Amaleq13

No, it "seems" that Luke explicitly places Jesus' birth at the time of Quirinius' taxation.

This unsupported and speculative probability statement is what you considered scholarly? It is not only likely but explicit in the connection to Quirinius' taxation that Luke does not intend to give the impression that Jesus was conceived several years earlier.

Carrier addresses this in his article:

One might suppose that Luke 1:42, Elizabeth's greeting to Mary, implies that Mary is already pregnant, but it does not entail that. She may merely be anticipating the future, as is the case in Deuteronomy 28:4, where the same present participle construction is used in the Septuagint clearly in reference to future generations and not to present conceptions. And this is likely, since there is no actual verb used in 1:42, while at 1:45 she actually uses the future tense: what the angel told Mary will be fulfilled. Likewise, in 1:48-49, Mary doesn't say she is blessed because she has conceived, but because God has chosen her to be the mother of the messiah.
Some have noted that this entails a twelve year-long betrothal between Joseph and Mary, but there is nothing incredible about a long betrothal--anyone familiar with societies where marriages are arranged (even from birth) knows that well enough, especially when the would-be husband is not yet financially sound or the woman's parents can't yet come up with an adequate dowry, and as we have reason to presume Jesus' family very poor, we might expect such complications. Mary's age would also have been an issue, if she was still only a child at her betrothal. At any rate, we are never told when or even if Mary and Joseph marry--they are still unmarried when Jesus is born (Luke 2:5), which would have been nearly a year in and of itself.

judge

Firstly Luke makes no mention of a taxation just an enrollment.

Secondly Luke most certainly gives the impresssion (a short few verses later) that Jesus was born earlier, in 3BCE.
Luke tells us John began his minstry in the 15th year of Tiberius, which would be 27CE, he tells us Jesus goes and is baptised; then a few verses later tells us Jesus began his ministry at about 30 years of age.

There is no indication that any time at all passes, let alone nine entire years (which would be the case if Jesus was born in 6CE).

So if Jesus was 30 years of age in 27 CE he must have been born in 3BCE.

The impression here is an earlier birth than 6CE

Sauron

Indeed. Richard is pretty careful to present the pro's and con's, and to exercise basic charity when evaluating the statements in Luke.

This is what I find so surprising about praxeus' claims -- and what led me to believe that he had not read Carrier's entire article. :huh:

spin

judge, you are continuing to show your desire to avoid relatively simple language. Now you tell us exactly what you think an apografh is in the context of Quirinius in Judea when he ruled Syria.

Given the apparent Quirinius error and the apparent Lysanias error, you are in no position to make any coherent statements about what Luke gives an impression of.

Maybe, but he places someone, ie Lysanias, dead 65 years at the same time as well.

The impression here is that Luke is in grave error at least twice and you are merely helping to draw the inconsistencies.


spin

Amaleq13

It does in the version praxeus accepts but that is only because the enrollment when Quirinius was governor was for the purposes of taking an accounting of Archelaus' former domain.

I trust you understand that offering an alleged example of giving a different impression does not change the fact that the explicit connection to Quirinius' enrollment creates the exact impression Layman called "unlikely".

I agree that this is the time marker Luke offers for the beginning of John's ministry but what makes you think everything in verses 7 through 21 happened that same year? John was inspired by God to preach and baptize, attracted "multitudes" who considered him wise to the point of wondering if he was the messiah, and annoyed Herod enough to be imprisoned all in the same year?

I think a quick glance at verses 7 through 21 clearly denies that there is "no indication" of passing time. I wouldn't argue that what is described requires nine years but I also wouldn't argue that it has to have taken place all in single year.

Carrier says much the same thing in his article.

I agree that is the impression you are trying to create.

Doug Shaver

I saw what he wrote. I don't believe he misrepresented anything I wrote. And, I think, I ought to know.

Steven Avery

And I did not say that Sauron misrepresented you. Only that he placed your concepts, with a little morphing, as my claim.

And continued to so so even after I very carefully pointed out that
your words were not my construct. Which I documented clearly and fully.

Shalom,
Steven

Steven Avery

And then Richard was simply wrong, and contradicting himself, in his following comments on Luke 2:1 and Luke 1:80 :

(since "in those days" from vv. 2:1 picks up the "day" of the previous vv. 1:80)

Instead, John appears to have already passed most of his childhood by the time Jesus is born (1:80).

And Richard should go and render those comments 'inoperative'.

Can the CAC - Carrier Apologetics Crew - come up with a harmony ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Lots of handwaving, wresting the pshat of the text...

(Remember also .. Carrier and yourself claim the highly unusual view of Luke 2:1 as a time-reference to 1:80, a view not taken by any referenced scholar. We are still waiting for one.)

Let's review the Layman study.

How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
(present tense, not mentioned by Carrier)

Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
(present tense, not mentioned by Carrier)

And blessed is she that believed:
(past tense, not mentioned by Carrier)

Even Richard Carrier has discarded the Gap Theory. Yet his Apologist
crew has to defend the most unlikely and difficult of interpretations
if he ever put them into print.

A new field .. Carrier Apologetics.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

This is silly-season, since spin is simply assuming his own private view against Fitzmyer and others.

Well at least he included "apparent" here, once (as opposed to the usual belligerence in the explanation) since he apparently knows he is on thin ice.

The tawry history is here.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=196954&page=7

Notice the chameleon aspect earlier, as well.
Going to his actual attempt to dispute Fitzmyer et al.

"I think..."
"I don't think.."

morphed to definitive railing accusation.

"Luke is simply in total error"
"Lysanias... died over sixty years before the time being referred to".
"hysterics "

Overall spin's response is his usual insults and a reference to his own alternate interpretation. What "I think..".

Yet another example of spin being hopeless as a poster. He cannot see past his own bias and agenda.

Actually I believe that Luke would have a strong case for accuracy without a single inscription. However then the tude of someone like spin at least might be consistent. Once Fitzmyer et al weigh in it is simply silly for spin to rail like he does on the Lysanias issue. It is very telling that he will go haywire on such a weak case.

Shalom,
Steven