judge

Sure sounds fine by me.

spin

Luke provides a terminus post quem (the earliest starting point) for the period we are looking at with the indications that 1) Quirinius ruled Syria and 2) he performed a registration at that time. The registration was for tax purposes when Judah was annexed. It had nothing to do with inhabitants of Galilee, who came under the administration of Herod Antipas. When the lunar eclipse occurred will not change these facts. Perhaps you'd like to say that Quirinius carried out the tax registration for the annexation of Judah on the dethronement of Archelaus before Herod died.

Luke, as I said, indicates that Quirinius ruled Syria. This is consistent with Quirinius's having been a consul in 12 BCE, for Syria was a proconsular province -- and someone of consular rank did not take public positions which were seen to be inferior to one's status, so Quirinius was certainly never a lowly procurator, a position granted to equestrians and freedmen. Perhaps you'd like to say that Quirinius ruled Syria at an earlier date as well, though we have clear indications of the rulers of Syria back to the time of M. Vipsanius Agrippa, ie when Quirinius was made a consul and before he was eligible for proconsular postings.


spin

judge

As mentioned earlier, the dates of the lunar ecplipses are the one element that connot be overturned, they are set in stone, all the other stuff you mention have more than one possible explantion.


Well there can be alot of perhaps's.
Perhaps Luke got Qurinius wrong.
Perhaps Qurinius had some office or some involvement in the registration at in 3-2BCE.
I am not aware of anything which definitely rules this out, however unlikely it may appear or despite the lack of evidence.
What we do know is that from Lukes chronology of jesus baptism by John the baptist, Luke cannot have been thinking of the 6CE taxation registration. The years are just too far out.

So Luke for some reason we dont know, thought that Quirinius had some office in Syria during 3-2 BCE when an oathtaking happened.

We also know that Josephus provides contradictory information about just when Herod died. Did hew get his chronology wrong and use this wrong chronology in his work?
It is possible and seems probable if we try to find the lunar eclipse.

judge

But was Luke referring to the 3BCE oathtaking? This is the question.

This is not the 6CE census because it is the "first" census. We know that Augustus conducted earlier registrations. We know that one happened in 3-2BCE

From here...The Census of Quintilius Varus.

From looking at the dates Luke gives us for John the baptist's ministry and that Jesus came and was baptised, it seems clear Luke must have meant this one, not the 6CE census 8-9 years later on.

If Luke meant the 6CE census then Johns ministry cannot have begun in the 15th year of Tiberius, but Luke tells us this is when it happened.

Added in edit:
In the light of this it seems reasonable to at least consider the earlier oathtaking.

spin

This has nothing to do with Luke or Quirinius.

We know Augustus caused only three censuses to be carried out. None of them was in 3-2BCE.

Which is irrelevant to Luke's registration. It's a fub, judge. The oath business is a conning appeal to people who want to resolve this. Luke is quite clear when he talks of an apografh, enrolment for tax purposes.

Only if you import ideas from elsewhere.

All you need to do is to overlook the reference to Quirinius, to him ruling Syria and to a reference to a Roman sponsored registration for taxation purposes. In Herod's time he did the taxation himself and the Romans left it up to him.

If you don't want to use what Luke actually said, then there is no problem at all. Just forget the apparent problem, rather than pervert the text. You can't have it both ways.


spin

spin

What sort of office could that have been that maintained his consular rank??

What sort of office could Quirinius hold in an imperial province which was not as legate? He could not hold the demeaning office of procurator, which was for equestrians and freedmen. How can you propose an office which fits the rigid class structure but which was not to Quirinius's achievements, ie as consul?

There is nothing in Luke to suggest this.

There is nothing in Luke to suggest this either.

Nor do we know this for sure either. Whatever the case, it doesn't change the fact of Quirinius taking the census at the end of the reign of Archelaus for taxation purposes.

His chronology has nothing to do with the census of Quirinius. It is dated by the length of the reign of Archelaus, ie 10 years after Herod's death.

If you want to think Luke got it wrong when he talks of Quirinius, fine. But your other suggestions don't work and your motivations to discount the Quirinius evidence are clearly dictated because you don't like the evidence as it stands.


spin

judge

There is and it needs to be dealt with. It needs to be explained. I know you understand this concept as you are very good at trying to explain evidence on your own here on this forum.

We can't just ignore lukes reference to the 15 year of Tiberius in Luke 3, and then the mention that Jesus was about 30 years of age when he began his ministry.

It is not good enough to take one part of luke and which refers to an event and not match it up with what is mentioned just one chapter later.

We know the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius, so we know that Luke cannot be thinking of 6CE.

Additionally we can't cherry pick from Josephus. Josephus tells us about an ecplipse associated with the death of Herod. Josephus's chronology is not set in stone but the date of the eclipse is.
It is not possible to move the eclipse but it is possible to hypothesise as to how Josephus may have become confused.
We must consider that this is a possibility.

Here is one suggestion of how this might have happened, maybe it is right and maybe it is wrong, but we know we need to look for an explanation in light of the eclipse data.

from here Yet Another Eclipse for Herod

judge

Well, you seem to adding to the text here by insisting that this registration had to do with taxation.

http://www.zhubert.com/word?word=?p?...&number=619149

As we can see from this it does not mean taxation.

spin

I have asked you several times what you think the meaning of apografh is. That will tell you the story. It's the same word used by Josephus in AJ 18.1.1 (18.3).

Quirinius also visited Judaea, which had been annexed to Syria, in order to make an assessment of the property of the Jews and liquidate the estate of Archelaus. Although the Jews were at first shocked to hear of the registration of property, they gradually condescended, yielding to the arguments of the high priest Joazar, the son of Boethius, to go no further in opposition. So those who were convinced by him declared, without shilly-shallying, the value of their property. Judas, a Gaulanite, from the city of Gamala, who had enlisted the aid of Saddok, a Pharisee, threw himself into the cause of rebellion.

And see Acts 5:37:

Judas the Galilean rose up at the time of the census and got people to follow him.

Acts clearly refers to the census (of Quirinius), the cause of Judas's rebellion against Rome, ie the census Luke talks about in 6 CE. Of course, you might want the translation of apografh here to be changed, so that it didn't mean "census" in Roman terms, ie registration of properties for taxation purposes. The word hasn't got a thing to do with oaths, but with lists of property, usually for taxation purposes.

Liddell and Scott tell us that an apografeos was a registrar, that an apografh was

1. a list or register of land or property, [for what purpose?]
2. a list of moneys claimed by the state from private persons, [umm, for tax?]
3. a register of persons liable to taxation,
4. Roman census lists,
5. a written declaration before a magistrate, esp. declaration of property or persons liable to taxation

(You can see that Zhubert cribbed from L&S.)

Of course I insist that this registration had to do with taxation. That's what the evidence indicates.


spin

Jack the Bodiless

Nope, this earlier census would not be the "first" census after Quirinius became governor of Syria. So what are you talking about?

You seem to be trying to make something of Luke's use of the word "first", as it seems to imply other censuses during the governorship of Quirinius. But, as we don't know what source Luke was using: why assume this? Obviously, if anyone comes up with another census after 6 CE, the issue is settled: but, even without such a find, a source written during the governorship of Quirinius would have no way of knowing whether there might be a second census in the future, therefore "first" would be a sensible qualifier to use, to avoid possible confusion.