Layman

Which scholars, other than Carrier, have you read that believe Luke places Jesus' birth after the death of Herod the Great? Please provide their names and, if you can remember, the source in which you found this argument.

No, they both place the birth during the reign of Herod the Great.

The appearance of Gabriel to Mary announcing her pregnancy, as well as Mary's visit to her cousin (pregnant with John the Baptist) and finally the birth of John the Baptist, are placed "In the days of Herod, King of Judaea." It seems that Luke places Jesus's birth in this same time. It is unlikely that Luke intends to give the impression that Jesus was not conceived at this time, or even close to this time. The theory Luke places Jesus's birth in 6 CE means that the announcements of Mary's pregnancy -- as well as interaction with the pregnancy and birth of John the Baptist -- occurred at least 10 years before Jesus' conception. In fact, this would require that John the Baptist was 12 when Jesus was born and that poor Joseph had to wait 10-12 years before "consummating" his marriage with Mary.

There are other features about Luke's first chapter that indicate that the birth followed shortly after the announcement. First, Luke uses Mary's response to the announcement to indicate that conception will take place shortly:

Luke 1:31-35 (emphasis added).

The italicized portion shows that Mary certainly understands the Angel to mean that the conception is to occur very soon. If it was to take place at some indeterminate point in the future, as much as 10 years later, she would have assumed that this would occur after her marriage to Joseph. Because she was already betrothed to Joseph (Luke 1:27), this places the conception very soon after the announcement. See Darrell L. Bock, Jesus According to Scripture, page 59 ("The note about betrothal means that the marriage probably would be consummated within a year."). As Bock comments:

Bock, op. cit., page 60.

Next, Elizabeth's response to Mary after John leapt in her womb suggests that Mary was already pregnant.

Luke 1:41-43.

As the italicized portion shows, Elizabeth already refers to Mary as the "mother of my Lord." This makes much more sense after conception than before it. Note also that Elizabeth says of Mary, "And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord." Luke 1:45. Note the use of the past tense. Elizabeth does not say that Mary expects fulfillment or has faith that there will be a fulfillment, the fulfillment and the belief is placed in the past tense.

Where does Acts say that Judas fell down while walking in a field?

Doctor X

Start with Burton Mack and follow the bibliography. Better yet, why do not YOU cite how a person who starts a census ten years after another person is dead is starting the census whilst the other is still alive.

Ipse dixit and rebutted by the textual evidence above.

Your response that follows did not explain the Quirius date. Now, you can argue that he just did not realize Quirinius was so far off. The "census" is a made-up construct to get Junior to Bethlehem and part of the house of David. However, he makes a rather specific reference to the time of Quirinius.

Check the passage. Incidentally, the Greek can be understood as "swelling up" rather than falling forward per Liddel-Scott-Jones Lexicons. It is as a boil swellig up. This would bring us back to a more "spontaneous" spontaneous explosion.

--J.D.

Steven Carr

I find this whole issue very confusing.

Layman

SC,

I misunderstood the "house of Lysanias" reference in Antiquities. The reference in Jewish Wars seems more clear.

Layman

I do not accept vague allusions to entire bibliographies as responsive.

And as I've explained, many of those scholars who recognize Luke's placing Jesus' birth during the reign of King Herod think that he puts he census in the wrong place. I happen to think Luke may have been referring to an earlier census.

I would be interested in a quote from Mack on this. Does he really place Jesus' birth per Luke around 6 AD?


I've explained my position on the census. You've not rebutted the argument presented above.

I have checked the passage.

And that you can grasp at a nonpreferred translation that renders the text unlikely is not very impressive. Nor does it make much sense to "swell up" "headlong." I checked the NAS, NIV, NKJV, NLT, and NRS and they all have fall headlong. Which translations support your personal interpretation of the verse?

Doctor X

I am under no obligation to do your homework for you. YOU have not provided evidence for your opinion. So there! PBBBBBPPPPTTT!!

Census? We Don't Need No Steenkin' Census!

However, from a rather conservative scholar:

I actually considered that somewhere in my post--responding to long posts, I know, can be tedious. There seems to be only one census you can use for Quirinius. Now:

er . . . [Say it.--Ed.] . . . um . . . [Say it!--Ed.] . . . I may have been in "error" [Without the quotations!--Ed.] I may have been in error in implying the date as a historical dating--as in Lk rejected any link to Herod. I probably misunderstood your objection as you specifically arguing that Quirinius' census could have taken place in 4 BCE.

In otherwords, Mack does state that Lk is providing a story, and he brings together traditions and casts them in the way he wants. Thus he retains J the B and his death--though deletes the beheading. He is in a sense trying to have it both ways--retain a connection to J the B--and his execution--and solve getting him to Judea. Lk is so clear with his identification of Quirinius that perhaps he expected no one to notice the problem.

Right, bear with me for a moment. Why I pilfer libraries. I have not gotten into the sources of Lk--this gets into "Proto-Lk" and things like that make my head hurt sometimes. However, an old, but good, discussion of the structure of Lk-Acts is referenced below . . . I cannot wait to try to find an Amazon link . . . gives a concise description:

however in this old reference, Lk 1-2:52 is accorded to Lk so that does not explain the problem other than that Lk does not seem to notice or care about the contradiction.

Another NT scholar--who does not want to be identified so I understand if you tell me to insert it in an orifice not designed for such--argues that the specificity of Lk refering to Quirinius dates his understanding to 6 CE and the "mistake" is Lk--writing so long after understanding of the events--did not realize Herod was dead by 4 BCE.

Stomach Problems?:

Actually, the RSV conceeds the translation with its "Or swelling up. Check the Greek Lexicon. The decision for "headlong" or "swelling up" is an interpretive decision on the part of the translator. Tradition does drive translation.

However you wish to understand the texts--swelling or falling--the point remains he does not hang himself.

--J.D.

References:

Mack B. Who Wrote the New Testament? : The Making of the Christian Myth

Morton AQ, MacGregor GHC. The Structure of Luke and Acts. New York: Harper and Row, 1964

Koester H. Introduction to the New Testament: History and Literature of Early Christianity, [Quotes from earlier edition.--Ed.]

Streeter BH. Four Gospels: Study of Origins, Treating of the manuscript tradition sources authorship & dates

Layman

I can see now that your only purpose here is to waste my time. I provided a rather detailed discussion of the internal evidence of Luke indicating that he dates Jesus' birth to the reign of King Herod. Yet now you say I have provided no evidence for my opinion. You are just rambling. I'm not sure even you know what you are talking about.

Doctor X

Do not consider yourself special. I am here to waste everyone's time, apparently.

However, I do know that 4 BCE is not 6 CE and evisceration is not hanging.

Though I gather you, unlike me, do not actually have references for your opinions.

--J.D.

MortalWombat

While we're on the subject of Lukan historical errors, he seems to be a bit hazy on his early 1st century chronology of messianic pretenders in Acts 5:

Judas the Galilean was known to have been killed in 6 AD by Josephus, in agreement with Acts (Source).

However, it is also known from Josephus that Theudas was killed in the reign of the procurator Fadus in 44-46 AD (Source).

So Judas the Galilean could not have appeared after Theudas.

spin

As you are not too aware of Fitzmyer's work, especially in regard to the dead sea scrolls, I don't think you can comment.


Naturally there are different levels of apologetics. Fitzmyer isn't a fundamentalist apologist. It's rather hard for a rational person to support the gospel evidence of Joseph having two fathers or the consequent contortions one has to go through to make the texts seem in some way even loosely acceptible after a few snorts of J&B.

That does have him accepting that Mary and Joseph came from Nazareth, while Matthew doesn't concur. You see Matthew has the family going to Galilee only because Archelaus was in charge of Judea where otherwise Joseph would have gone. This is what I mean about apology. It's just too alluring for a xian scholar to be xian first and a scholar second.

Ah, but that's because you've been bitten by the same rabid dog.

Of course, you, typically, wouldn't know, though you trust your source on the matter (Cat.Enc.). Schuerer was writing back at the beginning of the 20th century in a very different historical ethos. It's always a case of just how much one's conscience can carry. I've had to wade through a lot of stuff written during that period and one often has to pick the data from the dogma. Read a recent standard "archaeology" of Israel and you'll still have to do the same thing.

You need to know something about the subject before you can identify the real scholars.

You don't get it, of course. I don't challenge the reading either. Just the interpretation. Goldberg accepts the reconstructed reading of Sebaston, which seems reasonable to me as well. Schuerer's interpretation that it must be Tiberius and Livia, doesn't take into account the coin evidence which shows that Livia was called Augusta during the reign of Augustus, making the couple a prime candidate for the Sebastoi (= Augusti).

The coin I referred to comes from the turn of the era, which would be 30-40 years after the death of Lysanias.

Iturean Empire?

Lysanias's territory was Iturea, of which Zenodorus gained control on hire after the deaths of Antony and Cleopatra.

Here's what I said:

With Antony terminating that "powerful family"'s control of the territory...

[Note: "powerful family" in inverted commas followed by an apostrophe S.]

He also explains why Lysanias was killed, ie so that Cleopatra could get his land, ie the <"powerful family"'s control of the territory> was terminated.

I wouldn't mind an exact reference to that. I couldn't find it in your source.

One interesting thing about the analysis of your source: it first assumes that the Lysanias that we know wasn't known to have been a tetrarch, while the Lysanias that wasn't known to have been was called a tetrarch. This means that the inscription is no use to the argument, because you have to assume that the inscription refers to another Lysanias before it becomes useful. Hmmm.

But I will give you this passage mentioned by your source (though without reference):

Dio Cassius 54.9.3
To Herod he {Augustus} entrusted the tetrarchy of a certain Zenodorus, and to one Mithridates, though still a mere boy, he gave Commagene, inasmuch as its king had put the boy's father to death.

It dates to circa 20 BCE. And you'll remember:

JW 1.20.4.
Caesar did also afterward bestow it [what Varus took from Zenodorus, ie Trachonitis] on Herod, that it might not again become a receptacle for those robbers that had come against Damascus.

Then "when Zenodorus was dead, Caesar bestowed on him all that land which lay between Trachonitis and Galilee." (Still JW 1.20.4)

What was bestowed is explained in

AJ 15.20.3
it lay between Trachon and Galilee, and contained Ulatha, and Paneas, and the country round about

Ulatha and Panias are NNE of Galilee, placing Trachonitis, already in the hands of Herod, on the other side, ie western Ituria, where Abila was.

(One funny side issue is that Zenodorus then tried to sell part of his territory, Auranitis, to the Arabians, who then carried a gripe against Herod because Caesar had already given it to him. AJ 15.10.1)

Now this makes me wonder why on earth you say this without any evidence:

There seem to be at the most about ten years. When

It's important to realise that, upon Herod receiving the territory of Iturea as a gift, see AJ 17.11.4:

"Batanea, with Trachonitis, as well as Auranitis, with a certain part of what was called the House of Zenodorus, paid the tribute of one hundred talents to Philip"

This property remained in Herod's family from that time onward. Herod of Chalcis had it until 48 CE and upon his death Claudius gave the territory to Herod Agrippa I. (To understand where the "two Trachones" including Iturea were, the citation from Strabo I gave should help, ie "above" Damascus. This is the mountainous area to the west and north west of Damascus. Abila is by the mountains to the NW.)

To help with these places, Gaulanitis is the area which is now the Golan heights, which is immediately north west of Galilee. The other three parts of the territory involved radiate north, west and south west from Gaulanitis, ie Trachonitis (overlapping with western Iturea, where Abila was), Batanea (= Bashan) and Auranitis (= Hauran). Trachonitis is west of Damascus and Batanea is south.

Philip possessed Gaulanitis, Auranitis, Batanea and Trachonitis which included the tetrarchy of Lysanias. The only part of Philip's territory which was part of Iturea was Trachonitis. The argument above is just shifting terms around like a fifteen square puzzle.

This is one of those diatribes arguing only on the silence of the evidence.

JW 2.11.5 provides very interesting wording, it talks of a <kingdom "called 'of Lysanias'">, not of a <kingdom of Lysanias>. This use is not of some figure current at the time referred to, but a name attached to the kingdom which didn't seem to have much significance otherwise.

More argument based solely on silence.

Abila is a city, while "Abilene" is an adjective indicating that which is "of Abila". Abila is in the territory of Trachonitis, as per

AJ 20.7.1.
SO Claudius sent Felix, the brother of Pallas, to take care of the affairs of Judea; and when he had already completed the twelfth year of his reign, he bestowed upon Agrippa the tetrarchy of Philip and Batanea, and added thereto Trachonites, with Abila; which last had been the tetrarchy of Lysanias; but he took from him Chalcis

Trachonitis with the city of Abila! Now, does "which last" refer to the realm of Trachonitis or the city therein?

I see no reason to believe, as you state somewhere, that Chalcis was the capital of Lysanias's kingdom. I haven't seen any evidence for it and I don't think Whiston's conjecture regarding JW 1.13.1 has any value. We know for sure of only one Lysanias and we have references relating a Lysanias to Abila, Abila to Trachonitis, Trachonitis with Zenodorus, who followed Lysanias son of Ptolemy as proprietor of those lands. I find no problem relating Abila to Lysanias.

We know already that the city of Abila was in Trachonitis (it was on the road from Damascus to Baalbek, ie Heliopolis, which was the territory of Trachonitis, and Josephus links the city to Trachonitis). The following therefore seems suspect.

But we know already that Herod the Great ruled over more than just Judea and Samaria. Josephus can be forgiven for not getting his facts straight over hundreds of pages. He didn't have a computer to make it easy for him. We know already that Herod got much of what was once held by Zenodorus, including Trachonitis, where Abila lay.

Just for clarity, Iturea straddled the Anti-Lebanon ridge, so it included both the Beka'a Valley and the eastern side of Anti-Lebanon, which faced Damascus. It is this bare mountainous zone which gave the area its Greek name "Trachonitis". Now Strabo (see my previous post) tells us not only that these "are mountains hard to pass", but also that the robbers who came out of Trachonitis were Arabians and Ituraeans. And Herod got this Trachonitis.

That's not so transparent. He gave him the lands of the recently dead Philip, which of course fell back into Roman hands with the death of Philip without a suitable heir.

Yup.

Naaa.

You're partly right here... and partly wrong. Abila was part of Ituria, simply by geography. Trachonitis, a later entity which overlapped what was Iturea, held Abila, by geography. Abila is only a city, not a realm. It was possessed by Ptolemy and Lysanias as one of their cities.

This gets a doh for the amusing rhetorical use of "nailed". The author is stunned by the fact that he can get at least Tiberius, Pontius Pilate, Herod (Antipas) and Philip right, but this is a no-boner, isn't it? Anyone can go from Marcion's "15th year of Tiberius" and visit the local library and get a few names that fit the date and maybe make a mistake such as the Lucan writer did with Lysanias. However he actually came to do it, it seems that he erred with the reference to what apologists euphemistically refer to as a second Lysanias.


spin