Are the Gospels Historically Credible? (priests, bible, Israel, quote)
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.
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
The first thing to be pointed out here is that the KJV states it is a tax.
However if you look up the Greek word for tax you will see that it means an enrollment or registration. I looked at about 20 different translations of these verses and everyone but one translated tax as enrollment, registration or census.
Thus what Luke is actually saying is this.
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. (And this registration was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
The second thing that need to be pointed out is that Luke says Cyrenius was governor. The word governor here is the Greek word hegemoneuntos and can refer to any type of office, such as a Procurator, which is the title Justin Martyr gives him at the time of the census. Justin Martyr, Apology, I.34.
Thus there is no reason to infer that Cyrenius was in fact the governor of Judea at this time.
Therefore what needs to be looked for is not a tax but rather a registration in the days of Herod the great around 3BC.
Was there such a registration?
On February 5, 2 B.C.E. Augustus received the title Pater Patriae which means "father of my country"
Augustus writes in his Res Gestae
“While I was administering my thirteenth consulship the senate and the equestrian order and the entire Roman people gave me the title Father of my Country.”
Because of this new title to be granted to Augustus he sent out a decree that all of Rome was to be registered and give an oath of loyalty to him. All citizens had to swear by the gods that neither they nor their offspring would usurp the Roman throne.This loyalty oath would have been taken sometime in 3 B.C. In order to give the citizens of Rome time to register their universal approval of Augustus before he could receive the title "Father of the Country" during the ceremonies of 2 B.C.E
Let's take a look at the type of oath that was required by Augustus. An inscription from Paphlagonia that date to 3BCE states this.
In the time of emperor Caesar Augustus, son of a god, during the twelfth consulship, in the third year, on the day before the Nones of March, in Gangris in . . . oath that was completed by the inhabitants of Paphlagonia and the . . . Romans . . . engaged in business (pragmateuomenoi) alongside them. By Zeus, Ge (Earth), Helios (Sun), all the gods and goddesses, Augustus himself, and all his children and descendents, I swear with word, deed, and thought to regard as friends any of those they may regard as friends and . . . to consider (?) . . . as enemies any they may judge to be enemies for my whole life. I will spare neither my body, nor my soul, nor my life, nor my children for their interests, but in every way will endure any danger for the things that involve them. Whatever I may notice or hear being spoken, planned, or done against them, I will report it and be an enemy to the one saying, planning or doing any such thing. I will pursue and defend against anyone they may judge to be enemies on land and sea using weapons and arms. But if I do anything contrary to this. . . oath (?). . . or anything not conforming to what I swore, I invoke curses of total and complete destruction against myself, my body, my soul, my life, my children, my entire family, and my interests till the end of all my successors and my descendents, and may . . . the bodies (?) . . . of my family and my descendents not be received by earth or sea, and (the earth) not bear fruit . . . for them (?). . . In the same way, everybody . . . in the land . . . swore in the Augustan temples in each . . . district (?). . . by the altars . . . of Augustus (?). . . Likewise, the Phazimoneitians who inhabit what is now called . . . Neapolis (?) swore together in the temple of Augustus by . . . the altar (?).
We can see here that everybody in the land was to register and to swear an oath of loyalty to Augustus.
Josephus also seems to speak of this oath in Ant.17.2.4
Ant.17.2.4
For there was a certain sect of men that were Jews, who valued themselves highly upon the exact skill they had in the law of their fathers, and made men believe they were highly favored by God, by whom this set of women were inveigled. These are those that are called the sect of the Pharisees, who were in a capacity of greatly opposing kings. A cunning sect they were, and soon elevated to a pitch of open fighting and doing mischief. Accordingly, when all the people of the Jews gave assurance of their good-will to Caesar, and to the king's government, these very men did not swear, being above six thousand; and when the king imposed a fine upon them, Pheroras's wife paid their fine for them. In order to requite which kindness of hers, since they were believed to have the foreknowledge of things to come by Divine inspiration, they foretold how God had decreed that Herod's government should cease, and his posterity should be deprived of it; but that the kingdom should come to her and Pheroras, and to their children. These predictions were not concealed from Salome, but were told the king; as also how they had perverted some persons about the palace itself; so the king slew such of the Pharisees as were principally accused, and Bagoas the eunuch, and one Carus, who exceeded all men of that time in comeliness, and one that was his catamite. He slew also all those of his own family who had consented to what the Pharisees foretold; and for Bagoas, he had been puffed up by them, as though he should be named the father and the benefactor of him who, by the prediction, was foretold to be their appointed king; for that this king would have all things in his power, and would enable Bagoas to marry, and to have children of his own body begotten.
Even though Josephus does not make any mention of a registration with the oath he mentions above, how are we to know there was 6000 Pharasee who refused to take the oath unless some kind of record of their numbers was recorded?
Orosius, VI.22 and VII.2. states this about the registration and oath
"[Augustus] ordered that a census be taken of each province everywhere and that all men be enrolled...This is the earliest and most famous public acknowledgment which marked Caesar as the first of all men and the Romans as lords of the world, a published list of all men entered individually...This first and greatest census was taken, since in this one name of Caesar all the peoples of the great nations took oath, and at the same time, through the participation in the census, were made a part of one society"
Various authors have suggested that this "oath of allegiance" and the census mentioned by Luke are one and the same (Lewin, Fasti Sacri, and more recently P. W. Barnett, Expository Times, 85 {1973-74}, pps. 377-380).
The Armenian historian, Moses of Khorene, said that the native sources he had available showed that in the second year of Abgar, king of Armenia (3 B.C.), the census brought Roman agents "to Armenia, bringing the image of Augustus Caesar, which they set up in every temple" (History of the Armenians, trans. R. W. Thomson, Book II, 26).
The fact that oaths and censuses should go together should be no strange thing, as most Roman census declarations required an oath of allegiance to the emperor, as in the example of one such declaration of property tax ended with: "We swear by the fortune of the Emperor Caesar Trajanus Hadrian Augustus...under oath" (Lewis & Reinhold, vol. II, pg. 387); and "I swear by Emperor Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus that I have kept nothing back" (ibid., pg. 388).
When all the evidence is taken together I do not see how anyone could say Luke was in error about a registration in the days of Herod the great.
However some might say there is no evidence that Cyrenius was around at that time. I would say they never took the time to actually look to see if he was or was not.
So lets look at some evidence.
Luke says Cyrenius was hegemoneuntos which can be used of any office, and as I pointed out earlier Justin Martyr refers to Cyrenius as a Procurator.
A Procurator was appointed by the Emperor independently of the legatus (governor) The fact that Justin said that Cyrenius was a procurator while conducting the “census” gives much weight to the belief that a resident governor also ruled Syria at the same time; and that governor we know was Saturninuss as Tertullian points out.
Now that Cyrenius was indeed one who had special powers during this time can be seen in that Augustus made him the rector or guide of his grandson Gaius Caesar.
And it was Gaius Caesar who was sent by Augustus to stop the rebellions which
Quintilius Varus was at this time engaged in. And as Gaius guide/tutor Cyrenius would have been with Gaius during this time.
Thus Luke's statement below is historically accurate.
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. (And this registration was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
The first thing to be pointed out here is that the KJV states it is a tax.
However if you look up the Greek word for tax you will see that it means an enrollment or registration. I looked at about 20 different translations of these verses and everyone but one translated tax as enrollment, registration or census.
Thus what Luke is actually saying is this.
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. (And this registration was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
The second thing that need to be pointed out is that Luke says Cyrenius was governor. The word governor here is the Greek word hegemoneuntos and can refer to any type of office, such as a Procurator, which is the title Justin Martyr gives him at the time of the census. Justin Martyr, Apology, I.34.
Thus there is no reason to infer that Cyrenius was in fact the governor of Judea at this time.
Therefore what needs to be looked for is not a tax but rather a registration in the days of Herod the great around 3BC.
Was there such a registration?
On February 5, 2 B.C.E. Augustus received the title Pater Patriae which means "father of my country"
Augustus writes in his Res Gestae
“While I was administering my thirteenth consulship the senate and the equestrian order and the entire Roman people gave me the title Father of my Country.”
Because of this new title to be granted to Augustus he sent out a decree that all of Rome was to be registered and give an oath of loyalty to him. All citizens had to swear by the gods that neither they nor their offspring would usurp the Roman throne.This loyalty oath would have been taken sometime in 3 B.C. In order to give the citizens of Rome time to register their universal approval of Augustus before he could receive the title "Father of the Country" during the ceremonies of 2 B.C.E
Let's take a look at the type of oath that was required by Augustus. An inscription from Paphlagonia that date to 3BCE states this.
In the time of emperor Caesar Augustus, son of a god, during the twelfth consulship, in the third year, on the day before the Nones of March, in Gangris in . . . oath that was completed by the inhabitants of Paphlagonia and the . . . Romans . . . engaged in business (pragmateuomenoi) alongside them. By Zeus, Ge (Earth), Helios (Sun), all the gods and goddesses, Augustus himself, and all his children and descendents, I swear with word, deed, and thought to regard as friends any of those they may regard as friends and . . . to consider (?) . . . as enemies any they may judge to be enemies for my whole life. I will spare neither my body, nor my soul, nor my life, nor my children for their interests, but in every way will endure any danger for the things that involve them. Whatever I may notice or hear being spoken, planned, or done against them, I will report it and be an enemy to the one saying, planning or doing any such thing. I will pursue and defend against anyone they may judge to be enemies on land and sea using weapons and arms. But if I do anything contrary to this. . . oath (?). . . or anything not conforming to what I swore, I invoke curses of total and complete destruction against myself, my body, my soul, my life, my children, my entire family, and my interests till the end of all my successors and my descendents, and may . . . the bodies (?) . . . of my family and my descendents not be received by earth or sea, and (the earth) not bear fruit . . . for them (?). . . In the same way, everybody . . . in the land . . . swore in the Augustan temples in each . . . district (?). . . by the altars . . . of Augustus (?). . . Likewise, the Phazimoneitians who inhabit what is now called . . . Neapolis (?) swore together in the temple of Augustus by . . . the altar (?).
We can see here that everybody in the land was to register and to swear an oath of loyalty to Augustus.
Josephus also seems to speak of this oath in Ant.17.2.4
Ant.17.2.4
For there was a certain sect of men that were Jews, who valued themselves highly upon the exact skill they had in the law of their fathers, and made men believe they were highly favored by God, by whom this set of women were inveigled. These are those that are called the sect of the Pharisees, who were in a capacity of greatly opposing kings. A cunning sect they were, and soon elevated to a pitch of open fighting and doing mischief. Accordingly, when all the people of the Jews gave assurance of their good-will to Caesar, and to the king's government, these very men did not swear, being above six thousand; and when the king imposed a fine upon them, Pheroras's wife paid their fine for them. In order to requite which kindness of hers, since they were believed to have the foreknowledge of things to come by Divine inspiration, they foretold how God had decreed that Herod's government should cease, and his posterity should be deprived of it; but that the kingdom should come to her and Pheroras, and to their children. These predictions were not concealed from Salome, but were told the king; as also how they had perverted some persons about the palace itself; so the king slew such of the Pharisees as were principally accused, and Bagoas the eunuch, and one Carus, who exceeded all men of that time in comeliness, and one that was his catamite. He slew also all those of his own family who had consented to what the Pharisees foretold; and for Bagoas, he had been puffed up by them, as though he should be named the father and the benefactor of him who, by the prediction, was foretold to be their appointed king; for that this king would have all things in his power, and would enable Bagoas to marry, and to have children of his own body begotten.
Even though Josephus does not make any mention of a registration with the oath he mentions above, how are we to know there was 6000 Pharasee who refused to take the oath unless some kind of record of their numbers was recorded?
Orosius, VI.22 and VII.2. states this about the registration and oath
"[Augustus] ordered that a census be taken of each province everywhere and that all men be enrolled...This is the earliest and most famous public acknowledgment which marked Caesar as the first of all men and the Romans as lords of the world, a published list of all men entered individually...This first and greatest census was taken, since in this one name of Caesar all the peoples of the great nations took oath, and at the same time, through the participation in the census, were made a part of one society"
Various authors have suggested that this "oath of allegiance" and the census mentioned by Luke are one and the same (Lewin, Fasti Sacri, and more recently P. W. Barnett, Expository Times, 85 {1973-74}, pps. 377-380).
The Armenian historian, Moses of Khorene, said that the native sources he had available showed that in the second year of Abgar, king of Armenia (3 B.C.), the census brought Roman agents "to Armenia, bringing the image of Augustus Caesar, which they set up in every temple" (History of the Armenians, trans. R. W. Thomson, Book II, 26).
The fact that oaths and censuses should go together should be no strange thing, as most Roman census declarations required an oath of allegiance to the emperor, as in the example of one such declaration of property tax ended with: "We swear by the fortune of the Emperor Caesar Trajanus Hadrian Augustus...under oath" (Lewis & Reinhold, vol. II, pg. 387); and "I swear by Emperor Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus that I have kept nothing back" (ibid., pg. 388).
When all the evidence is taken together I do not see how anyone could say Luke was in error about a registration in the days of Herod the great.
However some might say there is no evidence that Cyrenius was around at that time. I would say they never took the time to actually look to see if he was or was not.
So lets look at some evidence.
Luke says Cyrenius was hegemoneuntos which can be used of any office, and as I pointed out earlier Justin Martyr refers to Cyrenius as a Procurator.
A Procurator was appointed by the Emperor independently of the legatus (governor) The fact that Justin said that Cyrenius was a procurator while conducting the “census” gives much weight to the belief that a resident governor also ruled Syria at the same time; and that governor we know was Saturninuss as Tertullian points out.
Now that Cyrenius was indeed one who had special powers during this time can be seen in that Augustus made him the rector or guide of his grandson Gaius Caesar.
And it was Gaius Caesar who was sent by Augustus to stop the rebellions which
Quintilius Varus was at this time engaged in. And as Gaius guide/tutor Cyrenius would have been with Gaius during this time.
Thus Luke's statement below is historically accurate.
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. (And this registration was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
LMAO! One can only wonder why all the worlds historians haven't noticed the above and thought...'Oh bugger!'
Another proposal is that hêgemoneuontos tês Syrias might mean simply "holding a command in Syria" and since Quirinius is known to have fought a war in Asia Minor between 6 B.C. and 1 B.C., perhaps Luke means to refer to the time when Quirinius was fighting this war, and not actually "legate of Syria." This doesn't actually solve any of the problems already discussed so far--no census of Judaea could have been held before 6 A.D. But the argument is not even reasonable to begin with. First, it makes no sense to date an event in Judaea by referring to a special command in a war in Asia. Why not simply name the actual legate in Syria? There is no reason to pass over the most obvious man and name another who has absolutely nothing to do with Judaea, much less a census there.
Second, just because Quirinius was probably assigned a Syrian legion to fight bandits on the mountain border between Galatia and Cilicia, it does not follow that he had any kind of command in Syria.[13.1] To the contrary, he was in the province of Galatia, not Syria, and by special command of Augustus. It only makes sense that he was appointed legate of Galatia for this war, for otherwise the actual legate of Galatia would have been fighting it. A Syrian legate would have no business fighting a war in someone else's province, especially in a territory that would leave him cut off from his own province by a large mountain range: for the Homanadenses were active in the mountain-lake valley in Galatia, boxed in by the mountains of Pisidia, Lycaonia, and Isauria--the valley surrounding Egridir lake, Turkey, on a modern map. Every expert familiar with the facts agrees that "only an army coming from the north could subjugate mountain tribes" in that region, in other words an army led from the province of Galatia, not Syria.[13.2] So it would be quite nonsensical of Luke to refer to Quirinius' command and probable governorship in the province of Galatia as "holding a command in Syria," all the more so since "being a ruler of Syria" is what the phrase actually means anyway (since "Syria" appears in the genitive, not dative case).
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.
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.
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.
I am getting to that and will post it hopefully sometime to day as I still have a few more things to check.
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.
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.
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.
My whole reason for regarding the nativity accounts as a testcase for Gospel unreliability is because of the discrepancy of Luke with the account of Matthew and because of doubts about Luke's account in itself.
Now part of that is the assumption that the tax he refers to is the tax imposed when Rome annexed Judea, but your point about the Joazar question, is to posit such a tax in Herod's time. 3 BC, you said. Why 3 B.C I wonder?
I think you are too inclined to debunk Josephus as a whole on the bass of what is a contradiction, which looks as though he missed it himself. I think you overreach yourself in using that as a reason to say that the apparent reappointment of Joazar is wrong as Josephus is 'all over the map', and 'Miss-dates'. I said though that I wouldn't fight you on that. Not even Luke getting Theudas and Judas back to front as you could argue it was Josephus got it wrong - for example Felix beheaded Judas the Galilean, though he says it was in the days of the census. So there are a lot of queries about the position you adopt. Just giving fair warning.
Right now you are arguing for the registration (and I repeat that you can't credibly say it isn't related by Luke to the taxing of 'the whole world' by Caesar) which brought Joseph to Bethlehem in 3 B.C (while Herod was still alive I presume or the contradiction with Matthew remains) and I have given reasons why a tax arranged by Quirinus while governor/president/'hegemonias' or whatever of Syria was carried on in a client kingdom. I have hinted at examples of such clients not being taxed like parts of the Empire, and I think you should give reasons why you think the Lucan tax looks ok for Herod's time.
Setting aside Josephus, I presume that you'll accept the history as the gospels have it - Herod was succeeded by Archelaus and Antipas up in Galilee, and we must accept that Rome did take over as Pilate was appointed as Judean governor (Procurator/ Prefect) while Antipas ruled Galilee.
I'll let you look at that while I crack on dammit with my analysis of the Nativity on Gospel grounds, not using Josephus , and I'll post it as it is really the test case argument.
As with Nazareth, by the way, it wouldn't be devastating for me if Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but it would be a blow to gospel credibility if he wasn't.
Excuses and moans this damn' laptop is driving me nuts. It has picked up all sorts of bad habits and it seems to be infecting my Other piano. Well a bad workman, the say....
p.s you can cite what sources you like, but I will need to see their argument rather than just 'they say so' and we must accept their word as Authorities and take it for granted that they consulted Records rather that just devised a history to fit the gospels.
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
The first thing to be pointed out here is that the KJV states it is a tax.
However if you look up the Greek word for tax you will see that it means an enrollment or registration. I looked at about 20 different translations of these verses and everyone but one translated tax as enrollment, registration or census.
Thus what Luke is actually saying is this.
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. (And this registration was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
The second thing that need to be pointed out is that Luke says Cyrenius was governor. The word governor here is the Greek word hegemoneuntos and can refer to any type of office, such as a Procurator, which is the title Justin Martyr gives him at the time of the census. Justin Martyr, Apology, I.34.
Thus there is no reason to infer that Cyrenius was in fact the governor of Judea at this time.
Therefore what needs to be looked for is not a tax but rather a registration in the days of Herod the great around 3BC.
Was there such a registration?
On February 5, 2 B.C.E. Augustus received the title Pater Patriae which means "father of my country"
Augustus writes in his Res Gestae
“While I was administering my thirteenth consulship the senate and the equestrian order and the entire Roman people gave me the title Father of my Country.”
Because of this new title to be granted to Augustus he sent out a decree that all of Rome was to be registered and give an oath of loyalty to him. All citizens had to swear by the gods that neither they nor their offspring would usurp the Roman throne.This loyalty oath would have been taken sometime in 3 B.C. In order to give the citizens of Rome time to register their universal approval of Augustus before he could receive the title "Father of the Country" during the ceremonies of 2 B.C.E
Let's take a look at the type of oath that was required by Augustus. An inscription from Paphlagonia that date to 3BCE states this.
In the time of emperor Caesar Augustus, son of a god, during the twelfth consulship, in the third year, on the day before the Nones of March, in Gangris in . . . oath that was completed by the inhabitants of Paphlagonia and the . . . Romans . . . engaged in business (pragmateuomenoi) alongside them. By Zeus, Ge (Earth), Helios (Sun), all the gods and goddesses, Augustus himself, and all his children and descendents, I swear with word, deed, and thought to regard as friends any of those they may regard as friends and . . . to consider (?) . . . as enemies any they may judge to be enemies for my whole life. I will spare neither my body, nor my soul, nor my life, nor my children for their interests, but in every way will endure any danger for the things that involve them. Whatever I may notice or hear being spoken, planned, or done against them, I will report it and be an enemy to the one saying, planning or doing any such thing. I will pursue and defend against anyone they may judge to be enemies on land and sea using weapons and arms. But if I do anything contrary to this. . . oath (?). . . or anything not conforming to what I swore, I invoke curses of total and complete destruction against myself, my body, my soul, my life, my children, my entire family, and my interests till the end of all my successors and my descendents, and may . . . the bodies (?) . . . of my family and my descendents not be received by earth or sea, and (the earth) not bear fruit . . . for them (?). . . In the same way, everybody . . . in the land . . . swore in the Augustan temples in each . . . district (?). . . by the altars . . . of Augustus (?). . . Likewise, the Phazimoneitians who inhabit what is now called . . . Neapolis (?) swore together in the temple of Augustus by . . . the altar (?).
We can see here that everybody in the land was to register and to swear an oath of loyalty to Augustus.
Josephus also seems to speak of this oath in Ant.17.2.4
Ant.17.2.4
For there was a certain sect of men that were Jews, who valued themselves highly upon the exact skill they had in the law of their fathers, and made men believe they were highly favored by God, by whom this set of women were inveigled. These are those that are called the sect of the Pharisees, who were in a capacity of greatly opposing kings. A cunning sect they were, and soon elevated to a pitch of open fighting and doing mischief. Accordingly, when all the people of the Jews gave assurance of their good-will to Caesar, and to the king's government, these very men did not swear, being above six thousand; and when the king imposed a fine upon them, Pheroras's wife paid their fine for them. In order to requite which kindness of hers, since they were believed to have the foreknowledge of things to come by Divine inspiration, they foretold how God had decreed that Herod's government should cease, and his posterity should be deprived of it; but that the kingdom should come to her and Pheroras, and to their children. These predictions were not concealed from Salome, but were told the king; as also how they had perverted some persons about the palace itself; so the king slew such of the Pharisees as were principally accused, and Bagoas the eunuch, and one Carus, who exceeded all men of that time in comeliness, and one that was his catamite. He slew also all those of his own family who had consented to what the Pharisees foretold; and for Bagoas, he had been puffed up by them, as though he should be named the father and the benefactor of him who, by the prediction, was foretold to be their appointed king; for that this king would have all things in his power, and would enable Bagoas to marry, and to have children of his own body begotten.
Even though Josephus does not make any mention of a registration with the oath he mentions above, how are we to know there was 6000 Pharasee who refused to take the oath unless some kind of record of their numbers was recorded?
Orosius, VI.22 and VII.2. states this about the registration and oath
"[Augustus] ordered that a census be taken of each province everywhere and that all men be enrolled...This is the earliest and most famous public acknowledgment which marked Caesar as the first of all men and the Romans as lords of the world, a published list of all men entered individually...This first and greatest census was taken, since in this one name of Caesar all the peoples of the great nations took oath, and at the same time, through the participation in the census, were made a part of one society"
Various authors have suggested that this "oath of allegiance" and the census mentioned by Luke are one and the same (Lewin, Fasti Sacri, and more recently P. W. Barnett, Expository Times, 85 {1973-74}, pps. 377-380).
The Armenian historian, Moses of Khorene, said that the native sources he had available showed that in the second year of Abgar, king of Armenia (3 B.C.), the census brought Roman agents "to Armenia, bringing the image of Augustus Caesar, which they set up in every temple" (History of the Armenians, trans. R. W. Thomson, Book II, 26).
The fact that oaths and censuses should go together should be no strange thing, as most Roman census declarations required an oath of allegiance to the emperor, as in the example of one such declaration of property tax ended with: "We swear by the fortune of the Emperor Caesar Trajanus Hadrian Augustus...under oath" (Lewis & Reinhold, vol. II, pg. 387); and "I swear by Emperor Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus that I have kept nothing back" (ibid., pg. 388).
When all the evidence is taken together I do not see how anyone could say Luke was in error about a registration in the days of Herod the great.
However some might say there is no evidence that Cyrenius was around at that time. I would say they never took the time to actually look to see if he was or was not.
So lets look at some evidence.
Luke says Cyrenius was hegemoneuntos which can be used of any office, and as I pointed out earlier Justin Martyr refers to Cyrenius as a Procurator.
A Procurator was appointed by the Emperor independently of the legatus (governor) The fact that Justin said that Cyrenius was a procurator while conducting the “census” gives much weight to the belief that a resident governor also ruled Syria at the same time; and that governor we know was Saturninuss as Tertullian points out.
Now that Cyrenius was indeed one who had special powers during this time can be seen in that Augustus made him the rector or guide of his grandson Gaius Caesar.
And it was Gaius Caesar who was sent by Augustus to stop the rebellions which
Quintilius Varus was at this time engaged in. And as Gaius guide/tutor Cyrenius would have been with Gaius during this time.
Thus Luke's statement below is historically accurate.
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. (And this registration was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
Ingenious. So you say that the 'registration' of the whole (Roman) world was an oath of loyalty to Augustus and you argue that Joseph like all the others who took this oath had to go to his Own City, which would be Nazareth, because I can see no earthly reason why he should go to his ancestral city to take such an oath, never mind dragging his wife along.
Also, while you may argue that Quirunus might have been Procurator (or indeed prefect) of Syria rather than Governor, the question still remains of his going into Herod's kingdom in order to organize a "registration" of everyone to take this oath of loyalty (I trust you will agree that Augustus would stop short of sending his image along to be put on display in the temple).
Now, I at least credit Josephus enough to want to check that rejection of the oath by 6,000 Pharisees, but if you can't trust him on the order of appointment of high Priests, I don't see that you can credit the 6,000 figure as being so reliable that it must prove a head -count.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
LMAO! One can only wonder why all the worlds historians haven't noticed the above and thought...'Oh bugger!'
Quite. Well, as I said, I go out on a limb rejecting anything Jesus said in the gospels as credible, so I can only admire Pnuema's reinterpretation of events. But you have a point - the rest of historians seem willing to credit Josephus broadly and see the Lucan tax as the one Josephus describes and date it to 6 AD.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-05-2016 at 03:12 PM..
Another proposal is that hêgemoneuontos tês Syrias might mean simply "holding a command in Syria" and since Quirinius is known to have fought a war in Asia Minor between 6 B.C. and 1 B.C., perhaps Luke means to refer to the time when Quirinius was fighting this war, and not actually "legate of Syria." This doesn't actually solve any of the problems already discussed so far--no census of Judaea could have been held before 6 A.D. But the argument is not even reasonable to begin with. First, it makes no sense to date an event in Judaea by referring to a special command in a war in Asia. Why not simply name the actual legate in Syria? There is no reason to pass over the most obvious man and name another who has absolutely nothing to do with Judaea, much less a census there.
Second, just because Quirinius was probably assigned a Syrian legion to fight bandits on the mountain border between Galatia and Cilicia, it does not follow that he had any kind of command in Syria.[13.1] To the contrary, he was in the province of Galatia, not Syria, and by special command of Augustus. It only makes sense that he was appointed legate of Galatia for this war, for otherwise the actual legate of Galatia would have been fighting it. A Syrian legate would have no business fighting a war in someone else's province, especially in a territory that would leave him cut off from his own province by a large mountain range: for the Homanadenses were active in the mountain-lake valley in Galatia, boxed in by the mountains of Pisidia, Lycaonia, and Isauria--the valley surrounding Egridir lake, Turkey, on a modern map. Every expert familiar with the facts agrees that "only an army coming from the north could subjugate mountain tribes" in that region, in other words an army led from the province of Galatia, not Syria.[13.2] So it would be quite nonsensical of Luke to refer to Quirinius' command and probable governorship in the province of Galatia as "holding a command in Syria," all the more so since "being a ruler of Syria" is what the phrase actually means anyway (since "Syria" appears in the genitive, not dative case).
Thanks. I have read the view that Quirinus chasing tribesmen in the mountains at the time gospel apologetics requires that he be in Herod's kingdom organizing a head -count rules out that Luke's census could be some round -up before the Romans took over, but that sets it out very well.
There are two nativity stories. Mark does not have one, just as he has no resurrection appearance story, and for the same reason. Originally there wasn't one, and it had to be invented. That is demonstrated by the independent stories conflicting irreconcilably when compared. I already did the resurrection (I'm sure I did) and let me show how I think the Nativities conflict.
Let's begin with Luke's account. Leaving the annunciations of Luke and Matthew until later.
Luke 2.1 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register.
Yep. This has been dissected, fine ground and nanoflayed to death as to whether this is dated to before 4 BC (which I think is shown now to be roughly the right date for Herod's death) or to 6 AD when the Romans took over Judea after deposing Herod's son. So I'll just treat the two accounts as though they were set in the days of Herod, just as Luke says in his Annunication story.
Luke 2.4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.
Now, if we suppose this was in the days of Herod, then any tax imposed by him would apply to the whole of Judea including Galilee. So Joseph would indeed go to his own town to Register. but his own town was Nazareth, wasn't it? Or, if if it was too small, the nearest place of registration, which might be Sepphoris, or Jotapa or Capernaum. It is absurd to suppose he trekked to Judea to an ancestral city to sign on. He would register where he lived and worked and where the tax could be collected from him. This Census is a device of Luke's to explain how Jesus, a Galilean, was nevertheless born in Bethlehem because scripture says he should be. Which is also why Matthew writes his nativity story, as we shall see.
Luke 2.8 And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. 9 An angel of the Lord appeared t them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. 10 But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all people. 11 Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord. 12 This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”
13 Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,
14 “Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”
15 When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let’s go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.”
16 So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. 17 When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, 18 and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them. 19 But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart. 20 The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told.
What does Matthew say about all this?
Matthew 2.1 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi[a] from the east came to Jerusalem 2 and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”
Not a thing. The school nativity plays (that's if the FFRF haven't had them all banned) tend to show the Magi showing up with the shepherds. In fact there are indications that they turned up anything up to two years later.
But let's consider this idea that Magi from the East (Persians or Chaldean astrologers from Mesopotamia). They look for significant conjunctions of stars and planets and pass the information onto their ruler, at least, who wants to know what portends. Now all manner of celestial apparitions have been pointed to to explain this - a supernova, or a combination of Jupiter and Leo or some similar conjunction such as was suggested recently might have been stamped on coins issued in Roman Syria. But it is rather harder to work out how these astrologers, if they decided that it portended a Royal birth, would jump to the conclusion that it was a royal birth in Judea. Even if they did, they would just inform those in the loop that Herod had done the business and produced yet more offspring to be murdered in due course. What they would not be inclined to do is load up with presents, mount their camels and set off to worship the new Jewish prince.
However, they arrive at Jerusalem and go to see Herod. Quite innocently they ask after the new birth. Herod is concerned as well he might be. So does he make inquiries amongst his family, nobles and officers to see what new births might be a thread to his power? Not a bit of it. Instead he jumps to the conclusion that this is the promised messiah and he even recalls that will be born somewhere else..where was it?
Matthew goes on:
3 When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. 5 “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written:
6 “‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.’”
This is of course what Matthew was aiming at. The prophecy that Jesus the promised Christ would be born in Bethlehem.
And so Herod makes a couple of mental leaps, bypassing any noble birth in Jerusalem to a messianic birth in the ancestral city of David as prophesied in scripture.
Now we already saw from Luke that the only reason Jesus and family were in Judea at all was to sign up for this postulated tax imposed on Herod by an angry Caesar to teach him his place and, carried out by the governor Varus whom Luke doesn't mention. But he does mention Quirinus, who became governor of Syria a bit later on. This census was so secret that Josephus, never, ever, gets to hear of it, even when consulting Roman archives for his book, but Joseph (and presumably all the other families) received notification and duly set off on the absurd journey to the ancestral city of David, on the misapprehension that he ought to register in his ancestral city, not the one where tax would actually be collected. Of course, this '2nd census' apologetic is manifestly absurd.
But it gets worse.
7 Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. 8 He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.”
Now, parsing 'worship' as 'paying respect to the messiah' we wonder why Herod asked the pointless question about when the star appeared. Well, we find out soon enough.
9 After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. 10 When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. 11 On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. 12 And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route.
13 When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.”
Now, one might wonder why the wise men weren't warned in a dream not to bother with Herod at all, but to go to Bethlehem, with the star (which had been patiently hovering above Herod's palace waiting for the wise men to resume their journey) leading the way and hovering fifty feet, say, above the house, otherwise, you'd never know which one it was indicating.
The answer is that, if they had been warned to avoid Herod, there would have been no attack on Jesus and no reason for him to take the precaution of moving to Galilee,
14 So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, 15 where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”
16 When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. 17 Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:
18 “A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted,
because they are no more.”
This is a nice example of a backdated prophecy, loosely relating the idea or mourning mothers, when the actual OT text relates to the obliteration of Rachel's children - the states of the northern kingdom of Israel - when they were marched away and resettled by Assyria. It is also the first hint about Matthew - apart from the invention of fantastical tales - that he didn't really understand the text he was searching for prophecies. And as we see here, he was not above inventing an event to fit a prophecy.
But now we see why the plot required that Herod ask when the star appeared. That suggests that the Magi were at least a year on the journey, which seems a lot, since I credit Matthew with at least getting his geography right.
Well, Herod kicks the bucket in 4 BC or Phneuma will say 3 BC or later. The relating of events to a particular date is as important as the events themselves. Now my Bible source here rather cheekily heads the next bit "The return to Nazareth", which is a bit of a sauce, since Matthew clearly indicates that they hear of Herod's death and reckon it's ok to return to their home in Judea.
The Return to Nazareth
19 After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt 20 and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child’s life are dead.”
Israel could mean Galilee as much as Judea, but mark the next bit.
21 So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. 22 But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee,
I don't see how anyone could honestly read that as meaning anything but they intended to return to their home in Bethlehem of Judea, but then Joseph reckons that Archelaus is as much of a threat and the heavenly helpline advises him to go to Galilee (Antipas not being considered a threat, apparently).
23 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.
In fact there is no such prophecy (2) that he would be called a Nazarene, but Matthew, having engineered a way of getting Jesus from Bethlehem to Nazareth, can't resist making it some kind of prophecy -fulfillment.
Now this is clearly in contradiction to Luke who had Joseph as a resident of Nazareth to begin with, but it gets even worse when we recall that, according to his gospel, the family get their infant sorted in the temple within a week or so and then went back home. There is no threat from Herod and no flight to Egypt or need for a warning to leave there and relocate to Galilee - where they already lived.
I seem no help for it: there are two different and contradictory stories written to achieve he same end - having Jesus, a native of Galilee, born in Bethlehem because (as John says in his gospel (2)- which like Mark has no nativity story) the messiah, according to scripture, should be born there.
So Matthew constructs a plot with Herod, being tipped off about a possible rival, going to scripture for where to find him, rather than searching the palace or investigating recent noble births, and uses that as a threat to get Joseph out of Bethlehem into Nazareth. Luke, on the other hand, uses the requirement to sign on for a registration (whatever that actually was and whenever it was) to get Jesus out of Nazareth in time to be born in Bethlehem,
Of course it is handy if the registration is linked to the Roman census tax when they took over Judea, as it adds a discrepancy of 11 years as a contradiction, but even if it could be related to an oath -taking in Herod's kingdom, the indications of two different and conflicting tales remain.
(1) the suggestion that the prophecy "got lost" from every one of the copied and recopied Scriptures- apart from the claims we get about accurately and faithfully transmitted Scripture - is probably one of the top ten impudent Bible -apologetics.
(2) John 7.41 Others said, “He is the Messiah.”
Still others asked, “How can the Messiah come from Galilee? 42 Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David’s descendants and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?”
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-06-2016 at 05:15 PM..
Reason: online tidy -up
Ingenious. So you say that the 'registration' of the whole (Roman) world was an oath of loyalty to Augustus and you argue that Joseph like all the others who took this oath had to go to his Own City, which would be Nazareth, because I can see no earthly reason why he should go to his ancestral city to take such an oath, never mind dragging his wife along.
Is this suppose to be a rebuttal?
Quote:
Also, while you may argue that Quirunus might have been Procurator (or indeed prefect) of Syria rather than Governor, the question still remains of his going into Herod's kingdom in order to organize a "registration" of everyone to take this oath of loyalty (I trust you will agree that Augustus would stop short of sending his image along to be put on display in the temple).
Was Herod the king of Syria? Luke says nothing about Cyrenius going to Herod's kingdom.
Quote:
Now, I at least credit Josephus enough to want to check that rejection of the oath by 6,000 Pharisees, but if you can't trust him on the order of appointment of high Priests, I don't see that you can credit the 6,000 figure as being so reliable that it must prove a head -count.
Really! You're going there. Do you know how many times Christian have thrown this same argument in my face when I point out to them the interpolations and errors in the bible? If you don't believe the whole bible how can you believe any of it nonsense. It simply a terrible argument in order to not have to deal with the evidence provided.
So let me throw it back at you and maybe you will be able to see how inane this type of argument is.
Do you believe everything in Josephus works is without interpolation or error? If you can't trust him concerning the Testimonium Flavianum I don't see how you can credit him with anything else he says.
Get the picture.
Quote:
Quite. Well, as I said, I go out on a limb rejecting anything Jesus said in the gospels as credible, so I can only admire Pnuema's reinterpretation of events. But you have a point - the rest of historians seem willing to credit Josephus broadly and see the Lucan tax as the one Josephus describes and date it to 6 AD.
Luke mentions NOTHING about a tax.
I gave you evidence from historical writings that show there was indeed a registration in the days of Herod the great and you have made no rebuttal to any of it. Do you have a rebuttal or are you just going to ignore the evidence I provided?
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.
with my analysis of the Nativity on Gospel grounds, not using Josephus 
, and I'll post it as it is really the test case argument. 
at last...
