spin

This didn't answer my question.

Obviously the oath marked by the Samos inscription for Augustus's return to the consulship in 5 BCE was empire-wide as well.

However, as I pointed out the oath in AJ 17 was before the time of Varus.

Your dating is not correct. As I said earlier, Antigonus died in 37 BCE. Check AJ 14.16.4 which categorically dates the capture of Antigonus to the consulship of Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus (37 BCE) as well as the 185th Olympiad (June 30, 37 BCE). Antigonus was dead soon enough after the Olympiad, ie long enough for Antony to arrive in Antioch and decide it was better to execute Antigonus. Herod's reign therefore began in 40 BCE and see AJ 14.14.5 for exact dating). 37 years, or really less than 37 years but more than 36 years, puts the death of Herod with this imprecision in 4-3 BCE, which is two years too early for your 2-1 BCE claim.

On the 20 versus 22, as I pointed out the 22 is given in Latin in my footnotes, indcating that the source was Latin; if this is reflective, it would make it a secondary source, be they one or twenty-five copies. I would need to know more.

However, Philip, Herod Antipas and Archelaus came to the throne all at the one time, see AJ 18.2.1 (18.26). We are also told in 18.2.1 that Quirinius carried out his registrations in the 37th year after the battle of Actium (31 BCE). This was also the tenth year after Archelaus was enthroned, ie 4 BCE. Yet again we return to 4 BCE, which suggests that the twenty-second stuff is a corruption.


spin

squiz

I was just reading through this article:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...quirinius.html

Where it was stated:
Is this an error? From the NASA site, I also see that there was a total eclipse on 5BC 15 Sep 20:10 UTC. Maybe it is not important, but it doesn't hurt to be fussy about such things.

BTW. One of the apologist sites out there tried to rule out this date, due to something regarding feast dates and the date of Herod's death as given by another Jewish feast or something, that I couldn't really follow. Has anyone addressed these issues as well?

judge

All we see here is that Josephus can't be relied upon. At times it looks like 36 BCE (Antiquities,XVII.190;War I.665.). and at other times 37BCE.

Which brings me back to my point we need to be cautious rather than dogmatic.



No you made this comment.

Then when I asked again you merely noted the greek had 20.

judge

Here is th reference.

David W. Beyer, "Josephus Re-Examined: Unraveling the Twenty-Second Year of Tiberius", in Chronos, Kairos, Christos II (or via: amazon.co.uk), edited by E. Jerry Vardaman (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1998) ISBN 0-86554-582-0.

But not all greek mss?

spin

All you are doing is muddying the waters, which is your goal. Sufficient doubt on Josephus's indications will allow you to claim that the dating derived from Josephus can't be accepted.

These don't help you. They refer to the death of Antigonus, but without an indicator of the year. They give you a length of time since that death and the length of time is inclusive, ie rounded up to the next year. The dating they supply take you to 4 BCE.

Josephus shows in various places that he had his War open while he was writing AJ.

And while there might be a discrepancy of a year in your eyes, it can't help you to three. The basic thesis you adhere to is not supported by the evidence.

Your source is trying hard to translate

No pussyfooting, judge. Can you demonstrate what the text actually says in the manuscripts. If so, you should. I've pointed out that there is a Latin tradition which has "vicesimo-secundo" and that is obviously secondary. Marcus, the editor of the Loeb text at issue, gives no indication regarding the Greek at this point, whereas at other points he provides variations, so it is reasonable to conclude that he had found no variations when dealing with the text on this issue. Beyer gives names without citing the texts. The Greek needs to be demonstrated, especially when the common text coincidentally supplies the status quo dating of 4 BCE without any implication of bias.


spin

judge

You dont know this. I gave the reference.
David W. Beyer, "Josephus Re-Examined: Unraveling the Twenty-Second Year of Tiberius", in Chronos, Kairos, Christos II (or via: amazon.co.uk), edited by E. Jerry Vardaman (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1998) ISBN 0-86554-582-0.


As you have not read this how can you say Beyer does not cite the texts? I mean you only just accused me of muddying the waters, isn't that what you are doing here?

judge

You may wish to read Carrier on this issue, Richard agrees there are greek texts that read 22. He makes the convenient charge that these greek mss were translated from Latin, however, curiously, he provides no reason as to how he knows this.

spin

As you have not read this you have no idea what Beyer has said.


spin

judge

I now see one of the problems with what I have done here. I saw the errancywiki article linked above on another thread here. I really should have begun with the full article of Richard's found here...The Date of the Nativity in Luke (5th ed., 2006)
as it does go some way to addressing these points which are not dealt with in the shortened version.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

David W. Beyer, "Josephus Re-Examined: Unraveling the Twenty-Second Year of Tiberius", in Chronos, Kairos, Christos II (or via: amazon.co.uk), edited by E. Jerry Vardaman (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1998) ISBN 0-86554-582-0.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin Beyer gives names without citing the texts.

We do have some good backdrop on the web. When a poster goes to the Beyer paper they can add more. Whether Beyer names texts specifically and the signficance to the issue, if not.

http://www.dountoothers.org/millennium.html - Richard N. Ostling
Enter David Beyer, a U.S. consultant and biblical hobbyist who gave an intriguing report to a 1995 convention of Bible scholars. He told of visiting the British Museum to examine all surviving copies of Josephus’ work. Turned out that not one of the two dozen oldest copies, dated to 1544 or earlier, said “20th year.” Beyer checked editions at the Library of Congress and found the same. Most said “22nd year”, and on that basis Beyer rolled Herod’s death to early in 1 B.C. Jack Finegan endorses that date in his latest “Handbook” and thus puts Jesus’ birth at 2 B.C. or 3 B.C.

https://listhost.uchicago.edu/piperm...er/021500.html
[ANE] Star of Bethlehem: Herod died in 1BCE not 4 BCE? - Marjorie Alley

Beyer examined the extant Josephus manuscripts at the British Museum and the Library of Congress and settled a long-standing argument about the integrity of the text of Antiquities 18.106.

When the first printed edition of Josephus' Antiquities in Greek was published in Basel in 1544, the printer accidentally introduced some errors.

In the 1998 revised edition of his Handbook of Biblical Chronology (or via: amazon.co.uk), Finegan accepts Beyer's date, marking a major change in his chronology for the nativity of Christ. Finegan provides a summary of Beyer's research in the 1998 edition, but I highly recommend reading Beyer's article in full.

================================================== ========

http://users.bigpond.net.au/bkolberg...es/errors.html
THE DEATH OF HEROD
Jack Finegan, "Handbook of Biblical Chronology."

... the currently known text of Josephus's Ant. 18.106 states that Philip died in the twentieth year of Tiberius (A.D. 33/34; for the regnal years of Tiberius see Tables 151ff., especially 158, 167) after ruling for thirty-seven years. This points to Philip's accession at the death of Herod in 4 B.C. (4 years B.C. + 33 years A.D. = 37 years). But Filmer suspected that a figure had dropped out and that the text should probably read the twenty-second, rather than the twentieth, year of Tiberius (A.D. 35/36). Barnes rejected this reading as "comparatively ill-attested," although he agreed with Filmer that it was a pivotal point of the debate. In fact, however, already in the nineteenth century Florian Riess reported that the Franciscan monk Molkenbuhr claimed to have seen a 1517 Parisian copy of Josephus and an 1841 Venetian copy in each of which the text read "the twenty-second year of Tiberius." The antiquity of this reading has now been abundantly- confirmed. In 1995 David W. Beyer reported to the Society for Biblical Literature his personal examination in the British Museum of forty-six editions of Josephus's Antiquities published before 1700 among which twenty-seven texts, all but three published before 1544, read "twenty-second year of Tiberius," while not a single edition published prior to 1544 read "twentieth Year of Tiberius." Likewise in the Library of Congress five more editions read the "twenty-second year," while none prior to 1544 records the 'twentieth year." It was also found that the oldest versions of the text give variant lengths of reign for Philip of 32 and 36 years. (snip calcs)

Shalom,
Steven Avery