judge

This makes no sense.

1.The word can have more than one meaning.

2.Josephus uses the word to have one of these meaning in AJ 18.1,1

3.You then argue it must always have this meaning, ignoring a dictionary definition that shows it can mean other things.

Is this really your best shot?

Larsguy47

Well, that being as it may, the bottom line is that the gospels specifically date the birth of Jesus in 2 BC, likely September 14th to be exact (general reference to Jesus being born on the first day of the Festival of Booths so that his circumcism is fulfilled by the 8th day of the festival, which is a special sabbath day).

So there's a conflict. Josephus is dating Herod's death in 3 BC, shortly after an eclipse, so the 4 BCE eclipse is not his reference. That makes things interesting. It interjects the possibility of a cryptic reference, only necessary if there has been a revisionism.

Then you have this double-rulership: 34 years from one date, 37 years from another. Yeah, right!

I'm merely noting, in the SUPPOSITION that the double rulership was used to cover a revision, in which case we would date 37 years from year 37, that if we did. IF we did... And if Josephus was using this eclipse reference, definitely not 4 BC, to confirm the original dating, then an eclipse would have to occur shortly after the Fast of Tebet 10 in 1 BC. If it doesn't, then that THEORY falls. But it turns out that, indeed, an eclipse does occur on Tebet 14, 1 BC.

So you decide.

Larsguy47

spin

Only when you are trying to be perverse.

If you go back to the post I cited, I gave you information from the Liddell & Scott entry for apografh, so I'm ignoring nothing. You are so deperate that things drop out of your head. Yes, words can have more than one meaning, however, given contextual clues you can see what they mean. When in Josephus it is beyond any shadow of a single quibble, we then turn to Luke which deals with the same event and though the report isn't as specific as that of Josephus, because it is the same event, we have no trouble in seeing that it is the same meaning of apografh.

I don't need anything better: it is sufficient to finish the job.


spin

judge

Yes, if ones marks ones own exam papers one is always a straight A student.:devil1:

spin

Would you please do the specific footwork to justify these comments with exact references before I pull them apart?

Bollocks.

"[D]ouble rulership" doesn't mean anything. You are trying too hard for so few results.

You can "note" whatever you like, but this time it's vain.

You haven't justified your choice of fast.

The eclipse is fundamentally irrelevant. As you are aware there were several eclipses around the time, so everyone picks his favorite for whatever a priori commitments one has. It is all irrelevant because what ever you do or say won't change the fact that Jesus was born twice, once for Matthew and once for Luke, ten years apart.


spin

spin

You're still without content, judge. :banghead:


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Earlier we were discussing Luke and Roman positions and titles
and spin tried to laugh while agreeing that some were right (not
enough for spin, however). Here is a more complete list from
Luke of most of the titles we earlier discussed.

Tetrarch
Herod of Galilee
Philip of Ituraea
Lysanias of Abilene (the one disputed)

King
Tiberius Caesar
Herod the Great
Aretas (Syria)
Herod Agrippa

Governor
Cyrenius (Syria)
Pontius Pilate
Felix (Antonius Claudius)

Basically I was simply quoting Carrier on the accuracy of Luke and
various titles. (Roman, Jewish and all).

btw, let us not forget that this type of designation can also be on
less lofty positions, although those of course will be harder to verify.

Luke 8:3
And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward,
and Susanna, and many others,
which ministered unto him of their substance.

And at times there can be less usual appellations, such as that
fox, Herod (Antipas) .

So I am going to give some more. If any of these had been wrong
we surely would have heard loudly from the group trying to claim
poor Lukan historicity.

My source here is ..

http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/scripture/is_the_bible_the_word_of_god.htm#LUKE'S%20RELIABIL ITY
Is the Bible the Word of God? by Eric V. Snow

Generally Eric Snow is a good writer. On this page he does the
well-known overstatement on Pilate (Luke is accurate but not
special, any criticism that he should have procurator is now
invalidated .. but few if any doubted Pilate's historicity). And I
will pass on his Quirinius section.

Eric put together a fascinating section of Luke and Roman titles
that I would like to share and offer for further consideration.

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

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.

He correctly called the governors of Asia and Achaia "proconsuls"
since the senate ruled them, not the emperor (Acts 18:12;
19:38). He got it right despite Achaia 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.

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;

Luke was the only author from ancient times to preserve the term
"politarches", The discovery of 19 different inscriptions in
Macedonia and Thessalonica having this title have destroyed the
doubts about his accuracy on this subject.

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.

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.

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.

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

Only this last one we had discussed. This list looks like a good
starting point for why Richard Carrier was looking for an
alternative "solution" for Luke. His historicity is so fine ..

As Richard Carrier put it ..

"I thought Luke was otherwise very precise with the titles of men
in power throughout Luke and Acts (a fact that Smith himself
documents), but Luke fails to be precise in naming the offices of
Pilate and Quirinius, too."

And we found out that the "otherwise" was the rather weak
Archelaus idea, and the 'imprecision' was governing vs. governor !
(More on the level of quibble than imprecision.)

In other words, Richard was right without any caveats ..

Luke is in fact very accurate and precise with the titles of men in power !

And with the additional material from Eric Snow we can see that clearly.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

Steven Avery

Which translates as ..

"Oops .. I was totally wrong in my silly mockery stuff against Luke historicity on Roman titles" - spin

spin

You might be able to put words in other people's mouths, but I wish you'd put a few in your own, especially a few that made sense.


spin