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

  • 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:


  • 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, 12:55 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:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
39 responses
157 views
0 likes
Last Post whag
by whag
 
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
21 responses
129 views
0 likes
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
80 responses
426 views
0 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
45 responses
303 views
1 like
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Working...
X