Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 01-05-2010, 08:25 AM

JW:
I've posted another response to MG's Podcast here:

http://podacre.blogspot.com/2009/12/...22061219064146

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

maryhelena · 01-05-2010, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Luke does contradict himself - at least at a surface reading...
If his Jesus is born in 6 CE - then this Jesus was only 23 years old, and not about 30 years old, in the 15th year of Tiberius in 29/30 CE.

JW:
The excerpt I gave from Carrier indicates that "Luke" does not necessarily contradict herself here but I'll simplify Carrier's observation.

We agree that per "Luke's" Quirinius' time marker, Jesus was born c. 6. The next relevant marker is:

Well, if I add 30 years to 6 CE I get 36/37 CE - and this, logically, does not make Luke's Jesus around 30 years of age in 29/30 CE - the 15th year of Tiberius. Luke's Jesus, born in 6 CE - is around 30 years old in 36/37 CE - and supposedly begins his ministry at that age. (a date still in harmony with Pilate - 26 CE to 36 CE.)

Seeing that Luke is writing about two births, Jesus and John - and using the 15th year of Tiberius as a marker of sorts - then by simply applying his 30 years backwards - the year 1 BC becomes a possible birth date for John the Baptist. It is John that begins preaching in that 15th year of Tiberius - to suppose that Luke's Jesus does likewise is perhaps to read too much into the text?

(a bit like what Mark Goodacre has done in his reply to your comment on his site.....he is upholding the idea - unsupported by the text -
"On the time issue, Elizabeth is six months pregnant when Mary visits her, so they have overlapping pregnancies." One can assume the overlapping pregnancies - but I don't think there is a strong textual need to do so....)

Quote:

Luke 3

The date here can be c. 30. Note that the time marker is the start of John's Ministry and not Jesus'. That is Carrier's point. "Luke's" narrative is describing a time lag between the Ministries:

Indeed, a very important point...

Quote:

"And he came into all the region round about the Jordan"

"And the multitudes asked him"

"Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized"

How long the time lag - the six months normally assumed between the births of John and Jesus - or something considerably longer - a possibility that Luke's rather ambiguous text leaves open...

Quote:

The final time marker is:

So let's do the Matthew. Jesus born 6 (a sign of the devil?) CE. John's Ministry starts 30 when Jesus is 24. If Jesus' Ministry started 2 years later, than Jesus would have been 26 at the start of his Ministry. If Jesus was 26 here than "Luke" could have described him at this time at "about 30". As Chef Talltell would say, "Very simple, very easy, very niice."

What's strange here is that "Luke's" time marker for the Ministry is for John and not Jesus. My guess is that the original time marker was for Jesus here as evidenced by Marcion:

The Gospel of the Lord

Quote:

1. In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,
2. [Pontius Pilatus being the Governor of Judaea,] Jesus came down to Capernaum, a city in Galilee, and was

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Ah - but why bring Matthew into attempts to understand Luke's two birth narratives?? At least with regard to trying to understand the relationship - time lag - between John and Jesus. Matthew offers nothing here.

If one wants to bring the time-line of Matthew's Jesus into Luke's storyline - then it's not Luke's two nativity stories that we bring Matthew's time-line into - but rather into, connect to, Luke's own connection of the 15th year of Tiberius - with the rule of Lysanias of Abilene. A 70 year period - which fits well with Matthew's Jesus being born sometime during the reign of Herod the Great i.e. from 37 BC to 4 BC. Thus, no contradictions between Matthew and Luke - only contradictions in the usual attempt to join together two separate time-lines for the gospel storyline of a mythological, figurative, or symbolic Jesus figure - and turn them into a time line for an assumed historical Jesus...

Lysanias of Abilene

Quote:

Lysanias was the ruler of a small realm on the western slopes of Mount Hermon, attested to by the Jewish writer Josephus and in coins from circa 40 BC.

Assuming that there were two Jesus storylines - a merger, a fusing, of certain historical people into the Jesus mythology - too big a step to take? Well, as they say - let the evidence speak - and in this case the time-lines of Luke and Matthew. The alternative - well - just live with the idea that Luke is a very bad historian and can't be trusted....

JoeWallack · 01-05-2010, 09:20 AM

N/A

*Be wery, wery quiet. I told MG that Tatian did not have an Infancy Narrative, but he did. He just doesn't have genealogies. Tatian actually "harmonizes" Quirinius with Herod the Great (my biggest regret here is that Apologists are not aware of this and never cite it as evidence that Quirinius was Governor twice.). Let's see how much effort MG makes correcting me verses correcting himself.

rhutchin · 01-05-2010, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

Goodacre says that there are grammatical problems posed by reading Luke 2:2 as referencing a census before that of Quirinius, but he does not elaborate. However, there is a good article by Daniel B. Wallace, Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, whose "textbook on intermediate Greek grammar...is used in more than two-thirds of the nation’s schools that teach that subject." Wallace writes:

Quote:

Second, it has sometimes been suggested that the text should be translated, “this census was before the census which Quirinius, governor of Syria, made.”2 It is argued that other comparative expressions sometimes have elided words (as in John 5:36 and 1 Cor 1:25) and, therefore, such is possible here. In spite of the ingenuity of this translation, the basis for it is insufficient, for the following reasons: (a) In both John 5:36 and 1 Cor 1:25, the genitive immediately follows the comparative adjective, making the comparison explicit, while in this text Kurhnivou is far removed from prwvth and, in fact, is genitive because it is part of a genitive absolute construction.3 Thus, what must necessarily be supplied in those texts is neither necessary nor natural in this one.4 (b) This view presupposes that au{th modifies ajpografhv. But since the construction is anarthrous, such a view is almost impossible (because when a demonstrative functions attributively to a noun the noun is almost always articular);5 a far more natural translation would be “This is the first census . . .” rather than “this census is . . .”

Third, prwvth is sometimes regarded as adverbial: “this census took place before Quirinius was governor of Syria.”6 The advantage of this approach is that it eludes the historical problem of Quirinius’ governorship overlapping the reign of Herod. However, like the previous view, it erroneously presupposes that au{th modifies ajpografhv. Further, it ignores the concord between prwvth and ajpografhv, making the adjective most likely to function adjectivally, rather than adverbially. Actually, the adjective functions similarly to John 1:15, 30, but in both places a genitive immediately follows. Also, if this governed the participial phrase, as Hoehner believes, a number of other constructions would be far more natural (and we might justifiably expect Luke's grammar to be somewhat “natural,” especially in his editorial sections [since such sections are not from other sources, but are in Luke’s own words]).

I would also add that if there really were a census which required "that all the world should be registered" and then another one under Quirinius, it would seem rather strange for Gamaliel to refer simply to "the census" in Acts 5:37, which is apparently a reference to that under Quirinius since Gamaliel mentions "Judas the Galilean," who Josephus tells us revolted during Quirinius' census. Note, too, that in the Josephus passage, Judas is said to have called the census "an introduction to slavery," which seems odd if there had already been an empire-wide census circa 4 BCE.

There are two statements by Luke that concern us.

1. "...this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria." [Luke 2:2]

2. "After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing,..." [Acts 5:37]

The term, "taxing," apparently refers to a census. That Luke says, "first," in Luke 2 indicates that there were more than one such event (perhaps the census of Acts 5 was the second one). The more notable census, perhaps because of the revolts it engendered, is described as "the" census by Gamaliel. So, Luke identifies a "first," and perhaps less remembered, census which would have preceded that referred to by Gamaliel.

While the translators associate the census with "taxing," this may not be the case. It may have been related to the succession of Augustus and perhaps a power-sharing arrangement with the potential successor and the need to know how many people were under Roman rule. Or perhaps to a potential shift in power involving Herod. Regardless the purpose, Luke's use of the term, "first," clearly indicates more than one census while the article, "the," in Acts indicates the more notable one.

The issue involving Quirinius is complicated because "governor" may not be the exact translation of the Greek text. It could refer to the power Quirinius exercised as a military commander especially if one of his duties was to ensure the orderly conduct of the census.

The second census conducted when Quirinius was actually governor of Syria may have been seen as "an introduction to slavery" if this fit the reputation Quirinius had gained as governor.

JoeWallack · 01-06-2010, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

Goodacre says that there are grammatical problems posed by reading Luke 2:2 as referencing a census before that of Quirinius, but he does not elaborate. However, there is a good article by Daniel B. Wallace, Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, whose "textbook on intermediate Greek grammar...is used in more than two-thirds of the nation’s schools that teach that subject." Wallace writes:

Quote:

Second, it has sometimes been suggested that the text should be translated, “this census was before the census which Quirinius, governor of Syria, made.”2 It is argued that other comparative expressions sometimes have elided words (as in John 5:36 and 1 Cor 1:25) and, therefore, such is possible here. In spite of the ingenuity of this translation, the basis for it is insufficient, for the following reasons: (a) In both John 5:36 and 1 Cor 1:25, the genitive immediately follows the comparative adjective, making the comparison explicit, while in this text Kurhnivou is far removed from prwvth and, in fact, is genitive because it is part of a genitive absolute construction.3 Thus, what must necessarily be supplied in those texts is neither necessary nor natural in this one.4 (b) This view presupposes that au{th modifies ajpografhv. But since the construction is anarthrous, such a view is almost impossible (because when a demonstrative functions attributively to a noun the noun is almost always articular);5 a far more natural translation would be “This is the first census . . .” rather than “this census is . . .”

Third, prwvth is sometimes regarded as adverbial: “this census took place before Quirinius was governor of Syria.”6 The advantage of this approach is that it eludes the historical problem of Quirinius’ governorship overlapping the reign of Herod. However, like the previous view, it erroneously presupposes that au{th modifies ajpografhv. Further, it ignores the concord between prwvth and ajpografhv, making the adjective most likely to function adjectivally, rather than adverbially. Actually, the adjective functions similarly to John 1:15, 30, but in both places a genitive immediately follows. Also, if this governed the participial phrase, as Hoehner believes, a number of other constructions would be far more natural (and we might justifiably expect Luke's grammar to be somewhat “natural,” especially in his editorial sections [since such sections are not from other sources, but are in Luke’s own words]).

I would also add that if there really were a census which required "that all the world should be registered" and then another one under Quirinius, it would seem rather strange for Gamaliel to refer simply to "the census" in Acts 5:37, which is apparently a reference to that under Quirinius since Gamaliel mentions "Judas the Galilean," who Josephus tells us revolted during Quirinius' census. Note, too, that in the Josephus passage, Judas is said to have called the census "an introduction to slavery," which seems odd if there had already been an empire-wide census circa 4 BCE.

JW:
The above is accepted by most Christian Bible scholars and as far as I know there are no Christian Bible translations of "before". This is a good litmus test for identifying Apologists.

Dr. Carrier, in his famous article, gives an even more detailed explanation here:

Did Luke Mean "Before" Quirinius?

Quote:

Some have tried to argue that the Greek of Luke actually might mean a census "before" the reign of Quirinius rather than the "first" census in his reign. As to this, even Sherwin-White remarks that he has "no space to bother with the more fantastic theories...such as that of W. Heichelheim's (and others') suggestion (Roman Syria, 161) that prôtê in Luke iii.2 means proteron, [which] could only be accepted if supported by a parallel in Luke himself."[10.1] He would no doubt have elaborated if he thought it worthwhile to refute such a "fantastic" conjecture. For in fact this argument is completely disallowed by the rules of Greek grammar. First of all, the basic meaning is clear and unambiguous, so there is no reason even to look for another meaning. The passage says hautê apographê prôtê egeneto hêgemoneuontos tês Syrias Kyrêniou, or with interlinear translation, hautê(this) apographê(census) prôtê[the] (first) egeneto(happened to be) hêgemoneuontos[while] (governing) tês Syrias(Syria) Kyrêniou[was] (Quirinius). The correct word order, in English, is "this happened to be the first census while Quirinius was governing Syria." This is very straightforward, and all translations render it in such a manner.

It does not matter if Luke meant that he knew of a second census under Quirinius, since we have already shown that if there were one it would have occurred some time after 6 A.D. Nevertheless, the passage implies nothing about a second census under Quirinius. We have no reason to believe Quirinius served as governor again, or long enough to conduct another census, and the Greek does not require such a reading. The use of the genitive absolute (see below) means one can legitimately put a comma between the main clause and the Quirinius clause (since an absolute construction is by definition grammatically independent): thus, this was the first census ever, which just happened to occur when Quirinius was governor. The fact that Luke refers to the census from the start as the outcome of a decree of Augustus clearly supports this reading: this was the first Augustan census in Judaea since the decree. Another observation is made by Klaus Rosen, who compares Luke's passage with an actual census return from Roman Arabia in 127 A.D. and finds that he gets the order of key features of such a document correct: first the name of the Caesar (Augustus), then the year since the province's creation (first), and then the name of the provincial governor (Quirinius). Luke even uses the same word as the census return does for "governed" (hêgemoneuein), and the real census return also states this in the genitive absolute exactly as Luke does.[10.2] This would seem an unlikely coincidence, making it reasonable that Luke is dating the census the way he knows censuses are dated. Luke's passage lacks a lot of other typical features of a census return (e.g. the year of the emperor), but brevity can account for that, and while Rosen assumes Luke's prôtê refers to a year, since every province begins with a census and extant census returns indicate the year in that way, we needn't assume that's what Luke is doing, though he may have his inspiration from it. In Luke's context, what he intends to convey is that this is the first Augustan census of Judaea (as opposed to later ones) and that this happened under Quirinius.

But even if one wanted to render it differently, the basic rules of Greek ensure that there is simply no way this can mean "before" Quirinius in this construction. What is usually argued is that prôtê can sometimes mean "before," even though it is actually the superlative of "before" (proteros), just as "most" is the superlative of "more." Of course, if "before" were really meant, Luke would have used the correct adjective (such as proterê or prin), as Sherwin-White implies, since we have no precedent in Luke for such a use. Instead, Luke uses prin (Luke 2:26, 22:61; Acts 2:20, 7:2, 25:16), so he would surely have used the same idiom here, had that been his intended meaning. But there is a deeper issue involved. The word prôtê can only be rendered as "before" in English when "first" would have the same meaning--in other words, the context must require such a meaning. For in reality the word never really means "before" in Greek. It always means "first," but sometimes in English (just as in Greek) the words "first" and "before" are interchangeable, when "before" means the same thing as "first." For example, "in the first books" can mean the same thing as "in the previous books" (Aristotle, Physics 263.a.11; so also Acts 1:1). Likewise, "the earth came first in relation to the sea" can mean the same thing as "the earth came before the sea" (Heraclitus 31).[10.3]

Nevertheless, what is usually offered in support of a "reinterpretation" of the word is the fact that when prôtos can be rendered "before" it is followed by a noun in the genitive (the genitive of comparison), and in this passage the entire clause hêgemoneuontos tês Syrias Kyrêniou is in the genitive. But this does not work grammatically. The word hêgemoneuontos is not a noun, but a present participle (e.g. "jogging," "saying," "filing," hence "ruling") in the genitive case with a subject (Kyrêniou) also in the genitive. Whenever we see that we know that it is a construction called a "genitive absolute," and thus it doesn't make sense to regard it as a genitive connected to the "census" clause. In fact, that is ruled out immediately by the fact that the verb (egeneto) stands between the census clause and the ruling clause--in order for the ruling clause to be in comparison with the census clause, it would have to immediately follow or precede the adjective "first," but since it doesn't, and the entire clause is separated from the rest of the sentence, it can only be an absolute construction. A genitive absolute does have many possible renderings, e.g. it can mean "while" or "although" or "after" or "because" or "since," but none allow the desired reinterpretation here.[10.4]

John 1:15 and 1:30 are a case in point: the context is clearly established by the point of contrast being made, "he who comes after me [opisô mou] is ahead of me [emprosthen mou] because he was before me [prôtê mou]." Again, the meaning is "because he was first [in relation] to me," especially since the subject is Jesus, who was just described as the first of all creation (1:1-14). So here we have an example of when prôtos means "before," yet all the grammatical requirements are met for such a meaning, which are not met in Luke 2:2: the genitive here is not a participle with subject, but a lone pronoun (thus in the genitive of comparison); the genitive follows immediately after the adjective; and the earlier prepositions (opisô and emprosthen) establish the required context. Since this is clearly not the same construction as appears in Luke 2:2, it provides no analogy.[10.5] And this is in John. Luke never uses prôtos as "before" in such a chronological sense.

As a genitive absolute, further separated from prôtê by a verb, the Quirinius clause cannot have any grammatical connection with prôtê. It therefore cannot mean "before" in this context. Nor does it make any sense to "retranslate" the phrase as "this census happened to be most important when Quirinius was governing Syria."[10.6] That requires a context in order for the word "first" to be read as modifying an actual or implied adjective of "importance," but no such adjective is present or implied. Instead, the narrative clearly intends to explain why Joseph is going to Bethlehem. A digression away from that point would require an explanation, simply to make the digression intelligible. Since Luke gives no such explanation, he cannot have intended this to be a digression, much less one so obscurely worded. Luke can only have meant this to be the reason for Joseph's journey, and that's how every ancient reader would have read it. Therefore, "this [Augustan] census first happened [in Judaea] when Quirinius was governing Syria" is the only contextually plausible reading of Luke's Greek. Any other interpretation convicts Luke of being a talentless and unintelligible author.

Besides making no sense grammatically, neither of these alternatives fits the fact that no census before Quirinius would have affected Joseph or Bethlehem, as shall be demonstrated below. Therefore, Luke cannot have meant "before" (either directly or indirectly) unless he was fabricating the whole story.

JW:
Note that Dr. Carrier gives a fuller discussion of the context issue. The natural reading is "first" based on the grammatical construction. The range of the offending word does include "before" but the context here prevents that possibility.

As I mentioned, presumably MG thinks Stephen Carlson's proposed "foremost" is at least as unlikely as "before".

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 01-06-2010, 01:08 PM

"Mark Goodacre said...

Thanks for your interesting comments, Joe. I particularly like "Let's do the Matthew"!"

JW:
Hmmm. Goodacre is making it hard for me to be my usual jerky self.

maryhelena · 01-06-2010, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

"Mark Goodacre said...

Thanks for your interesting comments, Joe. I particularly like "Let's do the Matthew"!"

JW:
Hmmm. Goodacre is making it hard for me to be my usual jerky self.

Maybe he did a course at a charm school :angel: and knows how to sweet talk himself out of tight corners when those pesky little devils come at him....:devil3:

JoeWallack · 01-07-2010, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

There are two statements by Luke that concern us.

1. "...this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria." [Luke 2:2]

2. "After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing,..." [Acts 5:37]

The term, "taxing," apparently refers to a census. That Luke says, "first," in Luke 2 indicates that there were more than one such event (perhaps the census of Acts 5 was the second one). The more notable census, perhaps because of the revolts it engendered, is described as "the" census by Gamaliel. So, Luke identifies a "first," and perhaps less remembered, census which would have preceded that referred to by Gamaliel.

JW:
The background is that Herod the Great taxes Israel to 4 BCE. Archelaus succeeds him in Judea and taxes Judea to 6 CE. The big change, as far as Judea is concerned, is that Quirinius, a Roman, starts taxing Israel in 6 CE. Josephus explains in detail, the resentment in Israel over being taxed by foreigners. The Roman census/taxation starts than in 6 CE but it is now an institution (continuous activity). It is this census that everyone refers to and there is no evidence of any other census in Judea during Jesus' supposed life.

The use of "first" by "Luke" is completely consistent with the one new taxation system started in 6 CE. 6 CE was the first year of the census/taxation, but it was an ongoing process. The permanent United States Federal income tax started in 1913. This was first when Woodrow Wilson was President of the US.

There is no evidence of any other census than the one started by Quirinius in this time period so there is no context for Acts to refer to any other census. Wallace righteously points out that this is the other problem with the "before" translation, there is no evidence of any other census.

Quote:

The issue involving Quirinius is complicated because "governor" may not be the exact translation of the Greek text. It could refer to the power Quirinius exercised as a military commander especially if one of his duties was to ensure the orderly conduct of the census.

The second census conducted when Quirinius was actually governor of Syria may have been seen as "an introduction to slavery" if this fit the reputation Quirinius had gained as governor.

JW:
One of the appeals of Dr, Carrier's article is that he has dealt with all possible defenses, reasonable and unreasonable. Here he deals with the defense that "Luke" is not referring to Quirinius' governorship in 6 CE:

Inventing Another Governorship for Quirinius

Quote:

Even fishing a different date out of Luke would leave a contradiction within Luke, since the only chronological detail about Jesus that Luke is absolutely clear on is that he was born during "the first census when Quirinius was governing Syria" (2:2). All evidence confirms that Quirinius first became governor of Syria in 6 C.E. and the first Roman census of Judaea occurred at that time, and Luke clearly says this was a Roman census (2:1-6). So Luke didn't leave much room to maneuver. To reconcile Luke with Matthew, one must invent two facts nowhere in evidence: some other Syrian governorship for Quirinius and some other census affecting Judaea, both before Herod the Great died.

But trying to invent an earlier Syrian governorship for Quirinius is a lost cause. Not only is there no evidence of it, and not only does it go against a plain reading of all the evidence we do have, but it's essentially impossible. No one ever governed the same province twice in the whole of Roman history. So the claim that Quirinius was the sole known exception is so extraordinary it certainly can't be maintained without evidence. Such an astonishing and unique honor could not have been omitted by Josephus or Tacitus (Annals 3.48), yet both describe his career without any mention of it. Historical evidence also confirms other men governed Syria between 12 and 3 B.C.E., so Quirinius could not have been governor then, and he was not qualified to hold that office before the year 12.3

Stymied by all these facts, inerrantists have resorted to everything from fabricating evidence of dual governorships or other fictional offices Quirinius is supposed to have held, to changing the year of Herod's death. None of this is even remotely reasonable, and most of it is based on the fantasies of amateurs or the abandoned conjectures of long dead historians. First, the alleged physical evidence:

...

Sub-Commander Quirinius?

Since none of this evidence supports an earlier governorship for Quirinius, and all other evidence makes such a thing virtually impossible, only two strategies remain for the inerrantists: either Quirinius held some other "special command" in Syria and wasn't governor per se, or Quirinius held an unrecorded "dual-governorship" with some other governor. Neither of these proposals makes any sense in the context of Roman politics or historiography.

First, the "sub-command" thesis. Luke's choice of vocabulary is somewhat imprecise, using a word that can refer to many different positions of command. Seizing on this, inerrantists argue that Luke meant "when Quirinius was holding a command in Syria," and not "when Quirinius was governing Syria." But stretching the word like this requires ignoring the grammar. Luke says "of Syria," not "in Syria," and thus he could not have been referring to some command in Syria but only a command of Syria. Even if we ignore Luke's grammar, the only real "command" anyone can find for Quirinius is a war he fought in Galatia, probably between 6 and 1 B.C.E. But there is no logical way Luke would refer to a census in Syria by referencing a war in Galatia, and no one would ever write or read "governing Syria" as meaning "fighting a war in Galatia." Unless Luke was a profoundly stupid man, or erred in his historical facts, he would have named the actual governor of Syria who oversaw a census in Judaea, not some unrelated officer in a faraway province.8
[edit]
Co-Commander Quirinius?

A completely different tactic, to get around the problem that all the governors of Syria between 12 and 3 B.C.E. are already known, is to claim Quirinius was holding a dual governorship with one of those other governors. Not only does this still require claiming Quirinius governed the same province twice, an oddity never before recorded in the history of Roman politics, but it also requires completely inventing the idea of a "dual governorship." Since there is no evidence in all of Roman history of any province assigned two governors at the same time, this is another extraordinary claim that requires evidence to be believed. Since there isn't any, inerrantists invent some.

Josephus is cited as saying "Saturninus and Volumnius were in charge of Syria" (Antiquities of the Jews 16.280) which is said to "prove" Syria was special enough to be assigned two governors. But Volumnius was not a governor. He was a procurator (Josephus, Jewish War 1.538), an office held only by men of fundamentally inferior rank, who were not even qualified to hold the office of a provincial governor. Conversely, a Roman who had achieved senatorial, and even consular rank--like Quirinius--would never deign to accept such a humiliating office as procurator. Socially, this would be as unbelievable as a United States president taking a job as shift manager at a local McDonald's. In Roman society, this would be so remarkable and unprecedented that, again, Josephus and Tacitus would not have omitted it from their accounts of his career. The same error is made using an inscription reporting that two "deputies," Rutilius Gallicus and Sentius Caecilianus, were assigned to the province of Africa. But this inscription clearly states that one of them was a praetor, and thus not of consular rank. So again, what we have here are not two governors, but a governor and his subordinate. Neither example supports even the conjecture that Quirinius could have held a dual-governorship, much less that he ever did so--or that anyone ever did. It would also make no logical sense for Luke to name a governor's subordinate rather than the actual governor of Syria.9

So there is no basis for that claim, either. Since Josephus records and thus confirms an actual census under Quirinius in 6 C.E. when Quirinius was, in fact, governor "of Syria," all exactly as Luke says, there is no plausible case to be made that Luke had any other event in mind. All the evidence we have corroborates this conclusion, and none supports any alternative or renders any even remotely plausible.

JW:
The objective student should note here that all the direct evidence indicates that Quirinius' only position of authority regarding Syria was when he was governor in 6 CE. There is no direct evidence that Quirinius previously had a position of authority in Syria. The best the Apologist can do is try and introduce doubt that 6 CE was the only time Quirinius had authority for Syria. The Apologist than has no argument that Quirnius was an authority in Syria twice, only doubt as to the argument that Quirinius' authority in Syria started 6 CE. So choosing which is more likely is easy. As Dr. Carrier points out here, the Apology not only needs evidence that Quirinius was previously in high authority in Syria but also that there was a previous census at this time. So now you have two unlikely events with no direct evidence. And just for MG, for the probability of two unlikely events to both be likely, do the Matthew.

For those Skeptics who still wonder what the point is of documenting errors in the Christian Bible such as at ErrancyWiki, this is the point. Well researched and convincing evidence can efficiently be provided to counter claims of either individual or cumulative inerrancy. The Word.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

rhutchin · 01-07-2010, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

There are two statements by Luke that concern us.

1. "...this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria." [Luke 2:2]

2. "After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing,..." [Acts 5:37]

The term, "taxing," apparently refers to a census. That Luke says, "first," in Luke 2 indicates that there were more than one such event (perhaps the census of Acts 5 was the second one). The more notable census, perhaps because of the revolts it engendered, is described as "the" census by Gamaliel. So, Luke identifies a "first," and perhaps less remembered, census which would have preceded that referred to by Gamaliel.

JW:
The background is that Herod the Great taxes Israel to 4 BCE. Archelaus succeeds him in Judea and taxes Judea to 6 CE. The big change, as far as Judea is concerned, is that Quirinius, a Roman, starts taxing Israel in 6 CE. Josephus explains in detail, the resentment in Israel over being taxed by foreigners. The Roman census/taxation starts than in 6 CE but it is now an institution (continuous activity). It is this census that everyone refers to and there is no evidence of any other census in Judea during Jesus' supposed life.

The use of "first" by "Luke" is completely consistent with the one new taxation system started in 6 CE. 6 CE was the first year of the census/taxation, but it was an ongoing process. The permanent United States Federal income tax started in 1913. This was first when Woodrow Wilson was President of the US.

There is no evidence of any other census than the one started by Quirinius in this time period so there is no context for Acts to refer to any other census. Wallace righteously points out that this is the other problem with the "before" translation, there is no evidence of any other census.

JW:
One of the appeals of Dr, Carrier's article is that he has dealt with all possible defenses, reasonable and unreasonable. Here he deals with the defense that "Luke" is not referring to Quirinius' governorship in 6 CE:

Inventing Another Governorship for Quirinius

Quote:

Even fishing a different date out of Luke would leave a contradiction within Luke, since the only chronological detail about Jesus that Luke is absolutely clear on is that he was born during "the first census when Quirinius was governing Syria" (2:2). All evidence confirms that Quirinius first became governor of Syria in 6 C.E. and the first Roman census of Judaea occurred at that time, and Luke clearly says this was a Roman census (2:1-6). So Luke didn't leave much room to maneuver. To reconcile Luke with Matthew, one must invent two facts nowhere in evidence: some other Syrian governorship for Quirinius and some other census affecting Judaea, both before Herod the Great died.

But trying to invent an earlier Syrian governorship for Quirinius is a lost cause. Not only is there no evidence of it, and not only does it go against a plain reading of all the evidence we do have, but it's essentially impossible. No one ever governed the same province twice in the whole of Roman history. So the claim that Quirinius was the sole known exception is so extraordinary it certainly can't be maintained without evidence. Such an astonishing and unique honor could not have been omitted by Josephus or Tacitus (Annals 3.48), yet both describe his career without any mention of it. Historical evidence also confirms other men governed Syria between 12 and 3 B.C.E., so Quirinius could not have been governor then, and he was not qualified to hold that office before the year 12.3

Stymied by all these facts, inerrantists have resorted to everything from fabricating evidence of dual governorships or other fictional offices Quirinius is supposed to have held, to changing the year of Herod's death. None of this is even remotely reasonable, and most of it is based on the fantasies of amateurs or the abandoned conjectures of long dead historians. First, the alleged physical evidence:

...

Sub-Commander Quirinius?

Since none of this evidence supports an earlier governorship for Quirinius, and all other evidence makes such a thing virtually impossible, only two strategies remain for the inerrantists: either Quirinius held some other "special command" in Syria and wasn't governor per se, or Quirinius held an unrecorded "dual-governorship" with some other governor. Neither of these proposals makes any sense in the context of Roman politics or historiography.

First, the "sub-command" thesis. Luke's choice of vocabulary is somewhat imprecise, using a word that can refer to many different positions of command. Seizing on this, inerrantists argue that Luke meant "when Quirinius was holding a command in Syria," and not "when Quirinius was governing Syria." But stretching the word like this requires ignoring the grammar. Luke says "of Syria," not "in Syria," and thus he could not have been referring to some command in Syria but only a command of Syria. Even if we ignore Luke's grammar, the only real "command" anyone can find for Quirinius is a war he fought in Galatia, probably between 6 and 1 B.C.E. But there is no logical way Luke would refer to a census in Syria by referencing a war in Galatia, and no one would ever write or read "governing Syria" as meaning "fighting a war in Galatia." Unless Luke was a profoundly stupid man, or erred in his historical facts, he would have named the actual governor of Syria who oversaw a census in Judaea, not some unrelated officer in a faraway province.8
[edit]
Co-Commander Quirinius?

A completely different tactic, to get around the problem that all the governors of Syria between 12 and 3 B.C.E. are already known, is to claim Quirinius was holding a dual governorship with one of those other governors. Not only does this still require claiming Quirinius governed the same province twice, an oddity never before recorded in the history of Roman politics, but it also requires completely inventing the idea of a "dual governorship." Since there is no evidence in all of Roman history of any province assigned two governors at the same time, this is another extraordinary claim that requires evidence to be believed. Since there isn't any, inerrantists invent some.

Josephus is cited as saying "Saturninus and Volumnius were in charge of Syria" (Antiquities of the Jews 16.280) which is said to "prove" Syria was special enough to be assigned two governors. But Volumnius was not a governor. He was a procurator (Josephus, Jewish War 1.538), an office held only by men of fundamentally inferior rank, who were not even qualified to hold the office of a provincial governor. Conversely, a Roman who had achieved senatorial, and even consular rank--like Quirinius--would never deign to accept such a humiliating office as procurator. Socially, this would be as unbelievable as a United States president taking a job as shift manager at a local McDonald's. In Roman society, this would be so remarkable and unprecedented that, again, Josephus and Tacitus would not have omitted it from their accounts of his career. The same error is made using an inscription reporting that two "deputies," Rutilius Gallicus and Sentius Caecilianus, were assigned to the province of Africa. But this inscription clearly states that one of them was a praetor, and thus not of consular rank. So again, what we have here are not two governors, but a governor and his subordinate. Neither example supports even the conjecture that Quirinius could have held a dual-governorship, much less that he ever did so--or that anyone ever did. It would also make no logical sense for Luke to name a governor's subordinate rather than the actual governor of Syria.9

So there is no basis for that claim, either. Since Josephus records and thus confirms an actual census under Quirinius in 6 C.E. when Quirinius was, in fact, governor "of Syria," all exactly as Luke says, there is no plausible case to be made that Luke had any other event in mind. All the evidence we have corroborates this conclusion, and none supports any alternative or renders any even remotely plausible.

JW:
The objective student should note here that all the direct evidence indicates that Quirinius' only position of authority regarding Syria was when he was governor in 6 CE. There is no direct evidence that Quirinius previously had a position of authority in Syria. The best the Apologist can do is try and introduce doubt that 6 CE was the only time Quirinius had authority for Syria. The Apologist than has no argument that Quirnius was an authority in Syria twice, only doubt as to the argument that Quirinius' authority in Syria started 6 CE. So choosing which is more likely is easy. As Dr. Carrier points out here, the Apology not only needs evidence that Quirinius was previously in high authority in Syria but also that there was a previous census at this time. So now you have two unlikely events with no direct evidence. And just for MG, for the probability of two unlikely events to both be likely, do the Matthew.

For those Skeptics who still wonder what the point is of documenting errors in the Christian Bible such as at ErrancyWiki, this is the point. Well researched and convincing evidence can efficiently be provided to counter claims of either individual or cumulative inerrancy. The Word.

Joseph

Except for Luke's reference to a census in 6 BC, we find no other reference to such a census in Josephus or Tacitus who both wrote histories of that time. This can mean only that no disputes arose regarding this census so that there was nothing meaningful to report. This would have contrasted with the census in 6 AD which was also identified with a tax and engendered much hostility (even as new taxes do today). Thus it became noteworthy even being mentioned by Gamaliel in his examples. The earlier census was noteworthy to Luke because of its relation to the birth of Christ (the central figure of his book). So, was Luke confused about what was going on especially with reference to Matthew's account. I will regard Luke as a competent historian and accurate on this point until someone shows otherwise (that Luke is not a competent historian).

The issue of Quirinius and the authority he exercised does not suppose that he was governor, co-governor, sub-governor or any political position over Syria in 6 BC. The issue is whether he exercised any specific authority over Syria. We have two events that can collide. One is the war in Galatia and the other is the new census involving Israel. Given the sensitivities involved in such a census, Rome may well have determined that it should be conducted by military personnel rather than political personnel. As Quirinius was already close by, the task may have fallen to him to oversee. Could he have conducted the war in Galatia as well as a census in Syria? In conducting a census could he also have been given specific authority over Syria that was not a political authority so that he would not have been governor but ruled over the government that existed in order to accomplish the census? Hypothetically, in view of the lack of historical information of that time, it could. The hypothesis is thrown out based on an obscure reference by Luke. Let the historians sort it out.

Both sides can speculate as to the circumstances that might have been as all we have is one small reference by a man known to us as Luke whose concern was not in describing the political situation of the day but of describing events surrounding the birth of a child to a poor, no-name family in Israel.

JoeWallack · 01-07-2010, 10:27 AM

God I love the sound of Psalms in the morning!

JW:
Found an excellent article on the subject which includes a history of related Apologies:

Census of Quirinius

Note that the continuous rejection of earlier Apologies by Apologists is symptomatic of the weakness of the apology. That being said, to RH, bon appetite.

Joseph

Luke 2:2

01-07-2010, 10:27 AM	#30
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	Apologists Now! God I love the sound of Psalms in the morning! JW: Found an excellent article on the subject which includes a history of related Apologies: Census of Quirinius Note that the continuous rejection of earlier Apologies by Apologists is symptomatic of the weakness of the apology. That being said, to RH, bon appetite. Joseph Luke 2:2

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

01-05-2010, 08:25 AM	#21
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	JW: I've posted another response to MG's Podcast here: http://podacre.blogspot.com/2009/12/...22061219064146 Joseph ErrancyWiki

01-05-2010, 09:20 AM	#23
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	N/A *Be wery, wery quiet. I told MG that Tatian did not have an Infancy Narrative, but he did. He just doesn't have genealogies. Tatian actually "harmonizes" Quirinius with Herod the Great (my biggest regret here is that Apologists are not aware of this and never cite it as evidence that Quirinius was Governor twice.). Let's see how much effort MG makes correcting me verses correcting himself.

01-06-2010, 01:08 PM	#26
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	"Mark Goodacre said... Thanks for your interesting comments, Joe. I particularly like "Let's do the Matthew"!" JW: Hmmm. Goodacre is making it hard for me to be my usual jerky self.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.