Apparent Chronological Problems

[Jonaitis]

In light of my previous thread, I have been investigating more into apparent discrepancies that most non-believers have propagated in an attempt to disunify the whole fabric of the inspired, inerrant and infallible Scripture. In this research, I've found some unsettling passages that I haven't been able to reconcile. Some of you had great answers in my last thread for the confusion I had with the Savior's words. I believe the "sign of Jonah" was, as one poster replied, more or less a riddle that needed no actual, visible recognition to the adulterous generation that rejected what was already visibly evidence of his ministry and preaching. However, I want to continue asking in this forum about some more passages that have bothered me for quite some time. I have often gleaned through annotations of well-aged commentators and authors for answers, and have had discussions with my elders, but often was left in a state of dissatisfaction. If you are willing to avail me of this problem, it would be most edifying!

We find that in the synoptic gospels that after our Savior was baptized by John, "Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And he ate nothing during those days. And when they were ended, he was hungry" (Luke 4:1-2). However, we find in the first chapter of the Gospel of John that the very "next day" after this event, Jesus calls and meets Andrew, Peter and possibly John (John 1:35-42), and the "next day" after that Jesus calls Philip and Nathanael (v. 43-51), and the "third day" they attended the wedding in Cana in Galilee (2:1-2), and after this they travelled to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples and stayed there for a few more days (v. 12). Here we have an apparent chronological problem.

Then there is an apparent chronological inconsistency of the narrative and historical events of Christ, which some of you may have heard before. In Matthew, "Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king" (Matthew 2:1), but according to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census of Quirinius, the governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). In extrabiblical records, more specifically the first-century historian Josephus, Publius Quirinius was appointed legate governor of Syria after Caesar Augustus disposed Archelaus, Herod's son and one of his successors, from that position in 6 AD. Publius Quirinius was assigned to carry out a census of the new province of Judea for tax purposes. This seems to be two entirely different periods in that timeline. Herod I died around 4 BC, that is at least a decade apart from Luke!

In the commentators I've read, as well as my elders have pointed out, that Quirinius may have been the governor of Syria before. Some even speculate that there were two different census carried out by Quirinius as governor of Syria by referencing Acts 5:37. However, there were only three "empire-wide" census (28 BC, 8 BC and 14 AD), and none of them happened when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Also, this particular census referenced by Luke is the same one that triggered a revolt by Judas of Galilee mentioned Acts 5:37, who encouraged Jews not to register and those that did had their houses burnt and their cattle stolen by his followers. So there was only one census, and the revolt happened during this one and the same census. Also, there was no such mandate for people to return to their ancestral place of origin for a census solely for taxes. Why would the Romans care about where your ancestors were from? Who would financially be able to travel to such great lengths? How do we resolve these apparent historical issues?

There are more apparent birth narratives problems I found, but I may spare that for another time. For example, when Joseph fled to Egypt being warned in a dream and then told to return, why did he want to return to Bethlehem but instead fled to his native home of Nazareth because of Archelaus (Matthew) if he was only there for the census (Luke)? Or how do we reconcile the the purification of Mary after the birth of Christ (Luke) with her fleeing with Joseph to Egypt (Matthew)?

 

[Aussie Pete]

In light of my previous thread, I have been investigating more into apparent discrepancies that most non-believers have propagated in an attempt to disunify the whole fabric of the inspired, inerrant and infallible Scripture. In this research, I've found some unsettling passages that I haven't been able to reconcile. Some of you had great answers in my last thread for the confusion I had with the Savior's words. I believe the "sign of Jonah" was, as one poster replied, more or less a riddle that needed no actual, visible recognition to the adulterous generation that rejected what was already visibly evidence of his ministry and preaching. However, I want to continue asking in this forum about some more passages that have bothered me for quite some time. I have often gleaned through annotations of well-aged commentators and authors for answers, and have had discussions with my elders, but often was left in a state of dissatisfaction. If you are willing to avail me of this problem, it would be most edifying!

We find that in the synoptic gospels that after our Savior was baptized by John, "Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And he ate nothing during those days. And when they were ended, he was hungry" (Luke 4:1-2). However, we find in the first chapter of the Gospel of John that the very "next day" after this event, Jesus calls and meets Andrew, Peter and possibly John (John 1:35-42), and the "next day" after that Jesus calls Philip and Nathanael (v. 43-51), and the "third day" they attended the wedding in Cana in Galilee (2:1-2), and after this they travelled to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples and stayed there for a few more days (v. 12). Here we have an apparent chronological problem.

Then there is an apparent chronological inconsistency of the narrative and historical events of Christ, which some of you may have heard before. In Matthew, "Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king" (Matthew 2:1), but according to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census of Quirinius, the governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). In extrabiblical records, more specifically the first-century historian Josephus, Publius Quirinius was appointed legate governor of Syria after Caesar Augustus disposed Archelaus, Herod's son and one of his successors, from that position in 6 AD. Publius Quirinius was assigned to carry out a census of the new province of Judea for tax purposes. This seems to be two entirely different periods in that timeline. Herod I died around 4 BC, that is at least a decade apart from Luke!

In the commentators I've read, as well as my elders have pointed out, that Quirinius may have been the governor of Syria before. Some even speculate that there were two different census carried out by Quirinius as governor of Syria by referencing Acts 5:37. However, there were only three "empire-wide" census (28 BC, 8 BC and 14 AD), and none of them happened when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Also, this particular census referenced by Luke is the same one that triggered a revolt by Judas of Galilee mentioned Acts 5:37, who encouraged Jews not to register and those that did had their houses burnt and their cattle stolen by his followers. So there was only one census, and the revolt happened during this one and the same census. Also, there was no such mandate for people to return to their ancestral place of origin for a census solely for taxes. Why would the Romans care about where your ancestors were from? Who would financially be able to travel to such great lengths? How do we resolve these apparent historical issues?

There are more apparent birth narratives problems I found, but I may spare that for another time. For example, when Joseph fled to Egypt being warned in a dream and then told to return, why did he want to return to Bethlehem but instead fled to his native home of Nazareth because of Archelaus (Matthew) if he was only there for the census (Luke)? Or how do we reconcile the the purification of Mary after the birth of Christ (Luke) with her fleeing with Joseph to Egypt (Matthew)?

The problem is that we have no real idea of the time these events took place. Some scholars say that Jesus was two years old when the Magi showed up. Tradition has Him as not far off new born. It's like a puzzle with pieces missing. The gospels are time compressed and very much a precis of events. I don't know how you can reconcile everything with insufficient information. And it pleased God to have it that way.

 

[Jonaitis]

The problem is that we have no real idea of the time these events took place. Some scholars say that Jesus was two years old when the Magi showed up. Tradition has Him as not far off new born. It's like a puzzle with pieces missing. The gospels are time compressed and very much a precis of events. I don't know how you can reconcile everything with insufficient information. And it pleased God to have it that way.

However, when two authors reference a period specific to the reign of specific people, we can ascertain the time, can we not?

 

[Ligurian]

In light of my previous thread, I have been investigating more into apparent discrepancies that most non-believers have propagated in an attempt to disunify the whole fabric of the inspired, inerrant and infallible Scripture. In this research, I've found some unsettling passages that I haven't been able to reconcile. Some of you had great answers in my last thread for the confusion I had with the Savior's words. I believe the "sign of Jonah" was, as one poster replied, more or less a riddle that needed no actual, visible recognition to the adulterous generation that rejected what was already visibly evidence of his ministry and preaching. However, I want to continue asking in this forum about some more passages that have bothered me for quite some time. I have often gleaned through annotations of well-aged commentators and authors for answers, and have had discussions with my elders, but often was left in a state of dissatisfaction. If you are willing to avail me of this problem, it would be most edifying!

We find that in the synoptic gospels that after our Savior was baptized by John, "Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And he ate nothing during those days. And when they were ended, he was hungry" (Luke 4:1-2). However, we find in the first chapter of the Gospel of John that the very "next day" after this event, Jesus calls and meets Andrew, Peter and possibly John (John 1:35-42), and the "next day" after that Jesus calls Philip and Nathanael (v. 43-51), and the "third day" they attended the wedding in Cana in Galilee (2:1-2), and after this they travelled to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples and stayed there for a few more days (v. 12). Here we have an apparent chronological problem.

Then there is an apparent chronological inconsistency of the narrative and historical events of Christ, which some of you may have heard before. In Matthew, "Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king" (Matthew 2:1), but according to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census of Quirinius, the governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). In extrabiblical records, more specifically the first-century historian Josephus, Publius Quirinius was appointed legate governor of Syria after Caesar Augustus disposed Archelaus, Herod's son and one of his successors, from that position in 6 AD. Publius Quirinius was assigned to carry out a census of the new province of Judea for tax purposes. This seems to be two entirely different periods in that timeline. Herod I died around 4 BC, that is at least a decade apart from Luke!

In the commentators I've read, as well as my elders have pointed out, that Quirinius may have been the governor of Syria before. Some even speculate that there were two different census carried out by Quirinius as governor of Syria by referencing Acts 5:37. However, there were only three "empire-wide" census (28 BC, 8 BC and 14 AD), and none of them happened when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Also, this particular census referenced by Luke is the same one that triggered a revolt by Judas of Galilee mentioned Acts 5:37, who encouraged Jews not to register and those that did had their houses burnt and their cattle stolen by his followers. So there was only one census, and the revolt happened during this one and the same census. Also, there was no such mandate for people to return to their ancestral place of origin for a census solely for taxes. Why would the Romans care about where your ancestors were from? Who would financially be able to travel to such great lengths? How do we resolve these apparent historical issues?

There are more apparent birth narratives problems I found, but I may spare that for another time. For example, when Joseph fled to Egypt being warned in a dream and then told to return, why did he want to return to Bethlehem but instead fled to his native home of Nazareth because of Archelaus (Matthew) if he was only there for the census (Luke)? Or how do we reconcile the the purification of Mary after the birth of Christ (Luke) with her fleeing with Joseph to Egypt (Matthew)?

John 15:26-27 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of Me: 27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with Me from the beginning.

Matthew 10:2-4 Now the names of the Twelve Apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James [the son] of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James [the son] of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

John 17:20-21 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on Me through their word; 21 That they all may be one; as Thou, Father, [art] in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me.

 

[Jonaitis]

John 15:26-27 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of Me: 27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with Me from the beginning.

Matthew 10:2-4 Now the names of the Twelve Apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James [the son] of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James [the son] of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

John 17:20-21 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on Me through their word; 21 That they all may be one; as Thou, Father, [art] in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me.

May you explain?

 

[Ligurian]

May you explain?

If there are differences, I take the word of the men who were actually there. First-hand witness has value, especially when it's from the men given by the Father to Jesus... about whom Jesus says they kept the Father's word. Their character matters when it comes to their witness... even more than it would matter in a court of law.

 

[Jonaitis]

If there are differences, I take the word of the men who were actually there. First-hand witness has value, especially when it's from the men given by the Father to Jesus... about whom Jesus says they kept the Father's word. Their character matters when it comes to their witness... even more than it would matter in a court of law.

We are confronted with written accounts of non-Christian men who lived in the first-century. Josephus personally participated in the First Jewish-Roman War in 66-73 AD before surrendering to the Romans. He is responsible for most of our knowledge of the historical details of the first-century. I am not calling Luke or Matthew false witnesses, for that would call into question the gospel accounts being uninspired and fallible, but at the same time it doesn't match Judeo-Roman sources about the events surrounding this period. This is a big issue. Josephus also wrote about many atrocities and horrible acts done by Herod the Great, but the event of the slaughter of children two years and under is absent in his account of Herod's life. Sure, maybe details were not written down, maybe there isn't enough records, but this is the most common answer to every historical problem brought up about Scripture, and it is very unsatisfying to a believer of the inspired word.

 

[pescador]

The gospels are not journalism as we understand it. They were written to specific audiences to show the how Jesus is the Christ. That was their sole purpose. The apparent discrepancies are the result of applying the wrong rules to understanding the message.

 

[Jonaitis]

The gospels are not journalism as we understand it. They were written to specific audiences to show the how Jesus is the Christ. That was their sole purpose. The apparent discrepancies are the result of applying the wrong rules to understanding the message.

In other words, let's disregard and ignore the apparent historical and narrative inconsistency, and focus on the message. Gotcha.

 

[Aussie Pete]

However, when two authors reference a period specific to the reign of specific people, we can ascertain the time, can we not?

There is not a lot of historical information about that time anyway. Most of what we know comes from the Bible! Sceptics have been using this to cast doubt on the Bible for a very long time. Yes, some information can support, or appear to contradict, a version of events. I read a convoluted argument about the different accounts of who was near the tomb when Jesus rose from the dead. One gospel seems to contradict another. The writer explained, logically enough, that it was to do with the time of day that the people were in the garden. If someone shows at 9.00 am, they may not be there when another person shows up at 2.00 pm. So if the two writes talk about two different people, then some could conclude that one or other was wrong. Not at all. Our lack of knowledge is the problem.

If someone reigns for 10 years, that's quite a window of time for events to happen.

I have a hyper developed curiosity gland.(Joke) I was reading the encyclopaedia at the age of 7. My peers were reading Disney. I had to come to come to a place where I accepted God's word at face value. I found that trying to understand everything was driving me nuts. I also came to the realisation that we have the help of the Holy Spirit to give us understanding. So I no longer trouble myself over these issues. I read a book that covered some of the common "but what about...........?" misunderstandings. It was some help, but I've found that no matter how many you resolve, someone will find something else to argue about. I no longer have a lot of patience with such people. If they want to know, I'm happy to help. If all they want to do is point score and argue, they can find someone else to harass.

 

[Jonaitis]

There is not a lot of historical information about that time anyway. Most of what we know comes from the Bible! Sceptics have been using this to cast doubt on the Bible for a very long time. Yes, some information can support, or appear to contradict, a version of events. I read a convoluted argument about the different accounts of who was near the tomb when Jesus rose from the dead. One gospel seems to contradict another. The writer explained, logically enough, that it was to do with the time of day that the people were in the garden. If someone shows at 9.00 am, they may not be there when another person shows up at 2.00 pm. So if the two writes talk about two different people, then some could conclude that one or other was wrong. Not at all. Our lack of knowledge is the problem.

Matthew states that toward the dawn of the first day, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. When they arrived, an earthquake occurred, and an angel descended and rolled back the stone and sat on it. After the angel announced what had happened, they fled to tell the disciples and on the way stumble into Jesus.

Mark states that very early on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome went to the tomb. When they arrived, the stone was already rolled back and they found a young man sitting inside. After the young man announced what happened, they fled and told no one.

Luke states that at early dawn of the first day, Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James and Joanna and some other unnamed women went to the tomb and found the stone rolled away. While perplexed about this, two men stood next to them and frightened them. After the men announced what happened, they fled and told the "eleven and all the rest" (v. 24:9).

John states that early in the morning of the first day, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw the stone had been rolled away. She fled and went to Peter and John, and told them that someone had taken Jesus' body out of the tomb and hid it somewhere. Peter and John race to the tomb, and upon finding it empty they left. Mary begins to weep outside the tomb, and two angels appear inside the tomb. After they ask her a question, she replies that Jesus' body was stolen and then turns around to Jesus.

Now, you can try to play gymnastics with the text, but anyone reading these side by side can clearly see a pink elephant in the room. How do we reconcile these accounts? For example, did Mary Magdalene witness an angel descend from heaven and roll back the stone as Matthew states, or did she find it already rolled back upon arriving and thought the body of Jesus was stolen as John states? Did Mary leave to bring Peter before encountering Jesus at the tomb as John states, or did she encounter Jesus on the way to the disciple as Matthew states? This all happened around the same time - dawn of the first day. This wasn't a 9:00 AM and 2:00 PM difference.

If someone reigns for 10 years, that's quite a window of time for events to happen.

Herod I died in c. 4 BC, Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria in 6 AD. The reason Quirinius received the position is because Herod's son was removed from office. In Matthew, Joseph returns from Egypt during the reign of Herod's son, Archelaus, the same man who was replaced by Quirinius in Luke who issued a census. These events are important for the birth narrative, otherwise they didn't need to be mentioned.

 

[Jonaitis]

I also came to the realisation that we have the help of the Holy Spirit to give us understanding.

What about the Muslim who says Allah has shown them that the Quran is perfect in every way? I feel that if men look too deep into Scripture, they may begin to have a crisis of their faith and so they blind themselves from seeing that path again. Why would the Spirit allow this? No one wants to address any of this head on, but they want to address the problems of other writings of other religions. I'm pressing it because it deserves a rebuttal, especially in a time that is trying against the inspiration God's word!

 

[Neogaia777]

What about the Muslim who says Allah has shown them that the Quran is perfect in every way? I feel that if men look too deep into Scripture, they may begin to have a crisis of their faith and so they blind themselves from seeing that path again. Why would the Spirit allow this? No one wants to address any of this head on, but they want to address the problems of other writings of other religions. I'm pressing it because it deserves a rebuttal, especially in a time that is trying against the inspiration God's word!

Are you having a crisis of faith...?

If so I will pray for you if you want me to, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[Jonaitis]

Are you having a crisis of faith...?

If so I will pray for you if you want me to, etc...?

God Bless!

I'm not. I speak for those that may be weak in the faith, but fear apostasizing.

 

[Neogaia777]

Most of these people were probably operating off of memory when they were written, might be the explanation for some of them, etc, didn't have those others around at the time, etc, but does that mean there was "absolutely no Jesus" basically...? or that most of these things didn't happen and are true...?

I'll tell you what, why don't you do all the research and seek out all the explanations of everything yourself, and then report it back to us, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

A lot of the events in the Gospels are not in chronological order either, but that does not mean these things did not take place and happen, etc. There was a Jesus, and there were these other people, and the things that it says happened, happened with Him, or around Him, or happened with Him or to Him, to Him at His crucifixion, which also happened, etc, etc, etc, these things are not false and made up, etc, but were based on very real people and events happening back then, and just because the Gospels were not written until after, etc, and a few minor details are different, or are off, or are changed, does not mean that all of what the Bible and NT talks about, are not all very historical things, etc, or that they were very, very, very real, etc...

And that is the higher truth also, and higher truths are those truths that are some of the most difficult truths to deny, etc, and must come against other truths, etc, like all of Jesus and God and the Bible are all just only myth only, didn't actually happen or take place, not or were not real people, etc... As I think everyone knows that is not the case, etc...

And since this higher truth is much, much more difficult to deny in this case, then I suggest that there are probably some lesser explanations for your lesser truths right now, etc....

And your welcome to seek them out, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Brian Mcnamee]

I think your elevating this kind of study is a bit of placing the focus on the wrong thing. A good pastor came to several places where he could not make sense of or saw something like you did and his attitude was that he would place those situations in a file marked more information needed and not let it bother him because he knew he could rest on the thousands of passages he had found tried tested and true. Over time some of those things did get cleared up and new ones got added to the file but he always stood on the experience of the truths he already knew and did not let these things become a foot hold to have any doubts in his faith.

 

[Jonaitis]

I think your elevating this kind of study is a bit of placing the focus on the wrong thing. A good pastor came to several places where he could not make sense of or saw something like you did and his attitude was that he would place those situations in a file marked more information needed and not let it bother him because he knew he could rest on the thousands of passages he had found tried tested and true. Over time some of those things did get cleared up and new ones got added to the file but he always stood on the experience of the truths he already knew and did not let these things become a foot hold to have any doubts in his faith.

It was natural for me to find these things. I don't need a skeptic to point them out. And I have no reason to boast, but I read the biblos from cover to cover possibly over fifty times in the course of my Christian life, and I am beginning to see things I can't unsee in the text. I am noticing things I can't shake. I can't read a passage without reminding myself of the apparent inconsistency. As a consequence, I am naturally beginning to see apparent problems in theological doctrines. I see a modal collapse or possibly a passive potentiality in the doctrine of divine simplicity, which defines almost all other attributes in God. Am I a doubter? Of course not, but these things have concerned me. I have begun this path to discover the plain and clear truth of things, or else my walk will remain unfamiliar as when I first began in the faith.

 

[Ligurian]

John 15:27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with Me from the beginning. Matthew 10:2-4 Now the names of the Twelve Apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James [the son] of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James [the son] of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed Him. John 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on Me through their word;

If there are differences, I take the word of the men who were actually there. First-hand witness has value, especially when it's from the men given by the Father to Jesus... about whom Jesus says they kept the Father's word. Their character matters when it comes to their witness... even more than it would matter in a court of law.

We are confronted with written accounts of non-Christian men who lived in the first-century. Josephus personally participated in the First Jewish-Roman War in 66-73 AD before surrendering to the Romans. He is responsible for most of our knowledge of the historical details of the first-century. I am not calling Luke or Matthew false witnesses, for that would call into question the gospel accounts being uninspired and fallible, but at the same time it doesn't match Judeo-Roman sources about the events surrounding this period. This is a big issue. Josephus also wrote about many atrocities and horrible acts done by Herod the Great, but the event of the slaughter of children two years and under is absent in his account of Herod's life. Sure, maybe details were not written down, maybe there isn't enough records, but this is the most common answer to every historical problem brought up about Scripture, and it is very unsatisfying to a believer of the inspired word.

Josephus is hardly infallible.
https://markdurie.com/ishmael-is-not-the-father-of-the-arabs/
New Scientific Evidence for God: Debunking the Russia/War of Gog and Magog Myth

 

[Jonaitis]

Josephus is hardly infallible.

So then, we should disregard all extrabiblical accounts?