P
PNEUMA
Guest
Yes this could go both ways. But does not historians normally borrow from each others ?
- Status
S
steve53
Guest
Luke admits that he got his stories from the best sources that he could find. One of those trusted sources could have easily been confused between Josephus and Jesus. Luke was not an eyewitness. And you can’t dispute the fact that both Luke and Josephus were in Rome at about the same time, with Josephus hobnobbing in the highest circles with the Queen of the empire. Certainly, he was one to be talked about in Jewish circles in Rome at that time.
So it is not a stretch at all.
There is scant evidence that Jesus could even read and write. Certainly, he was an outsider and a laborer and did not get his education through the Jewish synagogue schools.
Josephus does mention Jesus twice in his works. The Christians were viewed as a dark offshoot of Judaism because of the communion ceremony which was considered by many to be cannibalistic and pagan.
So it is not a stretch at all.
There is scant evidence that Jesus could even read and write. Certainly, he was an outsider and a laborer and did not get his education through the Jewish synagogue schools.
Josephus does mention Jesus twice in his works. The Christians were viewed as a dark offshoot of Judaism because of the communion ceremony which was considered by many to be cannibalistic and pagan.
P
PNEUMA
Guest
You really don’t trust Luke’s account, Steve
Luke 4:16 “He came to Nazareth, where he had grown up, and went according to his custom into the synagogue on the sabbath day. He stood up to read and was handed a scroll of the prophet Isaiah. He unrolled the scroll and found the passage where it was written: …”
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Still a huge speculative stretch. I am much more prone to trust what Luke says than to trust your speculations about why Luke might have been mistaken about what he said 2000 years distant from the events about which he was speaking.
I have no reason to believe your version of the events unless I was looking for a reason to doubt Luke, which I am not. There is no evidence that he was actually mistaken, so your explanation for why he would have been mistaken is putting the cart before the horse. It won’t go very far, very fast, that way.
S
steve53
Guest
If you are determined to defend Luke in every nuance then I certainly understand your logic as convoluted as it is.
It’s like you can’t dethrown a heavyweight champion by decision. The referees won’t give it to you even if you’re clearly the best boxer.You have to knock out the champ.
Again, Luke wasn’t mistaken. It was the source he relied on that was mistaken.
It’s like you can’t dethrown a heavyweight champion by decision. The referees won’t give it to you even if you’re clearly the best boxer.You have to knock out the champ.
Again, Luke wasn’t mistaken. It was the source he relied on that was mistaken.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Not if they’re trying to be accurate about history, unless what they are “borrowing” from the other historian is more accurate than what they have in their version of the event.
If Luke were trying to give an accurate account to Theophilus and checking his account with eyewitnesses and those who knew Jesus “from the beginning,” someone would have corrected him. It isn’t as if printing presses were around and 40 000 copies went to print before someone caught the error. Luke wasn’t publishing in a bubble with no one around to correct the obvious mistakes.
Josephus, for one, would have written something since he most certainly wrote after Luke – “Yeah, you know that Christian historian Luke? Well, he wrote such a terrible account of things that he included an event from my life into Jesus’ life. You see, you shouldn’t believe what those Christians tell about their Messiah, it is all fabricated.”
If Steve can find that kind of comment on Luke coming from the pen of Josephus, well then, maybe, we can consider his claim. At the moment it comes across as a complete fabrication. Not something any historian would take seriously.
P
PNEUMA
Guest
Well, Luke’s accuracy brings us back to 6 A.D. (Luke 2:1) Matthew wanted to portrait Jesus as the new Moses, John wanted to portrait Jesus as the lamb of God, the accurate birth year was less important to them. So we are left with Luke’s accurate date and time 6 A.D. during the census of Quirinius in the Roman provinces of Syria and Judaea.
E
ericc
Guest
OK then who is right and who is wrong between the 2 gospel writers? And how did you ascertained that? And how did you arrived at the conclusion that “Luke very clearly say, is that Jesus was born in year 6 AD”. You provide no evidence. And you provide no evidence that Luke made a mistake either.
You have no idea how the Church compiled the Bible. It wouldn’t have been smart to put in contradictory accounts. Why would they? You think it is contradictory but why should any one take your word that it is contradictory? You think Luke made mistakes but you are far from proving that position to be true. Since you don’t stick to any position, then any position that you take now may be changed in a blink. Which means the position you now take is of no value unless you can defend it.
P
PNEUMA
Guest
I said in poste #120 “The only “mistake” Luke makes is to use the word “king” instead of “ethnarch” for Herod Archelaus !”
After reading sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-17.htm I now see that also Josephus says “king Archelaus” so no mistake by Luke here, Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius in year 6 A.D. the last year of king Herod Archelaus regin
Matthew’s, born during king Herod the great (Archelaus father) must be historically wrong.
Why shouldn’t the Church put in contradictory accounts when they served the purpose of the Bible (to be a collection of scriptures against heresies)
S
steve53
Guest
Lol.
No one has ever put the name “Herod” in front of Achelaus’ name. That’s the point.
But your thesis on accepting Luke at face value over the other three Gospels is an interesting one and merits a closer look, which I will put some effort into later on today.
No one has ever put the name “Herod” in front of Achelaus’ name. That’s the point.
But your thesis on accepting Luke at face value over the other three Gospels is an interesting one and merits a closer look, which I will put some effort into later on today.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
I’ve already explained this several times in this thread and linked to a video explaining it more completely.
From post #107.
To be clear:
Luke uses the word ἡγεμονίας to describe Quirinius’ position, which means he could have been a governing authority in a number of different roles, very likely procurator (ἡγεμονίας) under Varas or Saturninus. In which case, Jesus would have been born as early as BC 3 or 4.
Second, a census could have taken a period of years to complete, especially in an area as badly governed as was the case with Archelaus. Thus, enrollment in the census could have been started years before Quirinius was ἡγεμονίας in Syria. Mary and Joseph could have been enrolled up to ten years prior, but still in the same census which Quirinius finalized and which came to be known by all as the first census which Quirinius submitted while he was, in fact, governor (ἡγεμονίας) of Syria, as Luke says, but which was actually carried out for a number of years prior.
P
PNEUMA
Guest
As I said, you have it on his coin
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”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodian_coinage
P
PNEUMA
Guest
The census was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria, not before.
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.”
Do Luke and Matthew have to say the same thing ? can’t they differ ?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Caesar Augustus ruled from 27 BC until 14 AD, so the field is wide open. The word used by Luke is not governor, but ἡγεμονίας which means simply “ruling authority.” In other words, a decree went out during the time of Caesar Augustus (between 27 BC and 14 AD) that a census be taken, which was the first while Quirinius was (ἡγεμονίας hegemon) the authority responsible for the census in Syria. This could have been while he was procurator under Varas or Saturninus or it could have been completed when was governor in Syria. ἡγεμονίας does not mean “governor,” so Luke never actually says Quirinius was governor.
S
steve53
Guest
Using Luke as the default reference for Jesus’ life is interesting and bold- as Luke admits that he was not an eyewitness. This is in contrast to John who says that he WAS an eyewitness, and Mark (who we know from Acts as John Mark) who said his was transcribed from the recollections of Peter- a major disciple.
So there are headwinds right out of the gate, but let’s go with Luke. My historical reference is Hagan’s “Year of the Passover” which goes into this in more detail.
Dismissing John makes a birthdate for Jesus of A.D. 6 defensible, and also makes plausible the boyhood Temple story. Remember that John’s Gospel has the pesky “not yet fifty” passage and the more cryptic “Temple” reference to Jesus’ age being 46 a year before the crucifixion. John also suggests strongly that Jesus could not read or write make in boy in the Temple story unlikely. But we don’t have to worry about that now.
Also, Matthew’s references to a savagely brutal King Herod and the Star of the East do not have to be taken into account.
The Luke-centric posters have IMO correctly decided on an A.D. 36 date. That fits in nicely with John, actually, and a lot of historical tidbits that are scattered throughout the Gospels. Hagan determined that A.D. 36 was the year when Vitellius visited Jerusalem for the Passover in order to scout out the territory in anticipation of an invasion of Nabotea the next year- so ordered by Tiberius after Herod Antipas’ army was defeated.
Agreeing with the year of crucifixion, Hagan suggests a birth year closer to 11 B.C. The practical difference is that Jesus would have been 47 when crucified instead of 30.
John’s Gospel describes two other Passover’s Jesus observed before his last one- where he was crucified. Luke actually does not rule this out. Luke’s Passover “stories” cover two chapters- the moneychanger incident could have been at an earlier Passover. So that’s a plus.
Let’s start at the beginning with Luke. We hit the “Herod the king” problem early. The association of “Herod” and “Archelaus” might be on a coin, but was never found in the near-contemporaneous writings of Josephus or the NT. It was not common usage. Archelaus either stood alone or was used with “King” or “Ethnarch.”
Augustus ordered that the census was to be “taken of all the world.” Obviously, Augustus didn’t care about Parthia or Nabotea or any other country outside of the Empire, so “world” is open to interpretation. In A.D. 6, Judea and Samaria were turned into official Roman provinces, so they were included- probably the main reason for the census.
Chapter 3 is the Temple story of Jesus when he was twelve, and why not? The date would have been A.D. 18.
Chapter 4 starts with the story of JB ten years later in A.D. 28. The story of his imprisonment closely follows, with no hint of the time passing from his emergence as a prophet and his imprisonment. Of note is that my translation (Sawyer) refers to Herod Antipas as “Herod the tetrarch”. Now, as was pointed out, Archelaus was an ethnarch, and if Luke would have been consistent he would have referred to “Herod the Ethnarch” (Archelaus) as the one in power when Jesus was born. Instead, he used “Herod the King” which would logically seem to refer to the progenitor family ruler Herod the Great.
But shortly after the passage on JB’s arrest Luke talks about Jesus being 30 years of age when baptized by JB. Here is a conundrum, for being 30 years of age in A.D. 28 at the earliest would mean Jesus was born well before A.D. 6. Saying Luke got the age wrong is sort of a cop out- we already cut Luke a lot of slack on the Herod the King problem- and have graciously decided to ignore contrary evidence that undermine;s Luke in the other three Gospels and Josephus.
John the Baptist is referred to sometime later when Jesus is well into his ministry. No reference is given but presumably he is still in prison. John wants to know if Jesus is the Messiah. Then, in a later chapter, Herod the Tetrarch is referred to again, thinking that Jesus might be JB reincarnated, as Herod Antipas had him beheaded previously.
In the rest of Luke there are no instances where dates can be derived, except that Herod the Tetrarch, Pilate, and Caiaphas were all in power when Jesus was crucified.
Admittedly tiring, I am not sure what is gained by clinging to Luke as some sort of reference Gospel. Defending Luke’s veracity on a A.D. 6 birthdate means that Luke is proven to be in error when he said Jesus began his ministry at the age of 30. Can’t have it both ways.
The nature of the beast!
FWIW, Hagan points to Tiberius purging traitors from Rome in late A.D. 31 as a key event. In the bloody upheaval, Hagan argues that three grandchildren of Herod the Great, and siblings, left Rome to seek safety and possibly gain kingdoms in the East. Herodias married Herod Antipas to become a Queen, Herod Agrippa traveled about fruitlessly for years before being crowned a king by Caligula, and Arisobulos gained a powerful position in Asia.
Following the Herod family and how they interconnect with JB and powerful Roman officials will give you a much better understanding of those times, though you must accept some error in the Gospels.
So there are headwinds right out of the gate, but let’s go with Luke. My historical reference is Hagan’s “Year of the Passover” which goes into this in more detail.
Dismissing John makes a birthdate for Jesus of A.D. 6 defensible, and also makes plausible the boyhood Temple story. Remember that John’s Gospel has the pesky “not yet fifty” passage and the more cryptic “Temple” reference to Jesus’ age being 46 a year before the crucifixion. John also suggests strongly that Jesus could not read or write make in boy in the Temple story unlikely. But we don’t have to worry about that now.
Also, Matthew’s references to a savagely brutal King Herod and the Star of the East do not have to be taken into account.
The Luke-centric posters have IMO correctly decided on an A.D. 36 date. That fits in nicely with John, actually, and a lot of historical tidbits that are scattered throughout the Gospels. Hagan determined that A.D. 36 was the year when Vitellius visited Jerusalem for the Passover in order to scout out the territory in anticipation of an invasion of Nabotea the next year- so ordered by Tiberius after Herod Antipas’ army was defeated.
Agreeing with the year of crucifixion, Hagan suggests a birth year closer to 11 B.C. The practical difference is that Jesus would have been 47 when crucified instead of 30.
John’s Gospel describes two other Passover’s Jesus observed before his last one- where he was crucified. Luke actually does not rule this out. Luke’s Passover “stories” cover two chapters- the moneychanger incident could have been at an earlier Passover. So that’s a plus.
Let’s start at the beginning with Luke. We hit the “Herod the king” problem early. The association of “Herod” and “Archelaus” might be on a coin, but was never found in the near-contemporaneous writings of Josephus or the NT. It was not common usage. Archelaus either stood alone or was used with “King” or “Ethnarch.”
Augustus ordered that the census was to be “taken of all the world.” Obviously, Augustus didn’t care about Parthia or Nabotea or any other country outside of the Empire, so “world” is open to interpretation. In A.D. 6, Judea and Samaria were turned into official Roman provinces, so they were included- probably the main reason for the census.
Chapter 3 is the Temple story of Jesus when he was twelve, and why not? The date would have been A.D. 18.
Chapter 4 starts with the story of JB ten years later in A.D. 28. The story of his imprisonment closely follows, with no hint of the time passing from his emergence as a prophet and his imprisonment. Of note is that my translation (Sawyer) refers to Herod Antipas as “Herod the tetrarch”. Now, as was pointed out, Archelaus was an ethnarch, and if Luke would have been consistent he would have referred to “Herod the Ethnarch” (Archelaus) as the one in power when Jesus was born. Instead, he used “Herod the King” which would logically seem to refer to the progenitor family ruler Herod the Great.
But shortly after the passage on JB’s arrest Luke talks about Jesus being 30 years of age when baptized by JB. Here is a conundrum, for being 30 years of age in A.D. 28 at the earliest would mean Jesus was born well before A.D. 6. Saying Luke got the age wrong is sort of a cop out- we already cut Luke a lot of slack on the Herod the King problem- and have graciously decided to ignore contrary evidence that undermine;s Luke in the other three Gospels and Josephus.
John the Baptist is referred to sometime later when Jesus is well into his ministry. No reference is given but presumably he is still in prison. John wants to know if Jesus is the Messiah. Then, in a later chapter, Herod the Tetrarch is referred to again, thinking that Jesus might be JB reincarnated, as Herod Antipas had him beheaded previously.
In the rest of Luke there are no instances where dates can be derived, except that Herod the Tetrarch, Pilate, and Caiaphas were all in power when Jesus was crucified.
Admittedly tiring, I am not sure what is gained by clinging to Luke as some sort of reference Gospel. Defending Luke’s veracity on a A.D. 6 birthdate means that Luke is proven to be in error when he said Jesus began his ministry at the age of 30. Can’t have it both ways.
The nature of the beast!
FWIW, Hagan points to Tiberius purging traitors from Rome in late A.D. 31 as a key event. In the bloody upheaval, Hagan argues that three grandchildren of Herod the Great, and siblings, left Rome to seek safety and possibly gain kingdoms in the East. Herodias married Herod Antipas to become a Queen, Herod Agrippa traveled about fruitlessly for years before being crowned a king by Caligula, and Arisobulos gained a powerful position in Asia.
Following the Herod family and how they interconnect with JB and powerful Roman officials will give you a much better understanding of those times, though you must accept some error in the Gospels.
E
ericc
Guest
Unfortunately you have not proven that it was a mistake. Both Matthew and Luke referred to King Herod in the same time of Jesus and John the Baptist births. Matthew knew clearly the sequence Mat 2:19-22. Since John and Jesus are within 6 months of each other, either both Matthew and Luke are wrong and you are right, or you are wrong and they are right. If you provide the evidence, perhaps you may succeed in convincing us that your position has some merit. Other than that, it is only your opinion.
There is nothing in there that says Jesus was born in 6AD.
If you are banking on solely on the census date of 6AD to determine Jesus DOB, then I suggest that you study the Greek version of Luke 2:1-2. Firstly, the Greek apographē means a registration or an enrollment. It MAY mean a census but not necessarily so. Secondly, the Greek word hēgemoneuontos may mean to govern, rule, command, administer. Quirinius need not be a governor to do that role. As long as is in a position to command and administer the registration, it is appropriate for that choice of word. Peter Plato has explained that clearly to you but you seem to be in a denial mode.
One of the purposes of the Church is to teach truth and not falsehood. You are insinuating that the Church conspired to introduce falsehood into the Bible knowingly. For such a strong accusation, you better provide strong evidence to back up what you said. Otherwise you may be labelled as bearing false witness.
So don’t get hung up on the census and governor translation. Most historians place Jesus birth 6BC-1BC. A 6AD birth claim is a rare position and you have an uphill battle to swing that.
P
PNEUMA
Guest
Why do you think Quirinius was “ἡγεμονίας” in Syria before 6 A.D. ?
P
PNEUMA
Guest
Luke says “about thirty years of age” not exactly thirty years of age.
Luke 3:23 “When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age”
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
P
PNEUMA
Guest
So in order to get it your way, two words in Luke’s account (census and governor) must be translated differently
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
Is there a Greek word for “procurator”? Is it same word Luke uses?
- Status