Mark’s Ending

[tabibito]

Bull scat. You never note the biases of the various skeptics and critics you employ, but eagerly handwave off as hopelessly biased anything an academic might write if they happen to be a Christian

Gotta give credit where credit is due - she did lead me to the realisation that there is nothing wrong with Luke's nativity account.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Gotta give credit where credit is due - she did lead me to the realisation that there is nothing wrong with Luke's nativity account.

I attempted to explain the actual historical situation to you. My efforts fell on stony ground.

[Diogenes]

Gotta give credit where credit is due - she did lead me to the realisation that there is nothing wrong with Luke's nativity account.

To give credit where credit is due, she did more leading me to faith than a countless number of sermons I've heard.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I responded to you because you suggested that his scholarship was definitive.

You are welcome to quote me where I wrote that his scholarship was definitive.

I suggest that you read more carefully,

Perhaps you might take your own advice?

as it should be clear that I was not taking issue with his translation despite your repeated attempts to make it about that.

Then with what precisely were you taking issue? And why the need to introduce an entirely irrelevant work?

Further, I note that the link clearly states that the work cited was published in 1926, which is not in the 1940s.

I cited the 1940s as that was the decade in which he died.

Lastly, you're the one who suggested that his scholarship was definitive.

Again, feel free to cite my precise words where I state his work was definitive.

.

More like amused. Reading church history is a significant reason why I became Orthodox - and I did not make the transition lightly.

Your theological path to salvation is of no interest to me.

If you don't like grossly over-simplified comments, then I suggest you stop writing them yourself.

Feel free to quote my "grossly over-simplified comments" and provide your own commentary on where precisely I am in error.

I'm well aware of such, which is why I understand that you're attempting to grossly over-complicate things into a hopeless muddle.

If you are so well informed one can only wonder why you provided such over-simplistic and grossly distorted comments that take no account of the theological disagreements, the different forms of Christianity that existed, nor indeed the political situation across the empire from the late third century.

We know quite enough about the historical situation to understand the "power struggles... and different factions" from various angles and write church histories.

Which specific "church histories" are you referencing?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Citing an anonymous poster on a small website as your authority?

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

I do not consider our mutual friend to be an authority on anything.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

All I did was link to the first place that I ran across which provided an online copy of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History

OneBadPig might consider your decision to merely cite an academic without reading up on the individual to be a tad unwise!

However, I am sure that our friend is highly trained in ancient palaeography and has also read all of Kirsopp Lake's works. [N.B. In case you missed it that was sarcasm.]

[tabibito]

I attempted to explain the actual historical situation to you. My efforts fell on stony ground.

The smelly mess you left on the stony ground of the stable floor got shifted to the bases of some fruit trees.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The smelly mess you left on the stony ground of the stable floor got shifted to the bases of some fruit trees.

As I recall you labour under the delusion that Quirinius was twice Legate of Syria and no evidence from the known historical sources has been able to dissuade you.

[tabibito]

As I recall you labour under the delusion that Quirinius was twice Legate of Syria and no evidence from the known historical sources has been able to dissuade you.

You remember wrong.
Quirinius was ηγεμονευω (general, not governor) over the troops engaged against the Homonadenses in Cilicia from 12 or 11 BCE until about 2 or 1 BCE. With Cilicia having been annexed to Syria in 27BCE, that made him ηγεμονευω (of the troops) of Syria. The first census conducted during Quirinius' time as ηγεμων of Syria was the census that concluded in 8BCE - as is recorded on the Res Gestae Divi Augusti monuments. Luke states that the census was the first conducted during Quirinius' time as ηγεμων, but he does not state that Quirinius had charge over conducting that census. At least two later Christian authors referred to the census records of Saturninus (who was governor of Syria in 8BCE) as being proof of Christian claims about the "Holy Family." Those authors were not guided to their conclusions by Biblical records, which make no mention of Saturninus. Census records were matters of public record, and archived in the Temple of Saturn. Those records and the temple itself were destroyed by fire 50 years after the second of the authors wrote of their existence.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You remember wrong.

Judging from your following comments, not entirely.

Quirinius was ηγεμονευω (general, not governor) over the troops engaged against the Homonadenses in Cilicia from 12 or 11 BCE until about 2 or 1 BCE. ,

Quirinius was made Consul in 12 BCE. Yet again, you need to remember that Roman career paths followed a set pattern.

With Cilicia having been annexed to Syria in 27BCE

Not all of it, some remained for a period under client kings.

that made him ηγεμονευω (of the troops) of Syria.

As has been pointed out to you in past exchanges on this topic ήγεμων as used by the author of Luke to describe Roman Legates, Procurators, and Proconsuls is a general term that has a military connation. Furthermore, the Roman military used Latin.

In 6 CE Augustus appointed Quirinius as the Consular Governor of Syria, an Imperial province garrisoned by more than one legion, hence his official title was Legatus Augusti Pro Praetore

The first census conducted during Quirinius' time as ηγεμων of Syria was the census that concluded in 8BCE - as is recorded on the Res Gestae Divi Augusti monuments.

No it was not.

Again, as has previously been pointed out to you,, from the late years of the Republic the census of Roman citizens had lost its original significance, since by then they, that is the whole of Italy and colonies with Ius Italicum no longer paid direct taxes, nor were they liable to regular and universal conscription. The census of 8 BCE was with regard to the religious ceremonies connected with it. It was not for the purpose of levying taxes.

However, provincial censuses were primarily for taxation purposes.

Luke states that the census was the first conducted during Quirinius' time as ηγεμων, but he does not state that Quirinius had charge over conducting that census. At least two later Christian authors referred to the census records of Saturninus (who was governor of Syria in 8BCE) as being proof of Christian claims about the "Holy Family."

No surprises there then!

Those authors were not guided to their conclusions by Biblical records, which make no mention of Saturninus. Census records were matters of public record, and archived in the Temple of Saturn. Those records and the temple itself were destroyed by fire 50 years after the second of the authors wrote of their existence.

Justin and Tertullian are writing long after the events and with a tendentious purpose. As I also noted to you in past exchanges on this topic neither would have had access to Imperial records. This was not the Australian National Archives.

However, you will continue to believe what you wish to believe regardless of any known historical evidence that is put to you; and so there is an end to it.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Bull scat. You never note the biases of the various skeptics and critics you employ, but eagerly handwave off as hopelessly biased anything an academic might write if they happen to be a Christian

Given that several of the authors I have cited come from Christian and/or Jewish backgrounds that is yet another example of your proclivity to caricature and misrepresent.

[tabibito]

Quirinius was made Consul in 12 BCE.

Correct.

Yet again, you need to remember that Roman career paths followed a set pattern.

With enough exceptions to make it a general rule rather than a set procedure.

Not all of it, some remained for a period under client kings.

Quirinius and the legion(s) under his command would certainly not have been considered to be stationed in a client kingdom.

As has been pointed out to you in past exchanges on this topic ήγεμων as used by the author of Luke to describe Roman Legates, Procurators, and Proconsuls is a general term that has a military connation.

Indeed - and of consuls as well, unless Quirinius was not a consul. The word applies to those posts, whether or not the people concerned were actually governors; they might, for example, have been members of a governing body. However, the occasions when any author would have cause to refer to a person as ηγεμων unless that person was a governor would have been few. In wartime, a consul held an office roughly equivalent to that of a brigadier. In peacetime, the duties of the office were administrative, legislative, and judicial: Imperial Rome that is, Republican Rome was not quite the same. So - in Luke's eleven uses of ηγεμων, the use of the term to almost exclusively denote governorship is expected. In his position as legate from 12BCE, Quirinius the consul was not a governor (one exception to Luke's general pattern.) In the statement "you will be brought before kings and governors," the term might refer as easily to magistrates as to governors, a possible second exception.

Furthermore, the Roman military used Latin.

Luke was not using Latin - he used the Greek equivalents of the Latin words.

In 6 CE Augustus appointed Quirinius as the Consular Governor of Syria, an Imperial province garrisoned by more than one legion, hence his official title was Legatus Augusti Pro Praetore

Augustus appointed someone who had previously been a consul (but not a governor) to a position as governor.

No it was not.

Again, as has previously been pointed out to you,, from the late years of the Republic the census of Roman citizens had lost its original significance, since by then they, that is the whole of Italy and colonies with Ius Italicum no longer paid direct taxes, nor were they liable to regular and universal conscription. The census of 8 BCE was with regard to the religious ceremonies connected with it. It was not for the purpose of levying taxes.
However, provincial censuses were primarily for taxation purposes.

Prior to 6CE

Judaea had not been a province.
Taxation was exacted in kind (ie by a levy on goods) ... 6CE saw the introduction of taxation payments in cash, which led to a lot of resentment.

The primary purpose of a Roman census was the same as it is today - keeping track of population and property statistics, as is shown by Augustus' opportunity to write up (with his own hand even) the population count and disposition of resources in the empire, its provinces, and its client kingdoms. None of which would have been possible without a census - it was a necessary precursor to a lustration; as necessary as the passover sacrifice is to the meal.

Justin and Tertullian are writing long after the events and with a tendentious purpose.

A subjective assessment if ever there was one, and even if it were correct, it would not point to falsehoods on their part.

As I also noted to you in past exchanges on this topic neither would have had access to Imperial records. This was not the Australian National Archives.

Then as now: wrong. Census information was a matter of public record, seemingly nailed to the walls of temples in the relevant municipia (a certain ambiguity is present in the account), and (without ambiguity) archived in the temple of Saturn as matters of public record.

However, you will continue to believe what you wish to believe regardless of any known historical evidence that is put to you; and so there is an end to it.

Available evidence suggests that your understanding of the relevant subject is deficient.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Correct.



With enough exceptions to make it a general rule rather than a set procedure.



Quirinius and the legion(s) under his command would certainly not have been considered to be stationed in a client kingdom.



Indeed - and of consuls as well, unless Quirinius was not a consul. The word applies to those posts, whether or not the people concerned were actually governors; they might, for example, have been members of a governing body. However, the occasions when any author would have cause to refer to a person as ηγεμων unless that person was a governor would have been few. In wartime, a consul held an office roughly equivalent to that of a brigadier. In peacetime, the duties of the office were administrative, legislative, and judicial: Imperial Rome that is, Republican Rome was not quite the same. So - in Luke's eleven uses of ηγεμων, the use of the term to almost exclusively denote governorship is expected. In his position as legate from 12BCE, Quirinius the consul was not a governor (one exception to Luke's general pattern.) In the statement "you will be brought before kings and governors," the term might refer as easily to magistrates as to governors, a possible second exception.



Luke was not using Latin - he used the Greek equivalents of the Latin words.



Augustus appointed someone who had previously been a consul (but not a governor) to a position as governor.



Prior to 6CE

Judaea had not been a province.
Taxation was exacted in kind (ie by a levy on goods) ... 6CE saw the introduction of taxation payments in cash, which led to a lot of resentment.

The primary purpose of a Roman census was the same as it is today - keeping track of population and property statistics, as is shown by Augustus' opportunity to write up (with his own hand even) the population count and disposition of resources in the empire, its provinces, and its client kingdoms.




A subjective assessment if ever there was one, and even if it were correct, it would not point to falsehoods on their part.



Then as now: wrong. Census information was a matter of public record, seemingly nailed to the walls of temples in the relevant municipia (a certain ambiguity is present in the account), and (without ambiguity) archived in the temple of Saturn as matters of public record.


Available evidence suggests that your understanding of the relevant subject is deficient.

[tabibito]

Is that a demonstration of your capacity for critical thinking?

The failure to ask "Why did the author make this particular claim?" and seeking the answers is a necessary component of critical thinking, as are reading comprehension exercises. With regard to Christian precepts, it seems that you fail to do either.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Is that a demonstration of your capacity for critical thinking?

The failure to ask "Why did the author make this particular claim?" and seeking the answers is a necessary component of critical thinking, as are reading comprehension exercises. With regard to Christian precepts, it seems that you fail to do either.

Enjoy your walk