Are the Gospels Historically Credible? (testimonies, Old Testament, existence, families)

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

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.

Neverthless, I am curious myself now.

I wish you would quit making up your own bias arguments Trans. Are we or are we not looking at the evidence? if so we have to look at the evidence recorded in the gospels also. You do realize I can turn that statement around like this

So the gospels must be discounted as evidence so the Josephus can gain credibility as a source.

All you are doing with those type of comments is trying to gain support for your view by those who are bias towards the gospels, stop it.

Every source and that includes Josephus have to be checked to see how reliable they are as a source.

So far we have seen Josephus is all over the map concerning Joazar so he is not a very good source on this point.

This is taken from the other thread as you said you were done over there.

I have had a look (see footnote for the timeline) and it looks like this:

Gaius Saturninus was Syrian governor 9 BC down to 7/6 BC.
Varus was Governor 7/6 BC - 4 BC. Down to 5 BC, Simon ben Boethus had been High Priest. Now - 4 BC there is a flurry of High priestship. Matthias ben Theophilus is appointed but was replaced by Joazar Ben Boethus because Matthias was implicated in the 'Golden eagle' revolt (that Joseph Ben Ellem had to deputize for him at one time is not relevant). It is sometimes put down to Herod's madness in his last days, but it could equally mean changes upon Herod's death and Archelaus becoming king. Either way, it seems to scupper the attempt to bring Herod's heath down to 1 BC, Lunar eclipse or not.

Around this time Archelaus had to go to Rome to plead for his kingship before Caesar. While he was away a number of revolts broke out. Josephus places that of Athronges here. Who was governor of Syria at that time is unknown but one Sabinus warned Varus of the revolts (and I recall Pneuma you mentioned Joazar being deposed through failure to control the revolts) and he is a likely de facto governor, though some say Piso, and perhaps the Sabinus might be a candidate. Even if Quirinus is proposed as governor, it hardly makes a quiet Roman headcount for tax likely at this time, and of course doesn't place any such tax in Herod's time.

Trans it does not matter who was governor at what time.
Many translators of the New Testament render Luke 2:1 as though Quirinius were governor of Syria. In no way does Luke state this in his original Greek text. Luke simply said that Quirinius was ruling or administrating this first registration from Syria, not that he was the governor of the province. The Greek word Luke used to show the rulership of Quirinius was hegemoneuontos. It is a present participle which simply means that Quirinius was ruling or administrating his duties from the region of Syria. There is not the slightest indication in Luke’s narrative that identifies the specific office being held by Quirinius while he was administrating his official duties.

But your point was about Josephus 'misdating' I know, so

5 B.C Matthias High priest (deposed on a implication in the golden eagle revolt)
4 Joazar ben Boethus removed and Eleazar appointed.
3 Joshua ben Sie high priest
2
1 BC Vipsanianus, syrian governor
1 AD.during this 4BC- 4 AD period, Archelaus is in Rome pleading his cause, Varus is putting down revolts in Judea and ben Sie is replaced by Joazar as High priest.
2
3
4 Saturninus syrian governor
5
6 A.D Archelaus deposed, Rome annexes Judea. Quirinus Tax census. Joazar deposed. Ananus ben Seth High priest

So, while it is not all clear, there seems no serious problem in the two terms of office of Joazar, the matter of Matthias and ben Sie, and I don't see a third term of office for Joazar at all.
(term 1 4 BC - probably not even a full year
term 2 some time around 1st c BC - 1st c AD to 5/6 AD).

No serious problem? There is a big problem Trans. The list I gave you says Joshua Ben Sie was high priest from 3BC to AD/6. However as I mentioned before

Now to be fair other lists of the high priests put a ? mark with Joazar and with Sie, but this is probably do to Josephus jumping all over the map concerning Joazar. Josephus has Joazar losing the priesthood 3 different times, twice by Archelaus (once before he leaves for Rome and then again upon the start of his reign) and once by Quirinus. And Josephus does all this with only stating ONCE where the high priesthood was conferred upon Joazar and that in the days of Herod the great.

Also you have a big problem with Josephus only mentioning that Joazar was made high priest ONCE. So how can that not be a big problem even if Joazar only had 2 terms as high priest? You can't just shuffle that off as oh well as you seem to have done.

Ps. you post:

"Joazar then had this priesthood taken away from him by Archelaus BEFORE Archelaus went to Rome.
Joazar then had this priesthood taken away from him by Archelaus at the BEGINNING of Archelaus reign."

That made me think a bit, but I think it has to be read as the same removal of this High priest (after less than a year in office) when Archelaus first became king and then had to go to Rome to plead his continued kingship.

Lets look at what Josephus actually says about Joazar.

Ant.17.6.4
4. But the people, on account of Herod's barbarous temper, and for fear he should be so cruel and to inflict punishment on them, said what was done was done without their approbation, and that it seemed to them that the actors might well be punished for what they had done. But as for Herod, he dealt more mildly with others [of the assembly] but he deprived Matthias of the high priesthood, as in part an occasion of this action, and made Joazar, who was Matthias's wife's brother, high priest in his stead. Now it happened, that during the time of the high priesthood of this Matthias, there was another person made high priest for a single day, that very day which the Jews observed as a fast. The occasion was this: This Matthias the high priest, on the night before that day when the fast was to be celebrated, seemed, in a dream, (7) to have conversation with his wife; and because he could not officiate himself on that account, Joseph, the son of Ellemus, his kinsman, assisted him in that sacred office. But Herod deprived this Matthias of the high priesthood, and burnt the other Matthias, who had raised the sedition, with his companions, alive. And that very night there was an eclipse of the moon. (8)

Josephus says Herod the great made Joazar high priest, this would be in about 3BC and happened after the incident of the eagle.

Ant.17.9.1
1. AT this time also it was that some of the Jews got together out of a desire of innovation. They lamented Matthias, and those that were slain with him by Herod, who had not any respect paid them by a funeral mourning, out of the fear men were in of that man; they were those who had been condemned for pulling down the golden eagle. The people made a great clamor and lamentation hereupon, and cast out some reproaches against the king also, as if that tended to alleviate the miseries of the deceased. The people assembled together, and desired of Archelaus, that, in way of revenge on their account, he would inflict punishment on those who had been honored by Herod; and that, in the first and principal place, he would deprive that high priest whom Herod had made, and would choose one more agreeable to the law, and of greater purity, to officiate as high priest. This was granted by Archelaus, although he was mightily offended at their importunity, because he proposed to himself to go to Rome immediately to look after Caesar's determination about him.

Here we see Archelaus taking away the priesthood of Joazar ( the priest whom Herod had made)before he leaves for Rome.


Ant.17.13.1
1. WHEN Archelaus was entered on his ethnarchy, and was come into Judea, he accused Joazar, the son of Boethus, of assisting the seditious, and took away the high priesthood from him, and put Eleazar his brother in his place. He also magnificently rebuilt the royal palace that had been at Jericho, and he diverted half the water with which the village of Neara used to be watered, and drew off that water into the plain, to water those palm trees which he had there planted: he also built a village, and put his own name upon it, and called it Archelais. Moreover, he transgressed the law of our fathers (23) and married Glaphyra, the daughter of Archelaus, who had been the wife of his brother Alexander, which Alexander had three children by her, while it was a thing detestable among the Jews to marry the brother's wife. Nor did this Eleazar abide long in the high priesthood, Jesus, the son of Sie, being put in his room while he was still living.

Josephus says Archelaus at the beginning of his reign takes away the priesthood from Joazar for assisting in the sedition placing Eleazar as high priest. However Eleazar did not have the position long and Jesus/Joshua Ben Sie was made high priest in his stead. Again this would be about 3BC.

Ant.18.1.1
1. NOW Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them till he had been consul, and one who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to he a judge of that nation, and to take an account of their substance. Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with him, to have the supreme power over the Jews. Moreover, Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus's money; but the Jews, although at the beginning they took the report of a taxation heinously, yet did they leave off any further opposition to it, by the persuasion of Joazar, who was the son of Beethus, and high priest; so they, being over-pesuaded by Joazar's words, gave an account of their estates, without any dispute about it.


Here we see Joazar as high priest during the census and was of a great help with his persuasion of the people concerning the tax.

Ant.18.2
1. WHEN Cyrenius had now disposed of Archelaus's money, and when the taxings were come to a conclusion, which were made in the thirty-seventh year of Caesar's victory over Antony at Actium, he deprived Joazar of the high priesthood, which dignity had been conferred on him by the multitude, and he appointed Ananus, the son of Seth, to be high priest;

Here we see Cyrenius taking away the priesthood from Joazar, which is strange to say the least as Joazar had just finished being such a big help to Cyrenius with the tax.


Thus we can see Josephus states Joazar had the high priesthood taken away from Joazar 3 different times for 3 different reasons. Twice by Archelaus and once by Cyrenius. And you say you do not see any serious problems with that, even though the priesthood was only conferred on Joazar ONCE and that by Herod the great.

If this type of reporting was given by the gospels you would be all over it, yet here you say it is not a serious problem.

Part of the problem we have I think is we are talking about two different census. You are looking at the AD/6 census and I am looking at the census that took place in the days of Herod the great. The problem is you are using the AD/6 and saying it is the same census that Luke was speaking about around 3BC, however they are 2 different census.

So the question then is was there a census around 3BC to which Luke was referring to that Cyrenius took part in? YES there was.

Here is a good article that describes this census.

Chapter 12: The Census of Quintilius Varus

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

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.

I wish you would actually read what I said about wiki Trans.

Here it is again. Tell me where I am wrong


Wiki without collaborating evidence is not reliable because anyone can write a wiki article.

Now what is wrong with my statement?

You do realize that people can change (interpolation) what was original written on a wiki article do you not? And just because wiki gives a link to where it gets its info does not make it any more reliable as many of the links it gives are bias.

Thus we need collaborating evidence, don't know why that is so hard to understand.

[TRANSPONDER]

I don't care what you wrote about Wiki. I only care what it is - a useful but not authoritative source.

And your post on the census and Joazar was a repeat of the one on Christianity. I answer it there. So here, if we must start to criticize motivations and methods rather than the data and history, I detect two familiar apologetic ploys. In the Census one, I recall the method of our poster Eusie regarding Luke contradicting John. He simply posted the Bibletext again and claimed there was no contradiction. He totally ignored my explanation and that is what you do here.

The other (Joazar) is the nitpick method, which is what Creationists do with Evolution. Even if the arguments they made were correct, they would not debunk Evolution any more than proving a mistake in Josephus would debunk him as a historical source. It would just mean some readjustment of the textbooks.

There is no good reason to propose a tax census carried out by Quirinus in the time of Herod and every reason to reject it.

There is no serious problem with Josephus' history on the period 10 BC -6 AD, and even if there was - that does not bring Josephus and all accepted history crashing down to the extent that you would need to make the nativities fit together, because they don't even if you scrap all of history.

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

I don't care what you wrote about Wiki. I only care what it is - a useful but not authoritative source.

And your post on the census and Joazar was a repeat of the one on Christianity. I answer it there. So here, if we must start to criticize motivations and methods rather than the data and history, I detect two familiar apologetic ploys. In the Census one, I recall the method of our poster Eusie regarding Luke contradicting John. He simply posted the Bibletext again and claimed there was no contradiction. He totally ignored my explanation and that is what you do here.

The other (Joazar) is the nitpick method, which is what Creationists do with Evolution. Even if the arguments they made were correct, they would not debunk Evolution any more than proving a mistake in Josephus would debunk him as a historical source. It would just mean some readjustment of the textbooks.

There is no good reason to propose a tax census carried out by Quirinus in the time of Herod and every reason to reject it.

There is no serious problem with Josephus' history on the period 10 BC -6 AD, and even if there was - that does not bring Josephus and all accepted history crashing down to the extent that you would need to make the nativities fit together, because they don't even if you scrap all of history.

Funny how it is nitpicking when I post the actual word of Josephus concerning Joazar which show Josephus jumped all over the map concerning him, but when you do the same thing with the gospels its not nitpicking.

[Arach Angle]

boiling chips.

there is no need to nit pick how false a literal bible is. Presenting a Literal bible is totally false.
There is no need to nit pick a non literal presentation of the bible.

If we accept "apologetic" as the most reasonable stance for "statement of belief" group's leaders, religions will grow up.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by pneuma

Funny how it is nitpicking when I post the actual word of Josephus concerning Joazar which show Josephus jumped all over the map concerning him, but when you do the same thing with the gospels its not nitpicking.

Because even if Josephus was wrong about Joazar (and I have pointed out in a couple of explanations that it isn't clear that he is wrong) it makes no real difference to the argument - unless the idea is - like Creationists with evolution - to debunk the general view of the history of the period (which is largely based on Josephus) in order to (hopefully) leave the Bible as the only credible source, which it actually doesn't.

I on the other hand try to avoid nitpicking. If I say that Luke changes the message of the angel at the tomb or that Matthew and Luke contradict about whether the family were Galileans to start with or Judeans, is is because that seriously undermines the credibility of the gospels.

Now, it seems to me that you have failed to make a credible case for your earlier census before Judea was made a Roman province (and that is irrelevant anyway because it still doesn't reconcile Luke with Matthew unless it was in Herod's time), and you have failed to substantiate your case that Josephus is wrong in his dating as regards Joazar (though I accept the error in Herod being made governor ar 15or 28, though I haven't got to the bottom of that) and that hardly justifies the sort of blanket dismissal of Josephus that would be needed to argue that Luke was the more reliable.

And you have failed to substantiate an argument that I am applying double double standards in what is being critiqued.

So - as they say. what more you got? The Nativity was dead and buried even if the arguments you advanced were shown valid, but you just seem to have ignored the arguments that an earlier census is not validated or even feasible before Roman Judea and that Joazar was dismissed once by Archelaus - when he came into his kingship and then departed for Rome (and that it how it looks to me and what Josephus meant) and you just repeat that your arguments are right as posted.

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by pneuma

Funny how it is nitpicking when I post the actual word of Josephus concerning Joazar which show Josephus jumped all over the map concerning him, but when you do the same thing with the gospels its not nitpicking.

Funny how you hold up Josephus as a reliable and trustworthy historian when you think he's supporting your claim for HJ but hold him up as an incompetent, untrustworthy buffoon when he debunks your census claim.

Funny how you support your pal Tim when he's with you on HJ but ignore him when he says that the gospels are wrong regarding the census....and when he says your apologist Rhoads is wrong...

Rhoads’ article is garbage. He tries to argue that the Sabinus mentioned in Josephus’ account is actually the Quirinius of the census. This is nonsense. The Sabinius described by Josephus is clearly a subordinate to Varus - an administrative pro-curatorial official of the equestrian level. Publius Sulpicius Quirnius was, like Publius Quinctilius Varus, a senatorial level aristocrat and former consul. The idea that Varus would be ordering around someone of the same rank as him, getting him to undertake lowly administrative errands, is absurd. Rhoads simply doesn't know what he's talking about.
--Tim O'Neill.


Hypocrite that you are.

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by Rafius

Funny how you hold up Josephus as a reliable and trustworthy historian when you think he's supporting your claim for HJ but hold him up as an incompetent, untrustworthy buffoon when he debunks your census claim.

Funny how you support your pal Tim when he's with you on HJ but ignore him when he says that the gospels are wrong regarding the census.

Hypocrite that you are.

yeah, we all do this to a degree. so how do we know?

It gets back to: can we believe people that forcibly teach a dude died, woke up, and flew away?
or
Who would ask people to deny commonsense for blind faith?

Who wouldn't tell people, "yeah, we teach by this book as a central theme to improve ourselves but you can use whatever. Lets sit down after you choose and compare the books. non literally of course."

My new example of historically accurate:

"Its as accurate as examples on a teachers board."

of Course your average milli-mental-atheist won't like it.
They are way to literal, like most mentals.

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Because even if Josephus was wrong about Joazar (and I have pointed out in a couple of explanations that it isn't clear that he is wrong) it makes no real difference to the argument - unless the idea is - like Creationists with evolution - to debunk the general view of the history of the period (which is largely based on Josephus) in order to (hopefully) leave the Bible as the only credible source, which it actually doesn't.

I on the other hand try to avoid nitpicking. If I say that Luke changes the message of the angel at the tomb or that Matthew and Luke contradict about whether the family were Galileans to start with or Judeans, is is because that seriously undermines the credibility of the gospels.

HUH? So you are not really after the Historical facts but rather your point in posting is to undermined the credibility of the gospels. But if I point out where Josephus is all over the map concerning Joazar, which brings Josephus credibility into question all of a sudden it is nitpicking.

Now, it seems to me that you have failed to make a credible case for your earlier census before Judea was made a Roman province (and that is irrelevant anyway because it still doesn't reconcile Luke with Matthew unless it was in Herod's time), and you have failed to substantiate your case that Josephus is wrong in his dating as regards Joazar (though I accept the error in Herod being made governor ar 15or 28, though I haven't got to the bottom of that) and that hardly justifies the sort of blanket dismissal of Josephus that would be needed to argue that Luke was the more reliable.


And you have failed to substantiate an argument that I am applying double double standards in what is being critiqued.

So - as they say.
[IMG]file:///C:\Users\Scott\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\ clip_image001.gif[/IMG]
what more you got? The Nativity was dead and buried even if the arguments you advanced were shown valid, but you just seem to have ignored the arguments that an earlier census is not validated or even feasible before Roman Judea and that Joazar was dismissed once by Archelaus - when he came into his kingship and then departed for Rome (and that it how it looks to me and what Josephus meant) and you just repeat that your arguments are right as posted.

Read my reply in the other thread concerning Joazar. You can thank me later for my repeated nitpicking ways because you missed much in your reading of what Josephus actually stated.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by pneuma

HUH? So you are not really after the Historical facts but rather your point in posting is to undermined the credibility of the gospels. But if I point out where Josephus is all over the map concerning Joazar, which brings Josephus credibility into question all of a sudden it is nitpicking.

You have really got to put a brake on your slipping into the bad habiits of religious polemic. You pointed out that Josephus made Joazar deposed three times when you evidently could only see that happening twice. So I look and I also see it only happening twice and the lack of any case for Josephus placing a term for Joazar sometime around 2 or 3 BC when Ben Sie was apparently High priest suggests that the better reading is that -as I said - deposing Joazar when he became king and then left for Rome was the same event. So Josephus is not 'all over the map' as you so extravagantly put it.

And neither is it wrong to point out that it is a nit -picking point even if Josephus did get something wrong. Unless the idea is to bin him entirely so that Luke can be claimed as reliable. Which he isn't as he contradicts Matthew even if you reconcile the dates.

Even if I had an agenda of trying to debunk the Gospels rather than get at the truth, it would still be the arguments that counted. It is rather your desire to validate Gospel reliability that drives you to make a big deal about a (claimed) error in Josephus so that he can be discarded, where he doesn't support the Gospels. As Raffs noted, where he is useful to you (as in the James passage) you argue furiously for his reliability and authenticity. You are in no position to point the finger at me regarding an agenda.

And you already have my thanks for making me look at these details. They already helped to firm up the 4 BC date of Herod's death, where some apologists tried to fiddle it to 1 BC.

Read my reply in the other thread concerning Joazar. You can thank me later for my repeated nitpicking ways because you missed much in your reading of what Josephus actually stated.

Read my several responses to yours. If you can find a Josephus reference placing a second term for Joazar around 2- 3 BC, I shall be glad to hear of it. Also your explanation of how Archelaus then deposed him and set off for Rome when the revolts that followed his absence were already in progress. As always, make your case, don't just tell me to go and read. I have read, and your arguments fail for the reason I stated. Ball is in your curt, not mine.