Matthew vs Luke — Jesus’ flight to Egypt
Video: “12 Contradictions in the Bible” by Holy Koolaid
The texts in question are Matthew 2:1-23 and Luke 2:21-40.
Part Two: Lexical Problems and Historical Details
Below are Mr. Koolaid’s statements (in bold) followed by my response.
“And this is likely significantly after Jesus’ birth because the author of Matthew uses the Greek word paidion [παιδίον] to describe Jesus as a young boy when the wise men arrived rather than the Greek word brephos [βρέφος], or infant, which would have been used if he had just been born.”
Okay, lets take a look at that… In Luke 2:16 (in the English text) the word “baby” (βρέφος) is used and in the very next verse (2:17) the English word “child” (παιδίον) is used. Perhaps he’s trying to dazzle everyone and set himself up to look like he’s adequately familiar with Koine Greek and yet he failed to pay any attention to the fact that Luke used the two words in two consecutive verses that have no indication of any passage of time.
But let’s look a few verses down and find out what we see. In Luke 2:27 when Jesus was around 40 days old, the author describes Jesus as a child (παιδίον) also. I repeat, at 40 days old; even in modern parlance we would consider a 40 day old child to still be a baby.
Now, I don’t know about the cultural use of the two words in the first century, to be honest. While I do know a little bit about Koine Greek, what little I do know is insufficient to make a call about how those two words were used in the time of the Gospels. And yet what little I do know tells me that Mr. Koolaid probably doesn’t know much more about the use of those two Koine Greek words than your average bear, especially when I consider Luke’s use of those two Greek words in the three verses noted above, and especially the two consecutive verses.
“Joseph lives in Nazareth. The only reason they go to Bethlehem is some weird census. … this still directly contradicts Luke’s claim that he was born during during the census of governor Quirinus because Quirinus didn’t become governor until 6 [AD], ten years after Herod’s death.”
First and foremost, what Luke’s Gospel sates in Luke 2:1-2 is that “a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria” (italics mine for emphasis). Mr. Koolaid, intentionally misleads the listener to think the census was the brainchild of Quirinus when it wasn’t. It was Caesar Augustus who ordered the census be taken.
Secondly, it wasn’t just Joseph and Mary who returned to the cities, towns, and villages of their ancestry. All Israel did, as Luke 2:3 states: “And everyone was on his way to register for the census, each to his own city.” I mention that because there seems to be a suggestion, if not an outright assertion, in Mr. Koolaid’s narrative that Joseph’s and Mary’s travels are at least a bit odd (“the only reason”). In case you’re interested, the reason Joseph and Mary return to Bethlehem for the census is because it is the birthplace of King David (“the city of David” in Luke2:11), their common ancestor who was from the tribe of Judah and was also born there. You’re welcome.
As for when Quirinus was governor of Syria, the dates depend on the ancient sources—and there are many—and they point to different dates. One thing needs to be made clear. Most people who hear about such dates tend to think with a modern-day calendar in mind, such as the Gregorian calendar. When they hear dates like “6 AD” as Mr. Koolaid stated, they tend to think the sources are mentioning specific calendar dates in the extra-biblical historic accounts or archaeological finds. That’s not true. The dating system of the time used mentions of circumstances surrounding an event such as men who held a political office at the time, the year of the Caesar’s reign, and astronomical events (comets, eclipses, etc.).
A reading of Tertullian’s account (Against Marcion), makes it quite possible that Quirinius may have served in Syria twice, from 7 to 4 BC and again from 2 BC to 1 AD. Most historians have noted Luke’s accuracy describing other historical people and events, so that’s not out of the question. After all, Luke was no Oakie from Muskogee—he was a physician by profession. In case you’re wondering who my source is for the afore mentioned information, it is none other than Jack Finegan’s Handbook of Biblical Chronology, and that’s Finegan’s conclusion, based on his scholarship. Yep, Mr. Koolaid liked the book so much that I decided to order it and check it out. Lots of good stuff in there if you’re interested. More on this book and Mr. Koolaid’s accusation towards the author will follow.
As for the census being labeled by Mr. Koolaid as “weird,” Caesar Augustus was well known to order them to be held at throughout his reign and across various districts. There is plenty of testimony from ancient sources that they were held every five years or so. Some were for the purpose of taxation and others were for other matters, such as for the purpose of compiling information of the residents’ names, occupations, and income sources for future use (which is similar to the US census held every ten years). The latter were generally called registrations or enrollments while the former were usually called a census. Some English translations render the Greek word as a census and others translate it as a registration. The Greek word used in Luke 2:1 is ἀπογράφω in its lexical form as a verb (pronounced apographo), which means to register or enroll. It was most likely not for the purpose of collecting taxes but for recording information, since there is no mention of Joseph paying taxes.
Luke 2:2 states that “this was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria” and that points to the historical certainty that more than one census was taken while Quirinus was governor of Syria.
“The census of Luke is in agreement with Roman history,” states Gerard Gertoux in a scholarly paper posted on academia.edu, Dating the two Censuses of P. Sulpicius Quirinius, and can be read or downloaded from that site. It took place around 2 BC and was an “Inventory of the world performed by Augustus” and was the “Census (registration) mentioned by Luke 2:1,” according to the source named by Gertoux as Titulus Venetus (Res Gestae §15); (Apology I:34; 46). This is not the same census that was known to be conducted in 6 AD. That might very well be the reason why Mr. Koolaid is confused. In another of his works published on the same web site, Mr. Gertoux, in his scholarly paper Herod the Great and Jesus: Chronological, Historical and Archaeological Evidence, states in his abstract, “Dating the census of P. Sulpicius Quirinius According to Luke 2:1: Now at this time Caesar Augustus issued a decree for a census of the whole world to be taken. This census — the first — took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria. The historian Paul Orosius precisely dated the census of Augustus in the year 752 of Rome (Histories against the pagans VI:22:1; VII:3:4) or in 2 BCE. According to Josephus: Quirinius had then liquidated the estate of Archelaus; and by this time the registrations of property that took place in the 37th year after Caesar’s defeat of Antony [in 6 CE] at Actium were complete (Jewish Antiquities XVIII:1-4, 26). The first registration under Herod the Great, as the census of Apamea, was made to know the number of citizens and it is not to be confused with the one implemented in Judea by Quirinius when he came to ensure the liquidation of property of Herod Archelaus after his disgrace, and of which Josephus says it was followed by an evaluation of property. This two-step operation did not have the same nature, nor the same goal, or the same geographical scope as the previous one. It was conducted according to the principles of the Roman capitation and not according to Hebrew customs, and only covered the sole Judea, not Galilee. General censuses were performed every 5 years (= 1 lustre) as can be deduced from those reported by Cassius Dio. The census prior to the one of 4 CE, confined to Italy (Cassius Dio LV:13), was performed in 2 BCE.”
“Oh and, uh, Herod died in 4 [AD]…”
Lets first look at the assertion made by Mr. Koolaid concerning Jack Finegan’s book (below) and then we’ll look at the year of Herod’s death. Don’t worry, I won’t let you down.
“In his Handbook of Biblical Chronology, Bible scholar Jack Finegan tried to nudge the date of Herod’s death forward by showing that some copies of the ancient historian Josephus’ book, The Antiquities of the Jews, place Herod’s death in the 22nd year of the emperor Tiberius rather than the 20th…”
The details about Herod’s death in this book takes up ten pages and includes multiple sources, citations, and archaeological evidences. If you never fact-checked Koolaid’s source you’d probably think that Finegan cited Josephus exclusively when presenting his case.
Allow me to compare what Mr. Koolaid asserted with the actual text of Finegan’s book. In the book Handbook of Biblical Chronology, Finegan writes, “As cited just above (§516), the currently known text of Josephus’s Ant. 18.106 states that Philip died in the twentieth year of Tiberius … after ruling for thirty-seven years. This points to Phillip’s accession at the death Herod in 4 BC (4 years BC + 33 years AD = 37 years). But Filmer suspected that a figure had dropped out and that the text should probably read the twenty-second, rather than the twentieth, year of Tiberius (AD 35/36). Barnes rejected this reading as “comparatively ill-attested,” … In fact, however, already in the nineteenth century Florian Riess reported that the Franciscan monk Molkenbuhr claimed to have seen a 1517 Parisian copy of Josephus and an 1841 Venetian copy in each of which the text read “the twenty-second year of Tiberius.” The antiquity of this reading has now been abundantly confirmed. In 1955 David W. Beyer reported … his personal examination … of forty-six editions of Josephus’s Antiquities published before 1700 among which twenty-seven texts, all but three published before 1544, read “twenty-second year of Tiberius,” while not a single edition published prior to 1544 read “twentieth year of Tiberius.” … Accordingly, if the birth of Jesus was two years or less before the death of Herod in 1 BC, the date of the birth was in 3 or 2 BC, presumably precisely in the period 3/2 BC so consistently, attested by the most credible early church fathers. Furthermore, we have seen evidence for a time of Jesus’ birth in the midwinter (Beckwith, our §473), therefore mid-winter in 3/2 BC appears the likely date of the birth of Jesus.”
As for the early dates vs the later dates of Antiquities and why the earlier copies are deemed more accurate, I would direct you to study what is known as textual criticism. It’s the science of poring through multiple manuscripts to ascertain what was written in the original text. While it’s not an easy thing to learn, it’s easy enough to be able to get a decent overview of it and why it is a necessary field.
Compare what Finegan wrote with Mr. Koolaid’s statement: “Jack Finegan tried to nudge the date of Herod’s death forward by showing that some copies of the ancient historian Josephus’ book, The Antiquities of the Jews, place Herod’s death in the 22nd year of the emperor Tiberius rather than the 20th…” and look me in the eye and tell me Mr. Koolaid didn’t completely and totally misrepresent what Mr. Finegan wrote.
“Oh and, uh, Herod died in 4 [AD]…” (reprise)
In the scholarly paper noted above, Herod the Great and Jesus: Chronological, Historical and Archaeological Evidence, Gertoux writes in his abstract, “The traditional date of 4 BCE for the death of Herod the Great, as set forth by E. Schürer (1896), has been accepted by historians for many years without notable controversy. However, according to the texts of Luke and Matthew, Herod died shortly after the birth of Jesus (Lk 1:5, 30-31; Mt 2:1-23), which can be fixed in 2 BCE (Lk 2:1-2; 3:1). Consequently, there is apparently a major chronological contradiction but in fact Josephus gives a dozen synchronisms that enable us to date the 37 years of Herod’s reign from 39 to 2 BCE and his death on 26 January 1 BCE just after a total lunar eclipse (9 January 1 BCE) prior to the Passover (Jewish Antiquities XVII:166-167, 191, 213). Two important events confirm the dating of Herod’s death: the ‘census of Quirinius’ in Syria (Titulus Venetus) which was a part of the ‘Inventory of the world’ ordered by Augustus when he became ‘Father of the Country’ in 2 BCE and the ‘war of Varus’ (Against Apion I:34) after Herod’s death conducted under the auspices of Caius Caesar (Jewish War II:68-70), the imperial legate of the East, and dated during the year of his consulship in 1 CE (Cassius Dio LV:10:17-18; LV:10a:4).”
Eusebius writes in his book, The History of the Church (written in 324 AD), a partial history of Herod in chapter 5 and he agrees with the Gospel testimony that Herod was alive at the time of Jesus’ birth and that he actually did the things that Matthew wrote about. His testimony comes at a far earlier date than the works of Emil Schürer in 1896 AD and is closer in history to the actual events. There are no claims that I’m aware of that date Herod’s death to the Gregorian calendar date of 4 BC sooner than Schürer’s work in 1896 AD. We know that Eusebius had access to the Theological Library of Caesarea which included many documents, letters, and extracts from earlier Christian writings. Those documents would even be closer to the eyewitness accounts than the sources that Schürer had. And eyewitness accounts are very important. We use them as evidence in a court of law and because we know how important eyewitness accounts are to establish guilt and innocence in a courtroom, we should also realize how important they are to actual historical accounts as well.