Christians always tell me about how Luke is such an…
Christians always tell me about how Luke is such an amazing historian, and that the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts have no historical errors.
So I bring up how Luke has the census of Quirinius taking place during the reign of King Herod, even though Herod died 10 years beforehand. And how do apologists respond? By insisting there was another census of Quirinius during the time of Herod.
So I then bring up Luke 7:11-12, how it says Jesus met a widow outside the gate of Nain, despite archaeology showing that the village of Nain never had a wall or a gate. But apologists simply dismiss this, insisting the word “gate” could just mean entrance to the city, not a literal gate.
Finally, I point out how Acts 5:36-38 has Gamaliel talking about the rebel Theudas about a decade before Theudas actually revolted. But Christian apologists just insist that Gamaliel in Acts is talking about a different rebel named “Theudas.”
Here’s my question for Christians: what would you accept as an example of a genuine historical error in Luke or Acts? Is there anything you won’t dismiss or try to explain away?