Steven Avery

Jack, you really do not understand how strange his sounds ? When somebody uses an eclipse for a marker the sense is going to be imminence, close connection. Otherwise .. it is simply not going to be a marker at all. Anything beyond a few weeks will be very questionable, and really you would expect the eclipse to be right in the midst of the final illness, the death or the funeral and such. The strong inference is that the people at the time made the connection.

Shalom,
Steven

spin

How shortly? A year, six months, two weeks?

The eclipse doesn't relate to Matthias the high priest, but to the death of Matthias the cause of the sedition.


spin

spin

It depends on your concept of "soon". Josephus says nothing about "soon". It has been injected here, so what is its precise importance??


spin

spin

It would be nice for you to look at what it was a marker of, the execution of a sedition monger. Some marker. Josephus doesn't use eclipses elsewhere in his writings, so it is hard to say that he has any particular reason for noting the eclipse other than that it occurred when they burnt Matthias.


spin

judge

Why dont you explain which eclipse you think Josephus refers to. Do you have a suggestion?

We can then examine whether your theory hold up.

spin

Now it is obvious that this eclipse stuff is just fudging at the edges.

We have a sure dating for the census of Quirinius, which is ten years after Herod's death. You can try to fudge around the edges there, but it won't change anything. Either Jesus was born at least a year before Herod died or he was born during the census of Quirinius. That's at least an eleven year difference.

This is relative chronology, fixed in its internal dating and unrelated to any fixed external indicators, so that there is no chance of vagueries due to the conflict between fixed points and trying to hang relative chronologies to them. With the chronological sequence of Herod needing to massacre Bethlehem children under two years old, his death and the accession of Archelaus to his dethronement and the subsequent census there are at least eleven years. Jesus could not have been born eleven years apart.


spin

judge

Whats obvious is that you know you are beaten on this point, and can't suggest an alternative.
You want to have Josephus's chronology as reliable, but this eclipse ruins it for you.

As mentioned, above too we know Luke places the birth of Jesus in 3BCE becuase John began baptising in the 15th year of Tiberius.

You have all along attempted to insist the census was a taxation census, but this has been shot down as well.

You have tried to explain away Luke use of the word "first" which is entirely unnessecary if he meant the 6CE tax census.

What are you left with?

Trying to insist Josephus cannot be wrong about dates.

And the mention of Quirinius.

It is just not strong enough to build the bullet proof case you want.

Added in edit:
The irony is you refuse to be skeptical, and are instead dogmatic.

spin

There is no point. It's a storm in a tea cup. The use of the eclipse is unanchored in the relative chronology of the latter part of Herod's reign. The attempt by your source has been to try to anchor it in a compromising way.

Rubbish. The eclipse doesn't help you get Herod's death on any date. You just know that it was after an eclipse.

Does that mean that you want to argue that Josephus must be wrong but that Luke cannot? That's called apologetics.

In your imagination.

The word apografh is strongly connected with taxation. It is certainly a register or list for financial reasons. Josephus gives you the precise details of the particular apografh.

You don't like taxation. You need to find a tax loop.

One reason I pointed you to Acts 5:37 is because there is no "first" there. You cannot play that game.

You haven't shown that he was actually wrong about any date.

It's strong enough to accuse you of hypocrisy with. You are insisting on Josephus being in error because of the obvious problem in Luke.

In fact there have been cadres of duffers who have tried every possible silly excuse to get out of the implications of Quirinius, so they all take the data extremely seriously and, despite your attempts at a brave face, you are also desperately trying to undermine or circumvent the Quirinius information.

It's simple: either we listen to Matt who says Jesus was born before the death of Herod, or we listen to Luke who says he was born after the end of the reign of Archelaus.

Or then again we just content ourselves with the inherent contradiction and make no statements about when Jesus may have been born, if he were in fact born at all.

You mean that you are not dogmatically constrained to proving by hook or by crook that Luke simply cannot be wrong, despite the obvious evidence.


spin

judge

You seem afraid to suggest an alternate eclipse. We can look at all the possibilities if you like, or do you know you are already defeated so you avoid committing yourself?
It needs to be explained. It is no good to pick and choose which parts of Josephus we use, and then be dogmatic.



It could just as easily refer to another enrollment. Josephus gives us details of an apografh. That you want to refer to it as the is your business.



And your point is?.



No i am suggesting he might be, and that we should be cautious. But your unwllingness or inabilty to propose an alternative eclipse is telling.

No I have already said it may be an error on Lukes part, and if it is impossible for Quirinius to be there then it must be, but if it is not impossible then it is possible.



Where does Luke mention Archelaus in relation to the timing of Jesus's birth?
He doesn't.

Suits me. I began this thread because I wondered just how good Richard carriers article was compared to the other link.



Not at all, I have said all along Luke could be wrong. I dont need Luke to to right. You acknowledged this in post #22.

God save me from inerrancy. But God save me from Richard Carriers dogma as well.

spin

Explain to me exactly how the eclipse is the problem you are tarting up to be.

I don't see that it needs to be explained. Maybe you could explain it to me. You have so far avoided anything tangible because your are afraid to do so, merely resting on the contortions of some other believe that Josephus must be in error.

Luke agrees with Josephus and you can't take it. Your own source betrays you. It was an apografh when Quirinius ruled over Syria. There was no first census of Quirinius as against a second by Quirinius. Acts shows the reality of "first" by omitting it totally.

Obviously that your source's attempt to make something out of "first" is froth. Acts is happy to say the census rather than first or second or seventeenth census.

Why don't you deal with Quirinius facts, which is outside all the number shifting? It's nice and simple ten years after the death of Herod, Quirinius performed his registration of properties in Judea after the dethronement of Archelaus.

As it is a glaring error, why not be content?

He mentions Quirinius ruling Syria, ie after the dethronement of Archelaus.

That was an apparent non sequitur.

OK. You don't need to say any more.

Why do you have a hangup about either inerrancy or Richard Carrier? And what is Richard Carrier got to do with me? If you want to deal with facts, deal with Quirinius. If you want to deal with personalities go back to the Richard Carrier nativity thread.


spin