spin

Where have you presented it?

I can't get the site to respond. Either you can answer the questions, providing all the data or you get your source to front up.

You don't present anything, judge.

Hell, I'm willing. Remember, I'm the one who looks at the source materials myself and gives you an analysis based on my own work.

No, be honest: do the work.

You haven't answered my responses. You have nothing to say about the fact that there eclipse is actually a red herring.

My god, judge, is the best you can do, just repeat what has been asked of you as a response?

I guess that would be me in this case.

You've got nothing to say for yourself. You've got nothing to say about Quirinius's property registration, which has a dating well after the death of Herod the Great. Why don't you admit that the Lucan inclusion of the datum was a simple error and be done?

Why don't you admit that the eclipse was a red herring and be done? The stuff about the oath was totally irrelevant. Get it off your chest.

Actually, I'm not in the race. I just stood at the first hurdle and knocked your horse down.


spin

Steven Avery

And you ignore that starting about 8 BC Herod was very far from favored. A very sharp and antagonistic approach was taken by Augustus leading to the double long-distance appeal for relief. So there was a bit of patching up later but as Ramsey put it ..

"Herod was evidently by no means completely pardoned or restored fully to favor."

So why do you still disingenuously claim that everything was hunky-dory ?
When Herod sent two delegations to Rome .. likely to try to reduce the degree of Roman oversight and avoid greater disaster .. and to try to return to being the vaunted "friend of Caesar" which he was no more.

Augustus specifically said that Herod lost the position of "friend of Caesar" and the New Testament shows how critical that was .. the threat itself had a heavy influence on Pilate.

John 19:12
And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him:
but the Jews cried out, saying,
If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend:
whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin Now thrill me with a Latin primary source for this! When you can justify that there was a procurator, rather than an official representative, then you might like to consider that procurators merely dealt with finances, until Claudius gave them more powers. Quirinius was certainly not a lowly procurator.

Finances are the issue with enrollment and taxation. However I do appreciate the correction. There is no definite procurator till Sabinus and my (secondary) source had only put the forth the view that the representative "was a kind of procurator Caesaris" which I had overstated.

The interesting issue is what was going on in those years that Herod was so nervous that he sent multi-delegations to Rome. First, to begin, clearly your claim that he was "favored" must be entirely discarded. His whole regime was a disaster from that time on, a pain for the Romans and tottering on the brink and soaked in blood.

On this general issue of the last years (not all issues) Ramsey is good, combining the histories of Josephus and Luke to give a fluid picture of the Augustus-Herod relationship. One that was very difficult - despite your entirely inaccurate and glib claims above.

To discuss this more, I think it we may first want to carefully go over two issues that have been left aside in the crush of probability theory..

1) Luke and titles
2) Luke and general historical accuracy, cities, times, lands, islands.

Since Luke's historicity is the key undercurrent to the whole discussion.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Johann_Kaspar

Yeah, I was not expecting an answer for you... But I am not surprised that our xian "friends" are not at all interested by this question.

Here is the reasoning: Philip the Tetrach died in 34, his widow married unlawfully Antipas who repudiated the daughter of Aretas, what was the cause of a war lost by Antipas. Before that defeat, Antipas executed Iochanan who was preaching against the unlawful mariage. His defeat was view as a punishment for the killing of Iochanan. One interesting point "en passant" is that Josephus wrote the killing of Iochanan, not Yeshua's.

34 = 20th year of Tiberius.
If it is to read 22nd of Tiberius, all events have to be shift 2 years later, in 36: execution of Iochanan, "minister" of Yeshua, etc., etc. and all this before Pesha 36. Ludicrous.

20th year of Tiberius means that Herod's death at -4 stands.

Let's see now what our inerrantists, revisionnists will find to twist the writings of Josephus.

Johann_Kaspar

Because it was. Why do you twist what Jospehus wrote? Wy aren't you aware that Herod became out of favour because of a lie (false report)? Why aren't you aware that the liar was punished? Why can't you understand that if Augustus told Herod to do what he wanted with Antipater, it means a full trust?

Prejudice, only prejudice, to meet the Josephus writings with you agenda.

Johann_Kaspar

To chose between Luke or Josephus inerrancy, no doubt I would chose the later. The main problem is that the xian scribes polluted the writings of Josephus.

Also there is a pack of evidence pointing to the admitted date for Herod' death. To ignore that pack can only lead to hypothesis built on other hypothesis. In one word: nonsense.

Johann_Kaspar

Forgot to point out that if +36 for the crucifixition, that puts a Yeshua's (about 30 yo) birthday at +6...

Johann_Kaspar

What! We were lied to for 2000 years!!!!

xians can't be such liars, can they

Go on twisting, it is funny how xians rewrite history to fulfill their agenda.

:notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy:

Johann_Kaspar

Repeat after me:

• There is no link between the eclipse and the one day replacement of the high priest.
• There is no link between the eclipse and the one day replacement of the high priest.
• There is no link between the eclipse and the one day replacement of the high priest.
• There is no link between the eclipse and the one day replacement of the high priest.
• There is no link between the eclipse and the one day replacement of the high priest.
• There is no link between the eclipse and the one day replacement of the high priest.
• There is no link between the eclipse and the one day replacement of the high priest.
• There is no link between the eclipse and the one day replacement of the high priest.
• There is no link between the eclipse and the one day replacement of the high priest.
• There is no link between the eclipse and the one day replacement of the high priest.
• There is no link between the eclipse and the one day replacement of the high priest.
• There is no link between the eclipse and the one day replacement of the high priest.
• There is no link between the eclipse and the one day replacement of the high priest.
• There is no link between the eclipse and the one day replacement of the high priest.
• There is no link between the eclipse and the one day replacement of the high priest.
• There is no link between the eclipse and the one day replacement of the high priest.
• There is no link between the eclipse and the one day replacement of the high priest.

:huh:

Steven Avery

Johann, why you write so falsely. Many of us know the backdrop of this.

After two emissaries Herod wiggled out of the tough jam he was in. Whether our reports are a bit tainted by the winners, who knows. Either way Herod got off the heavy hook. So any oppressive measures that Rome had instituted could have easily been released or suspended till later times.

Which is exactly the starting point for considering the full historicity picture, including Luke.

You at least are aware that for some years Herod was under heavy pressure, he was no longer a "friend of Caesar", the original claims of being a "favorite" were totally false.

There is no indication that Augustus then became lovey-dovey with Herod. Even after those most difficult years, when Rome looked to be moving in against their subject client-prince, Herod had more problems right and left - murders, blood, appeals to Rome and more blood.

You should try to be fully honest about those heavy years and not claim that Herod was some time of wonderful "favortite" of Augustus. Nonsense. At this point that is known to be a total falsehood, even if earlier it was ignorance.

The next step is to properly complement the historical accounts. That is fairly easy to do although the stumblingblock is the blindnesses about Luke's excellent historicity.

(Ironically, Carrier did not have that problem, and tried a whole different approach. He failed miserably but it was an interesting effort.)

So that is why I say the next step is to revisit the general Luke historicity.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

JoeWallack

JW:
I Am probably guilty here of trying to overstate the evidence for 4 BCE by saying this coin is Direct evidence of Herod the Great dying 4 BCE. Better said is that it is consistent with a 4 BCE date. If Herod Antipas died 40 CE than you could have a year 45 regnal coin if it was minted early in the 45th year so that the closest total years of reign would be 44 rather than 45. Obviously a date of death of 2 BCE with this coin is, as Brother Maynard said in the classic Holy Grail when reciting the instructions for The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, "right out".

This is a reason why the scholarly alternative to 4 BCE is 5 BCE. The full eclipse of 5 BCE is another reason. Compared to this relatively direct evidence for 5 BCE there does not appear to be any direct, positive evidence for 2 BCE.
There is no extant coin evidence inconsistent with 4 BCE. The coin evidence is only inconsistent with 2 BCE. Even the full eclipse of 1 BCE doesn't help as obviously it would be after a death in 2 BCE.

The only potentially positive evidence presented here for a date of death of 2 BCE for Herod the Great is the textual variation in Josephus for the date that Philip snuffed it. But the proponent, Beyer, looks like a bloody wanker on that one.

Regarding your Assertians to Spin I think you are just trying to get his Spinties all in a wad by mimicking what you think he is doing, arguing by Assertian. If and when you are able to tell me what you think is now the best evidence for 4 BCE please let me know and I'll try to give you a detailed argument.



Joseph

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=60