judge

There is an eclipse before herods death. The eclipse in 1BCE fits. Do you know another that does? It fits timing wise and it fits WRT the scrolls of fasting.




Acts is a different census.

Obviously there is a reason to mention "first".


I am not arguing that Quirinius didn't govern Syria in 6CE. You seem to imagine I have problem with this. I dont.


Not so simple though, only if we cherry pick from Josephus, and try to insist his dating is inerrant. You wish to set these dates in stone,you just can't do it.

Do you think Herod was really 15 years of age when he began to rule over Gallilee? Josephus, Antiquities XIV.158–159.

Josephus gets these things wrong.

I am content. Why should I care? I find it of interest but that's it.

But in other places he places the birth of Jesus in 3BCE, ie the reference to the 15th year of Tiberius, so we need to consider why this is so, not cherry pick from Luke the parts that suit us, and insist we are right.






I dont, I really dont care, I have seen this contradiction written about and argued about for years now, and was never that interterested, so I thought I would take a look at it, no need for hangups.

As far as I know nothing, but his article was instrumental in me starting this thread.

So we seem to have come to an impasse, unless you wish to propose another eclipse that would fit with the death of Herod.

Jack the Bodiless

Yes. There is another eclipse that fits. You still haven't ruled out the total lunar eclipse of 5 BC.

We are still waiting for you to do so.

Both of the pages you have presented misrepresent the actual position of opponents: that the eclipse was in 5 BC, but Herod died in 4 BC. So why are you still using this discredited source?

You have also chosen to disregard the OTHER evidence for Herod's 4 BC death, which allows us to then determine which eclipse was meant. See post #39.

spin

I asked you to "[e]xplain to me exactly how the eclipse is the problem you are tarting up to be." When you feel like doing so, then we can deal with it.

Oh, I see. Judas the Galilean did his census thing twice, did he?

Tell me why it was mentioned.

If he didn't rule Syria before 6CE then the discussion is over, isn't it?

You are resting on a claim of cherry-picking when you haven't done any of investigation to give you a position to make such a claim.

As things stand, the census of Qurinius mentioned in Luke was ten years after the death of Herod.

:wave:

When we are dealing with inclusive dates for reign lengths, as Josephus used, then there can be leeway of upto a year. A king rules from wherever in the year he starts (say, the middle of the year), but that is the first year of rule, just as the last year includes the full year. While reign lengths can be expected to be not precise because of this, it does not imply any incremental errors because there were independent standards, such as from the beginning of the Seleucid dynasty or the foundation of Rome. The sources you cite show know understanding of the situation and they wouldn't want to because they have other motivations.

So the statement, "God save me from inerrancy. But God save me from Richard Carriers dogma as well" was said with its condescending rhetoric, yet you don't really care there, judge. It didn't reflect any hangup on your part at all. I see. Very convincing.

Yet, you did say the following for some reason, didn't you, judge? "But God save me from Richard Carriers dogma as well."

In that you refuse to "[e]xplain to me exactly how the eclipse is the problem you are tarting up to be" and you won't deal with the implications of Quirinius, yes, we are at an impasse. You see, I'll happily deal with the eclipse, when you actually make a substantial presentation of it. Until you do we are at an impasse. You can't deal with Quirinius, so you alone are at an impasse there.


spin

Jack the Bodiless

Just noticed something. From "The Lunar Eclipse of Josephus", as quoted by judge in post #27:
As previously mentioned, the article erroneously assumes that a 5 BC eclipse requires a 5 BC death for Herod. But it's interesting to note that (according to the author himself) a 5 BC death "plays havoc with all the chronological indications of Josephus and Roman records regarding the period of Herod’s death... An early 5 B.C.E. date would cause utter chaos in the records of Josephus."

So, as the author is admitting that there are other indications for the death of Herod (which would be disrupted by a 5 BC death)... why wouldn't those be disrupted by a 1 BC death?

judge

Unfortunately one year here wont save you. Or two years, you have nine years to make up.
The only source I quoted was the wikipedia article giving 13Ce as the first year of Tiberius's reign. You are just wasting time here pretending you have solved the problem. You have not.

spin

Your refusal to present a coherent case for all these supposed errors only undermines your hasty comments. That and your devout avoidance of the implications of Quirinius.

And Augustus died in 14CE. See Tiberius.


spin

judge

Hi Jack, thanks for this, I will get back to you, I see your points, just running late at the moment, I will be back.

judge

Come on spin, you cant either explin the nine years (or eight if you wish) or admit you can't.

No kidding. what is your point?

spin

Judge, either you present your stuff or admit that it's a crock of rubbish that you don't even understand, though it "must be true".

Quirinius is your bane, just as Lysanias is praxeus's fall. You'll both keep pretending though.


spin

judge

You mention post #39 where Diogenes
argues for a 15 Sept 5 BCE eclipse. this article The Lunar Eclipse of Josephus, spends 9 paragraphs on this eclipse. It may not have been clear to you as there are several links posted to this one book each looking at one chapter in the book. But suffice to say the Sept 15 eclipse is dealt with and the idea of a Sept 15 ,5 BCE eclipse and a 4 BCE death for Herod.


Added in edit:
The article argues against a march 5 BCE eclipse, because , as with the 4 BCE eclipse there is too little time until the approaching passover.
This is the eclipse which causes chaos to the Josephus chronology, not the Sept one. It is rejected on other grounds, in addition to the time involved, which in this case is not too short but rather appears too long.

It then uses a quite different appraoch to argue against the Sept 15 eclipse all the while assuming a 4BCE death for Herod (for the sake of argument) leading up to the 4BCE passover.

Hope this helps