P
- Status
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
What does Tim O’Neill’s article have to do with the Carrier essay I linked to? Shouldn’t Carrier’s essay on the Quirinius issue be judged on its merits?
F
frangiuliano115
Guest
Hi Cornbread,
I actually went to your link. Don’t know why.
I actually started reading it. Ditto.
Then I remembered I forgot to have my chocolate for the day!
That was it for the article.
Fran
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
When Carrier as a “critical historian” supposes that Jesus Christ did not exist and was a myth, then whatever else, his claims about what is or is not “beyond reasonable dispute” or “equally indisputable” should be taken with a pound of salt. Any further statement he pronounces about what is an “irreconcilable contradiction after an examination of all the relevant facts,” is likewise to be taken for what it is worth - very little.
I have already in this thread linked to a video that refutes the “irreconcilable contradiction” between Luke and Matthew.
youtu.be/luH581hVdXw
Of course, you will ignore it in order to promote Carrier and his mythicist views about Jesus.
F
frangiuliano115
Guest
E
ericc
Guest
The first one would be before King Herod’s death and that would be either 1 or 2BC or 4BC depending on how ones counts the years of reign. Which would place Jesus birth around 3 BC or 6BC. Jesus couldn’t be born in 6AD for sure. In terms of King Herod’s death, Luke is unlikely to make such a blunder as the whole early childhood of Jesus revolves around King Herod, magis, killing the Bethlehem innocents, flight to Egypt and back to Palestine again.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Luke uses the word hegemon (ηγεμονία) which refers to political authority of some sort. While it may be true that one major census of the region was completed when Quirinius was governor of the region, that does not necessarily entail that it was started that year or even the year prior. Archelaus, according to Josephus, had made a mess of governing Judea which is why he was deposed by Rome. The census completed by Quirinius may have started years previously and was only compiled and finalized under him because Archelaus had failed to deliver it in a timely manner.
There is also evidence that Quirinius was procurator under Varas or Saturninus in Syria, a position which is consistent with the word ἡγεμονίας that Luke uses. Tertullian mentions that the Roman records list censuses being taken in the region of Judea in the time of Varas and Saturninus. Depending upon who was viewed as the most visible presence as the governing authority, the ἡγεμονίας to describe Quirinius may have been quite appropriate. If that is the case, then Luke’s use of the word ἡγεμονίας as applying to Quirinius (procurator rather than governor) at the time of Jesus’ birth is not logically inconsistent with Matthew’s account.
S
steve53
Guest
I don’t know if “John Hagan” is the author’s real name. His claims to be a medical doctor are probably true as a google search shows he has a health book out on the physiology and metabolics of fasting and weight loss. This was written a couple years after his research and writings on Josephus and the NT, so he has apparently moved on- or at least expanded his literary horizons.
S
steve53
Guest
Luke has been a conundrum and a thorn in the sdie for all researchers who seek after historical veracity in the Gospels.
But Luke himself admits he got his information second-hand, so he gives us an “out.”
Now John, on the other hand, says unequivocally that he was an eyewitness. Very tough to dispute anything he writes.
With Luke, perhaps the most glaring error is the story about Jesus as a young boy in Jerusalem teaching the Second Temple Pharisees. That almost certainly was lifted from Josephus’ autobiography and has served as ammo for those who date Luke very late in the first century A.D after Josephus first published the work.
However, a close reading of the same autobiography reveals that Josephus was in Rome in the A.D. 61-62 period- which was the same time Paul and presumably Luke were in Rome. Josephus was a semi-famous Jew who enjoyed the Royal Court of Poppea so the argument can be made that stories about the young Josephus- which he was not shy to tell- became confused with the stories about the young Jesus and found their way into Luke’s gospel.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
What Luke said was that he used reliable eyewitness testimony, so he didn’t get his information “second-hand,” he got it first-hand from those who were “from the first… eyewitnesses.” He also states that he “carefully investigated everything from the beginning” so that Theophilus would “know the certainty of the things” he had been taught.
I am not sure what “out” you are looking for, but it is clear that what Luke wrote is quite consistent with Matthew and Luke wasn’t hedging on his promise to Theophilus.
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, but this is in regard to God’s revelation of Himself. The Bible is not a scientifc or historical collection. It contains information relevant to many fields of inquiry(archeology, history, psychology, etc) but none of these is the main purpose.
Fran is right that the accuracy of certain details plays second fiddle to God’s revelation of HImself and his plan for mankind.
G
guanophore
Guest
No Fran. Carrier needs a pound. In fact, something too salty to even taste would be appropriate.
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
Where are you finding that the author is claiming to be a medical doctor? If you aren’t sure if the author’s real name is John Hagan, how do you know that it’s the same John Hagan who wrote a health book?
I didn’t even mention Carrier’s views on Jesus’s existence in this thread (let alone “promote” them) – you did – in what I regard as an attempt at well poisoning.
As luck would have it, Carrier apparently addresses this very supposition in the previously mentioned essay. He writes:
Carrier seems emphatic on this point. As such, it seems he’s given anyone a golden opportunity to put him in his place. All they would have to do is name one procurator who was a senator of the consular rank and Bob’s your uncle. They could even send that information directly to Carrier in the link that he has conveniently provided at the top of his essay for just that purpose – just to make sure that it gets his attention.
Merry Christmas
C
Cyberseeker
Guest
Impossible? Sure, if we date the birth of Jesus in 5 BC, then Varus - not Quirinius - was the civil governor of Syria. Skeptics like Carrier make much of this, and dribble on about who or what can be deemed ‘governor.’ Then they assert “impossible” when a reasonable answer is given to their objections. However, the bottom line is that Quirinius was a high ranking official in Syria during these years.
Im not sure how you do things in your country, but in mine (New Zealand) the minister of Finance brings the national budget, and it is said to be his budget - not the Prime Minister’s. So, I think it is perfectly reasonable for Luke to say that Quirinius was acting in the capacity of a ‘governor’ when he ordered a census in 5 BC.
Moreover, it fits the chronological data provided by the other gospel writers - another area where Carrier, from what I read, could take some lessons.
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
Wouldn’t that put Herod’s death at 3 B.C. then?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Actually, it shows that Carrier is not well-respected among historians because of the conclusions he draws using dubious inferences.
The point, in case you missed it, is that Carrier’s insistence that “no senator ever…” is fallacious logic. It does not entail that special circumstances did not exist where Quirinius’ expertise made him the best candidate to deal with specific issues in Judea.
It also contradicts Josephus who claimed Quirinius had “passed through them all,” meaning all the magistracies including procurator.
Furthermore, you completely ignored the possibility that the census could have been started by someone else and merely finalized by Quirinius as governor after Archelaus created a mess of administration. This does not even require Quirinius to have been procurator at all, because what Luke would be referring to is a census that required enrollment from up to ten years earlier but was only completed and submitted to the Emperor by Quirinius and, thus, was the census of Quirinius.
Either of these possibilities make Matthew and Luke completely reconciliable.
S
steve53
Guest
You folks miss the big picture.
When Herod the Great ruled the East the Emperor considered him, along with Agrippa when he was alive, a co-rulers of the empire.
There was absolutely NO reason for Augustus to order a census of Herod’s kingdom on a formal “enrollment” basis where people would be forced to travel back to their home cities and sign official documents.
Why would Augustus care? It would insulting to Herod, his greatest ally, and Augustus certainly had a good handle on the wealth and population of the area as it was.
An enrollment would be insulting to Herod- and to Archelaus- and serve no purpose. Herod would have given Augustus all the money he needed anyway, no questions asked.
Mention this to Carrier the next time you see him.
When Archelaus’ territory was turned into a Roman province in AD 6, now we’re talking about a completely different situation. Rome had to as accurately as possible assess and quantify all the particulars about the territory to insure that their administrators would be on the up-and-up and Rome would receive adequate income.
When Herod the Great ruled the East the Emperor considered him, along with Agrippa when he was alive, a co-rulers of the empire.
There was absolutely NO reason for Augustus to order a census of Herod’s kingdom on a formal “enrollment” basis where people would be forced to travel back to their home cities and sign official documents.
Why would Augustus care? It would insulting to Herod, his greatest ally, and Augustus certainly had a good handle on the wealth and population of the area as it was.
An enrollment would be insulting to Herod- and to Archelaus- and serve no purpose. Herod would have given Augustus all the money he needed anyway, no questions asked.
Mention this to Carrier the next time you see him.
When Archelaus’ territory was turned into a Roman province in AD 6, now we’re talking about a completely different situation. Rome had to as accurately as possible assess and quantify all the particulars about the territory to insure that their administrators would be on the up-and-up and Rome would receive adequate income.
E
ericc
Guest
Agree on the hēgemoneuontos. My bet is Luke was referring to the oath taking to Augustus on him being conferred the Father of the Nation. Josephus referred to 6000 pharisees not taking the oath. Obviously if one didn’t count or track, how would he know that number? At least there is evidence of some sort of oath taking going on which require some kind of tracking.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Good point.
The difficulty with properly doing history is that the evidence is scant for many periods so it is far easier to deny something happened than to affirm it.
There is also bias in favour of denial or skepticism because if you deny a proposition until it is absolutely proven you appear to be thorough and demonstrating scholarly discipline. There is no reputation loss when that proposition turns out to be true despite your arguing against it for years. However, if you go out on a limb and accept a proposition even on very good evidence and that position turns out to be faulty, well the loss of reputation can and often is devastating.
This is why many scholars build a reputation on debunking the positions of others rather than proposing their own or build a “reputation” on their arguments against the stated claims or positions of others but tend to be very reticent taking a determined or committed overall view.
P
PNEUMA
Guest
What Luke very clearly say, is that Jesus was born in year 6 AD. The only “mistake” Luke makes is to use the word “king” instead of “ethnarch” for Herod Archelaus !
Luke 2:1 “Now in those days 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.”
Luke 1:5 “In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.”
Herod Archelaus Ethnarch of Judaea from 4 BC to 6 AD
Quirinius was appointed Legate of Syria in 6 AD
Luke 2:1 “Now in those days 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.”
Luke 1:5 “In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.”
Herod Archelaus Ethnarch of Judaea from 4 BC to 6 AD
Quirinius was appointed Legate of Syria in 6 AD
- Status