Another Quirinius Thread

[Peter_Plato]

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

Well, that is a “tidy” solution to the problem, except there legitimately was a King Herod – four, in fact – although only one was the likely candidate; the one referred to as Herod the Great who ruled as king of Judea until 4 BC.

In fact, there were a total of at least eight (count 'em) Herods in the region starting from well before Christ until well after.

1. Herod the Great (c. 74–4 BC), client king of Judea who rebuilt the Second Temple (in Jerusalem) into Herod’s Temple
2. Herod Archelaus (23 BC–c. AD 18), ethnarch of Samaria, Judea, and Idumea
3. Herod Antipas (20 BC–c. AD 40), tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, called “Herod the Tetrarch” or “Herod” in the New Testament, and described as ordering John the Baptist’s death and mocking Jesus
4. Herod II (c. 27 BC–33 AD), sometimes called Herod Philip I, father of Salome
5. Philip the Tetrarch (4 BC–AD 34), sometimes called Herod Philip II, tetrarch of Ituraea and Trachonitis
6. Herod Agrippa (c. 10 BC–AD 44), client king of Judaea, called “King Herod” or “Herod” in Acts 12 of the New Testament
7. Herod of Chalcis, also known as Herod III, king of Chalcis (AD 41–48)
8. Herod Agrippa II (AD 27–100), tetrarch of Chalcis who was described in Acts of the Apostles as “King Agrippa” before whom Paul of Tarsus defended himself.

So, there was a King Herod prior to 4 BC, which means Luke could and likely was referring to that king when he spoke of “Herod, king of Judea.”

I suppose it is possible to solve, ahistorically, the entire mess, simply by arbitrary denial and attribution of names as we decide, but that doesn’t tell the true story – I mean, if we are concerned at all with the truth.

 

[PNEUMA]

Well, that is a “tidy” solution to the problem, except there legitimately was a King Herod – four, in fact – although only one was the likely candidate; the one referred to as Herod the Great who ruled as king of Judea until 4 BC…

Herod the Great (37 BC – 4 BC) doesn’t fit Luke’s account at all, Herod Archelaus (4 BC–6 AD) does !

 

[Cyberseeker]

That would make Jesus baptism 36 AD (Luke 3:23), the start of his ministry 56 years after the temple start (John 2: 13-20), and his crucifixion 40 AD, three years after Pilate left Judea.

Sorry Pneuma :nope: your ‘solution’ creates more problems than it solves.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Actually, it shows that Carrier is not well-respected among historians because of the conclusions he draws using dubious inferences.

If the “it” you’re referring to is the Tin O’Neill article, then you need to be aware of the fact that TO isn’t a credentialled historian. If it isn’t, then can you direct me toward some survey of those who are?

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.

In case you’ve forgotten, Carrier’s claim was that senators, especially senators of consular rank, were not appointed as procurators and not that Quirinius didn’t have a skill set that favored his appointment as governor.

It also contradicts Josephus who claimed Quirinius had “passed through them all,” meaning all the magistracies including procurator.

Just because Quirinius might have served as a procurator at some time in his career doesn’t entail that he was appointed by Augustus to be a procurator. As your source notes:

“Quirinius, a Roman senator who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them all until he had become consul, was appointed governor of Syria by Caesar and was given the task of assessing property there and in Judea.”

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.

Without some evidence that someone else started a census in Judea during the relevant time period – and one that required people to travel to the homes of their ancestors – I’m not sure why anyone should be required to respond. To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld: You go to battle with the evidence you have, not with the evidence you wish you had.

I’m nothing more than an interested amateur on these matters and certainly no match for those who are more knowledgeable on the wide range of disciplines that really serious debate on this subject demands. That is why I previously encouraged you to present your argument directly to Carrier. If his essay doesn’t already cover your objections – which I think it probably does – then your argument might even be included in future updates of that essay. If that venue is unacceptable, I can suggest one or two others that might be more to your liking.

 

[PNEUMA]

PNEUMA;13532205:

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
That would make Jesus baptism 36 AD (Luke 3:23), the start of his ministry 56 years after the temple start (John 2: 13-20), and his crucifixion 40 AD, three years after Pilate left Judea.

Sorry Pneuma :nope: your ‘solution’ creates more problems than it solves.

No, just as Luke says Jesus was born in 6 A.D. (Luke 2:1) He says the beginning of John’s ministry was 28 A.D. (Luke 3:1-2) Jesus would have begun his ministry in 34 or 35 A.D. at the age of 28 or 29.(Luke 3:23) and got crucified in 36 A.D

 

[steve53]

Well, that is a “tidy” solution to the problem, except there legitimately was a King Herod – four, in fact – although only one was the likely candidate; the one referred to as Herod the Great who ruled as king of Judea until 4 BC.

In fact, there were a total of at least eight (count 'em) Herods in the region starting from well before Christ until well after.

1. Herod the Great (c. 74–4 BC), client king of Judea who rebuilt the Second Temple (in Jerusalem) into Herod’s Temple
2. Herod Archelaus (23 BC–c. AD 18), ethnarch of Samaria, Judea, and Idumea
3. Herod Antipas (20 BC–c. AD 40), tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, called “Herod the Tetrarch” or “Herod” in the New Testament, and described as ordering John the Baptist’s death and mocking Jesus
4. Herod II (c. 27 BC–33 AD), sometimes called Herod Philip I, father of Salome
5. Philip the Tetrarch (4 BC–AD 34), sometimes called Herod Philip II, tetrarch of Ituraea and Trachonitis
6. Herod Agrippa (c. 10 BC–AD 44), client king of Judaea, called “King Herod” or “Herod” in Acts 12 of the New Testament
7. Herod of Chalcis, also known as Herod III, king of Chalcis (AD 41–48)
8. Herod Agrippa II (AD 27–100), tetrarch of Chalcis who was described in Acts of the Apostles as “King Agrippa” before whom Paul of Tarsus defended himself.

So, there was a King Herod prior to 4 BC, which means Luke could and likely was referring to that king when he spoke of “Herod, king of Judea.”

I suppose it is possible to solve, ahistorically, the entire mess, simply by arbitrary denial and attribution of names as we decide, but that doesn’t tell the true story – I mean, if we are concerned at all with the truth.

Herod Philip, the father of Salome and the first husband of Herodias, never attained Royal authority. Herodias divorced him in Rome so she could marry his half-brother Herod Antipas.

 

[steve53]

I agree that A.D. 36 is the only date that fits for Jesus’ crucifixion.

But an A.D. 6 birth date is very problematic.

For one, Archelaus, the son of Herod the Great, is nowhere referred to as “Herod” in any fashion. Josephus calls him Archelaus, whereas his tetrarch brothers were called Herod Antipas and Herod Philip.

After Herod the Great’s deaths, there was great unrest in Judea and Herod’s domain where thousands were executed, and Varus had to come down with his legions to settle things down.

Plus, there was a will contest that went before Augustus, with Augustus finally deciding to divide up the kingdom with Archelaus getting half of it- including Judea and Samaria.

With all this going on, it is not likely in Arcehlaus’ 10 year reign (removed by Augustus after complaints by the people and his own royal brothers) that an episode as heinous as the slaughter of infants would have been papered over.

And other factors.

Read Hagan’s “Passover” for details.

 

[ericc]

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

Unfortunately by sticking to that position, you put yourself at odds with Matthew 2:19-22. Luke doesn’t make that kind of mistake. Luke made it clear there was a first registration and a subsequent second one which was at 6AD Acts 5:37.

 

[PNEUMA]

Unfortunately by sticking to that position, you put yourself at odds with Matthew 2:19-22. Luke doesn’t make that kind of mistake. Luke made it clear there was a first registration and a subsequent second one which was at 6AD Acts 5:37.

I do not stic to any position, Luke and Matthew just contradict each other. One does not have to stic to any position, Luke says this, Matthew says that. I think the Church knew that when the first bible was compiled back in the fourth century, but didn’t cear, neither do I.

 

[PNEUMA]

PNEUMA;13532412:

No, just as Luke says Jesus was born in 6 A.D. (Luke 2:1) He says the beginning of John’s ministry was 28 A.D. (Luke 3:1-2) Jesus would have begun his ministry in 34 or 35 A.D. at the age of 28 or 29.(Luke 3:23) and got crucified in 36 A.D

I agree that A.D. 36 is the only date that fits for Jesus’ crucifixion.

But an A.D. 6 birth date is very problematic.

For one, Archelaus, the son of Herod the Great, is nowhere referred to as “Herod” in any fashion. Josephus calls him Archelaus, whereas his tetrarch brothers were called Herod Antipas and Herod Philip.

After Herod the Great’s deaths, there was great unrest in Judea and Herod’s domain where thousands were executed, and Varus had to come down with his legions to settle things down.

Plus, there was a will contest that went before Augustus, with Augustus finally deciding to divide up the kingdom with Archelaus getting half of it- including Judea and Samaria.

With all this going on, it is not likely in Arcehlaus’ 10 year reign (removed by Augustus after complaints by the people and his own royal brothers) that an episode as heinous as the slaughter of infants would have been papered over.

And other factors.

Read Hagan’s “Passover” for details.

Wikipedia “The most common coins of Herod Archelaus are small prutot depicting a bunch of grapes, also one of the seven species, and a crested helmet with his name (Herod) and title (Ethnarch) in Greek”

And if his brothers were called Herod Antipas and Herod Philip, then certainly he was called Herod Archelaus. His execution of thousands of jews, shows he wasn’t a nice guy.

6 A.D. is strange but that’s what Luke says, whereas 36 A.D is the last year of both Pontius Pilate and Joseph Caiaphas

 

[steve53]

Josephus is the definitive scholar of those times and lived through most of them, or some of them. My point is that he Josephus doesn’t gI’ve the Herod apellation to Archelaus even once. Also, if you go into Matthew there is a clear distinction between Herod the king and his son Archelaus if I remember things correctly.

And why would wise men come to Archelaus necessarily when there were two other kings of only slightly less importance in the east?

And also, as I have stated, at that time he was under a microscope and neither the people nor his brothers would have tolerated the wholesale slaughter of infants.

His world was clearly not the world of his father, who ruled absolutely and ruthlessly.

 

[PNEUMA]

Josephus is the definitive scholar of those times and lived through most of them, or some of them. My point is that he Josephus doesn’t gI’ve the Herod apellation to Archelaus even once. Also, if you go into Matthew there is a clear distinction between Herod the king and his son Archelaus if I remember things correctly.

And why would wise men come to Archelaus necessarily when there were two other kings of only slightly less importance in the east?

And also, as I have stated, at that time he was under a microscope and neither the people nor his brothers would have tolerated the wholesale slaughter of infants.

His world was clearly not the world of his father, who ruled absolutely and ruthlessly.

Steve, you try to reconcile Matthew and Luke. They contradict each other and are irreconcilable !

Matthew says Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod the great, before Archelaus was reigning in Judea. (Matthew 2:22)

Luke says Jesus was born in 6 A.D. (Luke 2:1)

Josephus is good, but Luke is good to.

Luke 1:1 “Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

Josephus is good, but Luke is good to.

Actually, Luke wasn’t just “good to,” he was inspired. That means, unlike Josephus, there are reasons for his writing that go beyond Luke’s intentions for doing so. At least some of those we won’t know this side of eternity.

Your dating of things, like your grammar, needs some revising.

 

[dje14338]

Well, that is a “tidy” solution to the problem, except there legitimately was a King Herod – four, in fact – although only one was the likely candidate; the one referred to as Herod the Great who ruled as king of Judea until 4 BC.

In fact, there were a total of at least eight (count 'em) Herods in the region starting from well before Christ until well after.

1. Herod the Great (c. 74–4 BC), client king of Judea who rebuilt the Second Temple (in Jerusalem) into Herod’s Temple
2. Herod Archelaus (23 BC–c. AD 18), ethnarch of Samaria, Judea, and Idumea
3. Herod Antipas (20 BC–c. AD 40), tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, called “Herod the Tetrarch” or “Herod” in the New Testament, and described as ordering John the Baptist’s death and mocking Jesus
4. Herod II (c. 27 BC–33 AD), sometimes called Herod Philip I, father of Salome
5. Philip the Tetrarch (4 BC–AD 34), sometimes called Herod Philip II, tetrarch of Ituraea and Trachonitis
6. Herod Agrippa (c. 10 BC–AD 44), client king of Judaea, called “King Herod” or “Herod” in Acts 12 of the New Testament
7. Herod of Chalcis, also known as Herod III, king of Chalcis (AD 41–48)
8. Herod Agrippa II (AD 27–100), tetrarch of Chalcis who was described in Acts of the Apostles as “King Agrippa” before whom Paul of Tarsus defended himself.

So, there was a King Herod prior to 4 BC, which means Luke could and likely was referring to that king when he spoke of “Herod, king of Judea.”

I suppose it is possible to solve, ahistorically, the entire mess, simply by arbitrary denial and attribution of names as we decide, but that doesn’t tell the true story – I mean, if we are concerned at all with the truth.

The New Testament, as originally written, did not differentiate between the various Herods. That is, all the various Herods are only referred to as Herod. Thus one has to determine which Herod is meant by the context of story. In this case, Archelaus is the correct candidate.

 

[PNEUMA]

Actually, Luke wasn’t just “good to,” he was inspired. That means, unlike Josephus, there are reasons for his writing that go beyond Luke’s intentions for doing so. At least some of those we won’t know this side of eternity.

Your dating of things, like your grammar, needs some revising.

Some say inspired by Josephus ? I don’t know ? But I think Luke’s dating (6 A.D) is correct, Matthew seems to have another agenda with his book, that is convincing the jews.

Was that good enough grammar, for you ?

 

[steve53]

I would not invest too much in defending Luke on every particular detail of his gospel. For instance, his story about Jesus as a young boy in the Second Temple is clearly lifted from Josephus’ autobiography.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I would not invest too much in defending Luke on every particular detail of his gospel. For instance, his story about Jesus as a young boy in the Second Temple is clearly lifted from Josephus’ autobiography.

Considering when Josephus wrote, it is possible that he did the “lifting” if any lifting was, indeed, done.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Some say inspired by Josephus ? I don’t know ? But I think Luke’s dating (6 A.D) is correct, Matthew seems to have another agenda with his book, that is convincing the jews.

Was that good enough grammar, for you ?

Not really. I count at least seven grammatical errors. Keep working on it, however.

The same goes for your analysis of historical events.

 

[steve53]

I meant lifted in the fact that the story was about Josephus and not Jesus. Both Luke and Josephus were in Rome in AD 63 when Luke was collecting his stories about Jesus and writing his gospel. Josephus was a famous man even then and Luke by mistake included the story in his gospel. Josephus, of course, wrote his autobiography some 30 years later.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I meant lifted in the fact that the story was about Josephus and not Jesus. Both Luke and Josephus were in Rome in AD 63 when Luke was collecting his stories about Jesus and writing his gospel. Josephus was a famous man even then and Luke by mistake included the story in his gospel. Josephus, of course, wrote his autobiography some 30 years later.

“By mistake” is an interesting description of what “lifted” entailed. What you are claiming is that Luke fell asleep at the switch and his claim to being careful about the details and checking all the facts wasn’t true in this case and, therefore, probably was not true with a lot of other details.

Nice try.

It was more likely that Josephus was padding his autobiography with the Temple story after hearing it told about Jesus. If Josephus was born in Jerusalem and grew up in Judea during the growth of Christianity there, he likely heard many things about Jesus.

The Gospel of Luke was very likely written before any of Josephus’ works since he didn’t write until well after the destruction of Jerusalem, whereas Luke not mentioning that event at all (among other things) very likely completed both the Gospel and Acts well before AD 70.