Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Ok, in review.

We have one Archelaus reference corrected to be another Archelaus.
Thanks.

Then we have the discussion of this Josephus reference.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/t...hus/ant18.html
The like to what Herod did was done by his son Archelaus,
who was made king after him;

A couple of different issues are raised here against the simple
identification of king (as supreme ruler) being used by Josephus
for Archelaus when in fact Archelaus was never technically
designated king by Caesar.

Jeffrey's attempt to make a point between ethnarch and tetrarch is
insignificant, since once you allow that king is reasonable for one
non-Roman-title supreme ruler title you have clear support for
writers to use the term for another non-Roman-title supreme
ruler - with a presumption of literary sensibleness.

More significant is that Archelaus was trying to be "king" as
successor, a title that he never received.

(We could counterpose this with the known fact that Antipas
much desired to have the Roman title "king" .. supporting its
possible use locally .. as in another situation where Josephus
refers to "the multitude desirous to be under kings, as their
fathers had been".)

And the point is made that Archelaus was referred to king not
as a direct title in Josephus (the 'verb' discussion between JW
and Jeffrey). Interestingly, when you put those two together
you have Josephus referring to Archelaus as the basileus, the king,
the supreme ruler, in the generic sense. Which is exactly the
common NT usage.

Then perhaps the argument would switch to generally accepting
the Mark and Matthew references to Antipas as king - yet accusing -

Mark 6:14
And king Herod heard of him ...

That would be the likely fallback position of those trying to find
some accusation against Mark and Matthew. However I doubt
that anyone other than a spin-type would contend this seriously.

Also in Josephus we have Archelaus being included in this
discussion of 'kings'.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...hus/ant-17.htm
Archclaus divorced his former wife Mariamne, and married her ...
Now I did not think these histories improper for the present discourse,
both because my discourse now is concerning kings ...

Which clearly supports the generic usage of basileus for supreme rulers, including the ethnarch Archelaus. And this definitely is out of the context of the period where Archelaus was hoping to receive the title from Caesar.

Then there is a possible unfound Cicero reference, given in
a scholarly source but not verified on a Jeffrey search.
As well as the Gospel of Peter reference.

And none of this is really necessary, although it is fun to watch.
We already had looked at the usage of king/basileus in the NT.
That this is not a term limited to Roman-title supreme rulers.
In the NT it includes the usage of those who were not actually
technically kings in the Roman title sense (Caesar and Pharoah as
well as Antipas, also the "king of the Jews"). And we have the multiple usages in the NT for those who were simply supreme rulers in a generic sense.

And the simple fact that Herod the Great's claim to be "King of the Jews" would be echoing down through his descendants and could be fodder for an NT writer looking to write with a bit of sharpness about Antipas.

And we have the difficulty at times historically even to discern who
is a tetrarch and who is a king in the Roman technical sense,
demonstrating the practical similarities of the positions, both as
supreme rulers of a region. And we see this also in the learned
commentators who refer to "tetrarch or king" and how a tetrarch can be considered a minor king.

And we see the simplest interchangeability internally within Matthew...

Matthew
14:1
At that time Herod the tetrarch heard of the fame of Jesus,

14:9
And the king was sorry: nevertheless for the oath's sake,
and them which sat with him at meat,
he commanded it to be given her.

So spin offers up a theory (ignored by others writing about these
verses and obviously a methodology of manipulation, a spin
non-redaction of convenience) that therefore (to match his
accusation) Matthew *really* meant to change 14:1 but was
too 'fatigued'. Otherwise the corroborating fact of Matthew
and Mark would make an accusation that much more difficult.
So invent a non-redaction that should have been a redaction.

Does 'scholarship' get much more nonsensical than this type of
shenanigans ? I trow not.

And on this 'scholarship' spin hangs his weak accusation against
Mark. Jeffrey might simply accuse Matthew as well, without the
fatigue nonsense, but then he has the Matthew interchangeability
problem. So maybe he has to get on the 'spin non-redaction'
bandwagon. Since Jeffrey is accusing the NT text of error.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

PS.
It is interesting to note that JW is in a funny position. The absurd
arguments of Richard Carrier on the Nativity actually depend on
Luke calling Archelaus king and coming up with a bunch of strained
and weak eisegesis to try to have Luke place the nativity around 6 AD.

So to defend that absurdity JW ends up fighting for truth on this
thread. Wonders of wonders. That is twice in a few days that JW
has accidentally been on the side of lucidity and clarity. (The other I saw was his pointing out that interpolation claims without hard evidence .. manuscript and/or patristic .. is very dubious .. also relevant here against the 'spin non-redaction' claim, a similar methodology of manipulation.)

However I do want to be fair. It is possible that JW is taking the side of truth and respect for the NT text on this issue because he actually sees that there is no basis for accusing Mark or Matthew and JW sees that the usage of king is simply sensible and understandable and the accusations are without merit.

And in the midst of all this let us remember that even in English today king can have a wide usage. The recent passing of Eddie Feigner comes to mind.

spin

I'm surprised that praxeus really needs a "substantive" response, when he should know by now that, for example, "governor" was not a title that anyone used and that he should have provided the appropriate title if he were serious in his palaver. In fact each of those people he calls "governor" had a different title, but don't ask praxeus, because he wouldn't know the difference.

Right, "Lukan precision". What was Pontius Pilate's actual title? Luke doesn't seem to know. What was Quirinius's actual title? Again Luke can't tell us. And good old Felix? Well, Luke simply calls him hgemwn, a generic term for "ruler". Some precision that.

(Oh, and Aretas was king, but not of Syria. But then he wasn't mentioned in Luke, but in 1 Cor.)

The irony doesn't come home to roost though, does it? You need some knowledge of the subject to see the irony.


spin

(Yeah, and I notice for want of anything more meaningful to say praxeus tries to resurrect his sorry confusion over the LXX.)

JoeWallack

JW:
Steven has discovered Josephus' reference to Archelaus as King. Hallelulah! Just so everyone can more easily see it (emphasis mine):

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/t...hus/ant18.html

"3. But Vitellius came into Judea, and went up to Jerusalem; it was at the time of that festival which is called the Passover. Vitellius was there magnificently received, and released the inhabitants of Jerusalem from all the taxes upon the fruits that were bought and sold, and gave them leave to have the care of the high priest's vestments, with all their ornaments, and to have them under the custody of the priests in the temple, which power they used to have formerly, although at this time they were laid up in the tower of Antonia, the citadel so called, and that on the occasion following: There was one of the [high] priests, named Hyrcanus; and as there were many of that name, he was the first of them; this man built a tower near the temple, and when he had so done, he generally dwelt in it, and had these vestments with him, because it was lawful for him alone to put them on, and he had them there reposited when he went down into the city, and took his ordinary garments; the same things were continued to be done by his sons, and by their sons after them. But when Herod came to be king, he rebuilt this tower, which was very conveniently situated, in a magnificent manner; and because he was a friend to Antonius, he called it by the name of Antonia. And as he found these vestments lying there, he retained them in the same place, as believing, that while he had them in his custody, the people would make no innovations against him. The like to what Herod did was done by his son Archelaus, who was made king after him; after whom the Romans, when they entered on the government, took possession of these vestments of the high priest, and had them reposited in a stone-chamber, under the seal of the priests, and of the keepers of the temple, the captain of the guard lighting a lamp there every day; and seven days before a festival (13) they were delivered to them by the captain of the guard, when the high priest having purified them, and made use of them, laid them up again in the same chamber where they had been laid up before, and this the very next day after the feast was over. This was the practice at the three yearly festivals, and on the fast day; but Vitellius put those garments into our own power, as in the days of our forefathers, and ordered the captain of the guard not to trouble himself to inquire where they were laid, or when they were to be used; and this he did as an act of kindness, to oblige the nation to him. Besides which, he also deprived Joseph, who was also called Caiaphas, of the high priesthood, and appointed Jonathan the son of Ananus, the former high priest, to succeed him. After which, he took his journey back to Antioch."


JW:
I guess I just had Faith that it was in there somewhere!



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

JoeWallack

JW:
Jeffrey, my related argument with Farrell Till was over Matthew 2:22:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Matthew_2:22

"But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither; and being warned [of God] in a dream, he withdrew into the parts of Galilee," (ASV)

I argued that "Matthew" technically was in error by describing Archelaus as if he was the King, just like Herod the Great. I gave two reasons:

1) The implication is Archelaus simply succeeded Herod the Great.

2) Our now familiar word, "βασιλεύει", in verbal form

http://www.zhubert.com/word?word=%CE...&number=589152

"βασιλεύει (16) βασιλεύω (412) Verb to be king, to rule, reign
Parsing 3rd Person Present Active Indicative Singular"

normally means to rule as King which technically Archelaus was not.


Till thought this argument was nitpicking and a mistake for Skeptics to describe as an error since there are so many so much better and clearer errors to work with. As his main defense he pointed out that Josephus uses the related noun to refer to Archelaus in 18:93.

It seems that the best way to get information out of you is to post assertions needing corrections, especially grammatical ones. But I suppose correcting mistakes is what Professors do. Especially the good ones.

I especially appreciate your pointing out here, as always, the need to examine the original language, the form of the word, the context and possible meanings as well as check with those competent in the original language and specific author rather than only relying on English translations.

I asked you to identify where Josephus used BASILEUS and you didn't mention 18:93. Do I keep complaining about this Ad Nazorean, making its advertising my primary objective and distracting from what should be the main issue? Or do I just give you the benefit of the doubt, because of Professional courtesy, that in a hurry you just missed it?

Obviously going from Ethnarch to King is a shorter putt than from Tetrarch to King. Can Steven make the argument? Does a Bar take a Peshitta to read in the woods?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

spin

praxeus is trying to put a brave face on his blunder. He has in no sense shown that the common NT usage of basileus was "in the generic sense". He has merely assumed that because Mark uses it four times for Herod Antipas who was most definitely not a king and which both Luke and Matt were well aware. Luke replaced it with "tetrarch" twice and excised the rest. Matt, out of four Marcan exemplars of "king", replaced it with "tetrarch" once, excised two examples and left the last -- three out of four gone. Obviously, neither the Matthean nor the Lucan writers were impressed by Mark's usage of basileus for Herod Antipas.

Ooops, Luke kills the king references totally and Matt excises three out of four and he continues with this silly defense. It's impressive staying power for so little to stay for.

This is pure deceit: trying by association to place Herod Archelaus among kings so that the title could brush off. In fact, Josephus is justifying the inclusion of Glaphyra's dream because of the royal connections of this princess, daughter of a king and married to a king -- who are Josephus's "kings" -- before marrying Archelaus.

Argument from ignorance, eh?

Rather than all this blubbering about the interchangeability of the terms "king" and "tetrarch" he has found that they are simply not interchangeable as one has to search very far to get even one example of a misapplied basileus, if there actually is one.

And found that both Luke and Matt had corrected Mark.

What exactly are "technically kings in the Roman title sense"??

Augustus made the situation painfully clear. Luke seems to understand completely, as it would seem the writer of Matt does. Otherwise why get rid of the term as they both did? (praxeus clings to the fact that Matt which got rid of three out of four missed one.)

Can you document who would have "considered [a tetrarch as] a minor king"? Thought not.

More deception. The omission of the intervening verses hides the fact that Matt got rid of two examples of Herod Antipas being referred to as "king". So, not only did the writer change "king" to "tetrarch", he also cut out two other mentions of H.A. as king. No pattern can praxeus see there. He simply ignores most of the evidence and goes for the exception. Typical.

Let's ignore the evidence for intention here, ie that in three out of four cases Matt gets rid of "king", even specifying the correct title for Herod. Why did the Matthean writer get rid of the three examples of "king"? The logical response is that he knew that H.A. was not a king.

The notion of fatigue, which seems so difficult to get for praxeus to get into head, involves the copying-redaction process and the redactor is concentrating on improving the text, so he has the job of being as accurate as possible to the source, while fixing the language and the ideas. Even with the best of efforts mistakes happen in the process.

In the process of simple copying the scribe does leave out words, sometimes whole phrases and sentences, they read things wrongly, they don't remember correctly. The redactional process is more complicated. If anyone is interested in the subject, just google "fatigue synoptic" or variations. The first that came up was Mark Goodacre, who even mentions fatigue in the same verse, Mt 14:9 but for a different issue, Matt's strange reference to "grief" after to changing his source and having H.A. wanting to put JtB to death. He simply copied the Marcan verse, apparently without thinking what he'd done -- also copying the reference to H.A. as king. It's called "fatigue".

"Learn more than thou trowest".



The way to hell is paved with good intentions.


spin

jgibson000

But he didn't simply succeed Herod, let alone as King. He was appointed to his rule by Augustus and only after he convinced Augustus that he deserved to rule.

Nor is Matthew describing Archelaus as if he were a king, let alone a king who who was just like his father vis a vis Herod's station (and where do you get "in the room"? as a translation of "ἀντὶ τοῦ πατρὸs αὐτοῦ ηρwδου"???).

But what we have in Matt. 22 isn'ta noun, let alone the noun βασιλεύs, in a "verbal" form and not only because nouns do not have "verbal" forms.

This is a form not only of an entirely different word, but, grammatically, an entirely different type of word -- the present indicative active third person singular of the verb βασιλεύω, and, as you would see if you did a little work in LSJ and BDAG, its primary sense was "to rule", not to "rule as king".

Sorry, Joseph, but not only do you owe Till an apology; you've taken a step backward in earning the cash prize on What's My Lysinias.

Jeffrey

jgibson000

Corrected? It never was a reference to another Archeleaus. It was always a reference to the father of Glphyra and never a reference, as you claimed it was, to the son of Herod. The only thing that needed to be corrected was your claim about who the Archelaus was.

But should we allow this? An even if we should, the issue isn't what is reasonable. It was what historically was actually done. Where is your evidence -- and by evidence I don't mean speculations based upon syllogisms that are grounded in non demonstrated premises, but textual, epigraphical, and numismatic data -- that it actually was done.

Can you point me to evidence that shows that Archelaus was "trying to be king?" And doesn't his striving, if true, actually point to the recognition on his part that one who was an ETHNRACHS was not BASILEUS?

And what multitude is this? I note that, through the use of a tactic [selective quotation] that is a favourite of the KJV only supporters when they argue their "case"] you have skaked over and failed to mention that the "multitude" here are the citizens of Commange, not of Judea or Galileee:

At this time died Antiochus, the king of Commagene; whereupon the multitude contended with the nobility, and both sent ambassadors to [Rome]; for the men of power were desirous that their form of government might be changed into that of a [Roman] province; as were the multitude desirous to be under kings, as their fathers had been.

Only if you ignore the fact that you have cooked your "multitude" evidence to make it support something it doesn't, and if you twist the grammar of the text of Josephus Ant. to say what it does not say.

And what do you make of this text from Josephus?

Quote:

As soon as Varus was once informed of the state of Judea by Sabinus's writing to him, he was afraid for the legion he had left there; so he took the two other legions, (for there were three legions in all belonging to Syria,) and four troops of horsemen, with the several auxiliary forces which either the kings or certain of the tetrarchs afforded him, and made what haste he could to assist those that were then besieged in Judea.

This is pretty strange for one who thought that there really was no distinction in the Palestinian mind between "kings" and "tetrarchs".

Hmm. By your logic, we'd have to say that Simon the Essene and the royal born Glphyra "kings", since they are also included within this "discourse concerning kings".

But tell me, Steve, does the Greek of Josephus 17. 354 actually state, as you are here claiming it does, that the "discourse" Josephus refers to there concerned only kings?

If, you'd like, I can provide the Greek for you. But the truth of the matter is that you don't really know, do you, and that once again, you are basing your exegesis of a Greek text on an English (and a very old and odd English) translation of that text, yes?

Would be? What is your evidence of this?

We do? Just who are these "learned commentators". And do they really say what you claim they do? Could you please provide the actual words of Fergus Millar that show him saying what you say he says?

Ignored by others??? What about Goulder and Goodacre and S.C. Carlson and R.T. France, as well as Haenchen and Dibelius?

Yes, but that's because you not only wouldn't recognize "scholarship" if you saw it, but because you are demonstrably unaware of what the scholarship is on these verses.

Yes, I am and in the good company of commentators far more "learned" that I could ever hope to be who also do so.

Other than with those who use the tactic of selective/mis quotation and misrepresentation of authorities to make their point, who cook the evidence they appeal to to make their "case", who know no Greek, who produce only secondary evidence when called upon to produce primary evidence, and who exegete Greek texts on the basis of English translations of them, in whose company do you stand?

JG

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Taking out the fluff, most of his post,
here is the whole of the spin response to the examples given.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin each of those people he calls "governor" had a different title ... What was Pontius Pilate's actual title? Luke doesn't seem to know. What was Quirinius's actual title? And good old Felix? Well, Luke simply calls him hgemwn, a generic term for "ruler".

Now beyond the accurate general titles at the top of the last post :

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...or#post4295327
Luke, historicity & Roman titles

Let us first look at the specific precision examples given before, and add a few more. Then we can look at the spin concerns. (Quotes are in brown, in some cases the link is from above, most are URL'd)

Notice that after his "only tetrarch" blunder spin stills says nothing about (among others) :

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

Demetrius - (Acts 19:38)
proconsul of Epheseus. because of Senate rule at that time.

Sergius Paulus
"proconsul of Cyprus" (Acts 13:7)

Gallio
"proconsul of Achaia" (Acts 18:12)

In these cases proconsul is the precise term for regions under Senate
rule .. rather than imperial legate or a general term. Note especially
that Achaia had this form of government for a short period matching
precisely the Gospel accounts.

------

Jason (Acts 17:6 & 17:8) appealed to the politarchs against Paul.
Luke preserved this title, confirmed abundantly in the local archaeology
however not in the Roman documents.

Publius (Acts 28:7) - Malta - protos - "first man" of the island

In Philippi - praetors & lictors -
accurate titles for their magistrates and attendants

Many more below.

Yet spin pretends to the forum that Luke only references tetrarchs

Amazing. Luke's writing gives us an incredible accuracy,
which also runs to Roman law and to geography and history and culture).

What I have enjoyed about this exercise is looking at each one and
seeing how sound and precise is the historian Luke. For me efforts
like this are to learn (surely not to get a sensible response from spin,
although perhaps from others) .. and the results become a super "keeper".

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

Acts 13:7
Which was with the deputy of the country,
Sergius Paulus, a prudent man;
who called for Barnabas and Saul,
and desired to hear the word of God

Luke called Sergius Paulus "proconsul" (Acts 13:7), not by the old
title, "imperial legate," which notes the change in Cyprus's status
from an imperial province to a senatorial one in 22 b.c.

Acts 18:12
And when Gallio was the deputy of Achaia,
the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul,
and brought him to the judgment seat,

Acts 19:38
Wherefore if Demetrius,
and the craftsmen which are with him,
have a matter against any man,
the law is open,
and there are deputies:
let them implead one another.

Luke called the governors of Asia and Achaia "proconsuls" since
the senate ruled them, not the emperor (Acts 18:12; 19:38).
Luke was precise even in the special case of Achaia which was
under the senate from 27 b.c. to 15 A.D., then under the emperor
to 44 A.D., and back under the senate again !

Also sidenotes:

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/saint-luke.htm
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/arch-nt.html
At Delphi, an inscription from Emperor Claudius was discovered that says,
"Lucius Junios Gallio, my friend, and the proconsul of Achaia . . ."
Historians date the inscription to 52 AD, which supports the time
of Paul's visit there in 51 AD.
John McRay, Archaeology and the New Testament (1991), 227.

On the island of Cyprus, Paul encountered the Proconsul Sergius Paulus (13:7). An inscription found on that island in 1889 contains a Proconsul Paulus, but the identification with the Paulus of Acts is uncertain due to difficulties with its dating. Another possible reference to the Paulus of Acts appears on an inscription in Ephesus. His name is given as Sergius and he was Proconsul of Asia at a date that could identify him as the proper ruler if he went to Cyprus shortly thereafter.

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

Acts 17:6
And when they found them not,
they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers
of the city, crying,
These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;

Acts 17:8
And they troubled the people and the rulers of the city,
when they heard these things.

politarches ...
the term, otherwise unknown in extant Greek literature,
is attested on seventeen inscriptions found in that city (Janeway)

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_..._accounts.html
inscriptions that mention politarchs ... several of these
in Thessalonsea from the same period Luke was referring to.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/493
For many years, skeptics accused Luke of gross inaccuracy because he used the title politarchas to refer to the city officials of Thessalonica, rather than citing the more common terms strateegoi (magistrates) and exousiais (authorities) ... such usage was discovered in the written records of some of the cities of Macedonia—the province in which Thessalonica was located.

http://www.antioch.com.sg/cgi-bin/bi....pl?num=2443#4
Vines
the form used by Luke is supported by inscriptions discovered at Thessalonica, one of which mentions Sosipater, Secundus, and Gaius among the politarchs, names occurring as those of Paul's companions. Prof. Burton of Chicago, in a paper on "The Politarchs," has recorded 17 inscriptions which attest their existence, thirteen of which belong to Macedonia and five presumably to Thessalonica itself, illustrating the influence of Rome in the municipal organization of the place.

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

Acts 28:7
In the same quarters were possessions of the
chief man of the island,
whose name was Publius;
who received us,
and lodged us three days courteously.

He called Publius "the first man of the island" (Acts 28:7), which
both Latin and Greek inscriptions have confirmed was the right
title for the ruler of Malta then.

The proper title protos (te nesou) for a man
in Publius’s position of leadership on the islands (Truthnet)

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

Acts 16:20
And brought them to the magistrates, saying,
These men, being Jews,
do exceedingly trouble our city,

The chief magistrates in Philippi insisted egotistically on being
called "praetors" (Acts 16:20), as Luke records, not "duumvirs"
as they were elsewhere, as the Roman Republic's orator Cicero
(106-43 b.c.) confirms.

http://www.bible.ca/b-new-testament-...-bruce-ch7.htm
The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable? - F. F. Bruce
The strict title of these colonial magistrates was 'duumvirs';
but they affected the more grandiloquent title of praetors''
like the magistrates of another Roman colony, Capua,
of whom Cicero says:
'Although they are called duumvirs in the other colonies,
these men wished to be called praetors."

The title praetor is accurately ascribed and their attendants
were named "lictors," or "rod bearers." (Janeway)

Acts 16:35
And when it was day,
the magistrates sent the serjeants,
saying, Let those men go.

Acts 16:38
And the serjeants told these words unto the magistrates:
and they feared, when they heard that they were Romans.

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

Luke 3:1
Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,
Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea,
and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee,
and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea
and of the region of Trachonitis,
and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,

Luke 3:19
But Herod the tetrarch,
being reproved by him for Herodias his brother Philip's wife,
and for all the evils which Herod had done,

He refers to Herod Antipas by the title "tetrarch" (Luke 3:1,19),
not the popular designation of "king," since the Romans granted
the status of royalty only to his father, Herod the Great.

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

Acts 19:38
Wherefore if Demetrius, and the craftsmen which are with him,
have a matter against any man, the law is open, and there are deputies:
let them implead one another.

http://www.themoorings.org/apologeti...ls/relia3.html
The Reliability of the Gospels
He notes that when pagan opponents of Christianity rioted in Ephesus,
there was more than one proconsul of Asia (Acts 19:38).

http://www.truthnet.org/Apologetics/8/
Use of plural anthupatoi in 19:38 is probably a remarkably exact
reference to the fact that two men jointly exercised the functions
of proconsul at this time.

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

Acts 19:31
And certain of the chief of Asia, which were his friends,
sent unto him, desiring him that he would not adventure
himself into the theatre.

"asiarchs"

http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T521
ASIARCHS
A somewhat general term for public patrons and leaders named
by cities in the Roman province of Asia.

http://www.chafer.edu/journal/back_issues/V5n2_c.PDF
Is The Acts of The Apostles Historically Reliable? - Brian Janeway
Strabo, among other ancient authors, speaks of these figures. They were chosen from among the wealthiest and most aristocratic in the province. They were expected to finance public games and festivals, usually serving one-
year terms. Inscriptions attesting "Asiarchs" have been found in over
forty cities in Asia.

http://www.sjweb.info/documents/dial....cfm?Number=13
The Asiarchs were officials of the pagan religion who had charge of putting on the Asian Games, the athletic events that were a part of the traditional religious rites.

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

Acts 19:35
And when the townclerk had appeased the people, he said,
Ye men of Ephesus,
what man is there that knoweth not how that the city of
the Ephesians is a worshipper of the great goddess Diana,
and of the image which fell down from Jupiter?

"grammateus"

http://www.truthnet.org/Apologetics/8/
Correct title grammateus for the chief executive magistrate
proper title ... neokoros (for the worshipper of Diana)

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

Acts 24:27
But after two years Porcius Festus came into Felix' room:
and Felix, willing to shew the Jews a pleasure, left Paul bound.

Festus name given also by Josephus

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

Acts 20:4
And there accompanied him into Asia Sopater of Berea;
and of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus;
and Gaius of Derbe, and Timotheus;
and of Asia, Tychicus and Trophimus.

precise ethnic designation Beroiaios and the ethnic term Asianos (Truthnet)

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

Here is one, involving both Paul and Luke.

Acts 19:22
So he sent into Macedonia two of them that ministered unto him,
Timotheus and Erastus;
but he himself stayed in Asia for a season.

Romans 16:23
Gaius mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you.
Erastus the chamberlain of the city saluteth you,
and Quartus a brother.

Erastus, city treasurer of Corinth (Romans 16:23)
—verified by pavement inscription.

http://www.truthnet.org/Apologetics/8/
The Erastus Inscription
On a slab of limestone which was a part of the pavement
near the theater in Corinth, a Latin inscription was found
which translates,
“Erastus, in return for the aedileship,
laid the pavement at his own expense”

http://www.probe.org/content/view/30/77/
Archaeology and the New Testament
Erastus, a coworker of Paul, is appointed treasurer of Corinth. In 1928, archaeologists excavated a Corinthian theatre and discovered an inscription that reads, "Erastus in return for his aedilship laid the pavement at his own expense." The pavement was laid in 50 AD, and the term "aedile" refers to the designation of treasurer.

Paul does not use aedile (never used in the NT) he simply uses
a word for steward or treasurer that matches perfectly the
context and the confirming archaeological discoveries.

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

Quite amazing.

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

Now here are the big concerns from spin, not of error but where
he is concerned that there could be greater precision. Mostly
about procurators in Judea, who Luke and Matthew called
governors.

Note first that spin is concerned about Paul calling Aretas King.

2 Corinthians 11:32
In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city
of the Damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me:

A very, very strange complaint since Paul specifically does not call
Aretas, the Nabataean king, the king of Syria. He says that Aretas
is the king over the governor of Damascus. 100% precision.

Then in these local Judea verses is it possible that Luke could have
used procurator.

Acts 23:24
And provide them beasts, that they may set Paul on,
and bring him safe unto Felix the governor.

Acts 23:26
Claudius Lysias unto the most excellent governor Felix sendeth greeting.

Luke 3:1
Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,
Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea,
and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee,
and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis,
and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,

Note that Matthew and Luke agree in using hegemon for Pilate.
One could have all sorts of discussion about what was the
best term at the time.

The ISBE gives some background on the discussion.

http://www.bible-history.com/pontius_pilate/pilateISBE_Procurator.htm
The question concerning the original title of the Roman governors of Judaea has arisen because the New Testament employs the word hegemon (Matt 27:2,11,14-15,21,27; 28:14; Luke 3:1; 20:20; Acts 23:24; 24:1; 26:30), which corresponds with the Latin term, praeses, which might be considered synonymous with either procurator or praefectus (Hirschfeld, 384). There is no inscriptional evidence to establish the nomenclature of the rulers of Palestine before the time of Vespasian, and Hirschfeld is of the opinion that a certain passage in Tacitus (Ann. xv.44) where Pilate is called procurator is not sufficient proof in view of this writer's carelessness in details of this sort. Josephus (Ant, XX, i, 2), however, employs epitropos (procurator) for the time of Claudius, and it is convenient to follow common usage and assume that this title was current from the first.

The Jewish encyclopedia tell us that Talmud and Midrash did not use
a term equivalent to procurator.

http://tinyurl.com/344obu
the Talmud and the Midrash ... never the term "procurator".

Note the critical issue ...
Whether one prefers governor or argues that procurator
would be more precise - 100% no errors.

http://www.gracenotes.info/topics/Ro...ialSystem.html
“The Life and Epistles of St. Paul,” by W. J. Conybeare and J. S. Howson.
We are told by Strabo, and by Dio Cassius, that “Asia” and “Achaia” were assigned to the Senate; and the title, which in each case is given to the Governor in the Acts of the Apostles, is “Proconsul.” The same authorities inform us that Syria was an imperial province, and no such title as “Proconsul” is assigned by the sacred writers to “Cyrenius Governor of Syria,” (Luke 2:2) or to Pilate, Festus, and Felix, the Procurators of Judea, which was a dependency of that great and unsettled province.

Leading to spin's last concern ... good 'ol Cyrenius, who was governing
Syria. We have a sufficient and accurate verbal rendering with or
without any concerns about the possible alternate word legatus.

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b...er/009294.html
"hegemoneuontos tes Syrias Kyreniou" or
"while Quirinius was leading -in charge of-Syria"

So after about a dozen cases of amazing precision, spin only offers
us a strange claim about Aretas and the NT usage of hegemon and
non-usage of procurator and Cyrenius "governing Syria". And all of
these are 100% accurate, all that spin can try to claim is that in a few
positions Luke had some additional precision available. !

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

Going beyond the titles and related issues.
When reviewing the research and writings of Saint Luke

"In all, Luke names thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities,
and nine islands without error." - Norman Geisler

"For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. . . . any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted."
Greco–Roman historian A. N. Sherwin-White,
Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, 1963, 189.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=33696
The Great Sir William Ramsey
Sir William Ramsey concluded,
"Great historians are the rarest of writers...
[I regard Luke] among the historians of the first rank"

While this quote covers similar ground, it touches specifically
on the common IIDB redaction and non-redaction and interpolation
claims as well as some specific details above.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/nuhbias.html
"I have an interest here in the unimportant, in the nuances, which might betray a redactor's faulty knowledge of the context of a precise but unimportant statement. I submit that it is exceedingly hard to reproduce secondhand, in one's own style, intricate reports of fact. Yet we can check the trivia of Acts against the inscriptions: "town clerk" at Ephesus, "politarchs" at Thessalonica, "first man" at Malta...Less obvious but more pervasive are the marginal things, the incidence of personal names, the illustrations of the customs in verbal uses...And there is the factor of the subtle interlocking of pieces...the dates of the Gallio inscription...the expulsion of the Jews from Italy...There are in fact incidentals...which contribute unemphatically to the building of a picture which correlates with external literature and with archaeology" ("Luke the Historian" in Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, No. 60, pp.36,37)

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery

Joe, I addressed this in some depth above, in both a specific way about literary sensibleness and in a general way about the usages of basileus in the NT.

Folks reading the forum (and you seem to understand this) can see clearly that the case against Mark and Matthew referring to Herod Antipas as king has flopped. Out in the nether-land of spin fatigue non-redactions and even there sinking like a stone. So instead the accusers are a bit in Don Quixote land, seeking out new windmills.

The remaining issues re: the big accusation are more mop-up, or perhaps even new lands, such as looking to see if any of the Jeffrey auxiliary stuff is substantive or interesting.

For now I was more interested in the Roman titles, so that will have to wait a bit, off to work.

Shalom,
Steven

jgibson000

Even if the term "literary sensibleness" has any meaning, who is it who determines what is and is not literarily "sensible" in Hellenistic literature?

You???

PUUULEEEASSE!

As you've noted time and again, you are committed to the apriori that scripture cannot err, that it has to be "sensible" and cannot ever be anything but, and that the authors of the NT never make mistakes.

And you have demonstrated and declared over and over again that you not only don't know the first thing about Greek, but that you have no grounding whatsoever in., let alone any real understanding of, what, according to the ancients, was and was not "literarily sensible" and what was considered infelicitous and lacking in any sensibility, literary or otherwise, since you haven't the faintest acquaintance with Hellenistic literary/rhetorical criticism and analysis and canons of good composition or historiography.

So how you would know what is and what is not "literarily sensible" in ancient literature, let alone how you could possibly admit that something in the NT was not or could not be literarily sensible even when, according to the canons of ancient literary canons of "sensibility" it was not, is beyond me.

JG