U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-03-2013, 02:44 PM
 
9,984 posts, read 6,758,066 times
Reputation: 5613

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient warrior View Post
Since Christmas is approaching, we will be hearing the nativity accounts in Matthew's and Luke's which do not appear elsewhere.

But some questions arise immediately. Is this an historical event or only a story?

Matthew 2 claims that Jesus was born during the life time of King Herod who died about 4 B.C.

Luke 2 claims that Jesus was born during the census of Judea conducted by the Roman governor of Syria, Quirinius (when Herod's son and inheritor Archelaus was exiled) in 6 AD (see Josephus, Antiquities).

Because there is a ten year difference, at least one of these accounts isn't historical.

Which is it? How can we tell?
The Herod of the New Testament is not Herod the Great. It is Herod Antipas, his youngest son.
It is Herod Antipas who was so fearlessly criticized by St. John the Baptist, and whom Jesus
stigmatized as "that fox" (Luke 13:32); same as whom Jesus stood silent before in the Passion
(Luke 23:7). Herod Antipas ruled as tetrarch over Galilee and Perea from 4 B.C. to 39 A.D.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-03-2013, 04:15 PM
 
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 6,084,721 times
Reputation: 4527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7 View Post
The Herod of the New Testament is not Herod the Great. It is Herod Antipas, his youngest son.
It is Herod Antipas who was so fearlessly criticized by St. John the Baptist, and whom Jesus
stigmatized as "that fox" (Luke 13: ); same as whom Jesus stood silent before in the Passion
(Luke 23:7). Herod Antipas ruled as tetrarch over Galilee and Perea from 4 B.C. to 39 A.D.
Your wrong. Herod Antipas ruled from 6AD to 39AD.

Herod the great was there at the supposed birth of Christ.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_Antipas
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2013, 07:20 PM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 3,045,889 times
Reputation: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7 View Post
The Herod of the New Testament is not Herod the Great. It is Herod Antipas, his youngest son.
It is Herod Antipas who was so fearlessly criticized by St. John the Baptist, and whom Jesus
stigmatized as "that fox" (Luke 13:32); same as whom Jesus stood silent before in the Passion
(Luke 23:7). Herod Antipas ruled as tetrarch over Galilee and Perea from 4 B.C. to 39 A.D.
RESPONSE:

No. King Herod the Great died in 4 BC. His son Herod Antipas ruled over Galilee (not Judea) from 4 BC until about 37 AD.

Another son Archelaus ruled Judea. He was exiled by the Romans in 6 AD and Judea was placed under direct Roman control (by Syria's governor Quirinius). According to Luke, Jesus was born during Quirinius' governorship.

King Herod the Great was the father of Antipas, Archelaus, and Philip.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2013, 07:39 PM
 
5,133 posts, read 2,527,570 times
Reputation: 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient warrior View Post
RESPONSE:
No. King Herod the Great died in 4 BC. His son Herod Antipas ruled over Galilee (not Judea) from 4 BC until about 37 AD.
Another son Archelaus ruled Judea. He was exiled by the Romans in 6 AD and Judea was placed under direct Roman control (by Syria's governor Quirinius). According to Luke, Jesus was born during Quirinius' governorship.
King Herod the Great was the father of Antipas, Archelaus, and Philip.
Josephus used ' consular dating' in that he located the event as occurring during the rule of certain Roman consuls.

Herod's appointment as king would be 40 BCE, but he data of antoher historian Appianos, would place the event in 39 BCE. Josephus places Herod's capture of Jerusalem in 37 BCE, but also says that occurred 27 years after the capture of Pompey [ which was in 63 BCE] The latter event would make the date of Herod taking the city of Jerusalem in 36 BCE. Now Josephus says Herod died 37 years from the time that he was appointed king by the Romans, and 34 years after he took Jerusalem. That could easily place Herod's death at the year 2 or 1 BCE.

- Jewish Antiquities XVI 487,488 [ xvi 4 ] XVII 190,191 [viii, 1 ]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2013, 04:41 PM
 
9,984 posts, read 6,758,066 times
Reputation: 5613
It was Herod the Great who ordered the Massacre of the Innocents, right before
he died... but it was Herod Antipas who had John the Baptist killed and whom
Christ referred to in Luke. Herod the Great murdered three of his own sons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2013, 08:06 PM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 3,045,889 times
Reputation: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew 4:4 View Post
Josephus used ' consular dating' in that he located the event as occurring during the rule of certain Roman consuls.

Herod's appointment as king would be 40 BCE, but he data of antoher historian Appianos, would place the event in 39 BCE. Josephus places Herod's capture of Jerusalem in 37 BCE, but also says that occurred 27 years after the capture of Pompey [ which was in 63 BCE] The latter event would make the date of Herod taking the city of Jerusalem in 36 BCE. Now Josephus says Herod died 37 years from the time that he was appointed king by the Romans, and 34 years after he took Jerusalem. That could easily place Herod's death at the year 2 or 1 BCE.

- Jewish Antiquities XVI 487,488 [ xvi 4 ] XVII 190,191 [viii, 1 ]
RESPONSE:

Please print the writing itself if you claim that it is accurate. The claim that Quirinius was Governor of Syria twice is without any substantial foundation. But it is an argument beside the point. What we are interested in is when Archelaus, Herod's son was deposed and Judea came under direct Roman control. It was in 6 AD.

Please note: "Scholars have noted, however, that Appian used his sources rather creatively to support his views of the importance of Alexandria and the virtues of the Romans. "http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/30586/Appian-of-Alexandria.

Please also note that Appianos wrote about 150 years after the fact and did not deny that Archelaus was exiled ten years after the death of King Herod and Quirinius conducted a census at that time.

Whatever the case, it is well established that Archelaus, King Herod's son, inherited Judea on his fathers death and ruled Judea for 10 years before being exiled by the Romans. Following this, the Roman governor of Syria, Quirinius, conducted a census to assess the tax base of Judea. Luke claims Jesus was born at this time making Mathew's story of Herod's Slaughter of the Innocent chronologically impossible, since Herod has been dead for ten years. No historian makes any mention of a slaughter of the innocent.

Last edited by ancient warrior; 11-04-2013 at 08:26 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2013, 11:52 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
9,264 posts, read 5,486,975 times
Reputation: 4046
Default A historical account

Here is a relatively historical account complete with footnotes about the possible two reigns of Quirinius. For me it has absolutely no bearing on the spiritual message of the Bible--no matter which way one believes it to be. It is spiritually ignorant with regard to a book that was not written for historical purposes.

But rational men and women prefer arguments about the mundane historical facts rather than contemplation on the great spiritual hopes and dreams. So here is an interesting source for both sides. Go to the link to read the very lengthy article.

May you relish your wasted time with great gusto--


Quote:
There was found near Tibur (Tivoli) in AD.1764 a fragment of marble with part of an inscription, which is now preserved in the Lateran Museum of Christian Antiquities, as one of the important monuments bearing on the history of Christianity. The inscription records the career and honors of a Roman official who lived in the reign of Augustus, and survived that emperor. He conquered a nation; he was rewarded with two Supplicationes and the Ornamenta Triumphalia, i.e.,[t]he gorgeous dress of a triumphing general, with ivory scepter and chariot, etc.; he governed Asia as proconsul; and he twice governed Syria as legatus of the divine Augustus.

Though the name has perished, yet these indications are sufficient to show with practical certainty (as all the highest authorities are agreed — Mommsen, Borghesi, de Rossi, Henzen, Dessau, and others), that the officer who achieved this splendid career was Publius Sulpicius Quirinius. His government of Syria, AD.6-9, was therefore his second tenure of that office. He had administered Syria at some previous time. Is not this earlier administration the occasion to which Luke refers?

Here again, however, we are confronted with a serious difficulty. The supreme authority on the subject, Mommsen, considers that the most probable date for Quirinius's first government of Syria is about BC.3-1; but the question is involved in serious doubts, which Mommsen fully acknowledges. That time is doubly inconsistent with Luke: Herod was dead before it, and it is inconsistent with the whole argument of the preceding pages that the enrollment should have been postponed so long after the periodic year BC.9.

Again, Luke does not specify exactly what was the Roman office which Quirinius held at the time when this first enrollment was made. The Greek word which he uses hegemoneuontos tes Surias Kureniou occurs elsewhere in his History, indicating the office of procurator (Luke 3:1; so hegemon, Acts 23:24, 26, 33; Acts 24:1, 10 and Acts 26:30) and the noun connected with it is even used (Luke 3:1) to indicate the supreme authority exercised by the reigning Emperor in a province.

Hence the word, as employed by Luke, might be applied to any Roman official holding a leading and authoritative position in the province of Syria. It might quite naturally denote some special mission of a high and authoritative nature; and many excellent authorities have argued that Quirinius was dispatched to Syria on some such mission, and that Luke, in assigning the date, mentions him in preference to the regular governor.

We find, then, that uncertainty reigns both as to the date of Quirinius's first governorship, and as to whether Luke called him governor or intended to indicate that he held a special mission in Syria.
Quirinius the Governor of Syria
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2013, 07:22 AM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 3,045,889 times
Reputation: 258
WARDEBESTEN posted [67]:

The attachment you sent [Quirinius the Governor of Syria] notes correctly:

>>The famous administration of Syria by Quirinius lasted from about AD.6 to 9; and during that time occurred the" Great Enrollment" and valuation of property in Palestine. [94] Obviously the incidents described by Luke are irreconcilable with that date.<<

No. They are perfectly reconcilable with that date [ie 6 AD]and the same date found in Josephus' Antiquities.

>>Though the name has perished, yet these indications are sufficient to show with practical certainty (as all the highest authorities are agreed — Mommsen, Borghesi, de Rossi, Henzen, Dessau, and others), that the officer who achieved this splendid career was Publius Sulpicius Quirinius. His government of Syria, AD.6-9, was therefore his second tenure of that office. He had administered Syria at some previous time. Is not this earlier administration the occasion to which Luke refers?<<

There is no name given and it's wishful thinking to claim that this was Quirinius. But it's not important, since Luke wrote about a census in 6 AD during which Quirinius was governor and Jesus was born.

>>Again, Luke does not specify exactly what was the Roman office which Quirinius held at the time when this first enrollment was made<<

On the contrary Luke 2:2 states the office Quirinus held and that was at the time of the first enrollment.

Luke 2:2 "This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_of_Galilee

Judas of Galilee or Judas of Gamala led a violent resistance to the census imposed for Roman tax purposes by Quirinius in Iudaea Province around AD 6.[1] The revolt was crushed brutally by the Romans. These events are discussed by Josephus in Jewish Wars and in Antiquities of the Jews.

NB Judas of Galilee is also mentioned in the Acts of the Apostle


Observation. Christian apologists go to great lengths to try to disprove that the Bible contradicts itself in giving two birth dates for Jesus which are ten years apart. Of course given the plain meaning of words, the Bible has recorded this contradiction.

Last edited by ancient warrior; 11-05-2013 at 07:27 AM.. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2013, 01:39 PM
 
17,514 posts, read 10,600,115 times
Reputation: 8431
Two registrations under Quirinius. Bible critics have said that the only census taken while Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was governor of Syria was about 6*C.E., which event sparked a rebellion by Judas the Galilean and the Zealots. (Ac 5:37) This was really the second registration under Quirinius, for inscriptions discovered at and near Antioch revealed that some years earlier Quirinius had served as the emperor’s legate in Syria. (The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, by W.*Ramsay, 1979, pp. 285, 291) Concerning this, the Dictionnaire du Nouveau Testament in Crampon’s French Bible (1939 ed., p. 360) says: “The scholarly researches of Zumpt (Commentat. epigraph., II, 86-104; De Syria romana provincia, 97-98) and of Mommsen (Res gestae divi Augusti) place beyond doubt that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria.” Many scholars locate the time of Quirinius’ first governorship as somewhere between the years 4 and 1*B.C.E., probably from 3 to 2*B.C.E. Their method of arriving at these dates, however, is not solid, and the actual period of this governorship remains indefinite. (See QUIRINIUS.) His second governorship, however, included 6*C.E., according to details reported by Josephus.—Jewish Antiquities, XVIII, 26 (ii, 1).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2013, 11:08 AM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 3,045,889 times
Reputation: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA View Post
Two registrations under Quirinius. Bible critics have said that the only census taken while Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was governor of Syria was about 6*C.E., which event sparked a rebellion by Judas the Galilean and the Zealots. (Ac 5:37) This was really the second registration under Quirinius, for inscriptions discovered at and near Antioch revealed that some years earlier Quirinius had served as the emperor’s legate in Syria. (The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, by W.*Ramsay, 1979, pp. 285, 291) Concerning this, the Dictionnaire du Nouveau Testament in Crampon’s French Bible (1939 ed., p. 360) says: “The scholarly researches of Zumpt (Commentat. epigraph., II, 86-104; De Syria romana provincia, 97-98) and of Mommsen (Res gestae divi Augusti) place beyond doubt that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria.” Many scholars locate the time of Quirinius’ first governorship as somewhere between the years 4 and 1*B.C.E., probably from 3 to 2*B.C.E. Their method of arriving at these dates, however, is not solid, and the actual period of this governorship remains indefinite. (See QUIRINIUS.) His second governorship, however, included 6*C.E., according to details reported by Josephus.—Jewish Antiquities, XVIII, 26 (ii, 1).

RESPONSE:


There have been a number of attempts by Christian apologists trying to avoid the obvious fact
that Luke 2:2 contradicts Matthew 2:2 on the date of birth of Jesus.
Matthew has Jesus being born during the reign of King Herod the Great who died in 4 BC. Luke has Jesus born during the Roman governor of Syrias tax census conducted in 6 AD when Archelaus, ten years after Herod's death, Herod's son and inheritor, was exiled from Judea by the Romans.

Luke 2:2 "This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria."

Fact No. 1 Quirinius was the governor of Syria in 6 AD not "the emperor's legate in Syria."

Roman Governors of Syria (see Wikipedia and all)

24 – 1 BC Unknown [Some consider that Lucius Calpurnius Piso "the Pontifex" was here the
governor of Syria. This is based on an inscription called the Lapis Tiburtinus].

1 BC – 4 AD Gaius Julius Caesar Vipsanianus

4 – 5 Lucius Volusius Saturninus

6 – 12 Publius Sulpicius Quirinius

Fact No. 2 The purpose of the census was to make an assessment of the exiled Archelaus' [ He was exiled in 6 AD] property and establish a tax base since the Romans , not Archelaus would be nowcollecting taxes. (King Herod, Archelaus's father had been dead for ten years at this point).

Josephus, Antiquities, 17, 355 [on the web]. " Now the territory subject to Archelaus (Judea) was added to the province of Syria and Quirinius, a man of counsular rank, was sent by Caesar to take a census of the property in Syria and to sell the estate of Archelaus."

Antiquities 18, 1-4 "Quirinius....arrived in Syria dispatched by Caesar to be governor of the nation and to make an assessment of their property.....Quiorinius also visited Judea which had been annexed to Syria in order to make an assessment of the property of the Jews and liquidated the estate of Archelaus.

It makes no difference what Quirinius had done in the past. The fact was he became governor in Syria to which Judea had been added in 6 AD. Not earlier.

Up until this time, no foreign power had made a census of Judea. It almost sparked a riot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top