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
    Why would Jesus have practiced "Palestinian Judaism"? From what I understand, he was brought up in the Galilee region.
    Have you looked a map of the region?

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Quite true, I do not know the work of Sir Ronald Syme
    Syme was appointed Camden Professor of Ancient History at Brasenose College Oxford and held the position from 1949 until her retired in 1970.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    However, I do know that he had no access to the archaeological discoveries of the latter half of the twentieth century.
    Given that he died in 1989, what is your specific point?

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    And where Quirinius held that post is not in dispute - as under:
    That he held a Consulship is not in dispute. What you fail to understand is that there is no historical evidence that he ever twice held the governorship of Syria.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Randall Price, "The Stones Cry Out." (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1997), 299]While, inscriptional evidence reveals that there was more than one ruler with this name (Quirinius)[I], a Quirinius within the time frame of Jesus’ birth has been found on a coin placing him as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 BC until after 4 BC.
    What is Price writing about? You will need to supply his citations and references.

    Furthermore, these appointments did not make the individual a "ruler". The empire had only one ruler, the Princeps. These Senators were the emperor's deputies. Nor could Quirinius, or indeed anyone else have held two senior administrative appointments at the same time and in two separate locations.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    So we have known facts placing Quirinius as a consul or proconsul in Syria and Cilicia at roughly the same time (by Luke's record) as Jesus’ birth.
    No we do not. There is no extant factual evidence to support this contention.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Argument against the validity of Luke's record is left with nothing more than speculation that a census conducted by Quirinius would not have affected Judaea.
    We know that Augustus instructed Quirinius who was the newly appointed legate of Syria and who had recently conducted a census in his own province, to go to Judaea to organise the country as a province and in particular take a census.

    Josephus tells us “Quirinius had now settled the estate of Archelaus and by this time the registrations of property took place in the 37 year after Caesar’s [Octavian] defeat of Antony at Actium were complete. Since the High Priest Joazar had now been overpowered by a popular faction, Quirinius stripped him of the dignity of his office and installed Ananias the son of Seth as High Priest. Meanwhile, Herod [Antipas] and Philip had received and were taking in hand their respective tetrarchies.” [Antiquities of the Jews XVIII]

    Josephus thus dates the Judaean census in the 37th year after Caesar’s victory at Actium in 31 BCE, which dates it [using our chronology] to 6 CE. Nor does Josephus make reference to any previous census but notes that this procedure was entirely new and previously unheard of.

    However, a census in Judaea in 6 CE would not have applied to Galilee. That region was part of the independent client kingdom of Herod Antipas. Hence Joseph who allegedly lived in Galilee and was therefore a subject of Antipas would have had no reason whatsoever to travel from his home to another place outside the tetrarchy, as the census only applied to the territory of the deposed ethnarch Archelaus.

    In order to put some perspective on the somewhat arrogant attitude of Sir William Ramsay over his unfounded assumptions I am again citing Horst H Moehring’s paper “The Census in Luke as an Apologetic Device” in Studies in New Testament and early Christian literature: essays in honour of 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]

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    The assertion that the consul or proconsul in Syria and Cilicia would not have had such far reaching authority is nothing more than bare assertion.
    Your remarks are complete nonsense. It is not an “assertion” it is a fact. Provincia originally referred to an area in which an elected magistrate exercised his imperium. This subsequently also applied to Roman governors. There are plenty of sources in libraries and online that describe the process and practise of Roman provincial administration. I recommend as an introduction, John Richardson's Roman Provincial Administration 227 BC – AD 117, MacMillan Education, 1976. It is a mere 88 pages and a useful summary of the subject.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Even granted that the speculation is grounded in reasonable surmise, it remains speculation.
    Very briefly here is a synopsis of the differences between a Consul and a Proconsul.

    From the traditional founding of the Roman Republic two Consuls were annually elected as colleagues to serve as the supreme magistrates of the Republic. This served very well while Rome remained a city state. Once additional territories had been acquired they needed to be governed, therefore at the end of a Consul's annual term of office provinces were allocated to one or both of them as Proconsuls [Proconsulare] acting as a Consul. These magistrates exercised imperium which was the Roman legal term for the purpose of supreme official control of armed forces and law and order among provincials. The fasces carried by the lictors before the senior magistrates symbolised the power to implement corporal and capital punishment. One further point, a promagistrate [proconsul] was not permitted to return to the city of Rome without first laying down his command. This usually occurred at the end of his term of office.

    Originally posted by tabibito;n1277150A coin says [B
    proconsul, [/B] Res Gestae Divi Augusti 10 says consul.
    Price writes about a “coin placing him as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 BC until after 4 BC”. where is the attested numismatic evidence for the existence of this coin? What are Price's sources?

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    As for the claim that I am trying to "square the circle" - I have no interest in reconciling the irreconcilable, of which there are some examples in the Biblical record. One is even highlighted (in red, even) in the comparative table that I provided earlier in this thread.
    There is no historical evidence that Quirinius held a "first governorship of Syria". The first census of Judaea was in 6 CE and was conducted by Quirinius under the order of Augustus.

    Hence Luke's birth narrative cannot be correct if Matthew's birth narrative is correct. And of course, vice versa.

    You need to understand that these are stories. Each author provided their own embellishments for the audience for which they were writing and in Luke's case quite probably this indicates an early example of the exercise of Christian apologetic writing which was intended to distance the new cult and its eponymous Jewish founder from the rebellious Jews of 66-70 CE.


    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    As a BTW
    The “further evidence” of which you wrote is the lapis Tiburtinus in modern Tivoli which as I noted in my previous reply is acephalic, fragmentary, and we have no idea as to whom it was dedicated.
    As I tried to point out - I never cited that particular piece as any kind of evidence.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    ったく
    Hypatia_Alexandria

    Quite true, I do not know the work of Sir Ronald Syme - However, I do know that he had no access to the archaeological discoveries of the latter half of the twentieth century.

    P. Sulpicius Quirinius was a consul in 12 BCE, which is not in dispute.
    And where Quirinius held that post is not in dispute - as under:

    Source: Randall Price, "The Stones Cry Out." (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1997), 299

    While, inscriptional evidence reveals that there was more than one ruler with this name (Quirinius), a Quirinius within the time frame of Jesus’ birth has been found on a coin placing him as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 BC until after 4 BC.

    © Copyright Original Source



    So we have known facts placing Quirinius as a consul or proconsul in Syria and Cilicia at roughly the same time (by Luke's record) as Jesus’ birth. Argument against the validity of Luke's record is left with nothing more than speculation that a census conducted by Quirinius would not have affected Judaea. The assertion that the consul or proconsul in Syria and Cilicia would not have had such far reaching authority is nothing more than bare assertion. Even granted that the speculation is grounded in reasonable surmise, it remains speculation. A coin says proconsul,
    Res Gestae Divi Augusti 10 says consul.

    As for the claim that I am trying to "square the circle" - I have no interest in reconciling the irreconcilable, of which there are some examples in the Biblical record. One is even highlighted (in red, even) in the comparative table that I provided earlier in this thread.
    Last edited by tabibito; 06-25-2021, 01:55 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    I refer to recent discoveries, reported in 2019; you refer to writings dating from 1934.
    Such a remark could only have been written by someone who has no idea as to the distinguished academic career of Sir Ronald Syme nor how academia actually operates.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    I write of a copy of the Res Gestae Divi Augusti discovered in Antioch, Pisidia (First scholastic translation in 1883 from distributed fragments: Theodor Mommsen); you write of a discovery in Tivoli, Italy: this one
    In your reply at post # 150 you quoted an extract from Res Gestae Divi Augusti and then wrote “and further evidence shows that he was active in Syria at that time”. You are quite evidently confusing two distinct pieces of epigraphic evidence from widely separate locations. The Res Gestae Divi Augusti were originally set up inscribed on bronze tabulae outside Augustus’ mausoleum in Rome. These no longer exist. This text was then inscribed in various places within the Empire and the best preserved example is the one that was engraved on the walls of the temple of Augustus in Ankyra [Ankara]. Furthermore, all the fragment that you cited states is what is already known, namely that P. Sulpicius Quirinius was a consul in 12 BCE, which is not in dispute.

    The “further evidence” of which you wrote is the lapis Tiburtinus in modern Tivoli which as I noted in my previous reply is acephalic, fragmentary, and we have no idea as to whom it was dedicated.

    If you had read my replies with care you would know that it was Mommsen who postulated the “first governorship of Syria” theory. “The occurrence of the word iteram induced Mommsen to believe that the governorship of Syria here recorded was a second governorship of Syria. Quirinius is known to have governed Syria in 6 AD. Therefore he must already have been governor of Syria on an earlier occasion; and to this “first governorship of Syria”, whenever it was, must belong Quirinius’ war against the Homanadenses. Mommsen suggested a date 3-2 BC, there is here a convenient gap in the list of known governors of Syria. And so the “first governorship” of Quirinius was widely accepted and almost became canonical. The governorship of Syria by Quirinius other than, and at some time earlier than, that of AD 6 was attractive as a hypothesis, if not as a proven fact, because of the bearing it might have upon the veracity of St Luke on the birth of Christ. Sir William Ramsay accepted Mommsen’s interpretation of the lapis Tiburtinus with only one modification – he dated the Homandensian war and with it the “first governorship” to 12-7 BC.“ [Ronald Syme, “Galatia and Pamphylia under Augustus: The Governorship of Piso, Quirinius, and Silvanus” Klio. Vol XXVII, 1934. pp 122-148]

    However, there was no supporting historical evidence for Ramsay’s assumption. In this he appears to have let his theological beliefs influence his judgement as a historian.

    Syme continues that “Professor Groag has vigorously attacked the attributions of the inscription to Quirinius. Groag argues, amongst other arguments, that a reference to the long-dead Amyntas would hardly be found on an inscription of Quirinius and that the operations against the Homanadensaes were not of such magnitude as to earn two supplications. The most important point which he makes, however, is the one which should have been the most obvious – that the word [legatus pr.pr.] divi Augusti iteram Syriam et PH [oenicen optinuit] need not mean that the man in question governed Syria for the second time but merely that he was again “legatus Augusti”.

    You are desperately trying to square a circle premised on your theological beliefs rather than assessing the known history of the period and in order to do so are using Mommsen’s 1883 suggestion that Quirinius held a “first governorship” in the late first century BCE reinforced by Ramsay’s unsubstantiated assertion. This contention has long been dismissed primarily because, as Schürer states, outside of the text of Luke history has no knowledge of a general census being conducted throughout the Roman Empire during the principate of Augustus.

    From Schürer Vol 1 “Excursus I The Census of Quirinius Luke 2:1-5” which starts at p 399 with a detailed bibliography of related academic works.

    On p.400 he writes “After the banishment of Archelaus, the imperial legate Quirinius went to Judaea and in AD 6 or 7 conducted a census, i.e. registration, of the inhabitants and their property for taxation purposes. The evangelist Luke (2:1-5) writes of a valuation census such as that made by Quirinius, but he appears to date it near the end of the reign of Herod the Great, some ten or twelve years earlier (the preceding story of the birth of John begins, 1:5: Ἐγένετο ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ἡρῴδου βασιλέως τῆς Ἰουδαίας [...] The question is, how is this report related to the similar one presented by Josephus? Were two different censuses conducted in Judaea by Quirinius, or has Luke mistakenly placed the census of A.D. 6/7 in the last two years of Herod the Great?

    He then offers several pages explaining how Rome taxed its empire.

    [pp.405-406]The task of Quirinius in AD 6/7 concerned not only Judaea but the whole of Syria. But in Judaea, a Roman 'valuation' [ άποτίμησις] was necessary at precisely that time because it was then, following the deposition of Archelaus, that the territory was transferred for the first time to direct Roman administration.2 2 That the census covered the whole of Syria is further attested by the inscription of Aemilius Secundus, who took the census in Apamea on Quirinius's order (iussu Quirini censum egi Apamenae civitatis millium homin(um) civium CXVII). The year AD 6/7 in which the census was undertaken in Judaea coincides approximately with the fourteen-year population-count cycle in Egypt. [...] objections to the Lucan narrative would still remain in full force, for a population count in the Roman province of Syria would not prove that a similar count took place in King Herod's territory, and in any case, a population count in the year 9/8 BC. would in no circumstances have occurred in the time of Quirinius, but in that of Sentius Saturninus. [...] the census of Quirinius was not based on a fixed cycle, but was a special mission, as Josephus's statements clearly show..

    Josephus gives the precise date for this event and tells us it was 37 years after Actium, which places it [using our chronology] in 6 CE. Josephus also notes that this was a new and hitherto unknown procedure in that new province. We also know that Varus was governor of Syria at the end of the reign of Herod the Great. He put down the rebellion of Judas of Gamala [Galilee] and would die some three years later in the terrible military disaster in the Teutoburger Wald.

    With regard to your apparent amusement over the Greek term ηγεμονευοντος [of being governor] I suggest you consult a Greek lexicon. You will find detailed information on this term in Liddell Scott. However, with regard to linguistic definitions, the Greek word ήγεμων used by Luke to describe Roman Legates, Procurators and Proconsuls, is a general term having a military connotation.

    Josephus, however, is somewhat more precise, employing the words, πιτροπος for the Latin Procurator, andδικαιοδοτης and πρεσβευτης for the Latin Legatus. Josephus also uses ήγεμων and both Matthew [20:8] and Luke [8:3] employ επιτροπος.

    The correct Roman title of Consular Governors of Imperial Provinces garrisoned by more than one legion [as was Syria] was Legatus Augusti Pro Praetore.

    As you appear somewhat uninformed as to how Rome governed its empire I recommend you seek out a paper by Eric Burley “Senators in the Emperor’s Service”. In: Proceedings of the British Academy, Vol. 39. 1953. pp.197-214.

    I would further remark that the early Christian writers were not overly au fait with history as evinced by Justin Martyr [c.100-165 CE] who regarded King Ptolemy, at whose insistence the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek, to be a contemporary of King Herod. [Apol.1: 31].




    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Absolutely rogue06. What on earth would Dr David S. Ariel who wrote the article I cited know about anything at all on these matters?

    After all he only graduated from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem with a BA in Jewish Thought in 1973 and received his M.A. and Ph.D. from Brandeis University in Jewish Studies.

    https://jewishheritagecenter.library.../resources/294

    From 1982 to 2007, Ariel served as the president of the Cleveland College of Jewish Studies (which later was renamed Siegal College and now is known as the Siegal Lifelong Learning program at Case Western Reserve University). From 2008 to 2014 he served as the president of the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies, a Recognised Interdependent Centre (RIC) of Oxford University in England. Ariel later founded Ariel Learning, a Jewish learning organization, and taught courses at numerous synagogues, at the Me’ah and Kevah programs organized by Hebrew College, and various other educational, cultural, and religious centers.

    Ariel authored four books: Kabbalah: The Mystic Quest, Spiritual Judaism: Restoring Heart and Soul to Life, What Do Jews Believe? and The Mystic Quest: An Introduction to Jewish Mysticism
    .

    As such a renowned scholar yourself, you are perfectly correct in dismissing a nonentity such as Ariel.
    Thank you for a textbook example of credentialism

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    And relying on myjewishlearning.com to boot. While the largest online site, and the usual go-to site for google scholars, they are hardly known for their scholarship. IIRC, Adrift excoriated them quite nicely after Tass kept relying on them for information concerning Jewish beliefs on abortion.
    Absolutely rogue06. What on earth would Dr David S. Ariel who wrote the article I cited know about anything at all on these matters?

    After all he only graduated from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem with a BA in Jewish Thought in 1973 and received his M.A. and Ph.D. from Brandeis University in Jewish Studies.

    https://jewishheritagecenter.library.../resources/294

    From 1982 to 2007, Ariel served as the president of the Cleveland College of Jewish Studies (which later was renamed Siegal College and now is known as the Siegal Lifelong Learning program at Case Western Reserve University). From 2008 to 2014 he served as the president of the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies, a Recognised Interdependent Centre (RIC) of Oxford University in England. Ariel later founded Ariel Learning, a Jewish learning organization, and taught courses at numerous synagogues, at the Me’ah and Kevah programs organized by Hebrew College, and various other educational, cultural, and religious centers.

    Ariel authored four books: Kabbalah: The Mystic Quest, Spiritual Judaism: Restoring Heart and Soul to Life, What Do Jews Believe? and The Mystic Quest: An Introduction to Jewish Mysticism
    .

    As such a renowned scholar yourself, you are perfectly correct in dismissing a nonentity such as Ariel.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    You do realize that you're relying on material written centuries after the time in question by the descendants of one view of Judaism current at the time of Christ who are just spitballing, yes?
    And relying on myjewishlearning.com to boot. While the largest online site, and the usual go-to site for google scholars, they are hardly known for their scholarship. IIRC, Adrift excoriated them quite nicely after Tass kept relying on them for information concerning Jewish beliefs on abortion.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Why would Jesus have practiced "Palestinian Judaism"? From what I understand, he was brought up in the Galilee region.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Irrespective of contemporary theological beliefs the fact remains that in first century Jerusalem there was only one Passover each year. Furthermore, remarks regarding three separate calendars need to be considered in the light of what is actually known


    In what year (according to Res Gestae Divi Augusti 10) was Quirinius a consul, and who else was a consul at that time?

    10. By a senate decree my name was included in the Saliar Hymn, and it was sanctified by a law, both that I would be sacrosanct for ever, and that, as long as I would live, the tribunician power would be mine. I was unwilling to be high priest in the place of my living colleague; when the people offered me that priesthood which my father had, I refused it. And I received that priesthood, after several years, with the death of him who had occupied it since the opportunity of the civil disturbance, with a multitude flocking together out of all Italy to my election, so many as had never before been in Rome, when Publius Sulpicius (aka Quirinius) and Gaius Valgius were consuls (12 B.C.E.).
    Where was Quirinius active circa 12BCE?

    Source: Randall Price, The Stones Cry Out (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1997), 299

    While, inscriptional evidence reveals that there was more than one ruler with this name, a Quirinius within the time frame of Jesus’ birth has been found on a coin placing him as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 BC until after 4 BC.

    © Copyright Original Source



    So we have known facts placing Quirinius as a consul or proconsul at roughly the same time as Jesus’ birth, and speculation that a census conducted by Quirinius would not have affected Judaea. The assertion that the consul or proconsul in Syria and Cilicia would not have had such far reaching authority is nothing more than bare assertion. Even granted that the speculation is grounded in reasonable surmise, it remains speculation.

    What is actually known is that the Essene Calendar did not coincide with the Jewish liturgical calendar, and that the Essenes celebrated Passover according to their own calendar. What is actually known is that the Samaritan Jews celebrated Passover in accord with their own calendar, not the Jewish Calendar. What is actually known is that Passover could be celebrated in the second month, should a person be unable to celebrate Passover in the first month. What is actually known is that the Torah stipulates that the whole of Passover must be celebrated on the fourteenth day of the first month (with a postponement to the second month in exceptional circumstances permitted.)


    • 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.
    Agreed. It defies logic, and it would have defied direct experience and knowledge of the people of the time. The Romans did NOT have a habit of dislocating entire populations for the purpose of a census - it would defeat the purpose of a census. In short - Luke would have thoroughly discredited himself if his account had been interpreted the same way at the time of writing that it is now, .
    Last edited by tabibito; 06-24-2021, 11:23 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    whether the inscription belongs to Quirinius or not, the last line need not mean that the man in question was legate of Syria twice; it merely means that he was legatus Augusti twice, on the second occasion in Syria.”[p.568] [My emphasis] See also Ronald Syme," Galatia and Pamphylia under Augustus: The Governorships of Piso, Quirinius, and Silvanus". Klio, Vol XXVII, 1934 pp. 122-148.
    I refer to recent discoveries, reported in 2019; you refer to writings dating from 1934. I write of a copy of the Res Gestae Divi Augusti discovered in Antioch, Pisidia (First scholastic translation in 1883 from distributed fragments: Theodor Mommsen); you write of a discovery in Tivoli, Italy: this one

    Tivoli Inscription.jpg

    With respect to the old chestnut of Quirinius holding the governorship of Syria twice that is now completely rejected, except within the realms of some Christian enthusiasts. It should also be noted that Mr Bryan Windle is neither a Classicist nor a historian. Furthermore the Greek ηγεμονευοντος [of being governor] means exactly what it says and the word carries a strong military connotation.
    :ROFL:

    Last edited by tabibito; 06-24-2021, 10:23 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    With respect to the old chestnut of Quirinius holding the governorship of Syria twice that is now completely rejected, except within the realms of some Christian enthusiasts. It should also be noted that Mr Bryan Windle is neither a Classicist nor a historian. Furthermore the Greek ηγεμονευοντος [of being governor] means exactly what it says and the word carries a strong military connotation.


    E Mary Smallwood deals with the census in her work The Jews Under Roman Rule published in Volume Twenty of Studies in Judaism in Late Anquity Ed J. Neusner, Brill, 1976. In that she writes:

    Tribute had been paid to Rome by the Jewish client kingdom ever since 63 BC in the form of a tax on the produce of the land, which had been regulated by Julius Caesar in 47. As a province Judaea continued to pay a land-tax {tributum soli). But annexation made the Jews automatically liable also for the tributum capitis, the personal tax paid by provincials, as well as for the vectigalia, the indirect taxes paid by the whole empire, of which the most important were the harbour dues (portoria). The first Roman administrative act in the new province was therefore the holding of a census (a land-survey as well as a count of the population) in order to obtain the accurate information about its manpower and financial resources needed for assessing its tax capability. For this purpose Augustus instructed the newly appointed legate of Syria, P. Sulpicius Quirinius, who had just conducted a census in his own province, to go to Judaea to organize the country as a province and in particular to take a census [...] Its outcome was the imposition of the tributum capitis in the form, apparently, of a flat-rate tax which by c. 30 was one Roman denarius per head, the "tribute-money" of the Gospels.[pp.150, 151]

    In Appendix E of the same work Smallwood discusses the fragment of an acephalous cursus inscription ILS 918 ending [legatus pr. pr.] divi Augusti iterum Syriam et Ph[oenicen optinuit].

    [r]egem, qua redacta in pot[estatem] imp. Caesaris
    Augusti populique Romani senatu[s dis immortalibus]
    supplicationes binas ob res prosp[ere gestas et]
    ipsi ornamenta triumph[alia decrevit];
    pro consul. Asiam provinciam op[tinuit; legatus pr. pr.]
    divi Augusti iterum Syriam et Ph[oenicen optinuit].

    The Latin term iterum appearing in the crucial line was interpreted to mean that when Quirinius went to govern Syria in 6 CE it was his second tenure of that post and a previous “first governship of Syria” was postulated for him. [Mommsen, 1883].

    Smallwood continues, “ Quirinius certainly held a military post in the East during the last decade or so B.C., when he directed the war against the Homanades in Cilicia—Tac, A. iii, 48, 2; Str. Xii, 6, 5. However, the attribution of ILS918 to Quirinius,, has been doubted [...] whoever is the man commemorated, iteration of the chief military command in the East would be unparalleled, and improbable in itself, and the important point here is that made by R. Syme: whether the inscription belongs to Quirinius or not, the last line need not mean that the man in question was legate of Syria twice; it merely means that he was legatus Augusti twice, on the second occasion in Syria.”[p.568] [My emphasis] See also Ronald Syme," Galatia and Pamphylia under Augustus: The Governorships of Piso, Quirinius, and Silvanus". Klio, Vol XXVII, 1934 pp. 122-148.

    She later notes:

    If Quirinius' "first governorship of Syria" is rejected, he conducted the Homanadensian war in some other capacity. He may have had a special, purely military command; he may have been proconsul of Asia or legate of Pamphylia; more probably he was legate of Galatia and Pamphylia together. But a military command in Asia Minor cannot credibly be supposed to have given Quirinius civil authority over a client kingdom at some distance from his theatre of operations (authority which a non-Roman, non-technical writer like Luke could misinterpret as meaning that he was legate of Syria); nor is it likely that his campaigns would have given him time or opportunity to organize a census there. Furthermore, though the war may have occurred before Herod's death, it may equally well be dated immediately after it. To connect Quirinius convincingly with any census in Judaea before that which he directed in A.D.6. therefore seems to be a forlorn hope. [pp. 568,569]

    In his “The Census of Luke as an Apologetic Device” in Studies in New Testament and early Christian literature; essays in honour of Allen P. Wikren, 1972, Brill. pp.144-160] Horst H Moehring concludes that the attempts to reconcile the Lucan birth narrative and the census with the birth narrative in Matthew have proved “problematic” and despite various attempts to do so the two accounts cannot be “brought into agreement with one another”. He continues:

    The arguments against the Lucan account were best summarised by Schürer and they deserve to be mentioned again at this point.
    • 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.
    [...]

    The historical inaccuracy of the passage which claims to be historical but stands so isolated in the midst of legendary materials demands a concrete and specific reason for its inclusion in the gospel [...] The time at which the reference to the census and its inclusion in the gospel would have been of greatest concern, is of course the date of the composition of the gospel. A significant number of scholars today accept as the date for the composition of the third gospel a period between 70 and 90, that is after the war of 66-70. It is almost universally agreed, furthermore, that Luke and Acts were meant to be read as one comprehensive work. One of the main themes of this composition is the attempt to show “the political innocence of Jesus in the eyes of the Romans, above all, of Pilate...Luke prepares the defence of the Christians against political accusations in Acts. Also in connection with this political line the relation of Jesus’ history with general history appears”*. This apologetic concern of both Luke and Acts would be seriously jeopardised if the books included passages which were meant to establish an intimate relationship between Jesus or the Christian community and the rebel movement of the Zealots. It seems to have been widely accepted that the origins of this rebel movement were somehow connected with the census taken by Quirinius in AD 6-7. At exactly this point, Luke found the most suitable starting point for the documentation of the thesis that at no time is the Christian movement, even in the person of its founder, to constitute a danger to the security of the Roman Empire. For this reason it is so important for Luke that the order for the census be issued by the highest authority of the Empire itself. This allows him to show the obedience of Joseph who, in contrast to the nationalist fanatics, obeys this order. Joseph’s obedience is not merely passive: he subjects himself and Mary to great hardship in order to fulfil his civic duty. [pp.146, 147,158,159]


    *W G Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament. 1973, Quelle & Meyer pp. 140,141.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    The various posts on the dating of the crucifixion and Passover for the year of Jesus’ execution all exhibit a marked degree of special pleading.

    Irrespective of contemporary theological beliefs the fact remains that in first century Jerusalem there was only one Passover each year. Furthermore, remarks regarding three separate calendars need to be considered in the light of what is actually known, rather than the conjecture of the individual premised on various gospel verses.

    Emil Schürer gives detailed accounts of all the aspects of festivals including Passover, calendars, and computation in Volume 1 of The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ 175 BC-135 AD [Revised and Edited by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, Matthew Black ]and notes that scientifically exact calendars developed in different nations at different historical periods and, Bloomsbury, 1973] noting that the Jewish months continued as all months of various nations were by origin, genuine lunar months. The issues concerning twelve lunar months only amounting 354 days [excluding additional hours, minutes, and seconds] while a solar year comprises 365 days [excluding same] led to a difference of 10 days and 21 hours. In order to compensate for this difference, at least once in every third year, and sometimes in the second, one month needed to be intercalated. That every nineteen years the courses of the sun and moon coincide almost exactly was also well known to the Babylonians and cuneiform inscriptions are thought to show that they regularly employed a nineteen year intercalary cycle as far back as the eighth century BCE. This nineteen year cycle was in use in the Arsacid kingdom in the first centuries BCE and CE as has been shown by coins from the years 287, 317, and 390 of the Seleucid era appearing as intercalary years [see p.588-589]

    However, how far the Jews of the intertestamental era had advanced in such matters is unclear. It would appear they had some knowledge of such matters but at the time of Jesus in the early first century they had no fixed calendar, and on the basis of observation intercalated one month in the spring of the third or second year in accordance with the rule that the Passover must fall after the vernal equinox.

    E.J. Bickerman in his work Chronology of the Ancient World, Cornell University Press, 1968 also comments on the Mosaic law being bound to the beginning of a new month to a new crescent and the liturgical year of Jerusalem depended on barley ripening [Leviticus 23.10, Exodus 12.2]. However, the Babylonian precalculated calendar would have repeatedly disagreed with the sighting of a new moon in Jerusalem and crop growth in Judaea. This led to the religious calendar of Jerusalem becoming separate from civil reckoning with months and days inserted at convenience. While we have no precise date for when this new system was established we do know that the Qumran community refused to accept it and instead used their own calendar for “the proper reckoning of the time” of festivals. It is therefore clear that the manipulated Temple calendar was already in use in the first century BCE. Bickerman therefore contends that it is impossible to deduce the date of the Passover or crucifixion from any scheme of fixed calendars. He points out that nowhere in the entire New Testament is any calendar date, day, or month, even a month name provided. [pp. 26,27].

    Paul Winter in his On The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth, Studia Judaica, Forshungen zur Wissenschaft des Judentums, E L Ehrlich, Basel, Walter de Gruyter & Co, Berlin, 1961 makes the following comments noting that as far as he is aware the earliest chronological notice dealing with the death of Jesus occurs in Clement of Alexandria’s Stromateis I [chapter xxi]. In this Clement dates the crucifixion to 42 years and 3 months before the Romans destroyed Jerusalem. If the reference to three months [υήνες γ] is understood “to indicate exactly three months of the Jewish calendar — of any Jewish calendar — the day of Jesus’ crucifixion would be designated as coinciding neither with the 14th nor the 15th Nisan, but with the ninth day of that month.” [p. 73 “Pilate in History and Christian Tradition”]

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    https://www.myjewishlearning.com/art...ge-in-judaism/

    The Arrival of the Messiah


    The rabbis speculated on the conditions under which the Messiah was likely to appear.

    He will not arrive on the Sabbath, since that would require people to violate the Sabbath in welcoming him [Babylonian Talmud Pesahim 13a]. [The prophet] Elijah [who is supposed to usher in the messianic age] will arrive no later in the week than Thursday, leaving room for the Messiah to arrive by Friday. Elijah will announce the arrival of the Messiah from Mount Carmel in the Land of Israel [Jerusalem Talmud Pesahim 3:6].

    Many rabbis believed that the Messiah would arrive suddenly on the eve of Passover, the first redemption, which serves as a model of the final redemption [Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Pischa 14].

    Corruption and Degradation Will Precede Redemption


    One statement from the time of the rabbis describes the era leading up to the Messiah in the darkest terms of societal corruption:

    “In the footsteps of the Messiah, arrogance [chutzpah] will increase; prices will rise; grapes will be abundant but wine will be costly; the government will turn into heresy; and there will be no reproach. The meeting place [of scholars] will become a bordello; the Galilee will be destroyed; the highland will lie desolate; the border people will wander from city to city and none will show them compassion; the wisdom of authors will stink; sin‑fearing people will be detested; truth will be missing; young men will humiliate the elderly; the elderly will stand while the young sit; sons will revile their fathers; daughters will strike their mothers, brides will strike their mothers‑in‑law; and a man’s enemies will take over his house. The face of the generation is like the face of a dog! Sons have no shame in front of their fathers; and on whom can one depend? Only upon our father in heaven [Sotah 9:15].”

    This era will be characterized by God’s war against Gog and Magog and other catastrophic events. Another statement, which may date from the time of the Hadrianic persecutions (132‑35 C.E.), offers the dark assessment that the Messiah will arrive in a period when Jews collaborate with their enemies, Torah learning disappears, poverty increases, and religious despair deepens:


    You can read the rest of that text here https://www.myjewishlearning.com/art...ge-in-judaism/
    You do realize that you're relying on material written centuries after the time in question by the descendants of one view of Judaism current at the time of Christ who are just spitballing, yes?

    That Paul founded a new religion is widely accepted.
    Academic opinion is what was under discussion, not the views of the ordinary Joe in the street.

    On the contrary, there are academics who hold/held religious beliefs who are/were of that opinion. For example, S G F Brandon [died 1971] was an Anglican cleric and an army chaplain during WW2. John Dominic Crossan still holds to a religious view, albeit some may not regard his beliefs as "true" Christianity. Hyam Maccoby [died 2004] was a Rabbinic scholar..
    That you have to cherry-pick and even then qualify your examples speaks volumes.
    What Paul was propounding was not the Palestinian Judaism as practised by Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples.
    If you'd read the canonical gospels, you'd understand that Jesus (and, by extension, his disciples) tended to be rather antagonistic to the Palestinian Judaisms of his day.
    Well of course the canonical gospels take that view. They are written under the influence of Paul's views and Paul rejected Judaism.
    I'd be interested to know just what basis you have for asserting that Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples practiced a Palestinian Judaism not propounded by Paul, then. Sources other than the canonical gospels are much later and farther from Palestinian Judaism (as far as we can discern it) than they are.
    It was something totally new that was acceptable and intelligible to the Graeco-Roman world.
    Balderdash.
    For Paul the death of Jesus was a transcendent and spiritual event. It was part of a divine plan. The demonic powers in the world, unaware that this had all been predestined by God at the beginning of time, were responsible for the crucifixion of a supernatural "Lord of Glory" [I Corinthians 2.6-8]. Such a construct is a very long way from an ascetic Galilean Jewish teacher preaching of the End Times to his fellow Jews and telling them to repent.
    Such a construct is a very long way from Paul's teachings, too. Paul wrote rather more than 1 Corinthians 2.6-8. Taking a distorted view of Paul's teachings and using that to filter out "Pauline" influences on the gospels isn't going to result in a very accurate picture of the teachings of Jesus.
    Jesus wasn't a slave. From where do you get that impression?
    I'm well aware of that. Crucifixion was the method used for executing slaves. As Bart Ehrman has said, [cite]Low life criminals would include, for example, slaves who had escaped from their masters and committed a crime. If caught, a slave could be crucified. There were two reasons they were subjected to such a tortuous, slow, and humiliating death. They were receiving the “ultimate” punishment for their crime and, possibly more important, they were being used as a spectacle to warn any other slave who was thinking about escaping or committing crimes what could happen to *them*.?[/cite] Since Jesus was crucified, that put him on par with slaves.
    Gentiles who were familiar with the demi-gods of various ancient religions and cults and who had no preconceived ideas about "Messiah" meaning the Anointed King of Israel would, no doubt, have found little difficulty in thinking of the "Christos" as a divine being or an incarnate god.
    Interesting that you felt the need to break my argument up in order to attack it. No self-respecting Greco-Roman was going to follow someone executed as a slave. He was dead! Everybody knows that dead people don't come back to life. This was, after all, a culture in which a popular epitaph was "Non fui, fui, non sum, non curo".

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    I threw this table together. If anyone suggests corrections or considers that additional information should be added, I'll work on it some more.

    EVENTS OF THE DAY OF CHRIST'S EXECUTION: SUNSET TO THE TRIAL BEFORE PILATE
    Matt Mark Luke John
    30? 33?yy01mm14dd (Not a Sabbath)
    Before the Passover, Jesus knew that his time was at hand 13:1
    Before the Passover, Judas arranges to betray Jesus 26:14-16 14:10-11 22:4 - 6
    Before the meal, Judas is already under the Devil’s influence to betray Jesus 22:3 13:2
    30? 33?yy01mm14ddEVENING
    .(a) 1st Day of Unleavened Bread (b) Day of Preparation (c) The day when the Passover must be sacrificed. 26:17 (a) 14:12 (a) 22:7 (a, c)
    Sacrifice the Passover 14:12
    Disciples Prepare for the Passover (meal) 26:19 14:16 22:8 - 13
    Jesus arrives late in the evening (οψιας) 14:17
    Jesus arrives accompanied by the twelve 14:17
    30? 33?yy01mm14ddNIGHT
    The meal (No celebration of Passover has another meal between Sacrifice and the Passover meal) 26:20 14:18 22:14
    Jesus washes the disciples’ feet 13:4 - 12
    Jesus declares that one disciple is a traitor (Judas) 26:21 14:18 22:20 13:21
    Who is the traitor? “not I” 26:22 14:19 22:23
    “Woe to him by whom the Son of Man is betrayed” 26:24 14:21 22:22
    Jesus responds to Judas’ denial ((“yes, you”)) 26:25
    Satan enters Judas’ heart 13:27
    “What you do, do quickly.” 13:27
    Judas leaves the meal 13:31
    The bread is Jesus’ body 26:26 14:22
    The bread/body, “given for you” 22:19
    The wine is Jesus’ “blood of the new covenant” 26:28 14:24 22:20
    Depart for the Mount of Olives 26:30 14:26 22:39
    “Sheep will be scattered,” 26:31 14:27
    The disciples deny that they will resile 26: 35 14: 31
    Peter’s denies that he will resile 26:33 - 35 14: 29 - 31
    Peter claims that he will lay down his life for Jesus 26: 35 14: 31 22:33 13:37
    Jesus contradicts Peter 22:34 13:38
    Leaves for the garden, crossing the Kidron 18:1
    Arrive Gethsemane 26:36 14:32 22:40
    Jesus divides the group, remains with Peter, James, John 26:36 14:32
    Jesus withdraws from the group 22:41
    Jesus prays “let this cup pass from me,” 26:37 14:36 22:42
    Judas betrays Jesus 26: 47-50 14:45 22:47 18: 3 - 9
    The High Priest’s slave injured by a disciple 26:51 14:47 22:50 18:10
    The disciple identified as Peter 18:10
    Jesus addresses the group arresting him 26:55 14:48- 49 22:52 - 53
    The disciples flee 26:56 14:50- 52
    Jesus led first to Annas 18:13
    Annas sends Jesus on to Caiaphas 18:24
    Jesus brought before Caiaphas, scribes, elders 26:57 14:53 22:54
    Attempts to find testimony against Jesus fail 14:55-59
    Caiaphas/High_Priest demands that Jesus declare himself – Is he or is he not God’s anointed, son of God? 26:63 14:61
    Jesus affirms that he is 26:64 14:62
    High Priest declares Jesus claim blasphemy 26:65 14:64
    Peter disavows Jesus 26: 69-75 14: 66-72 22:55 - 61 18:25 -27
    30? 33?yy01mm14ddMORNING
    When it was day Jesus taken to council chambers 22:66
    Chief priests and elders consult 15:1
    Council asks, “Are you the son of God?” 22:70
    Jesus affirms 22:70
    Chief priests and elders condemn Jesus 27:1
    They bind Jesus and take him before the governor/Pilate 27:2 15:1 23:1 18:28
    Chief Priests do not enter the praetorium (ritual purity) 18:28
    JESUS BEFORE THE GOVERNOR (PILATE)
    Pilate questions Jesus in the Praetorium 18:33
    Governor (Pilate) asks, “Are you king of the Jews?” 27:11 15:2 23:3 18:33 -37
    Jesus affirms 27:11 15:2 23:3 18:37
    Chief priests or elders accuse Jesus 27:12 15:3
    Jesus does not respond to the allegations 27:12 15:4*
    Governor identified as Pilate 27:13 15:2
    Pilate is (quite) amazed 27:14 15:5
    Hanko.jpg

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 11-27-2021, 06:29 AM
99 responses
691 views
0 likes
Last Post Cow Poke  
Started by Cow Poke, 11-01-2021, 08:51 PM
68 responses
359 views
0 likes
Last Post Cow Poke  
Started by seer, 10-11-2021, 07:32 PM
460 responses
2,872 views
1 like
Last Post tabibito  
Working...
X