joedad

What's your point, leonarde?

Are you saying there's a historical Zeus somewhere in human history?

joe

[ October 13, 2002: Message edited by: joedad ]</p>

Toto

Religions with mythological founders include most likely Confucianism, certainly Mithraism. Moses' existence is dubious and could not be proven. Buddha's existence is irrelevant to Buddhism, so no one even cares if there were (not) a historical Buddha. And this is without going into the more obscure religions.

Layman

I did not overstate Herod's usefuleness as a client-king. I simply noted what many historians have pointed out--one reason that the Romans let Herod govern Judaea was beause of its hostility to direct Roman rule. I never claimed that Herod was beloved or even popular. But he was less offensive than a Roman governor.

Nothing about my statement requires that all or even most or even a majority of Jews view Herod favorably.

Yes, he did. But he ruled succesfully with no major rebellion for decades. On the other hand, as soon as the Romans took over, there was a significant rebellion lead by Judas, another one by Theudas, and the full-blown Rebellion that lead to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

Herod built a Roman theater in Jerusalem, Roman amphitheater just outside of Jerusalem, instituted Roman games, and offered daily sacrifices to the Roman Emperor.

And a registration is not necessarily the same thing as taxation. And you have gone astray from my point, which was that the conduct of a census by Herod would be less offensive than one conducted by a direct Roman governor--such as Quirnius. Whether an additional, unspecified burden on the Jews (if not already part of their regular system of taxation) would result in a significant rebellion is very speculative.

[ October 13, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Layman

Yes, I know Kirby's point.

Josephus only mentions one census for Judaea -- the one under Quirnius. And the only reason he mentions it is because it inaugurated direct Roman rule and therefore caused a significant disturbance/rebellion under a man named Judas.

And no matter how you interpret Luke, he is referring (albeit impliedly by the popular translation) that there were other census. Luke was either referring to a registration "before" Quirinius or the "first" under Quirinius -- therefore implied strongly the existence of later census that Josephus fails to mention.

Layman

Why would we assume that there is a "most likely" basis for the text? Sometimes historians are faced with dilemmas that offer different options, none of which are clearly the correct one. One might be comparatively better supported by the evidence, yet still lacking in enough justification to be proclaimed "most likely." Or, they may all suffer from problems that precludes a conclusion that one is significantly better than the other.

All options are fueled by speculation. It is speculative to conclude that no census could have been conducted under Herod (whether imposed by Rome or adopted as a mechanism of Romanization by Herod). This ignores the awkwardness of the Greek in Luke 2:2, even if intrepreted as "first."

Also, we are not discussing a "simple chronological" mistake. It is not just that Quirinius ruled at a different time than King Herod, their times as rulers are fundamentally incompatable since King Herod was the appointed Roman ruler of Palestine, including Judaea and Galilee whereas Quirinius was the Roman governor of Syria, including the governor of Judaea. Their existence as rulers of Judaea are fundamentally incompatable. Moreover, Luke seems quite aware of Herod's power as well as the breakdown of how Palestine was ruled after Herod's demise, and after Quirinius' census.

Bede

Which is what I said, Toto. Bumpf is the copy intended to promote books. Perhaps we had some translation difficulties between British and American Englisn, or maybe your irony meter was off...

B

Vorkosigan

Careful! As far as I know, the stories about Jesus of Nazareth, carpenter son of Joseph, are fictions, just as the stories about Confucius, Sakyamuni Buddha, Mohammad, and other famous figures appear to be. Completely Invented founder figures include people like William Tell, or Hong of the 17th century Ming nationalist Hongs.

I assume there is probably a figure behind the Jesus legends, just as there is a real figure under Roland, Robin Hood and similar tales, but the real figure and the story figure are two very different people, related only by name.

Vorkosigan

leonarde

Posted by joedad: I was responding to a post by Voskosinan that
reads in part: (above emphasis mine).
No. Zeus is/was a god. He is/was not
a founder figure of any religion that I am aware
of. (ie no one claims/claimed that Zeus started worship of or stories about the gods of Olympus or anywhere else.

The true founder figures of religions (or
at least the ones that I am aware of)do seem to have all been at least based on flesh and
blood people: Buddha, Mohammad, Joseph Smith.

Cheers!

Layman

Mary Baker Eddy. Baha-u-llah (Bahai). Charles Taze Russell. Martin Luther.

Toto

By that analogy, the true founder figure of Christianity is Paul. Joseph Smith did not start a religion to worship Joseph Smith, he started an offshoot of Christianity. Mohammed did not start a religion to worship himself, he saw himself as a prophet of God (Allah).

Mary Baker Eddy and Martin Luther did not start religionsto worship themselves - they started branches of Christianity, like Paul.

Buddha cannot be proven to be historical.

Jesus was either a myth, or a Jewish rabbi who had no known intention of starting a new religion.

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>