Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Avery · 03-07-2007, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

a source written during the governorship of Quirinius would have no way of knowing whether there might be a second census in the future, therefore "first" would be a sensible qualifier to use, to avoid possible confusion.

Hmm.. what does this have to do with the China bean price ? Luke was writing well after the death of Quirinius. Apparently you are conjecturing that Luke used an earlier source from decades earlier and simply copied the wording ?

Note: I am not saying how Luke used "first".
However I am wondering about your logic and timing above.

Shalom,
Steven

Jack the Bodiless · 03-07-2007, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Hmm.. what does this have to do with the China bean price ? Luke was writing well after the death of Quirinius. Apparently you are conjecturing that Luke used an earlier source from decades earlier and simply copied the wording ?

Yes, think that's likely. Especially as he's writing about events from before his own time. He might not have known that there never was a second census under Quirinius (if, indeed, there was not).

spin · 03-07-2007, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

There is and it needs to be dealt with. It needs to be explained. I know you understand this concept as you are very good at trying to explain evidence on your own here on this forum.

We can't just ignore lukes reference to the 15 year of Tiberius in Luke 3, and then the mention that Jesus was about 30 years of age when he began his ministry.

It is not good enough to take one part of luke and which refers to an event and not match it up with what is mentioned just one chapter later.

Why? Luke is explicit about Quirinius.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

We know the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius, so we know that Luke cannot be thinking of 6CE.

Additionally we can't cherry pick from Josephus. Josephus tells us about an ecplipse associated with the death of Herod. Josephus's chronology is not set in stone but the date of the eclipse is.
It is not possible to move the eclipse but it is possible to hypothesise as to how Josephus may have become confused.
We must consider that this is a possibility.

Josephus's data points consistently to a general period prior to the one that your sources have primed you to advocate. You source has to appeal to a bad fall of manuscript tradition to shift one means of dating to 4 BCE. Then your source has to depend on a date from Appian that doesn't help the desired date, but apparently disagrees with Josephus. It's basically a misreading of by your source and I cited the Appian quote for you earlier because you couldn't find it. Fudging numbers won't change the the Quirinius issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Here is one suggestion of how this might have happened, maybe it is right and maybe it is wrong, but we know we need to look for an explanation in light of the eclipse data.

from here Yet Another Eclipse for Herod

You can change the date of Herod's death around however you like. It won't change the fact that Archelaus reigned for ten years and when he was removed Quirinius carried out his census.

spin

judge · 03-07-2007, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Josephus's data points consistently to a general period prior to the one that your sources have primed you to advocate.

Incorrect. Josephus points explicitly to a lunar eclipse shortly before herods death. IOW Josephus is inconsistent. Since the dates of eclipses are set in stone his other chronology must be wrong.

Jack the Bodiless · 03-07-2007, 01:29 PM

But Diogenes the Cynic seems to have dealt with the eclipse stuff quite thoroughly way back in post #24 of this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Herod's death is dated from after the total lunar eclipse of 5BCE, not the partial one in 4BCE.

This was then discussed in several subsequent posts. There doesn't seem to be an "eclipse problem". You seem to pinning everything on a very special definition of "soon after" for Herod's death: a definition so precise that you can decide exactly how many months are "not enough" and how many are "too many". But we even have multiple eclipses to choose from!

Herod died "soon after" (about a year after) the total lunar eclipse of 23rd March 5 BC.

...Where's the problem?

judge · 03-07-2007, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Herod died "soon after" (about a year after) the total lunar eclipse of 23rd March 5 BC.

...Where's the problem?

How can "a year after" be soon after?
Just look ahow often these eclipses happen.

judge · 03-07-2007, 02:47 PM

1.According to the Carrier article Jesus was born in 6CE.

2.John the baptist went out baptising in the 15th year of Tiberius.

Quote:

Luke 3:1In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene— 2during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert. 3He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

3.As the first year of the reign of Tiberius was 13CE the fifteenth year was 27CE.

4.Now Jesus was around 30 years old when he began his ministry.

Quote:

Luke 3:23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry.

5.So if Jesus was born in 6CE he would be around 30 in 36CE, nine years after being baptised.

But there is no indication in Luke that any years at all elapsed. Jesus seems to begin his ministry at that time, not 9 years later.

6.By inference Luke points to a birthdate of 3BCE for Jesus, so he cant be thinking of the 6CE taxation enrollment but must be thinking of the 3BCE oath-taking enrollment.

Jack the Bodiless · 03-07-2007, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

How can "a year after" be soon after?
Just look ahow often these eclipses happen.

According to NASA, you have to go back to 9 BC for the previous total lunar eclipse (I haven't checked whether that one was visible in the Middle East) and forward to 1 BC for the next one. So, that's 4 years (at least) in both directions. On that scale, 4 BC is "soon after" 5 BC.

Steven Avery · 03-07-2007, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

On that scale, 4 BC is "soon after" 5 BC.

Jack, if you ever become a surgeon please let me know, so I can keep a wide swath..

Oh, we are removing the appendix ? kidney ? liver ? one of those squishy things down there ..ok, let 'er rip. They're all sort of in the abdomen region by the scale I'm using.

Shalom,
Steven

Jack the Bodiless · 03-07-2007, 03:34 PM

Well, Josephus wasn't attempting anything so precise. Not to mention the fact that he hadn't even been born at this time (that lay four decades in the future). So, from the perspective of over half a century on, one year seems even smaller...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-07-2007, 03:34 PM	#150
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	Well, Josephus wasn't attempting anything so precise. Not to mention the fact that he hadn't even been born at this time (that lay four decades in the future). So, from the perspective of over half a century on, one year seems even smaller...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.