Amaleq13

No, we do have an indepedent record of the census under Quirinius and it is because of that extant evidence, not an absence of evidence, that it is concluded Luke is in error.

Do you really not understand the difference between what is presented above and an argument from silence?

The census under Quirinius was not conducted as a matter of routine business but specifically resulted from recent changes in control over the region and you have no credible evidence of any other Quirinius or any earlier tenure in the same position by the same man so neither of these comments is relevant.

Recognizing that a claim lacks any credible support is not an argument from silence. :eyeroll:

lee_merrill

I think that would then date it around the 1st or 2nd century, though.

Gamaliel didn't say that? Another instance it seems, of skeptic omniscience. But this could refer to either, if there were two.

Yup! Micro-letters (see the web link¹ I posted, for instance), and inscriptions, "Sir William Ramsey ... concluded from various inscriptions that while there was only one Quirinius, he ruled Syria on two separate occasions" ("The Case for Christ", p. 136).

Certainly, you're saying the record is silent about a second census, therefore you conclude there was no second census by some Quirinius person. Only such censuses apparently happened about every 14 years, so there probably was one in the timeframe Luke mentions. Then we only need a Quirinius to be in charge then, for which there is some evidence.

Then in splendid MJ style, you get out your "not good enough" eraser ... "No evidence!" we hear, and then the argument from silence.

Oops, no credible evidence--well that boils down to no evidence, and then follows the conclusion that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, especially in historical records of ancient events, where we have at best 1% of the record. Really, now...

Regards,
Lee

[1] Said web link: "The microletters (but these are clear and definite as far as I am concerned) LA CONS P.S.QVIRINI are on the line referring to the census which A. Secundus took of Apamea, being sent by Quirinius for that purpose on the Lapis Venetus (Inscription of Venice - still there in Arch. Museum). Quirinius was only consul one time - in 12 B.C. For some it will be a problem since here Greek is mixed with Latin, but such critics will have to blame the original writer of the microletters - I am confident of my reading. (In many places on this text Greek is mixed with Latin, and Phoenician, as well - particularly the sign for year - looks like a stretched out 'K'). I believe that the Lapis Tiburtinus is also connected with Quirinius, contra almost all modern scholars. Is my 'Yes' better than their 'No?' Each individual will have to decide on the best evidence that they can muster - and to me it is the evidence of microletters."

spamandham

I think you need to provide support for this assumption from the people who actually dated it, if you want to continue to use it as evidence of reference to Nazareth prior to the late 3rd century.

It could just as easily be an anachronistic reference, referring to the location the inscribers knew as Nazareth in their day (but that might not have been called Nazreth prior to that). If that's the case, then the proper dating is no earlier than the 4th century, since that's when the 'lost city' of Nazareth was 'discovered' by Empress Helena.

If I were to suggest a date, that date would probably be the late 4th/early 5th century, since Nazareth had entered the historical record by then, and since the inscription in question, I seem to recall, was found in a 5th century synagogue. I don't know what justification there is for dating it earlier.

If the inscription is a 4th/5th century artifact, then it really doesn't help the case for a historical Nazareth in the 1st century.

Amaleq13

No, I'm saying there is no support for your speculation about the possibility of some other census or some other Quirinius and Josephus clearly identifies the census Luke refers to twice (thanks Ben).

You really need to obtain a better understanding of the argument from silence. Rejecting a claim because it lacks any credible support is not an argument from silence. It is simply rational thought. :eyeroll:

As you've already been told, the census under Quirinius was not a regular census but one specifically conducted because Rome took direct control of the region. Have you read what Josephus tells us about the census? Your arguments suggest you have either not read him or don't understand him.

Chili

Could it be that this 'Roman' census is wherein Joseph gave an account of himself as sinner and 'got saved' as a direct result of that confession? I have seen an icon on this journey to Bethlehem wherein Mary was in charge of this journey and Joseph was as much as dragging his ass behind the donkey whereupon Mary was enthroned to show that Joseph was totally beyond theology to make it regional indeed (instead of rational) and therefore the advent of a new beginning with the birth of Christ in him (I kind of lean on Romans 10:10 to justify this interpretation but it sure fits the mold and it fits the rest of the story including the idea that there was no room at the Inn, the ox, the mule, the shepherds, the star, the magi, Herod's reaction etc.).

GakuseiDon

There were the Ebionites:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05242c.htm

"The doctrines of this sect are said by Irenaeus to be like those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They denied the Divinity and the virginal birth of Christ; they clung to the observance of the Jewish Law; they regarded St. Paul as an apostate, and used only a Gospel according to St. Matthew (Adv. Haer., I, xxvi, 2; III, xxi, 2; IV, xxxiii, 4; V, i, 3)"

dog-on

Too many problems with this citation...at best, this is simply his take on the hearsay evidence provided by Christians of the time.

Chris Weimer

Non sequitur. And if you don't like it, go with GakuseiDon's suggestion.

gurugeorge

I thought he was asking for something contemporary or near contemporary, in the way that the Gospels purport to be contemporary evidence of the God-man, and in the way that the usual references to Josephus and the Roman writers are thought to be near-contemporary evidence of something in the region of a "Jesus Christ"?

I think dog-on's point is sound actually, regardless of Chris' scorn. With all the apologist squid-ink flying around, it tends to be forgotten that most Christians throughout history have believed (and proposed to the rest of the world) that the NT/Gospels are pretty much all the contemporary evidence one might want of a God-man who walked this Earth.

i.e. the Gospels, etc., were not put forward by most Christians as evidence of an apocalyptic prophet, an obscure preacher, etc. - those ideas have been extracted by scholars from the purported God-man evidence since the 19th century (precisely because, as evidence for a full-blown, miracle working, earth-shaking God-man, the Gospels had already been found wanting roundabout that time).

dog-on

These guys just couldn't handle allowing another God into the stable (you know, all that "I am the Lord thy God" stuff)... Besides, what kind of "Gospel according to ST. Matthew" would they have used that denied the Divinity and virginal birth of JC? Sounds like a different book...maybe the Koran! :Cheeky: