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.
I have said this before. I think Josephus was using 2 (maybe more) different sources to write his histories and wrote what he did thinking the different sources were talking about different rebellions but in actuality they were talking about the SAME rebellion; thus Josephus just got mixed up in what he wrote and made many rebellions out of one or two.
So opinion driven by 'faith'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
I am not done with Josephus yet, is he really a credible historian or is he a propagandist for the Roman empire, or is he a little of both. I will see where my study leads me and will post the results when I am done.
...and if if pneuma finds that Josephus is not a credible historian will he throw out his insistence that Josephus is a reliable and trustworthy source as evidence for a HJ?? Place your bets folks.
Trans I like speaking with you and debating these things; however the last few post all you have done is what amounts to defamation of character. I have told you as plain as I can that I will follow where the evidence leads me, but for some reason ( probably because I am a Christian) you simply do not believe me thinking I am trying to fool you so you start with the defamation as you have done above. I have given you no reason for you to state I am trying to win one for the gospels or it is faith that is driving me.
As a matter of fact Trans I don't even need the gospels to show there was a registration in the days of Herod the great. However because this thread is about the credibility of the gospels then of course I will use them also. They are after all historical records, how accurate they are is up to debate and it is what I am looking into.
If I was only going on faith as you assume do you really think I would put so much effort into the historical side of things? I could just say with Mystic all they need to be is spiritually credible and leave it at that, but I don't and I wont, because whether you believe me or not I am a bit of a history buff so would like to see where that history leads me.
So please try to stay away from the defamation of character assaults and stick with the evidence that I provide. We might disagree with each other on the evidence Trans, heck even historians disagree with each other, but lets do so with a little more respect then you have shown me in the last few post.
And if I have attacked your character I do apologize for it and will also do my best to show you more respect.
As for your footnote, you might want to footnote this.
I am not done with Josephus yet, is he really a credible historian or is he a propagandist for the Roman empire, or is he a little of both. I will see where my study leads me and will post the results when I am done.
First, I don't take it at all personally if you critique methods of thinking. And it isn't personal if I respond by saying that where historical research doesn't produce the result the believers want a bit of faith -based speculation is resorted to.
second - sorry Raffs - you seem to have substantiated your point. It does look like Herod got Rid of Matthias and appointed Joazar and Archelaus sacked Joazar after he returned from Rome.
But as you say, there is a passage saying that Archelaus (before he left for Rome) dismissed the High Priest Herod had appointed, which I took as Matthias, but as you say, Herod had replaced him with Joazar. No, I don't see any way he would have been reappointed (and the Jewish Encyclopaedia doesn't suggest it (1) so it looks like Josephus is wrong and confused, and so was I.
I could come up with all kind of explanatory speculations, but I won't fight you on this. Josephus got his facts wrong. Them what? He is not totally reliable even on his own time, he is an apologist for Rome as well as himself, which I never denied. So then what implication has this for the nativity discussion? And just what reason (apart from the gospels) do yo have to suppose that the Romans carried out a Tax census in Herod's kingdom?
(1) the list ls says that Joazar was appointed around the time the Romans took over, replaced by Ananus. Interestingly says that 'Ben Sie' is Jesus ben Sie, so it seems an editorial hand has been at Antiquities as well as 'Jewish war'.
second - sorry Raffs - you seem to have substantiated your point. It does look like Herod got Rid of Matthias and appointed Joazar and Archelaus sacked Joazar after he returned from Rome.
But as you say, there is a passage saying that Archelaus (before he left for Rome) dismissed the High Priest Herod had appointed, which I took as Matthias, but as you say, Herod had replaced him with Joazar. No, I don't see any way he would have been reappointed (and the Jewish Encyclopaedia doesn't suggest it (1) so it looks like Josephus is wrong and confused, and so was I..
I'm beginning to worry about you mate!!
So what are you saying old man...that there is no census contradiction?
First, I don't take it at all personally if you critique methods of thinking. And it isn't personal if I respond by saying that where historical research doesn't produce the result the believers want a bit of faith -based speculation is resorted to.
If you had off only said believers want a bit of faith based speculation is resorted to I would not take it personally as I agree when discussing the history of things many do go by a faith based approached.
But when you state things like this "Faith is what is driving you, and you can't fool me that it is impartial inquiry" it does become personal.
se
Quote:
cond - sorry Raffs - you seem to have substantiated your point. It does look like Herod got Rid of Matthias and appointed Joazar and Archelaus sacked Joazar after he returned from Rome.
But as you say, there is a passage saying that Archelaus (before he left for Rome) dismissed the High Priest Herod had appointed, which I took as Matthias, but as you say, Herod had replaced him with Joazar. No, I don't see any way he would have been reappointed (and the Jewish Encyclopaedia doesn't suggest it (1) so it looks like Josephus is wrong and confused, and so was I.
Ok so with this in mind what is more likely the case. The priesthood list you gave with question marks after Joazar and Ben Sie showing that Joazar was high priest a couple of times (which I believe is because Josephus is all over the map concerning Joazar and they are using Josephus history) or the list I gave that shows Ben Sie was high priest from 3BC to AD/6?
Quote:
I could come up with all kind of explanatory speculations, but I won't fight you on this. Josephus got his facts wrong. Them what? He is not totally reliable even on his own time, he is an apologist for Rome as well as himself, which I never denied. So then what implication has this for the nativity discussion? And just what reason (apart from the gospels) do yo have to suppose that the Romans carried out a Tax census in Herod's kingdom?
The implication for the nativity in Herod the greats day should be obvious. If indeed Ben Sie was high priest from 3BC to AD/6 that would leave no room for Cyranius to be able to take the priesthood from Joazar in AD/6 and brings into question the date associated with the Cyranius census which Josephus place from the 37th year from Actium.
Now that all comes from Josephus own writings, but when we throw into the mix that Eusebus states it was from the 28th year from Actium, Lukes account, Matthews account, Justin Martyr account and Tertillions account the census would have taken place around 3BC which matches up with the 3BC to AD/6 list of Ben Sie being high priest. Which in part ( I will have more to say here, but need some more time to gather my evidence) also answers your question "
And just what reason (apart from the gospels) do yo have to suppose that the Romans carried out a Tax census in Herod's kingdom?"
I say in part because Eusebus, Martyr and Tertillion are not gospel writers.
However they are Christian so I know many atheists will not give them their just due. Thus I am looking at secular backing for a census in the days of Herod the great and will post it when I have gathered it, and yes I have found some but need to dig a little more to see if it does indeed bare out that it backs a census in Herod the greats day.
Now please do not say this is all a faith based argument as it is all taken from the writings or the evidence from the writings off all the individuals I mentioned above including Josephus.
Quote:
(1) the list ls says that Joazar was appointed around the time the Romans took over, replaced by Ananus. Interestingly says that 'Ben Sie' is Jesus ben Sie, so it seems an editorial hand has been at Antiquities as well as 'Jewish war'.
Your list shows that, but your list must be questioned because Josephus is all over the map concerning Joazar, and we have seen that Joazar was appointed by Herod the great. Thus either the appointment of Joazar was in Herod the greats day or it was around AD/6. If around AD/6 we have the problem of a traitor being raised by Archeluas to the priesthood in order for Cyranius to be able to take it away from the traitor and it would make every priestly list incorrect.
Jesus is a transliteration of the Hebrew Yeshua. That said it was Josephus scribes who actually wrote what Josephus says in the Greek text as Josephus could not write very good or at all in Greek.
If you had off only said believers want a bit of faith based speculation is resorted to I would not take it personally as I agree when discussing the history of things many do go by a faith based approached.
But when you state things like this "Faith is what is driving you, and you can't fool me that it is impartial inquiry" it does become personal.
It isn't. It is pointing up that Faith in gospel reliability is what is driving you, not the desire to get the facts straight, and I still think this is the case. As is revealed rather by the point of your query of Josephus' dating - to backdate the Roman tax to Herod's time, which is really not the result of questioning the order of appointment of High Priests, but the questioning is driven by the need to backdate the tax to 3 BC. And as I say, you can't fool me into thinking that it is impartial questioning of historical records.
Quote:
Ok so with this in mind what is more likely the case. The priesthood list you gave with question marks after Joazar and Ben Sie showing that Joazar was high priest a couple of times (which I believe is because Josephus is all over the map concerning Joazar and they are using Josephus history) or the list I gave that shows Ben Sie was high priest from 3BC to AD/6?
The implication for the nativity in Herod the greats day should be obvious. If indeed Ben Sie was high priest from 3BC to AD/6 that would leave no room for Cyranius to be able to take the priesthood from Joazar in AD/6 and brings into question the date associated with the Cyranius census which Josephus place from the 37th year from Actium.
Now that all comes from Josephus own writings, but when we throw into the mix that Eusebus states it was from the 28th year from Actium, Lukes account, Matthews account, Justin Martyr account and Tertillions account the census would have taken place around 3BC which matches up with the 3BC to AD/6 list of Ben Sie being high priest. Which in part ( I will have more to say here, but need some more time to gather my evidence) also answers your question "
And just what reason (apart from the gospels) do yo have to suppose that the Romans carried out a Tax census in Herod's kingdom?"
I say in part because Eusebus, Martyr and Tertillion are not gospel writers.
However they are Christian so I know many atheists will not give them their just due. Thus I am looking at secular backing for a census in the days of Herod the great and will post it when I have gathered it, and yes I have found some but need to dig a little more to see if it does indeed bare out that it backs a census in Herod the greats day.
Now please do not say this is all a faith based argument as it is all taken from the writings or the evidence from the writings off all the individuals I mentioned above including Josephus.
Your list shows that, but your list must be questioned because Josephus is all over the map concerning Joazar, and we have seen that Joazar was appointed by Herod the great. Thus either the appointment of Joazar was in Herod the greats day or it was around AD/6. If around AD/6 we have the problem of a traitor being raised by Archeluas to the priesthood in order for Cyranius to be able to take it away from the traitor and it would make every priestly list incorrect.
Jesus is a transliteration of the Hebrew Yeshua. That said it was Josephus scribes who actually wrote what Josephus says in the Greek text as Josephus could not write very good or at all in Greek.
Ok, I will perhaps consider your chronology a bit later (1). After all, I'm going out on a limb on Gospel text dissection, so why shouldn't you call all the accepted dating into question? By the way, does Luke say how long after Actium these events were or are you and Justin Martyr producing a chronology o sut Luke?
Well, as I said, your aim was to discredit Josephus so that what looks like a Roman the 6 AD census can be backdated to Herod's time.
So remind me what evidence you had for the Romans conducting a head -count registration for the Augustan tax -which is what Luke says, otherwise there is no point in linking it with Joseph going to sign up? And if you haven't finished with Josephus, I haven't finished with Joseph.
I'll mention again that I think question Josephus on dating is one thing, but dismissing the order of events as he describes is another, and the only tax census that even looks like that in Luke is the one when Archelaus ha been deposed, no matter w was High Priest at the time or how long after the battle of Actium you date it. You have to do better than refer to the Augustan tax, the Jewish appeal to Archelaus to remit his taxes on them, and reports of Augustus being annoyed with Herod.
In fairness I should warn you of two other problems - one with Luke himself. Why would Joseph, registering or this Augustan taxing of the Roman world when Qurinus was governing Syria and everyone went their own city to register (Luke 2) go to his family's ancestral city rather than the one in Galilee?
There is also the conflict with Matthew who clearly indicates that Joseph came back from Egypt to Judea but was warned to go to Nazareth instead. That conflicts with Luke having the temple rites after the birth and then going back to his home in Galilee, and no angelic warnings or flights to Egypt.
(1) I shall have a quick look to see how that works with the relating of the death of Herod, Archelaus in Rome and his removal, and the Romans taking over Judea to the appointment or sacking of various High Priests and see whether that works better than the accepted listing and dating. I presume you have a worked -out chronology and are not just leaping on what seems to be a mistake of Josephus' as a pretext for backdating the Roman tax to Herodian Judea.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-04-2016 at 03:14 AM..
And just what reason (apart from the gospels) do yo have to suppose that the Romans carried out a Tax census in Herod's kingdom?"
I say in part because Eusebus, Martyr and Tertillion are not gospel writers.
However they are Christian so I know many atheists will not give them their just due. Thus I am looking at secular backing for a census in the days of Herod the great and will post it when I have gathered it, and yes I have found some but need to dig a little more to see if it does indeed bare out that it backs a census in Herod the greats day.
Now please do not say this is all a faith based argument as it is all taken from the writings or the evidence from the writings off all the individuals I mentioned above including Josephus.
The question about Eusebius, Terullian et al.is that we don't know whether they consulted the Official record of just took Luke as Gospel and worked out the dates to fit.
Quote:
Your list shows that, but your list must be questioned because Josephus is all over the map concerning Joazar, and we have seen that Joazar was appointed by Herod the great. Thus either the appointment of Joazar was in Herod the greats day or it was around AD/6. If around AD/6 we have the problem of a traitor being raised by Archeluas to the priesthood in order for Cyranius to be able to take it away from the traitor and it would make every priestly list incorrect.
Jesus is a transliteration of the Hebrew Yeshua. That said it was Josephus scribes who actually wrote what Josephus says in the Greek text as Josephus could not write very good or at all in Greek.
Yes, I am well aware that 'Jesus' is a latinized version of the Greek for 'Yeshua', which is not an uncommon Jewish name. I should think by now most who follow these discussions know that, too. That said, the scribes (Late medieval monks, I would guess) who transcribed Josephus would see 'Jesus' as the name of Ben Sie or there would have been no reason to delete it.
I won't fight you on 'all over the map' but I would remark that I can think up all sorts of reasons why a traitor' should ave been appointed. A priestly election might be one reason, Roman interference could be another. Even Archelaus coming to know that Joazar was blameless. The fact is that Josephus being silent on this doesn't mean that it is possible or impossible, even if it being impossible suits your argument. These years 4 BC - 6 AD (unless o want to redate them - say from the death of Herod to the Roman takeover) are a bit obscure and full of questions, including Joazar, as you say, which is why hy I give you Kudos for picking up this point and am willing to cosider a completely new chronology - but not 'Josephus misdated' (which is how you interpret a definite contradiction and puzzle about Joazar) therefore we can make the Lucan census any date we like.
It isn't. It is pointing up that Faith in gospel reliability is what is driving you, not the desire to get the facts straight, and I still think this is the case. As is revealed rather by the point of your query of Josephus' dating - to backdate the Roman tax to Herod's time, which is really not the result of questioning the order of appointment of High Priests, but the questioning is driven by the need to backdate the tax to 3 BC. And as I say, you can't fool me into thinking that it is impartial questioning of historical records.
I would question who is doing what Trans. I take all the available writings I can find, Christian, secular and the Gospels and I follow where that evidence leads. That is exactly the way historians do it. They don't just take one persons (Josephus) writings and say everyone who disagrees with Josephus is in error; Which is exactly what I see you doing. I can't help comparing what you are doing with Josephus as with what the Christians do with the bible. If anyone disagrees with the bible the bible is correct and all the other writings are in error.
So I have to ask you again; when did Josephus become your bible of historical events? Your bias towards the Christian writings has clouded you search for historical truth Trans; you just can't seem to see it.
Quote:
Ok, I will perhaps consider your chronology a bit later (1). After all, I'm going out on a limb on Gospel text dissection, so why shouldn't you call all the accepted dating into question? By the way, does Luke say how long after Actium these events were or are you and Justin Martyr producing a chronology o sut Luke?
No Luke does not say anything about Actium and neither as far as I know does Martyr. Eusebus however does and he place it in the 28th year from Actium. You have to take ALL the evidence you can find about an event and put it together to get the most likely scenario for the historical events. You cannot just rely on a single writer and believe everything they say as fact, you have to check what they say as fact against other historical writings.
Quote:
Well, as I said, your aim was to discredit Josephus so that what looks like a Roman the 6 AD census can be backdated to Herod's time.
Josephus discredited himself with the Joazar issue and you expect me to just let it slide and not point it out? For what purpose would I cover up historical inaccuracy ? Is it so that you can continue to use Josephus as your historical bible? Are you really after the historical truth or just after trying to prove the gospels wrong? You even have said you are trying to prove the gospels wrong; thus because of this you are not really looking for the historical truth but rather looking at historical writings and only the historical writing that back up your bias. That is why you do not give any Christian writer their just due.
You say I am the one trying to prove something out of the historical evidence but I use EVERYONES written historical accounts, you on the other hand only want to use the historical accounts that back up what you are trying to prove.
So stick a cork in it Trans as this type of defamation of character to gain support for your case has no place in a truly historical debate.
Quote:
So remind me what evidence you had for the Romans conducting a head -count registration for the Augustan tax -which is what Luke says, otherwise there is no point in linking it with Joseph going to sign up? And if you haven't finished with Josephus, I haven't finished with Joseph.
I'll mention again that I think question Josephus on dating is one thing, but dismissing the order of events as he describes is another, and the only tax census that even looks like that in Luke is the one when Archelaus ha been deposed, no matter w was High Priest at the time or how long after the battle of Actium you date it. You have to do better than refer to the Augustan tax, the Jewish appeal to Archelaus to remit his taxes on them, and reports of Augustus being annoyed with Herod.
I am getting to that and will post it hopefully sometime to day as I still have a few more things to check.
Quote:
In fairness I should warn you of two other problems - one with Luke himself. Why would Joseph, registering or this Augustan taxing of the Roman world when Qurinus was governing Syria and everyone went their own city to register (Luke 2) go to his family's ancestral city rather than the one in Galilee?
I will get to that also but you have to have a little patience as I try to find as much info as I can gather.
Quote:
There is also the conflict with Matthew who clearly indicates that Joseph came back from Egypt to Judea but was warned to go to Nazareth instead. That conflicts with Luke having the temple rites after the birth and then going back to his home in Galilee, and no angelic warnings or flights to Egypt.
I have not even started to look at if there is a discrepancy between Matthew and Luke yet. However like I said before if there is a discrepancy Luke being a historian and indicating that he was setting the record straight I would say Luke version was the correct one. I know you don't like that answer because you want to prove ALL the gospels in error, but I am going by what Luke actually wrote, and that he wrote it at all indicates to me that something he saw in what other wrote or were saying might not have been as accurate as it should have been.
Quote:
(1) I shall have a quick look to see how that works with the relating of the death of Herod, Archelaus in Rome and his removal, and the Romans taking over Judea to the appointment or sacking of various High Priests and see whether that works better than the accepted listing and dating. I presume you have a worked -out chronology and are not just leaping on what seems to be a mistake of Josephus' as a pretext for backdating the Roman tax to Herodian Judea.
Not sure what chronology is needed if all this took place in about 3BC. However I will put down what I see as happening in about 3BC.
The question about Eusebius, Terullian et al.is that we don't know whether they consulted the Official record of just took Luke as Gospel and worked out the dates to fit.
The question about Eusebius, Terullian et al.is that we don't know whether they consulted the Official record of just took Luke as Gospel and worked out the dates to fit.
And that is just plain bias, a quick and easy way for the atheists to say we do not have to trust anything they say. It is also very lazy as you do not want to put in the work to see if they are correct or not. Because you refuse to even look at the info they provide you are missing a wealth of historical evidence. That is of course your choice, but I have to wonder why someone interested in the historical evidence of things would not put in the work required to gain that evidence.
Quote:
Yes, I am well aware that 'Jesus' is a latinized version of the Greek for 'Yeshua', which is not an uncommon Jewish name. I should think by now most who follow these discussions know that, too. That said, the scribes (Late medieval monks, I would guess) who transcribed Josephus would see 'Jesus' as the name of Ben Sie or there would have been no reason to delete it.
Josephus wrote more then one Ant and JW Trans. He wrote a Ant and JW in both Aramaic and Greek. One to appease the Romans and one to Appease his own people.
Quote:
I won't fight you on 'all over the map' but I would remark that I can think up all sorts of reasons why a traitor' should ave been appointed. A priestly election might be one reason, Roman interference could be another. Even Archelaus coming to know that Joazar was blameless. The fact is that Josephus being silent on this doesn't mean that it is possible or impossible, even if it being impossible suits your argument. These years 4 BC - 6 AD (unless o want to redate them - say from the death of Herod to the Roman takeover) are a bit obscure and full of questions, including Joazar, as you say, which is why hy I give you Kudos for picking up this point and am willing to cosider a completely new chronology - but not 'Josephus misdated' (which is how you interpret a definite contradiction and puzzle about Joazar) therefore we can make the Lucan census any date we like.
It maybe that in 3BC there was a registration and in AD/6 a tax that Cyrenius put out. However I am not sure of the AD/6 tax as it looks to me there was indeed a registration with a tax in 3BC. Which I will show in my next post.
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.
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.
