A Critical Approach to the Gospels
by the Dajjal
There is no man in human history that is more widely known than Jesus. He is regarded as a great teacher and prophet of God by literally billions of people, with nearly half the world's population accepting him as the Messiah1. However, argumentum ad numerum2 does not automatically make a statement true. The reality is that we have very little information on such a famous individual.
The only sources we have that are even remotely reliable are the four canonical gospels3. These "gospels" are far from biographies, but rather tales that attempt to paint a picture of a powerful messenger of God sent to the Jews (if not all of mankind). A historical approach was not taken in compiling these writings. Rather, the authors wrote their interpretations of earlier sources4, which were also saturated with unfounded folklore. However, by taking the gospels apart, and analyzing them piece by piece, a historian can get a better understanding of Jesus, as well as an idea of how the gospels came to be written.
This essay will seek to explain the difference between the gospels and a biography, and show how the gospels can be dissected so as to separate the fantasy from whatever modicum of historical information can be found therein. Moreover, this writing will explore the process by which the gospel-writers used to construct the Christian Messiah.
If one puts all the Christian dogma of the Western world aside for a moment, they will be able to realize that the gospels are not biographies. When accepted at face value, the gospels offer almost no historical information on the man they are written about. The gospel-writers seemed content with offering fantastic tales about Jesus' alleged powers, and nothing more. No solid time frame is offered5, and many of the stories are unintelligible without first accepting the spurious logic of Judeo-Christian folklore6.
To assume, as many Christians do, that the gospels tell the true story of the historical Jesus, is as silly as assuming that the Bhagavad Gita tells the true story of the historical Krishna7. While some Christians may be upset by such a comparison, the analogy is perfectly valid. On what grounds do we assume that a story is fact or myth? At what point does one conclude that a character found in certain folklore really lived? There is no standard by which one can honestly claim the story of Krishna is more absurd than the stories of Jesus.
Absurdity is something that is found in abundance within the gospels. Stories of virgin births, disobedient fig trees, and demon-possessed swine are found throughout. These kinds of fables need to be cast aside if we are to come to any kind of logical conclusion regarding the historical Jesus. If we accept these fantastic tales as factual, logic goes out the window, and anything can be claimed as true.
This becomes a problem for Christians, as the gospels are almost entirely made up of fantastic tales that cannot be supported. This is why the gospels are not biographies. They do not seek to tell us anything about Jesus' life other than mythical claims that were either fabricated, or acquired from earlier sources. A writer of a biography would go to the best possible sources (preferably eyewitnesses), and construct a story of the person's life. The gospel-writers took the theology surrounding a man they never met, and added their own interpretations. Rather than a biography, the gospels more closely resemble a type of ancient propaganda, as their sole purpose is to convince people that Jesus was indeed some type of messenger of God.
The gospel-writers did not seek to write an unbiased account of Jesus' life. Rather, they sought to justify their claim that Jesus was the Messiah. The intellectual - and thereby the rational - foundation of their writings does not coincide with logic whatsoever. There is no attempt to scrutinize the wild stories, rather these claims are magnified and used to support the claims of the authors. The gospel-writers preferred to establish an atmosphere of intellectual dishonesty, ignoring the absurd nature of the stories they received from their sources.
To say that the gospels offer differing accounts of Jesus' life is an understatement. The four canonical gospels seem to contradict each other on every issue8. While some of these contradictions are small and can be argued away through Christian apologetics, others are ironclad and bring the entire story of Jesus into question.
If one examines these differences closely, a pattern will appear. The first three gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, respectively, are often referred to as the "synoptic gospels" by Biblical scholars, as many of the stories in one gospel parallel those found in the other two. The fourth gospel, the gospel of John, stands alone in style and chronology. While differences in arrangement among the synoptic gospels is somewhat minor, the gospel of John has a completely different order of events, with many stories found in the synoptics left out. Furthermore, the gospel of John contains many stories not found in the synoptic gospels.
According to the synoptics, most of Jesus' actions take place in Galilee, and he makes only one trip to Jerusalem. John has Jesus make several trips to Jerusalem, and much of the story takes place there. In the synoptics, Jesus' speech usually consists of very short parables, left open to interpretation. In John's gospel, Jesus' speeches are quite long, and they interpret themselves quite clearly.
Another difference between the synoptics and the fourth gospel is the understanding of Christs' alleged mission, as held by the author, and as held by Jesus himself. The synoptic version tells a story slightly more in tune with Judaism, the religion from which Christianity is derived. In the synoptics, there is a difference between Jesus and God, while in John, the two seem to be somewhat synonymous.
John's gospel opens with, "In the beginning was the Word; the Word was with God, and the Word was God.9" This is followed by "The word became flesh,10" which is referring to Jesus. It is quite clear that from the very beginning, the fourth gospel portrays Jesus as being of the same substance of God. The synoptics, however, portray Jesus as a separate entity from God.
Furthermore, Jesus himself seems to acknowledge his own divinity in the fourth gospel, something that cannot be found so easily in the synoptics. In a discussion with his fellow Jews, Jesus states, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world… Yes, if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.11" Jesus' insinuation that he is "He," is a reference to the divine name allegedly revealed to Moses12 in the Torah.
This movement away from Judaic Monotheism by John might be related to another difference between the synoptics and the fourth gospel, which although a minor one, is the attitude towards the Jews of Jesus' day. John's gospel makes no attempt to associate Jesus with the Jews, and the tone of the fourth gospel seems to hint at some sort of subtle anti-Semitism. The fourth gospel depicts the Jews as a single monolithic entity, composed of wretched, disbelieving malcontents.
As stated before, the differences between the individual synoptics aside, the first three gospels offer a much different picture than that found in John's gospel. One example is the differing accounts regarding John the Baptist. In the fourth gospel, John the Baptist is asked if he is Elijah, to which he replies flatly "I am not.13" However, this contradicts the account found in the synoptics where Jesus insinuates that John the Baptist was indeed Elijah14.
Furthermore, the fourth gospel tells us that while John was in the wilderness baptizing people, he saw Jesus and exclaimed, "there is the Lamb of God.15" This story contradicts the account found in Matthew where the Baptist is in prison, and is still not aware of whether or not Jesus is "the one who is to come.16" This difference between Matthew and John, like many other errors, is irreconcilable, and brings into question what exactly the gospel-writers knew about these characters, if anything at all.
The story of Nicodemus, as found in the gospel of John, offers a twist to the story that seems to contradict that found in the synoptics. The fourth gospel describes Nicodemus as "the teacher of Israel,17" who believed Jesus was the Messiah18 and is said to have stood up for Jesus and defended him before the other Pharisees19. It seems strange that such an important figure is totally absent from the other gospels. Moreover, Nicodemus claimed that he knew Jesus was the Messiah based on the signs Jesus had brought forth20, which contradicts the synoptics, which all have Jesus refusing to offer any signs for the Pharisees other than the sign of Jonah21.
John's attitude towards the idea that the Messiah must be descended from David is also quite different from that of the synoptics. John mentions this messianic requirement only once22, and does so as a mere afterthought, portraying it as some insignificant requirement of the Jews. The synoptics, however, refer to Jesus as the "son of David" on numerous occasions. Matthew and Luke went to great extents to offer genealogies23 to prove Jesus was a descendant of David, even though other parts of the New Testament command Christians to avoid such things24.
Unfortunately, a quick look at the two genealogies in Matthew and Luke opens us up to the whole myriad of contradictions found within the synoptic gospels. The differences between the two genealogies are so great, that we have to conclude that one, if not both, of them must be fabricated. Matthew lists Joseph's father as Jacob25, while Luke lists Joseph's father as Heli26. While both genealogies attempt to show Jesus is a descendant of David, the two differ drastically from David onward, with Matthew going through David's son Solomon27, and Luke going through David's son Nathan28.
If these two fraudulent genealogies are compared to genealogies in the Old Testament, more errors are discovered. Matthew29 omits three names between Osiah and Jotham, which are found in the genealogy given in the first book of Chronicles30. Luke's part of the genealogy that goes from Adam to Abraham31 contradicts the same genealogy found in Genesis, as Luke's account contains an extra name32.
The reason these genealogies were fabricated in the first place was to make Jesus fit the messianic requirement found among the Jews. However, Matthew's genealogy, even if it were authentic, still disqualifies Jesus as the Messiah. Matthew made a huge blunder by including Jeconiah33 in his genealogy. No descendant of Jeconiah's could ever be the Messiah due to his wicked nature while he was the king of Judah. The prophet Jeremiah quotes God himself as saying of Jeconiah "Write this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for none of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, or ruling any more in Judah.34"
As was shown in the previous chapter, the synoptics have many errors among themselves. The sayings of Jesus (i.e. his teachings) also differ quite a bit from gospel to gospel. While there are phrases that are found in all three synoptic gospels, the context is often different. Where and when Jesus said certain things is almost never agreed upon among the synoptics.
The best example of this would be Jesus' famous Sermon on the Mount. Matthew's version of this sermon is quite long, covering three chapters35, while Luke's account of this same speech is contained in one short chapter36. Matthew has the sermon as Jesus' first speech, as well as his longest and most important speech. Luke's version seems to be scattered, and it is obviously, as previously mentioned, much shorter.
Furthermore, Matthew's version begins with "Seeing the crowds, [Jesus] went onto the mountain. And when he was seated his disciples came to him.37" Matthew's version, which states that Jesus went up on a mountain to give his speech, contradicts Luke's claim that Jesus "came down and stopped at a piece of level ground.38"
Matthew has the Lord's prayer as part of the sermon39, while Luke's sermon does not include this prayer. However, the prayer is found elsewhere40 in Luke's gospel. One might wonder who changed the story, and what led him to believe that he had the authority to do so? The sayings are found in both gospels, yet they are organized differently.
Luke gives us a hint as to how he came to write his gospel in the first chapter.
-
"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 me to write an orderly account for you, most
excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you
have been taught.41"
Here Luke admits that his gospel is far from a primary source. He has received his information from secondary sources, which were written in regards to the accounts of eyewitnesses. Thus, we receive our information on Jesus through three stages. The first stage consists of accounts of the eyewitnesses; the second stage consists of writings about what the eyewitnesses claim; the third stage is the current gospel.
With this statement, Luke has admitted to the existence of an earlier written source, or, quite possibly, popular oral traditions. The existence of a written source of information on Jesus that predates the four gospels helps us understand the differences between them. With this fact in mind, we can look over the gospels and ascertain what these earlier sources were like.
As was previously stated, certain sayings attributed to Jesus are found throughout the synoptics, yet they are organized differently. With the context and narrative changing from gospel to gospel, we can make an educated guess about their source. It is most likely that the three gospels received their information on the sayings of Jesus from a certain book of sayings. This hypothetical book of sayings probably had Jesus' teachings written down, but had no narrative attached to each saying. No date, time, or place was given in connection to these sayings; thus, it was left up to the gospel writer to fill in such gaps.
This was the logic 19th century historians used to try and gain a better understanding of how the gospels came to be written. After coming to the conclusion that the gospels drew some of their information from this postulated book of sayings, various historians compiled a list of sayings found common in the synoptics, and stripped these sayings of their respective narratives. This compilation was considered to be a reconstruction of the hypothetical book of sayings and was called "the gospel of Q," or simply Q.
The gospel of Q was a breakthrough in Biblical research, and the quest to find the historical Jesus. Now historians had a better idea of how the gospels came to be written. This hypothesis regarding Q was further strengthened in the 1940's when a valuable discovery was made in Egypt. Several ancient manuscripts were found in Nag Hamadi, and one of these manuscripts was simply a book of sayings attributed to Jesus, without any time or location included. This was the gospel of Thomas, and it was a major find, as it further strengthened the claim for the existence of a hypothetical book of sayings. The gospel of Thomas was a gospel much like Q.
The Q hypothesis and the discovery of the gospel of Thomas at Nag Hamadi, both help us understand what parts of the gospels are authentic, and which are not. With this hypothetical book of sayings in mind, we can conclude that an incident like the previously mentioned Sermon on the Mount never happened. Luke and Matthew probably had the sayings gospel in their possession, and decided how to narrate such teachings, which explains the major differences between the two accounts.
Furthermore, with the idea of a sayings gospel in mind, we can get a better understanding of why the gospels are the way they are. Historians generally cite Mark as the earliest gospel of the four, with John being the latest, and Matthew and Luke being written roughly the same time, in-between Mark and John. This makes sense, as Matthew and Luke both contain information not found in Mark. It could be possible that they received their information from a source not read by Mark, which may have been written after Mark's gospel. Furthermore, John's major style difference from the synoptics could be related to the sayings having interpretations added to them as time went on. John received this information at a later date, and, thus, his sayings attributed to Jesus are much longer.
While historians try to reconstruct the sources42 the gospel-writers used, we are, at this point in time, left with only the four canonical gospels as a source of information on Jesus. As was stated at the outset, the gospels are not biographies. Their information is not the least bit historical. Much of the information on Jesus is nothing more than tendentious fiction.
The character of Jesus as found in the gospels is not a real person. This character was built up and modeled after people found in the folklore of the Jews. The gospel-writers looked back at the Jewish scriptures in hindsight and attempted to create a figure that resembled the heroes of the Hebrews, as well as a man who fit the prophecies regarding the coming of the Messiah.
Much of Jesus' miraculous powers were fabricated. The story of Jesus' miracle of the loaves43 was taken from a similar tale found in the Old Testament regarding Elisha. This story can be found in the 2nd book of Kings. "A man came from Baal-shalishah, bringing the man of God bread of the first fruits, twenty loaves of barley, and fresh ears of grain in his sack. And Elisha said, 'Give to the men, that they may eat.' But his servant said, 'How am I to set this before a hundred men?' So he repeated, 'Give them to the men, that they may eat, for thus says the LORD, They shall eat and have some left.' So he set it before them. And they ate, and had some left, according to the word of the LORD.44"
The virgin birth was also a fabrication. It should be noted that Mark, John, or Paul never mentioned this miraculous event. Clearly this was one of the greatest miracles in Jesus' life, and the majority of the gospel New Testament authors seem to have never heard about it. Furthermore, the idea of a virgin birth makes the genealogies created by Matthew and Luke completely unintelligible. If Joseph was not Jesus' father, Jesus was not a descendant of David.
The virgin birth as mentioned in Matthew45 is supposed to be the
fulfillment of a prophecy uttered by Isaiah46. However, Isaiah's
prophecy makes no mention of a virgin in the original Hebrew. The original
Hebrew word was almah ( 
), which is more accurately translated "young girl" or
"maiden." Clearly the author of Matthew was quoting from the Greek
Septuagint. Furthermore, the verse from Isaiah was discussing a child that was
to be born during the time of King Ahaz.
Luke's version of the virgin birth is equally spurious. First, it is revealed that both Mary and Elizabeth, the cousin of Mary, and the mother of John the Baptist, will be impregnated by the Holy Spirit47. It is difficult to believe that John the Baptist and Jesus were related, and both the offspring of miracle births to mothers who were cousins, and yet later in the gospel of Luke, John the Baptist is not sure if Jesus is the Christ48. Furthermore, was John the Baptist the result of the Holy Spirit, or was he a reincarnation of Elijah as had been insinuated earlier? Also, if both Jesus and John the Baptist were the result of the Holy Spirit impregnating their respective mothers, it would render the fourth gospel's claim that Jesus is God's "only begotten son49" totally erroneous.
Was Jesus really crucified? There is no proof of such an event. There have been numerous debates in the 20th century between Muslims50 and Christians over whether or not the crucifixion took place. Had there been any evidence, surely the Christians would have presented it by now, rather than engaging in so many pointless and somewhat embarrassing debates51.
Christians want us to believe that the crucifixion, assuming it really happened, assuming Jesus was a historical character, was part of God's plan. Of course, even this is unclear in the bible. The synoptics52 have Jesus predicting this event somewhat late in his ministry, while John53 mentions it at the very outset. However, if the crucifixion really did take place, any mention of it being predicted by Jesus are interpolations, considering the passage in Luke54 where followers discuss their failed hopes that Jesus was the Messiah. Some scholars have argued that in the story found in Luke, there is a subtle admission to how the execution of Israel's alleged savior can be reconciled by the gospel-writers.
Written into this story is the tale of betrayal, but this also seems to be a fabrication. Matthew55 and John56 both have Jesus mentioning his betrayer, while the other two gospels are totally silent on his alleged ability to foresee the event. Furthermore, John's and Matthew's accounts disagree with one another. Matthew57 has Jesus reveal his betrayer after Judas claims that he is not the one, and Jesus assures him that he is. John, however, has an absurd story where Jesus dips a piece of bread and hands it over to Judas as a sign that Judas is the one who will betray the Messiah58.
The gospels cannot even agree how Jesus reveals his betrayer. However, what is worse, is to assume that Jesus would reveal his betrayer, and the other disciples would sit there and not try to inflict violence upon Judas. Moreover, Matthew claims that Judas betrayed his master for 30 pieces of silver, in fulfillment of a prophecy of Jeremiah59. The reality is this alleged prophecy cannot be found in Jeremiah as Matthew claims. Matthew further claims that Judas gave the money back to the elders and went and hanged himself60. This totally contradicts the account found in Acts where Judas uses the money to buy a field, and then falls headlong and bursts open61.
Furthermore the trial and crucifixion, as told in the Bible, and portrayed in Christian dogma, is a complete farce. Crucifixion was a punishment the Romans inflicted on political enemies. The Jews would not have handed over one of their own people to be killed by gentiles. If the Jews wanted him dead, they would have stoned him. It should also be noted that the Jews would never hold a trial on the eve of the festival of Pesach (Passover), when it is forbidden by Jewish law to hold court proceedings.
Through all this, what have we learned about Jesus from the gospels? In glaring opposition to the theories of most historians, this author tells you that absolutely nothing is learned about Jesus from the gospels. In no way, whatsoever, are the gospels proof of Jesus' existence. These stories could just as easily be accounts of popular oral traditions from that time.
Despite all the breakthroughs by historians, we can only speculate about the sources from which the gospel-writers derived their material. We have no proof that what the secondary sources tell us were truthful, or accurate. We have no proof that these "secondary sources" were not themselves derived from oral traditions, rather than eyewitnesses.
We have rough estimates of the time the gospels were written, and we have rough estimates regarding when Jesus lived, but we have no proof that these times coincide. Our estimates as to when Jesus lived are based on the information the gospels give, but the individual gospels contradict each other, even in regards to dates62. I find it hard to believe that the author of a manuscript written circa 60 CE would be unable to find any eyewitnesses to the life of a man who died circa 33 CE. I would argue that the time frames given are themselves fabricated, and that if Jesus lived at all, it was at a much earlier date, considering how distant the gospels seem to be from the fact.
So in conclusion, we can only speculate about the sources from which the
gospel writers took their information. We cannot state, with any certainty,
anything historical about the life of Jesus. There is a great lack of evidence
regarding the major events in Jesus' life, and I feel this lack of evidence
brings his very existence into question.
NOTES
(1) At first glance this may seem like a bold claim. However, with roughly 1.7 billion Christians, and 1.3 billion Muslims, there are 3 billion people who accept Jesus as the Messiah (The Arabic Isa al-Masih, as found in Islam's Qur'an, means "Jesus, the Messiah").
(2) "Argument from Numbers," a fallacy of logic closely related to the argumentum ad populum. It consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct.
(3) Other highly regarded writings about Jesus, such as the Qur'an and Sunni Orthodox ahadith collections, will not be acknowledged because they were written anywhere from 600-900 years after the time Jesus allegedly lived, and are therefore, from a historian's perspective, worthless. Only through dogmatic thinking and tortured logic can one justify using such sources as reliable information on Jesus.
(4) These earlier sources, such as previous writings about Jesus, or oral traditions common to the time, are discussed in greater detail in the third chapter of this writing.
(5) Historians, and Christian sects that dispute these issues among themselves, have been totally incapable of coming to any kind of agreement regarding any particular date in Jesus' life. Michael Martin, paraphrasing W. Trilling, said, "not a single date from [Jesus'] life can be established with certainty." (see Martin, The Case Against Christianity, Temple University Press, 1991, p. 37).
(6) Many people find the Orthodox Christian version of Jesus to be quite illogical. Christian apologists, who seek to defend their cherished beliefs, often apply a tortured logic that cannot be understood without first accepting other aspects of the folklore. One example would be the Christian apologetic attempt to explain the notion of a person dying for the sins of others, by mentioning animal sacrifices as prescribed in the Old Testament, and using such terms as "the lamb of God," to justify their fable. This is discussed in greater detail in the 5th chapter of this writing.
(7) Krishna is a mythical deity found in the Bhagavad Gita, one of the more widely known scriptures of the Hindu faith. However, while most Western scholars would agree this person never existed, Dr. N.S. Rajaram, an Indian born NASA consultant, has written several articles on the "historical Krishna" for various Hindu-nationalist periodicals. (see Rajaram, N.S. Search for the Historical Krishna. The Sword of Truth, 4 September 1999).
(8) John Remsberg, in his book The Christ (Prometheus, 1901, republished in 1994), offers over 600 contradictions in the New Testament.
(9) John 1:1
(10) John 1:14
(11) John 8:23-24
(12) Exodus 3:14
(13) John 1:21
(14) Matthew 11:13-14, and 17:12-13 have Jesus teaching that Elijah had already come in the form of John the Baptist. It is not as clearly stated, but some scholars feel Mark 9:13 is also in reference to this.
(15) John 1:29
(16) Matthew 11:3
(17) John 3:10
(18) John 3:1-2
(19) John 7:50-51
(20) Nicodemus is quoted as telling Jesus "no one could perform the signs that you do unless God were with him." John 3:2
(21) Matthew 12:39; Mark 8:12; Luke 11:29
(22) John 7:42
(23) Matthew's genealogy is found in the first chapter of his gospel, while Luke's is found in the third chapter of his.
(24) Consider 1 Timothy 1:3-4 ("…instruct certain people not to spread wrong teaching or to give attention to myths and unending genealogies") and Titus 3:9 ("…avoid foolish speculations and genealogies,").
(25) Matthew 1:16
(26) Luke 3:23
(27) Matthew 1:6
(28) Luke 3:31
(29) Matthew 1:9
(30) The three names missing from Matthew's genealogy are Joash, Amaziah, and Azariah, found in 1 Chronicles 3:11-12
(31) Luke 3:34-38
(32) Luke's extra name is Cainan (3:36), whom he lists as the son of Arphaxad. Compare with Genesis 11:12.
(33) Matthew 1:11
(34) Jeremiah 22:30
(35) Matthew's version of the Sermon on the Mount begins at 5:1, and ends at 7:28 with "Jesus had now finished what he wanted to say."
(36) Luke's version of the Sermon on the Mount begins at 6:17.
(37) Matthew 5:1
(38) Luke 6:17
(39) Matthew 7:9
(40) Luke 11:1
(41) Luke 1:1-4
(42) Historians have come to the conclusion that, aside from a book of sayings, there was also a book of cures, a book regarding Jesus' infancy, and a book regarding his trial and crucifixion. These conclusions are come to by means similar to those that resulted in the Q hypothesis.
(43) Mark 6:37-44
(44) 2 Kings 4:42-44
(45) Matthew 1:22-23
(46) Isaiah 7:14
(47) Luke 1:36 & 57
(48) Luke 7:19
(49) John 3:16
(50) According to the Qur'an (chapter 4, verse 157), Jesus was not crucified. Muslims interpret this differently. Some say it was an illusion, as someone who looked like Jesus was placed on the cross, while the real Jesus was taken up to heaven. Others feel Jesus was nailed to the cross but survived it, as God saved him, and still others believe the crucifixion did not happen at all.
(51) Ahmed Deedat, a Muslim missionary from South Africa, and a member of the Islamic propagation center, had written several books on the topic, such as "Crucifixion or Crucifiction?" Deedat also engaged in a popular debate in 1986 with Pastor Robert Douglas titled "Crucifixion: Fact or Fiction?"
(52) Matthew 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:21-27
(53) John 2:19-22
(54) Luke 24:19-21
(55) Matthew 26:25
(56) John 13:26
(57) Matthew 26:25
(58) John 13:26
(59) Matthew 27:9-10
(60) Matthew 27:4-8
(61) Acts 1:18-19; also notice the claim of why the field was called the field of blood, compared with Matthew 27:4-8.
(62) Matthew has Jesus born in the days of Herod (2:1), while Luke says Jesus
was born "while Quirinius was governor of Syria" (2:2). In regards to
this, John Remsberg writes "Matthew and Luke attempt to give the time [of
Jesus' birth] approximately. But between these two attempts there is a
discrepancy of at least ten years; for Herod died in 4 BC, while Cyrenius [or
Quirinias] did not become governor of Syria until 7 AD" (Remsberg, The
Christ, p. 45).
