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.
You might have misunderstood what I am trying to show. The date is relevant because the census either took place in the days of Herod the great or it took place in AD/6. I think it might have actually took place in the days of Herod the great and upon his death along with the revolt that came with it.
Look at the players involved in each incident.
In the first account of the rebellion we have
Judas
Matthias
Joazar who was made priest by Herod the great
In the second account we have
Archelaus
Joazar who had his priesthood taken away by Archelaus before he left for Rome
In the third account we have
Varus
Sabinus
Judas
Athronges who was so bold as to set up for king
Joazar who had his priesthood taken away at the beginning of Archelaus reign. However this already happened in the second rebellion before Archelaus left for Rome
Eleazar then made high priest
In the forth account we have
Judas
Sadducand
Cyrenius
Coponius
Joazar the priest who has his priesthood taken away by Cyrenius
Ananus made high priest.
Athrongeus set again sets himself up as king
In each incident recorded we have multiple crossovers of names, Joazar being the link that binds them all together. Herod the great makes Joazar high priest and Archelaus takes Joazar's priesthood away, TWICE? Once before he left for Rome and then again when he started his reign. Then his priesthood is taken away for the third time by Cyrenius and this all happened without Josephus saying anything about the priesthood ever being conferred on Joazar except by Herod the great. So how the heck can the priesthood be taken away from Joazar three different times when he was only made high priest ONCE and that by Herod the great?
Then there is Athronges who set himself up as a king, how the heck did he do this TWICE?
Then there is Judas and Matthias of the first account who can be linked to Judas and Sadducand of the forth account.
And all these rebellions we are told ended upon the start of Archelaus reign as it was at the start of his reign that we are told he took away Joazar's priesthood for assisting in the rebellion.
Therefore because of all the crossovers of names, Joazar linking them all together, I believe these rebellion cannot be supported as four different rebellions but as one or possibly two rebellions. The first while Herod the great lived and the second upon his death, which rebellion was completed with Archelaus removal of Joazar from the priesthood at the start of his reign.
Now here is the kicker all these things had to have happened about 3BC as Joshua ben Sie was high priest from 3BC to 6AD.
We are duplicating work here. Howbout we do this on Christianity, and leave this Fred for me to maybe post the rest of Bethany/temple? For now, anyway.
And I should appreciate links to those three 'accounts' so I can get my head around the sequence and see what is going on. Otherwise I can't make any kind of explanation.
Don't get me wrong Not complaining. I love the way you make me work and check.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-15-2016 at 11:17 AM..
And I should appreciate links to those three 'accounts' so I can get my head around the sequence and see what is going on. Otherwise I can't make any kind of explanation.
Any bets that it will be a bible apologist site...or John H Rhoad, a theologian at Concordia University...which just happens to be a Lutheran (Bible) University that trains Lutheran preachers.
It does make me laugh old beast when people like pneuma insist that we should go with the 'scholarly consensus' when looking at HJ but when the scholarly consensus is against him, as in the case of the Quirinian census, he wants to throw 'scholarly consensus' out of the window.
Any bets that it will be a bible apologist site...or John H Rhoad, a theologian at Concordia University...which just happens to be a Lutheran (Bible) University that trains Lutheran preachers.
It does make me laugh old beast when people like pneuma insist that we should go with the 'scholarly consensus' when looking at HJ but when the scholarly consensus is against him, as in the case of the Quirinian census, he wants to throw 'scholarly consensus' out of the window.
The only reason I even comment on that rather than looking at the argument, no matter from whom it comes, is when credibility (of either source or me) is attacked in order to make the counter -argument look good. I say Luke lacks credibility because his story does not stand up - not (as some might think) say his story does not stand up because he lacks credibility.
Incidentally, while finding that text of the registration Papyus, I came across an "answer" from an apologetics site.
I mentioned over on Xstianity that the text indicated that the head of the family listed his family. But the apologetics site argued that listing his family meant that they were all registering separately and therefore had to troop along themselves and thus it validated Mary needing to go to Bethlehem.
In fact this means the opposite since, if they had to register individually, they would all have their own registration document and name themselves and nobody else in it. Which is what some apologists argue - that Mary had to register as the head of some separate Family line. Bunk. Joseph would mention Mary and any dependents and only he needed to do it - and in the city where he lived and worked, not some ancestral city.
That inversion of what the evidence actually indicates is what I call 'Apologetics of the 2nd kind - fiddling the evidence'.
The only reason I even comment on that rather than looking at the argument, no matter from whom it comes, is when credibility (of either source or me) is attacked in order to make the counter -argument look good. I say Luke lacks credibility because his story does not stand up - not (as some might think) say his story does not stand up because he lacks credibility.
Incidentally, while finding that text of the registration Papyus, I came across an "answer" from an apologetics site.
I mentioned over on Xstianity that the text indicated that the head of the family listed his family. But the apologetics site argued that listing his family meant that they were all registering separately and therefore had to troop along themselves and thus it validated Mary needing to go to Bethlehem.
In fact this means the opposite since, if they had to register individually, they would all have their own registration document and name themselves and nobody else in it. Which is what some apologists argue - that Mary had to register as the head of some separate Family line. Bunk. Joseph would mention Mary and any dependents and only he needed to do it - and in the city where he lived and worked, not some ancestral city.
That inversion of what the evidence actually indicates is what I call 'Apologetics of the 2nd kind - fiddling the evidence'.
'Fiddling' is exactly what it is my old scroat....but let's be honest...fiddling is all they have.
We are duplicating work here. Howbout we do this on Christianity, and leave this Fred for me to maybe post the rest of Bethany/temple? For now, anyway.
And I should appreciate links to those three 'accounts' so I can get my head around the sequence and see what is going on. Otherwise I can't make any kind of explanation.
Don't get me wrong Not complaining. I love the way you make me work and check.
Ok continue on I will meet you on the other thread.
Ok continue on I will meet you on the other thread.
Right. Now you explained the problem, I could look it up.
Wiki has the list like this:
Matthias ben Theophilus, 5-4 BC[10]
Joazar ben Boethus, 4 BC
Eleazar ben Boethus, 4-3 BC
Joshua ben Sie, 3 BC - ?
Joazar ben Boethus (restored), ? - 6 AD
Ananus ben Seth, 6-15.
So there is a question about what happened 6 AD. Was Joazar restored fr a short while or has Josephus made an error? I'll read up.
I'm not sure that it makes much difference. Misplacing rather than misdating Joazar doesn't help that nativity. If anything, if Josephus did mention a Roman -conducted tax census in the context of Herod's reign (and it had to be Herod the great in order to reconcile Matthew and Luke), argument from "misdating"
Joazar could only be applied to dismiss a roman census in Herod's time.
But in fact Josephus doesn't mention anything like a Roman tax census in Herod's time (though efforts are make to try to manufacture one by reference to the Augustan Tax which would not apply to Judea, Pompeys tax after the war (which was a one -off "Fine") and the Taxes of Archelaus and suggesting they were an ongoing Roman taxation of Judea which some Roman must have done fr herd.
Josephus doesn't support any such argument, so Josephus must be discounted as evidence so that the Bible can gain credibility as a source. What you are doing is the same as Creationists debunking science in order to make Genesis look credible.
He doesn't trust Wiki. He thinks Bible apologist sites are more credible.
I know. Wiki is useful rather than Authoritative. But I noted it derives a lot of its material from sources that are pretty authoritative. If the chronology and the way the persons fit in are questioned, we can look at any source he likes. Even apologist sites don't disregard accepted history without good reason.
Quite old horse. There is a wealth of cross references at the bottom of every Wiki page.
They have a damn good try!
I am glad they do. I learn so much from looking into their points - whether it's Joseph attesting to Jesus in the 'James' reference (with some interesting light on High Priestly behaviour!) or the question of Joazar, which licked and sealed the question of the date of Herod's death and the claim that Quirinus was Syrian governor around 1 BC.
I suppose, by the way that is what the Fiddling is aiming at - that Herod should have died 1 BC and there should have been the Roman census at that time so that Matthew and Luke can be reconciled (in date at least ) and on the Iconic date of (as one believer with more faith than smarts put it) "nought BC".
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.
Not complaining. I love the way you make me work and check. 
