JoeWallack

JW:
Judge, your link is to Carrier's summary article at my ErrancyWiki. Richard Carrier's full article is here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...quirinius.html

The following is a Summary of why "Matthew" and "Luke" Contradict each other on the supposed year of Jesus' birth. The Key time markers are established by Josephus, the most famous historian of the applicable time period and generally considered an authority for the applicable time, place and people by everyone including Christianity.

Josephus:

--Herod the Great receives Kingdom

----AJ 14.389 & 14.487 & Appian BC 5.75

--Succession by Archelaus of Herod the Great

----AJ 17.191 & WJ 1.665

--Archelaus removed after ten years

----AJ 17.342

--Archelaus removed and Quirinius was made responsible for his
--territory at the time Quirinius was made Governor of Syria.

----AJ 17.354, 18.1, 18.26, 20.102

----Cassius Dio 55.27.6 (removal)

--Roman coins minted in Judea start around 6 CE which is when --Quirinius became Governor of Syria.

The next step is to match up any information from the birth accounts of "Matthew" and "Luke" that correspond to time markers found in Josephus.

Matthew:
1) Per "Matthew" Herod the Great was King when Jesus was born.

2) Per "Matthew" Archelaus succeeded Herod the Great as to part of the Kingdom when Herod the Great died.

Luke
1) Per "Luke" Jesus was born after Quirinius became Governor of Syria and started a Census.

Contradiction
Using Josephus as a Time reference "Matthew" dates Jesus' birth before Archelaus succeeded Herod the Great while "Luke" dates Jesus' birth after Archelaus succeeded Herod the Great and had ruled for ten years.


JW:
The above takes Specific information from "Matthew" and "Luke" and Matches it Directly to Time Markers given by Josephus.

Now try making this Type of Summary from:

The Census of Quintilius Varus

Good luck.



Joseph

BIRTH, n.
The first and direst of all disasters. As to the nature of it there appears to be no uniformity. Castor and Pollux were born from the egg. Pallas came out of a skull. Galatea was once a block of stone. Peresilis, who wrote in the tenth century, avers that he grew up out of the ground where a priest had spilled holy water. It is known that Arimaxus was derived from a hole in the earth, made by a stroke of lightning. Leucomedon was the son of a cavern in Mount Aetna, and I have myself seen a man come out of a wine cellar.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

JoeWallack

JW:
I couldn't find this at the link Judge. Where is it? Maybe in the Aramaic translation?

I did find this though:

http://www.askelm.com/star/star014.htm

"Luke tells us that the reason why both Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem was because he was reckoned as belonging to the house of David. While everyone else went “into his own city” (Luke 2:3) no doubt in their own local neighborhoods, those of royal Judaic lineage because of political implications had to register in Bethlehem. This requirement would allow Herod to know who all claimants were in Judaea to the royal throne of David. He was anxious to know who all these people were (in order to keep them subjected to thorough non-political functions) so that his own dynasty would survive. This was especially important at this time in history because there was then a great deal of messianic expectation among the Jews.

Registering David’s descendants in Bethlehem, the city of David, would have been a ploy not only to get all the people to attend for prestige purposes but for Herod to find out who they were. Since Augustus had ordered that an oath of allegiance be given to him, Herod simply included himself and the legitimacy of his kingdom within the same oath. And since females among the Jews could give Davidic heirship to descendants, Herod included the women as well. This would have given him a complete record of all such claimants to the throne. This could well be why Mary was expected to accompany Joseph. Let us now look at that oath of loyalty mentioned by Josephus in greater detail."



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

JoeWallack

JW:
You should be starting to realize that the scholarship from the site you are quoting here isn't very good. Here's what it says regarding Josephus' dating of Philip:

"Worse Yet, the Manuscripts of Josephus Have Been Edited

Though it is generally accepted that Josephus did write about Jesus of Nazareth in his Antiquities XVIII.63–64, it is felt by many scholars that there has been some alterations in the text to give a favorable account of Jesus as being the Christ. The notes in the Loeb edition of Josephus give the pros and cons of the issue in a fair and concise manner. What this section does indicate is the fact that there have been editings in the text of Josephus by later individuals and one must be careful in accepting all of the statements of Josephus (especially those involving chronological matters where numerical indications are in the text). The fact is, there are manuscripts of Josephus which show variations in the number of years in which important rulers lived and reigned. One of the most important of these vagaries is in regard to the death of Philip, the son of Herod. Josephus said he ruled for 37 years. 26 But note this. The earliest copies of the manuscripts of Josephus show him dying in the twenty-second year of Tiberius. Since Tiberius’ twenty-second year was C.E. 36, this shows that Philip began his reign in 1 B.C.E. (at the very time I am showing in this book that his father Herod died). With modern manuscripts of Josephus copied since the year 1700 C.E., it is common to erroneously read the “twentieth year,” not the older and proper “twenty-second.”

In order to confirm what the various manuscripts of Josephus do in fact state on this matter, David W. Beyer of San Diego, California made a survey of all the major manuscripts of Josephus in the British Museum (plus referring to others in the libraries in Europe) and found that before 1700 C.E., 27 of the manuscripts in the British Museum have the “twenty-second” rather than the “twenty,” while only 3 manuscripts have the “twenty.” But note this. When one consults manuscripts produced before 1544 A.D. (some twenty-five manuscripts), all of them have the number “twenty-two.” Beyer has come to the conclusion that the number “twenty-two” is the correct figure that Josephus wrote. Only in the year 1544 C.E. did the spurious “twenty” begin to come into vogue. 27 There is no doubt that the number “twenty-two” is what Josephus wrote. Indeed, Beyer methodically has reconstructed the manuscript history of these two different numbers regarding Philip’s death as shown in the manuscripts of Josephus (and to his credit, he has done it in a most reasonable way).

So important is Beyer’s work on this matter in giving the real manuscript evidence for the “twenty-second” year of Tiberius for Philip’s death, that Professor John Dominic Crossan asked that Beyer present his research (titled: “Josephus Re-examined: Unraveling the Twenty-Second Year of Tiberius”) at the Historical Jesus Section of the SBL meeting in Philadelphia in November, 1995. Beyer is to be congratulated for presenting a survey of the manuscripts of Josephus on this matter. The survey was long overdue, but Mr. Beyer has now accomplished the job for the scholarly world. What this early manuscript evidence of Josephus shows is the fact that Herod did die in 1 B.C.E. and that Philip his son commenced his reign at the death of Herod in 1 B.C.E. That coordinates precisely with what the historical records show that I present in this book. I am thankful to Mr. Beyer for his painstaking research into the manuscripts which show this fact."


JW:
Here is Richard Carrier's response:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ius.html#Herod

"Was Philip made king in 2 B.C.?

Apart from all this ad hoc assertion, Finegan's only 'case' for his hypothesized mass-coregency is an attempt to redate the reign of just one successor, Philip, according to an obscure textual variant (§ 218). He proposes that in Jewish Antiquities 18.106 "in the twentieth year of Tiberius" should be read as "in the twenty-second year of Tiberius," so that Philip's "thirty-seven year" reign would have begun in 2 B.C. (and thus, so the argument goes, Herod must have died then). The original basis for all this tinkering is the fact that Philip's obituary is indeed placed in Josephus' narrative seemingly around the year 35 or 36. But it is clear that Josephus wrote "twentieth" and not "twenty-second," and analysis shows that Josephus is either wrong about the dates of all the events he places in this year, or else he is compressing many years together, or both. It is therefore most likely that Josephus is correct about when Philip began his reign, just as he is with all the other tetrarchs, and simply misplaced (or loosely placed) his obituary among external Roman events he knew less well.

As evidence of Josephus' confusion about events, Cassius Dio dates the Vitellian parley, which Josephus places before Philip's death, to the reign of Caligula, several years after Philip's death (59.17.5, 59.27.2-3). And it appears that Tacitus may have, too: Vitellius, as a future emperor, is an important person, yet the event is not recorded by Tacitus for the reign of Tiberius, while Tacitus' account of Caligula's reign is lost. Likewise, Tacitus (Annals 6.31) and Cassius Dio (58.26) both date the other Parthian events to 34/35, which Josephus places after 36/37. Thus, while Josephus dates the death of Philip as having happened "about the same time" as all these Parthian affairs (Jewish Antiquities 18.96-105), they did not happen in the same year. Indeed, it appears that the Parthian king Artabanus established his son Arsaces as ruler of Armenia in 33 or 34 A.D., not 36 as Josephus' narrative implies (s.v. "Artabanus" and "Armenia," Oxford Classical Dictionary). Since Josephus clearly did not have a good idea of when the surrounding events actually happened, or else is not discussing a single year at all, he is certainly being too vague to pinpoint an exact year when he says Philip's death happened "around" then. Likewise, right after Philip's obituary, Josephus says "around the same time" Herod and Aretas began to have a falling out, but the narrative of this event spans several years in a matter of a few paragraphs. Thus, very little can be concluded about the date of Philip's death from where Josephus has placed it in his narrative.

What about that obscure textual variant? Finegan's only source for this claim is a mysterious, unpublished speech given by David Beyer.[17.3] In Finegan's summary, he never identifies any actual manuscripts, and though Beyer names them he does not identify their relationship to other manuscripts or their known quality or origins. All Finegan (and Beyer) does is "count manuscripts" and argue that older manuscripts are the most reliable. But neither is true, as any palaeographer knows. We have no way of knowing which of the manuscripts Beyer counted were copies of other extant manuscripts (and thus completely irrelevant to the question), and we have no idea whether the manuscripts he looked at are known to be reliable or unreliable or to what degree or in what ways. Older manuscripts can sometimes be poorer than new manuscripts, since newer ones can be based on even older but more reliable archetypes (see "On Calvinist Scorn of Textual Criticism" for more about textual analysis), and older ones may stem from especially faulty textual traditions. Moreover, Beyer examined only manuscripts in the British Museum and the Library of Congress--yet the best manuscripts are in France and Italy--one of which is the oldest, Codex Ambrosianae F 128, inscribed in the 11th century (the oldest manuscript Beyer examined was 12th century); and another is the most reliable: Codex Vaticanus Graecus 984, transcribed in 1354; both confirming a reading of "twentieth," and thus invalidating all his conclusions from the start. Finegan and Beyer seem ignorant of all of these issues. Consequently, we cannot trust them here.

When, instead, we examine all existing critical editions of Josephus, composed by scholars (Niese, Naber, and Thackeray) who themselves looked at the manuscripts, and properly, identifying relationships among them and assessing their reliability, we find a very different story. First of all, little more than a handful of manuscripts are worth even examining for this passage--yet Beyer is counting dozens (none of which are even among the best), proving that his investigation is completely disregarding the proper criteria of textual analysis. Second, all scholarly editions agree: the word for "twentieth" (eikostô) exists in all extant Greek manuscripts worth considering. Where does the reading "twenty-second" come from? A single manuscript tradition of a Latin translation (which reads vicesimo secundo). Beyer's case completely falls apart here. The Latin translations of Josephus are notoriously inferior, and are never held to be more accurate than extant Greek manuscripts, much less all of them. Indeed, this is well proven here: whereas the Latin has 22 for the year of Tiberius, it also has 32, or even in some editions 35, as the year of Philip, not the 37 that Finegan's argument requires. Thus, clearly the Latin translator has botched all the numbers in this passage. Any manuscripts that Beyer examined were no doubt either from these inferior Latin manuscripts, or Greek translations from these Latin manuscripts. Therefore, there is no basis whatever for adopting "twenty second" as the correct reading. Philip was crowned in 4 B.C. exactly as Josephus says, and just as all the other tetrarchs were who inherited portions of Herod's kingdom. This means Herod died in 4 B.C., exactly as Josephus claims."


JW:
Note that your friend, Jeff, thinks Quack, er, sorry, Jack Finegan, is an authority and Richard Carrier is a quack. The above exercise begs to differ.



Joseph

"And what else floats?" - Sir Bedevere

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

JoeWallack

JW:
If I had wanted to make a primary point that Authority weakens based on the the length of time that has expired since the Authority has expired, I would have mentioned Jesus instead. I just wanted to be sure you knew that Vardaman was dead. In most sciences authors are potentially the best sources of explaining what they meant, with religion being the exception.

I wonder if you understand exactly what the nature is of Vardaman's Magic Coins? Richard Carrier writes:

The Vardaman Coins

So, could you please indicate in this Dedicated Thread exactly what was written on exactly what coin which supports your Assertian that a Quirinius [fill in the blank]?

What I found most reMarkable in Carrier's full article on the subject is being a Professional (with Apologies to Jeffrey) Carrier was somehow able to control the natural urge to simply label Vardaman a "Liar for Jesus" and instead postulated that Vardaman was "insane". Question for the Moderators here. I know (from experience) that accusing a Liar for Jesus here of being a Liar for Jesus is a Violation. If, instead, I accuse the offender of being "Insane for Jesus", would that be a Violation?



Joseph

MAGIC, n.
An art of converting superstition into coin. There are other arts serving the same high purpose, but the discreet lexicographer does not name them.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Toto

Accusing a poster here of insanity would be taken as a personal insult. I think we made an exception for that recent ex-JW transvestite who thought he was Jesus, but that case was unique. (At least, I sincerely hope he is unique...)