|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Would Mary Have Been In Bethlehem? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: We have no evidence placing Quirinius as governor of Syria at either date. Josephus tells us that Quirinius was sent to Judea and held a census in 6 AD when the Romans fully annexed Judaea.
quote: Of course there would be another census after 6 AD - but the 6 AD census appears to be the first in Judaea.
quote: Perhaps you can tell us how the stones discovered at this Antioch tell us that he was legate in Syria.
quote: No, she is not. The surviving portion of the Lapis Tiburtinus does not mention a name, and there is nothing on it which indicates that it belongs to Quirinius. Nor does it unambiguously state that the person it refers to was twice governor of Syria (it appears more likely to mean governor of Asia and governor of Syria).
quote: And she is wrong again since in the Jewish War (Book 1, Chapter 27), Josephus identified Volumnius as the Procurator. So there is nothing special there. So where is the evidence of this supposed earlier census, other than a wish to deny the obvious inference that Luke referred to the census of 6 AD ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: No, there isn't.
quote: Tertullian was a Christian apologist who converted at the end of the 2nd Century AD. His assertion may be no more than an attempt to reconcile the two Nativity stories. He does not mention Quirinius being present.
quote: "Many scholars" would be nuts, in that case. Quintilius Varus, to name one famous example, contemporary with Qurinius, was Governor of Syria -and lead Roman troops. Nor does the stone clearly say that the man in question was governor of Syria twice. Note also that Tertullian's alleged census is held under Sentius Saturnius, not Quirinius so any argument that assumes that Quirinius was governor of Syria contradicts Tertullian. You can't use both arguments at the same time.
quote: Or perhaps he calls it the first registration because the 6 AD census was the first tax census held by the Romans. The facts are: We have no record of any earlier tax census of Judaea. (Or even a good reason for one to be held) We have no record of Qurinius holding any power in Judaea prior to 6 AD We DO have information that Quirinius was responsible for the 6 AD census. On this basis the idea that Luke meant the 6 AD census is clearly the best explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
What I mean is that it can be interpreted as saying that the position of governor was held twice (that is what is repeated), but in two different places. My phrasing was a possible interpretation, not an attempt at a word for word translation as you suggest.
Of course, unless the stone can be shown to refer to Quirinius the interpretation is moot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Not directly, no. As Judaea was part of a client state rather than a part of the Empire it paid tribute rather than being part of the Roman tax system.
quote: Checking out your source, and it's references:the Res Gestae (one source) states:
"When I administered my thirteenth consulate (2 B.C.E.), the senate and Equestrian order and Roman people all called me father of the country..."
This doesn't suggest a registration of the citizens of client states. Nor does Ovid:
Sacred Father of the Country, this title has been conferred On you, by the senate, the people, and by us, the knights. Jospehus refers simply to an oath of loyalty, not mentioning a census of any sort (and of course, a loyalty oath would not require one). So we don't have any indication of a census or a loyalty oath directly connected to this event other than Orosius's claim that this is so - and Orosius could easily be assuming a census based on Luke, not on any other source.
quote: That adage has limits. To be strictly correct it refers to a COMPLETE absence of evidence. For instance the fact that Josephus does not mention a prior census is not an "absence of evidence" in the strict sense of the adage. Since we would expect Josephus to mention such an event his failure to mention it is evidence that there was no census prior to 6 AD. And of course we must include indirect evidence. Given all the other places that he could be (including more likely places like Rome) why would we expect Quirinius to be in Judaea ? The fact that we do not have a complete record of Quirinius' activity does not entitle us to assume that he was in Judaea at any particular time that is not recorded. Such an idea must be judged less likely than the idea that he was somewhere else.
quote: Even if that were entirely true (and it isn't) it is still the case that it is better to assume that Luke meant a recorded event which fits his description than one which is largely assumed without evidence. Consider that Luke expects the event to be recognised, even though he was almost certainly writing 70 years or more after the event. And we should expect that to be reflected in Josephus, who wrote not so long after (or possibly even before Luke). To Josephus the famous census held under Quirinius is the 6 AD census. I do, however, find it interesting that you insist that Luke must be wrong if he meant the 6 AD Census. I do not equate "Luke meant the 6 AD census" with "The Biblical account is wrong" (the more so since there is no single Biblical account of the event - we have, instead, two conflicting accounts with little in common).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: That's not a valid argument. There's no reason to assume that Luke would mention the revolt. It plays no role in his story.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Repeating your assumption doesn't make it any better.
quote: Or more accurately he reports someone else talking about it, in a context of failed religious leaders or would-be messiahs.
quote: Wrong. There is another possible reason. And I've already told you it. It just wasn't important to his story.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: If Ramsay said that then he had no idea what he was talking about. The 6 AD census is recorded in Josephus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: That seems unlikely. Besides, Ramsay is promoting ideas with considerably less support than that. It seems more likely that he is suggesting that the existence of Josephus work is "accidental" in the sense that it is unusual to have so detailed a history of events in a single province.
quote: I've looked at what Ramsay wrote elsewhere. There is no indication that it was felt to be a forgery because it mentioned the 6 AD census (which was accepted as genuine). Indeed Ramsay states that the reason for suspicion was that it might have been forged to agree with Luke's account. (A valid concern - a relic with Biblical associations might attract a higher price - something that is still a motive for forgery today). It should also be remembered that this criticism was only made when the stone itself was missing.
Absolutely the only reason for thinking it to be a forgery was that it mentioned the census of Quirinius, and therefore seemed to give some support to Luke. But as this might be the historical census of Quirinius in AD. 7, the support was very slight and indirect;
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: No, they don't. That's just one speculative idea.
quote: Since the date of Jesus' birth according to the Gospels is a prime example of "specualtion and confusion" you would be very foolish to take that chronology as superior to Josephus with regard to that period. (In fact the whole Nativity is an area of "speculation and confusion" - the two accounts are that different ). Obviously the best supported answer is that Luke meant the 6 AD census. It's the best fit and it requires no implausible speculations (or misrepresentations of the evidence).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: When he was "about 30". Which allows a few years either way. To say that he was 30 years old is speculation.
quote: But he doesn't say when Jesus was baptised. Obviously it would have to happen at some point when John the Baptist was active, but that doesn't have to be in the first year of his ministry - that is more speculation. [ADDED]The "about 30" is the age that Jesus started his ministry. Since that does not have to immediately follow his baptism we have yet another uncertainty Edited by PaulK, : See ADDED text above
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: So would saying that he was 28 or 32.
quote: Not true. Numbers 4 specifies that Levites from specified families will have certain duties in the tabernacle from the ages of 30 to 50. No reason is specified and there seems no good reason to assume that it applies to preaching (after all people older than 50 can still preach).
quote: No, it is quite non-specific - "about 30" includes 28 and 32. Had he been 30 + some months there is nothing stopping Luke from saying that he was 30. So if your argument means anything it suggests that Jesus was younger, since Luke might well have wanted to obscure that. (It is also possible that Luke did not know exactly which year Jesus started to preach - since we don't have an exact date for the crucifixion either).
quote: This is pure speculation We don't know how long John had been preaching before he baptised Jesus. Therefore even if we grant your claim that he was arrested soon after (which doesn't come from Luke) we still can't use that to set a duration for John's ministry.
quote: You mean that I can keep pointing out the fact that the Bible doesn't say what you want it to say - and you'll go right on ignoring it. I find it truly amazing that there are "Christians" like you who respect the Bible less than I do. [and message 94]quote: In other words the only useful information it gives is that Jesus didn't begin preaching until after John had been arrested. Which means that you MUST include the length of John's ministry in your calculations, if they are to reflect what Matthew says. And you didn't (and can't without speculating).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: So what you are saying is that since the real Bible lets you down by failing to say what you think it should, you show your "respect" for it by pretending that it does anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Unfortunately we don't have good evidence that John was executed in AD 36. What we know is that the Josephus claims that the Jews blamed a military defeat in AD 36 on the execution of John. That indicates that they linked the two events, but unfortunately there is more to the link than time. (Herod Antipas' marriage to Herodias - circa 23 AD - was an issue in the war - the father of his previous wife was the enemy - and John was apparently arrested for criticising the marriage). It does suggest that the two events were reasonably close in time, but to say that they happened in the same year is pushing too far.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Since Luke didn't write about the events of 70 AD it is entirely possible that he would not have mentioned it. The more so since Luke's version of the Olivet Discourse appears to have been changed (from that found in Mark) to better fit the actual events - evidence that Luke wrote AFTER 70 AD.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Whoever originated that version - poossibly Luke, possibly his source. But let's be clear I'm not saying that Luke's Gospel has been edited in this case. I'm saying that the Olivet Discourse has been changed between the earliest account found in Mark (and Matthew) and the version found in Luke. And the changes indicate that the originator of the new version knew what had happened in 70 AD.(Or possibly it's referring to the outcome of the Bar Kochbar revolt, which would put it even later).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024