Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Ancient Sources: History and Theology.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Your own citations have more than enough "would haves" and "could not haves" to show that supposition is a strong influence on your chosen authors' findings.




    If you actually read what I have written you will note that the known historical evidence is enough to dismiss Ramsay's theologically biased speculation and assumption for which he had no historical evidence whatsoever..

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Your own citations have more than enough "would haves" and "could not haves" to show that supposition is a strong influence on your chosen authors' findings.





    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    To date, every reference I have seen places that campaign between 12 BCE and 7 BCE.
    Syme writes in his paper “Observations on the Province of Cilicia” in Ronald Syme Roman Papers I Ed. E Badian, 1975, Oxford University Press, p. 147 that with regard to Galatia the full history is lost, or it was never written down.

    He notes that “The visible results were half a dozen military colonies, a road – or rather a series of roads and a pacified land “.This was of course was standard Roman procedure once an area had been subdued. In one of his footnotes on that page Symne also comments that “ The credit not merely of illuminating and enlarging but very precisely discovering this notable chapter of Anatolian and of imperial Roman history belongs to Sir William Ramsay (see especially ‘Studies in the Roman Province of Galatia, The Homandeis and the Homandendsian War’ JRS viii (1917), 229ff). On that same page he also notes that “At some date between 12 BC and AD 1 P. Sulpicius Quirinius subjugated at last the land of the Homandenses a necessary but not an urgent task”.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    That certainly does not preclude Quirinius' presence in Syria and Cilicia at the (assumed) time of Christ's birth,
    These were two separate provinces. He could not have held a senior administrative position in both simultaneously.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    and the "uncertain and disputed" certainly does not extend as far as 6CE.
    We know from Josesphus that the census conducted in Judaea in 6 CE was new and entirely unheard of. Hence the uprising by Judas of Gamala even though his region was untouched by the census he saw it as an affront to his god Yahweh and the land of Israel.

    We also know that Publius Quinctilius Varus held the post of governor of Syria from 7/6 BCE until 4 BCE when Herod the Great died and that he put down a Judaean revolt after Herod’s death.

    From 4-5 CE Volusius Saturninusis is attested as governor of Syria and was followed one year later by Quirinius.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Major difficulties attend trying to get information about the Middle East in the range 100BCE - 100CE, because so much of it is intertwined with religious considerations. The occasional piece can be found, however, which does not concern itself with religious issues. Would have been nice to find something more recent.
    Have you tried a good bookshop or library?

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Source: William Mitchell Ramsay. "Studies in the Roman Province Galatia. VI.--Some Inscriptions of Colonia Caesarea Antiochea." The Journal of Roman Studies, 1924, Vol. 14 (1924), pp. 172-205


    Now we know that part of the Syrian legions were employed in that war, for Quirinius, legatus of Syria, was commanding the army in the war. .... There was also an ala Germaniciana at Antiochea. When the five Colo'niae Augustae were founded in 6 B.C. after the Homandensian war, and the viae Sebastae were constructed to connect them with the military centre and caput viarum, Colonia Caesarea (Antiochea), (p 203)

    © Copyright Original Source

    That citation is rather amusing given that when I cited Ronald Syme’s paper from 1934 you suggested that he "had no access to the archaeological discoveries of the latter half of the twentieth century.”

    As Syme died in 1989 and he was publishing up until the mid 1980s that statement was self-evidently erroneous.

    However, it is apposite for Ramsay who died in April 1939 and who most certainly did not have “access to the archaeological discoveries of the latter half of the twentieth century”.

    What Ramsay writes in your extract is nothing but his opinion and he basing his opinion upon no actual historical evidence. In fact he even is arguing against himself .

    Once again I am referring to Ronald Syme's paper "Galatia and Pamphylia Under Augustus: The Governorship of Piso, Quirinius, and Silvanus" Klio, Vol XXVII, 1934, p.133.

    The problem of the attribution of the lapis Tiburtinus has confused the issue. It was an unsound method to argue from the unknown to the known, from lapis to Quirinius and the Homanadenses. The question must be investigated without prepossessions as though the lapis Tiburtinus did not exist. What then was the position held by Quirinius at the time of the Homadensian War? Quirinius was of consular standing, and the only consular military province in the East was Syria. It was therefore assumed as axiomatic that Quirinius was governor of Syria. But this was a dangerous assumption. The governor of Syria or troops from Syria, might intervene beyond their province in cases of emergency, to deal with a sudden rising; and troops were in fact dispatched from Syrian 36 AD to deal with the Cietae in Cilicia-Tracheia, on the southern slopes of the Taurus. But to carry out a well-planned and perhaps lengthy process of subjugation north of the Taurus is not a function of the governor of Syria. Sir William Ramsay has himself argued most forcibly that the operations against the Homandenses would have to be conducted from the north, from the side of Galatia. His belief that the general in charge of these operations can only have been the legate of Syria [absent from his own province for several years] therefore appears to be a paradox."

    [My emphasis]

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    On the same page, Ramsay notes that other authors place Quirinius in Egypt, or other locales. The important points: the Homandensian War was concluded by 6BCE - Quirinius, Legate of Syria was commanding in that war.
    That again is early [pre 1924] scholarly opinion. However, we do know that the legions did move around the empire a great deal.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    The very shaky best that might at an unlikely chance just maybe, is that Luke got Quirinius' title wrong.
    We know that Quirinius was appointed to the position of governor of Syria by Augustus and was ordered to carry out the Judaean census in 6-7 CE

    The simple fact of the matter is that the evidence we have disputes Ramsay’s entirely unsubstantiated contention that Quirinius held the governorship of Syria from 11/10 BCE to 8/7 BCE and then again a decade later.

    Given Ramsay’s dates [1851-1939] he was very much a Englishman brought during the height of Empire when Christian certainties still prevailed within academia. He also, as was typical of the time for many, held his own deep Christian convictions.

    However, on this occasion he permitted his theological bias to override his position as a dispassionate historian.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    The precise dating of the Homandensian campaign is uncertain and disputed by modern ancient historians. The surviving evidence as it we have it, is derived from epigraphy there are no extant literary sources.
    To date, every reference I have seen places that campaign between 12 BCE and 7 BCE. That certainly does not preclude Quirinius' presence in Syria and Cilicia at the (assumed) time of Christ's birth, and the "uncertain and disputed" certainly does not extend as far as 6CE.

    Major difficulties attend trying to get information about the Middle East in the range 100BCE - 100CE, because so much of it is intertwined with religious considerations. The occasional piece can be found, however, which does not concern itself with religious issues. Would have been nice to find something more recent.

    Source: William Mitchell Ramsay. "Studies in the Roman Province Galatia. VI.--Some Inscriptions of Colonia Caesarea Antiochea." The Journal of Roman Studies, 1924, Vol. 14 (1924), pp. 172-205


    Now we know that part of the Syrian legions were employed in that war, for Quirinius, legatus of Syria, was commanding the army in the war. .... There was also an ala Germaniciana at Antiochea. When the five Colo'niae Augustae were founded in 6 B.C. after the Homandensian war, and the viae Sebastae were constructed to connect them with the military centre and caput viarum, Colonia Caesarea (Antiochea), (p 203)

    © Copyright Original Source



    On the same page, Ramsay notes that other authors place Quirinius in Egypt, or other locales. The important points: the Homandensian War was concluded by 6BCE - Quirinius, Legate of Syria was commanding in that war. The very shaky best that might at an unlikely chance just maybe, is that Luke got Quirinius' title wrong. But - a comment on Wikipedia might square that away too.

    Quirinius: From 12 to 1 BC, he led a campaign against the Homanades (Homonadenses), a tribe based in the mountainous region of Galatia and Cilicia, around 5–3 BC, probably as legate of Galatia. He won the campaign by reducing their strongholds and starving out the defenders.[4] For this victory, he was awarded a triumph and elected duumvir by the colony of Antioch of Pisidia.[5]
    Last edited by tabibito; 06-26-2021, 12:13 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    According to you, any sources I might provide are nothing more than worthless propaganda
    Where have I intimated any such thing?

    I have asked you to substantiate your allegations with some evidence that is all.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    You are rather prone to making unqualified assertions.
    According to you, any sources I might provide are nothing more than worthless propaganda, so it seems to be kind of pointless to sift through notes of several years of prior investigation to provide them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    Yup - the very paradigm of a perfectly courteous response.
    That was sarcasm premised on your rather silly comments. And once again could you provide some sources for your contentions? You are rather prone to making unqualified assertions.

    Oh and by the way where is Price's reference for this alleged coin he mentions that minted by Quirinius when he was proconsul? You never supplied that either.

    Although judging from what I could see on Amazon of that particular work by Price it does not seem to possess any References or a Bibliography. Given he acquired his doctorate from the University of Texas I am wondering if he has either "fallen off his perch" or has cynically decided that there is far more money to be made writing books of that ilk, than producing serious academic works.
    Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 06-26-2021, 11:11 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    What variants on Second Temple Judaism are you referencing? Were these the Jews that ate pork and shellfish and didn't practise male circumcision?
    Yup - the very paradigm of a perfectly courteous response.

    The second temple rite was not followed by all Hebrews. Samaritan Jews rejected the temple entirely - their sacred site was and still is Gerizim. Galileans tended to disregard the temple's authority, but more or less followed the temple calendar, and accorded its priests respect. Some Hebrews did eat pork or shellfish, but they were more ethnic Jew than observant. Essenes did not follow the temple calendar, - they had their own, as did the Samaritan Jews. Pharisees and Sadducees had an uneasy peace, and everyone disliked the Herodians.

    Current year by the temple calendar is 5782 (I think), Samaritan calendar is 3652 (I think). Sometimes the dates (month and day number) coincide, sometimes they are a (lunar) month separate. This year Israel celebrated Pesach beginning on March 28, Samaria on April 21(?) The date for Pesach in their own calendars were (Israel) Nisan 15 and (Samaria) Nisan 14 (the day of Preparation by the Jewish calendar). By the Essene calendar, Nisan 15 always fell on a Wednesday. All up, there was a fair amount of diversity within first century Yahwist observances, so a single "Palestinian Judaism" is about as likely as a single "Church Christianity," or a single "Christian Easter."




    Last edited by tabibito; 06-26-2021, 10:56 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    I have not accepted it simply on the grounds that it is disputed.
    The historical facts are not disputed. I will end by once again quoting Moehring, citing Schürer
    • History, except for the passage in Luke, knows nothing of a general census throughout the Roman Empire during the reign of Augustus.
    • A Roman census could not have obliged Joseph to travel to Bethlehem and for Mary to accompany him.
    • A Roman census could not be carried out at all in Palestine during the time of Herod.
    • Josephus knows nothing of a Roman census in Palestine at the time of Herod; on the contrary, he speaks of the census in AD 7 as something new and unheard of.
    • A census held under Quirinius could not fall into the time of Herod, since during Herod’s lifetime Quirinius was never governor of Syria.
    This is a formidable list of problems and no one has ever come close to solving all of them.

    [My emphasis]

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    I have presented the evidence and you will not accept it because it contradicts your preconceived theological notions. The simple fact is that only one census was conducted in Judaea and that was 6-7 CE by Quirinius while holding the governorship of Syria under Augustus.
    I have not accepted it simply on the grounds that it is disputed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    ROFL. Your assessment of my "preconceived theological ideas" is purely a product of your imagination. If a reasonable argument is presented to show that some part or other of the Bible is incorrect or contradicts another part, I do acknowledge the fact.
    I have presented the evidence and you will not accept it because it contradicts your preconceived theological notions. The simple fact is that only one census was conducted in Judaea and that was 6-7 CE by Quirinius while holding the governorship of Syria under Augustus.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    In point of fact, given the citation you provided which you claim was clear, I mistook your citation for a citation. You are correct though, I did not pay enough attention to first part of the sentence.
    Then I recommend that you sit down and read my entire post again and with due care and attention.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    It is difficult to focus on issues whilst being subjected to gratuitous insult. Perhaps if your posts were less clouded by self promotion, dismissiveness toward any person whose opinion conflicts with your own, and an arrogant disregard for courtesy, but confined to issues, there would be less confusion.
    I have confined my posts specifically to the issues and have endeavoured to explain to you [given your apparent unfamiliarity with the historical background underlying this period] the facts as we have them.

    My replies have been courteous and comprehensible. However, when my correspondent's response self evidently shows they have not assimilated what I have written some degree of irritation on my part is understandable

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    ROFL. Your assessment of my "preconceived theological ideas" is purely a product of your imagination. If a reasonable argument is presented to show that some part or other of the Bible is incorrect or contradicts another part, I do acknowledge the fact.

    Given your confusion I am therefore disregarding the bulk of your post because you have clearly not understood what I have written.
    In point of fact, given the citation you provided which you claim was clear, I mistook your citation for a citation. You are correct though, I did not pay enough attention to first part of the sentence.

    It is difficult to focus on issues whilst being subjected to gratuitous insult. Perhaps if your posts were less clouded by self promotion, dismissiveness toward any person whose opinion conflicts with your own, and an arrogant disregard for courtesy, but confined to issues, there would be less confusion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Do you mean the maps that show the Galilee region being separated from Judah by Samaria to the south? Or by "Palestinian Judaism" did you mean Judaism as practiced in "Syria Palestina"? in which case a number of variants were practiced.
    What variants on Second Temple Judaism are you referencing? Were these the Jews that ate pork and shellfish and didn't practise male circumcision?

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    [No evidence of Quirinius consulship in Syria prior to 6AD?
    All we know definitely of Quirinius is that in 12 BCE he held a Consulship as detailed from the extant Res Gestae Divi Augusti. The precise dating of the Homandensian campaign is uncertain and disputed by modern ancient historians. The surviving evidence as it we have it, is derived from epigraphy there are no extant literary sources.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Despite being named consul in 12BCE? He was a consul somewhere ... can you provide evidence that it wasn't in Syria?
    Do you actually bother to read what I write? I recommended Eric Burley's paper to you. For the year 12 BCE Quirinius and his fellow Consul Gaius Valgius would have been based in the city of Rome to carry out their required religious and civic duties while holding that office, As I wrote earlier, a Consulship for individuals was held for for a period of only ONE year.

    Given your confusion below it is self evident that you have not read [or at least comprehended exactly what I have written. Allan P Wikgren did not author any of the papers contained in that volume, which was edited by David Aune. It was presented to Wikgren in recognition of his contribution to scholarship . The paper that I cited was contained in that volume and was written by Horst R Moehring can you not read?

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Wikgren gives us a perfect example of the type of thing that Ramsay was talking about.
    Wikgren writes no such thing. I was quoting from a paper by Moehring contained among others in that volume. And in that selected extract that I quoted in full, Moehring is taking Sir William Ramsay to task for Ramsay's arrogance and presumption that only he [Ramsay] and Luke are correct and everyone else and their interpretations must be automatically wrong.

    Given your confusion I am therefore disregarding the bulk of your post because you have clearly not understood what I have written.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Your criticism of Luke 2:2 is not founded on sufficient evidence to support a claim of error, nor is there sufficient evidence to state that it is without error.
    There is sufficient historical evidence but it contradicts your theological preconceived ideas. In that regard you are evidently suffering from the same fault as was Sir William Ramsay in your inability to distinguish history from theology.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Hypatia_Alexandria
    Do you mean the maps that show the Galilee region being separated from Judah by Samaria to the south? Or by "Palestinian Judaism" did you mean Judaism as practiced in "Syria Palestina"? in which case a number of variants were practiced.

    No evidence of Quirinius consulship in Syria prior to 6AD? Despite being named consul in 12BCE? He was a consul somewhere ... can you provide evidence that it wasn't in Syria?


    Allen P. Wikgren. Brill, Leiden. 1972. The quotes from Ramsay are in blue for clarity.

    Ramsay calls Luke a “great historian” and proceeds to state his definition of a great historian with perfect clarity “The great historian is great in virtue of his permanent quality of mind. If an author can be guilty of any such perversion of history as has been attributed to the writer of Luke 2.13, he cannot deserve the rank and name of historian”. There can be no fault with Luke; on the contrary the modern critic has gone astray, and Ramsay is able to tell us exactly where the sceptical critic has made his fundamental mistake: “in the desire to discredit the superhuman element in the history. Their hostility to Luke arose out of their refusal to admit the superhuman element of the world.” No serious scholar would have encountered genuine problems with the text, there is a moral flaw in anyone who dares to disagree with either Luke or Ramsay: “No explanation was given why [Luke] inserted a tissue of falsehoods, except perhaps the desire of an ignorant person to show off his scraps of learning, without ability put them correctly”.

    It would be difficult, indeed, to find a clearer expression of the confusion between history and theology, a confusion which has by no means disappeared and does not seem to be restricted to authors writing from a Christian apologetic perspective. On the one hand, Ramsay defines Luke as a “great historian” in a crudely positivistic sense, and on the other hand he insists that superhuman elements are involved in so prosaic a task as the dating of a census in one of the outlying provinces of the Roman Empire.[pp. 147-148]
    Wikgren gives us a perfect example of the type of thing that Ramsay was talking about.

    How does Ramsay define a "great historian?" [The great historian is great in virtue of his permanent quality of mind.]
    What is Luke accused of? [perversion of history]
    What is the reason for the accusation? [the desire to discredit the superhuman element in the history] Argumentum ad hominem intended to influence the audience against the author rather than the argument.
    What do the accusations demonstrate? [hostility to Luke]
    What is the reason for this hostility? [refusal to admit the superhuman element of the world.] Argumentum ad hominem.

    In short - Ramsay claims that allegations of error are not founded in fact, but arise from the will to promote an ideological worldview.

    How does Wikgren assess Ramsay's comments?
    [1. Ramsay says that no serious scholar would have encountered genuine problems with the text.] That is indeed Ramsay's claim.
    [2. Ramsay says that There is a moral flaw in anyone who dares to disagree with either Luke or Ramsay.] Overstatement; Argumentum ad hominem.
    [3. Ramsay evidences a confusion between history and theology] A wholly inaccurate interpretation: Ramsay has addressed the motives of commentators, not Luke's motives, and not the cause of events Luke describes.
    [4. Ramsay says that Wikgren defines Luke as a great historian in a crudely positivistic sense.] Ramsay actually defines what he sees as a great historian, and says that Luke fits the bill. "Crudely positivistic?"
    [5. Ramsay says that Wikgren confuses history and theology.] No evidence of that in the cited section.
    [6. Ramsay say that Wikgren insists that superhuman elements are involved in prosaic history] In the cited section, Ramsay has addressed the motives of commentators, not Luke's motives, and not the cause of events Luke describes.

    Both authors demonstrate a confusion which ... does not seem to be restricted to authors writing from a Christian apologetic perspective, nor to a secular perspective. Neither can lay claim to impartiality.
    Nor are impartial authors easy to identify or find.

    Your criticism of Luke 2:2 is not founded on sufficient evidence to support a claim of error, nor is there sufficient evidence to state that it is without error.
    Last edited by tabibito; 06-26-2021, 07:40 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    As a BTW As I tried to point out - I never cited that particular piece as any kind of evidence.[/FONT][/SIZE]
    You wrote at post # 150 "A monument dating from 12 BCE found in Antioch, Pisidia, gives adequate evidence that Quirinius was in fact a consul in 12 BCE, and further evidence shows that he was active in Syria at that time."

    What other "further evidence" were you referencing if not the alleged evidence from the Lapis Tiburtinus?

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Juvenal, 10-13-2021, 08:41 AM
19 responses
112 views
0 likes
Last Post mossrose  
Started by seer, 10-11-2021, 06:32 PM
9 responses
77 views
0 likes
Last Post Machinist  
Started by lee_merrill, 10-08-2021, 06:03 PM
5 responses
46 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by seer, 10-06-2021, 05:21 PM
44 responses
229 views
0 likes
Last Post seer
by seer
 
Started by System199176, 10-06-2021, 09:36 AM
21 responses
225 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Working...
X