Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ted Hoffman · 04-20-2007, 09:56 AM

I am reviewing Sanders The Historical Figure of Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) and He makes the above claim. To be clear about what Sanders argues, read this(what I write):

Quote:

Sanders lists statements that he asserts are almost beyond dispute and that belong to the framework of Jesus’ life. The first statement is that “Jesus was born c. 4 BCE, near the time of the death of Herod the Great” p.10.

But is this claim almost beyond dispute? Sander’s answer appears in the seventh chapter. Critical scholars, including Sanders regard the birth narratives in Matt 1:18-2:23 and Luke 2:1-39 as invented by the evangelists. Sanders notes that the “two gospels have completely different and irreconcilable ways of moving Jesus and his family from one place to the other” p.85. He questions the likelihood of Augustus (who Sanders regards as the most rational of all Caesars before him) issuing a decree requiring people to register in their ancestral homes for tax purposes .

Sanders finds difficulties with Luke’s census which is dated near Herod’s death in 4BCE yet the census took place in 6 CE when Quirinus was the legate of Syria as we know from both Josephus and an ancient inscription. Another problem besides the date conflict is that Rome took a census of people who lived in Judea Samaria and Idumaea, not Galilee as Luke asserts. And even then, Sanders notes, there was no requirement for travel. Sanders notes down all these problems then suggests that the most likely explanation for Luke’s account is that he or his source accidentally combined 4 BCE (Herod’s death) and 6CE which was Quirinus’ census (p.87). Sanders writes that after the source had ‘discovered’ that there was a census at the time of Herod, he decided to elaborate the event to make it a reason for Joseph to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem .

Sander’s basis for assigning weight to the possibility that Luke accidentally combined 4BCE and 6CE is the assertion of Roman historian Ronald Syme, that similarities between 4BCE and 6CE lead to confusion. And Syme’s assertion is further based on the claim that W. W. Tarn “a well-known Hellenistic historian, once wrote that Herod died in 6CE” (see note 3).

In essence, Sanders is treating this noted incident as sufficient evidence of a phenomenon. He then proceeds to ascribe Luke’s alleged error to that phenomenon. This, of course, is not sound methodology. In the first place, the idea that there are “similarities” between 4BCE and 6CE does not make sense. Of course there may have been similar events that took place between those two years, like the riots as Sanders mentions. But there is no sufficient evidence to support the idea that 4BCE could be mistaken for 6CE. In addition, there is no support in HFoJ that scholars have agreed in c. 4BCE.

Note 3:
Sanders references Joseph Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke I-IX (or via: amazon.co.uk), 1981, pp. 404f. He notes that Fitzmyer “cites the distinguished Roman historian, Ronald Syme. Syme pointed out that the similarities between 4 BCE and 6CE easily led to confusion and still sometimes do: W. W. Tarn, a well-known Hellenistic historian, once wrote that Herod died in 6CE.” p.300

Ted Hoffman · 04-20-2007, 10:53 AM

Is Sanders guilty of trying to harmonize the gospels? I note:

Quote:

Sanders finds several difficulties with Luke’s census. One difficulty is that Luke “dates it near Herod’s death (4BCE) and also ten years later, when Quirinus was the legate of Syria (6CE).” p.86. This statement is misleading and sets the stage for Sander’s efforts to extract a date from Luke. It is not correct to state that Luke assigns two different dates to the census. Luke claims in 2.1-2 that Jesus was born during a census that was held when Quirinius was governing Syria, period. And we know from the Jewish historian Josephus that this census took place in 6CE around ten years after Herod the great had died. Herod died in 4BCE yet Matthew 2:1-3 claims that Jesus was born while Herod the great was still alive, probably two years before he died (Matthew 2:7-16). What we are seeing here is Sander’s harmonization between Luke and Matthew presented as a double date by Luke. We shall revisit this below.

Is Sanders guilty of misleading the readers?
Carrier concludes:

Quote:

There is no way to rescue the Gospels of Matthew and Luke from contradicting each other on this one point of historical fact. The contradiction is plain and irrefutable, and stands as proof of the fallibility of the Bible, as well as the falsehood of at least one of the two New Testament accounts of the birth of Jesus.

Ben C Smith · 04-20-2007, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

It is not correct to state that Luke assigns two different dates to the census. Luke claims in 2.1-2 that Jesus was born during a census that was held when Quirinius was governing Syria, period.

Luke also seems to date the beginning of the ministry to the fifteenth year of Tiberius, and says that Jesus was about 30 years old when it began. This is another way to arrive at an admittedly approximate birthdate for Jesus. When, more or less, would you date the birth of Jesus based on this datum alone, without reference to either Matthew or the census in Luke?

Ben.

Ben C Smith · 04-20-2007, 11:41 AM

One more thing. Sanders is probably interpreting the Herod of Luke 1.5 as Herod the great.

Ben.

rob117 · 04-20-2007, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Luke also seems to date the beginning of the ministry to the fifteenth year of Tiberius, and says that Jesus was about 30 years old when it began. This is another way to arrive at an admittedly approximate birthdate for Jesus. When, more or less, would you date the birth of Jesus based on this datum alone, without reference to either Matthew or the census in Luke?

Ben.

Well the Romans used post-dating, meaning the year an emperor died would be counted as his last full year, with the next full year being year 1 of his successor. Since Augustus died in AD 14:

Year 1 of Tiberius= AD 15

+14

=

Year 15 of Tiberius= AD 29

Thus, Luke would put Jesus' birth at around 1 BC if we take the "about thirty years old" as precise, but the figure seems approximate. Luke's reference to the Quirinius census would put the birth (in his estimation) in 6 AD. This would make Jesus 23 or 24 at the start of his ministry, which is a little too far away from 30 to be considered "around 30".

Overall, it just seems he wasn't really bothering to verify his dates, which is strange as they would have been readily available to him in any of the historians of his day.

Ben C Smith · 04-20-2007, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob117

Well the Romans used post-dating, meaning the year an emperor died would be counted as his last full year, with the next full year being year 1 of his successor. Since Augustus died in AD 14:

Year 1 of Tiberius= AD 15

+14

=

Year 15 of Tiberius= AD 29

Thus, Luke would put Jesus' birth at around 1 BC if we take the "about thirty years old" as precise, but the figure seems approximate.

You mean 2 BC.

29 - 30 = -1, but there is no year zero holding a place between 1 BC and 1 AD, so we have to back up another year.

But thanks for the insightful contribution.

Ben.

aa5874 · 04-20-2007, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Luke also seems to date the beginning of the ministry to the fifteenth year of Tiberius, and says that Jesus was about 30 years old when it began. This is another way to arrive at an admittedly approximate birthdate for Jesus. When, more or less, would you date the birth of Jesus based on this datum alone, without reference to either Matthew or the census in Luke?

Ben.

But couldn't Luke have made an error when he wrote Jesus was about 30 years old, perhaps he meant about 20 years old? Or it could be the 5th year of Tiberius instead of the 15th.

Ben C Smith · 04-20-2007, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But couldn't Luke have made an error when he wrote Jesus was about 30 years old, perhaps he meant about 20 years old? Or it could be the 5th year of Tiberius instead of the 15th.

Anything is possible. What I like to find out is what is probable.

Ben.

jgibson000 · 04-20-2007, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Is Sanders guilty of trying to harmonize the gospels? I note:

Is Sanders guilty of misleading the readers?

No, he is not -- as would readily be seen if you and Carrier had not selectively quoted him, but instead given the full context of the passage from which your quote is taken.

The only one doing the misleading here is Carrier (and you) if he (and you) claim(s) that Sanders is attempting to harmonize Matthew with Luke.

For as Sanders says in the first sentence on p. 86:

"It is not possible for both these stories (i.e., Matt. 1:18-2:23; Lk. 2:1-39) to be accurate. It is improbable that either is."

He also notes on the same page that the "device" Luke uses to move Mary and Joseph from Nazareth to Bethlehem (the exigencies of the "registration"), is "fantastic" -- i.e., not to be believed.

I have on any number of previous occasions accused you and Carrier of misquoting/ misrepresenting what a given "historicist" author says in order to "prove" that that author cannot be trusted/ is an apologist, etc. etc.

Thanks for once again providing proof that this indeed is exactly what you do.

JG

Steven Avery · 04-20-2007, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000

For as Sanders says in the first sentence on p. 86:

"It is not possible for both these stories (i.e., Matt. 1:18-2:23; Lk. 2:1-39) to be accurate. It is improbable that either is."

And does Sanders say exactly what is his perceived (supposed) impossiblity ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-20-2007, 11:41 AM	#4
Ben C Smith Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Midwest Posts: 4,787	One more thing. Sanders is probably interpreting the Herod of Luke 1.5 as Herod the great. Ben.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.