is a direct genetic link required for Christ to be considered a descendent of David within the tribe of Judah? Can we assume that Luke’s genealogy is through Mary and therefore that link is fulfilled? Is the genealogy through Joseph recorded for legal purposes only and would this be sufficient to legitimatize Christ as a descendant of David? The fact that genealogies are established for Christ that does indeed trace one or both of his parents back to David would appear to satisfy the need to link Christ with David which is a necessary requirement in the Christology of Christ.
So what can we conclude about the birth of Christ? We can know that Christ was born. There is no reason to doubt the record provided by Matthew and Luke as to the fact of Christ’s birth. It would appear that they wrote the accounts that bear their names and lived during the historical period that they wrote about. In addition to Matthew and Luke, there is the witness of the other NT writers as to the histocity of Christ. The first century historian Josephus speaks of Christ in his writings. The Roman historian Tacitus (A.D.55 to 117), in his writings about the Christian persecutions under Nero, mentions Christ by name. Jesus is without doubt a historical figure. The question that must be answered is whether Jesus is a legitimate theological figure as well. Is Jesus Christ a God who became human to facilitate human salvation as the scriptures claim?
PART TWO