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.
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.
Again Luke says NOTHING about Cyrenius going into Herod's Kingdom. So please tell me where you get this idea. The head count was all of the Roman provinces.
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.
[Cut for brevity}
Staggering stuff old man. Scholarly, informative and logical as always. Well done old thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
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.
...and you?? If you think Josephus is an incompetent buffoon when he talks about the census, why do you demand that he reliable and trustworthy when he talks about HJ?
No, O Touchy One , it is taking your suggestion on board, though the point about the needless journey to Bethlehem is a rebuttal of Luke, so to speak.
Quote:
Was Herod the king of Syria? Luke says nothing about Cyrenius going to Herod's kingdom.
When I wrote that, I was still thinking in terms of a tax census when (Luke says) Quirinus was the governor of Syria.
But your suggestion is that it was done in Herod's kingdom by Herod and I suppose the mention of Quirinus is just to date it as, if he didn't 'go into Herod's Kingdom' in order to organize a head -count, I don't know why Luke mentions him at all. And, if it's done for dating purposes, it dates it to after Herod's death and the Roman take -over, when Quirinus was governor of Syria, otherwise he would have mentioned Varus as governing Syria and Quirinus as ...doing what? Other than carrying out this head -count on the orders of Varus, and if not in relation to Herod's kingdom, why does Luke mention him at all?
That he doesn't specifically say 'Quirinus went into Herod's kingdom' is ingenuous on you, when the circumstances of your ingenious proposal indicates that is just what he had to do, even more than in 6 AD, where as governor, he sent Coponius into Judea to do the head -count.
Quote:
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.
Yes, I knew that. Which is why I say bith that I accepted the burden of proof on me to show the bible not reliable and I also say the Bible is no more to be credited than any other book that looks to contain historical accounts.
Quote:
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.
You put your finger on it. Unless there is good reason to question, we may take historical claims as broadly reliable. You pointed up a problem with the High priests 4 BC - 6 AD, but that is not a reason to then dismiss the rest of Josephus, especially when you them rely on him for evidence to help your case. Those Christians throw your double standard back in your face for good reason.
You know that nobody (credibly) accepts the Flavian testament as Josephus throughout. As i recall, you argued that some was false but he rest cold be true. So you are accepting Jsephus except where there is good reason to reject - which is just what I do. You may recall that I said I originally credited the FT apart from the Christian bits, but the bits that agreed with the Gospels had to be wrong, too as the gospels were wrong - which is my whole thesis which (I accept) needs to be validated, which is what I am doing here.
Quote:
Luke mentions NOTHING about a tax.
As I say, I was still thinking of the 6 AD tax and still had to consider your alternative reading. One reason to doubt Josephus is that if the Pharisees refused to be counted for the oath -registration, how did Josephus know there was 6, 000 of them? That there was such a loyalty oath -taking is to be believed, if Josephus says so. That there were a large number of Pharisees that refused the oath is also to be believed, but the 6,000 figure has problems, just as with the terms of office of Joazar, and especially
if you make that a head -count registration in order to backdate Luke's census to Herod's time in order to reconcile Luke with Matthew (and you can't tell me there is any other reason for your ingenious proposal, in the first place).
Quote:
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?
No, as say, I am taking the suggestion on board. You can't blame me, as I have never heard this idea of a Herodian loyalty census before, and you did refer to '6,000' pharisees who refused the oath. Quite apart from you now relying on Josephus for a fact which is open to query, when you use the doubts about the appointment of High priests to ..do what exactly? The Oath census idea is quite unrelated to the 6 AD tax census and so you don't need to argue that Josephus misdated.
In fact the mention of this being the 'first' does rather look like the first of regular head counts, which again sounds like the periodic tax -counts rather than the taking of a loyalty -oath t Caesar, which was surely a one -off.
So your idea rather fails, because the event to mention as 'evidence' doesn't really look like a 'Registration' as your argument depends on a head count of Pharisees who refused the head -count to have a 'registration' at all, and because it doesn't match up all that well with the census of Qurinus as described by Josephus when the 'Registration' of Luke does look very much like it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Again Luke says NOTHING about Cyrenius going into Herod's Kingdom. So please tell me where you get this idea. The head count was all of the Roman provinces.
Explained above. I agree the 'head -count' looks like the Roman tax census of 6 AD. But your reference to 6,000 pharisees as "evidence" of a registration implies a head -count registration, doesn't it?
No, O Touchy One , it is taking your suggestion on board, though the point about the needless journey to Bethlehem is a rebuttal of Luke, so to speak.
Luke tells us Joseph went to Bethlehem was because he was of the lineage of David.
And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David
We know that Herod in his last days became very jealous of his throne, so jealous in fact that he killed his own children if he thought they were going after it.
David as we all know was a king of Israel, thus Joseph and Mary both being of royal lineage in all probability would have had to register under Herod's nose. This was probably done so that Herod would know of all the claimants to the throne of David especially during this time as there was a great deal of messianic expectation among the Jews.
Quote:
When I wrote that, I was still thinking in terms of a tax census when (Luke says) Quirinus was the governor of Syria.
But your suggestion is that it was done in Herod's kingdom by Herod and I suppose the mention of Quirinus is just to date it as, if he didn't 'go into Herod's Kingdom' in order to organize a head -count, I don't know why Luke mentions him at all.
Josephus says that Cyrenius held many positions before he became governor of Syria. Cyrenius simply put was Augustus man of men. If Augustus wanted something done then Cyrenius was probably the one who Augustus entrusted what he wanted done to. Thus for Augustus jubilee who better then his man of men to carry out the registration.
Quote:
And, if it's done for dating purposes, it dates it to after Herod's death and the Roman take -over, when Quirinus was governor of Syria, otherwise he would have mentioned Varus as governing Syria and Quirinus as ...doing what? Other than carrying out this head -count on the orders of Varus, and if not in relation to Herod's kingdom, why does Luke mention him at all?
Your confusing the registration of Augustus Jubilee, which was before the death of Herod, with a census that may have happened in AD/6. I say may have happened in AD/6 because I am not sure that one took place during that time as I see some problems with that scenario. However; be that as it may the one does not have anything to do with the other.
Quote:
That he doesn't specifically say 'Quirinus went into Herod's kingdom' is ingenuous on you, when the circumstances of your ingenious proposal indicates that is just what he had to do, even more than in 6 AD, where as governor, he sent Coponius into Judea to do the head -count.
It is not ingenuous Trans it is only following what Luke actually says and Luke says nothing about Cyrenius having to go into Judea in order to do the registration. Rome held many a territory so if I was to follow your line of reasoning Cyrenius would have had to go into every province held by Rome in order for the registration. It makes more sense to believe that Cyrenius delegated that authority to the local magistrates.
Quote:
Yes, I knew that. Which is why I say bith that I accepted the burden of proof on me to show the bible not reliable and I also say the Bible is no more to be credited than any other book that looks to contain historical accounts.
The problem is you don't credit the bible of any historical accounts. If you did you would not be trying to prove your thesis you would be looking at it as a historical account and trying to see if there was such a registration in the days of Herod the great. Which we can all now see there was.
Quote:
You put your finger on it. Unless there is good reason to question, we may take historical claims as broadly reliable.
Yet you do not take Luke's historical claim as broadly reliable as your thesis is trying to prove Luke wrong, instead of looking to see if Luke was correct. If you had of spent as much time looking to see if Luke was correct as you do trying to prove your thesis you would have found the same information I have, which broadly shows Luke's historical claims are reliable.
Quote:
You pointed up a problem with the High priests 4 BC - 6 AD, but that is not a reason to then dismiss the rest of Josephus, especially when you them rely on him for evidence to help your case.
Where have I dismissed the rest of Josephus writings? So far I have only rejected Josephus claims about Joazar; and you can see I did so for good reasons. Yes I see other problems with other things Josephus says but have not rejected them and won't unless there is good reason to do so.
Quote:
Those Christians throw your double standard back in your face for good reason.
LOL you think just like most Christians, you sure you were not a fundamental Christian in a past life.
Quote:
You know that nobody (credibly) accepts the Flavian testament as Josephus throughout. As i recall, you argued that some was false but he rest cold be true. So you are accepting Jsephus except where there is good reason to reject - which is just what I do. You may recall that I said I originally credited the FT apart from the Christian bits, but the bits that agreed with the Gospels had to be wrong, too as the gospels were wrong - which is my whole thesis which (I accept) needs to be validated, which is what I am doing here.
I don't reject any historical writing out of hand without giving them first a fair reading. The difference between our method of research Trans is I am trying to prove the historical records, you are trying to prove your thesis. IMO that is an ass backwards way of addressing historical records.
Quote:
As I say, I was still thinking of the 6 AD tax and still had to consider your alternative reading. One reason to doubt Josephus is that if the Pharisees refused to be counted for the oath -registration, how did Josephus know there was 6, 000 of them? That there was such a loyalty oath -taking is to be believed, if Josephus says so. That there were a large number of Pharisees that refused the oath is also to be believed, but the 6,000 figure has problems, just as with the terms of office of Joazar, and especially
I can see why you would question the 6000 but Josephus goes on to explain that the king imposed a fine on them and Pheroras's wife paid their fine for them. There would have been an accounting to this transaction.
Quote:
if you make that a head -count registration in order to backdate Luke's census to Herod's time in order to reconcile Luke with Matthew
I am not backdating anything. I have shown there was indeed a registration in the days of Herod the great, no backdating required. On the other hand you want to take the date of Luke's registration and forward date it to AD/6. You are not even looking to see if these were two different events. Your so stuck with proving your thesis that Luke is wrong that the possibility that they are separate events does not seem to have occurred to you.
Quote:
(and you can't tell me there is any other reason for your ingenious proposal, in the first place).
Obviously not; as I have done so already multiple time and you just refuse to believe me.
Quote:
No, as say, I am taking the suggestion on board. You can't blame me, as I have never heard this idea of a Herodian loyalty census before, and you did refer to '6,000' pharisees who refused the oath. Quite apart from you now relying on Josephus for a fact which is open to query, when you use the doubts about the appointment of High priests to ..do what exactly? The Oath census idea is quite unrelated to the 6 AD tax census and so you don't need to argue that Josephus misdated.
Like you, when I first started to look into the history of things I was thinking they were related, but my further research indicates they are not.
That said I still have reservations about a AD/6 census and Joazar is one of those reasons. Another is that while Archeluas was in Rome getting crowned as it were Josephus also says he was fighting in a war and took the eldest of 4 brothers prisoner. Herod died in BCE 1 and if Archeleus reigned 9 or 10 years (Josephus states both) and was disposed in AD/6 by Cyrenius that only makes 6 or 7 years. Thus you can see why I have my doubts about the date of AD/6 census.
Quote:
In fact the mention of this being the 'first' does rather look like the first of regular head counts, which again sounds like the periodic tax -counts rather than the taking of a loyalty -oath t Caesar, which was surely a one -off.
Yes it could mean that or it could mean it was the first registration of it's kind that ever took place.
Quote:
So your idea rather fails, because the event to mention as 'evidence' doesn't really look like a 'Registration' as your argument depends on a head count of Pharisees who refused the head -count to have a 'registration' at all, and because it doesn't match up all that well with the census of Qurinus as described by Josephus when the 'Registration' of Luke does look very much like it.
Your mixing two separate accounts up thinking they are one account and saying they don't make sense. Well if you try to make two separate accounts into one account of course it would not make sense. Try separating the accounts and you will see they do indeed make sense.
And just because 6000 Pharasees refused to be take the oath does not mean there was not a head count as you put it. That they refused to take the oath on the other hand does indeed show that there was.
Quote:
Explained above. I agree the 'head -count' looks like the Roman tax census of 6 AD. But your reference to 6,000 pharisees as "evidence" of a registration implies a head -count registration, doesn't it?
That is not the only evidence I provided Trans. I backed up what I said with a lot more then the 6000. So even if we discounted the 6000 you still have to deal with all the other evidence I gave that shows there was indeed a registration in the days of Herod the great.
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.
It is generally agreed by scholars that the Testimonium Flavianum is a "pious fraud" and therefore not authored by Josephus, but inserted by a subsequent scribe who was likely Christian or sympathetic to Christianity. It is out of context and clashes with the rest of Josephus as to style, isn't mentioned by early apologists prior to the likely date of insertion, etc.
So no that by itself doesn't invalidate anything else in Josephus.
Nor does anyone have an infallibility doctrine about Josephus, those kinds of special pleadings are normally reserved for Holy Writ. That said, that Josephus is as fallible as any historian or that someone has inserted a sponsored ad into his text does not render him chopped liver, either.
You seem to be fixated on discrediting Josephus in toto by any means here. Please point to a scholarly consensus that Josephus' body of work, or the work in question, is a completely discredited hoax from which nothing at all may be concluded with any confidence.
You seem to be fixated on discrediting Josephus in toto by any means here.
Here yes...because he wants Josephus to be untrustworthy to help his case for a census that didn't happen. However, if you read pneuma's posts where he is using Josephus to prove a historical Jesus, he can't praise Josephus enough as a reliable and trustworthy historian. Double standards or what!!
Luke tells us Joseph went to Bethlehem was because he was of the lineage of David.
And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David
We know that Herod in his last days became very jealous of his throne, so jealous in fact that he killed his own children if he thought they were going after it.
David as we all know was a king of Israel, thus Joseph and Mary both being of royal lineage in all probability would have had to register under Herod's nose. This was probably done so that Herod would know of all the claimants to the throne of David especially during this time as there was a great deal of messianic expectation among the Jews.
Josephus says that Cyrenius held many positions before he became governor of Syria. Cyrenius simply put was Augustus man of men. If Augustus wanted something done then Cyrenius was probably the one who Augustus entrusted what he wanted done to. Thus for Augustus jubilee who better then his man of men to carry out the registration.
Your confusing the registration of Augustus Jubilee, which was before the death of Herod, with a census that may have happened in AD/6. I say may have happened in AD/6 because I am not sure that one took place during that time as I see some problems with that scenario. However; be that as it may the one does not have anything to do with the other.
It is not ingenuous Trans it is only following what Luke actually says and Luke says nothing about Cyrenius having to go into Judea in order to do the registration. Rome held many a territory so if I was to follow your line of reasoning Cyrenius would have had to go into every province held by Rome in order for the registration. It makes more sense to believe that Cyrenius delegated that authority to the local magistrates.
The problem is you don't credit the bible of any historical accounts. If you did you would not be trying to prove your thesis you would be looking at it as a historical account and trying to see if there was such a registration in the days of Herod the great. Which we can all now see there was.
[font=Verdana]
Yet you do not take Luke's historical claim as broadly reliable as your thesis is trying to prove Luke wrong, instead of looking to see if Luke was correct. If you had of spent as much time looking to see if Luke was correct as you do trying to prove your thesis you would have found the same information I have, which broadly shows Luke's historical claims are reliable.
Where have I dismissed the rest of Josephus writings? So far I have only rejected Josephus claims about Joazar; and you can see I did so for good reasons. Yes I see other problems with other things Josephus says but have not rejected them and won't unless there is good reason to do so.
LOL you think just like most Christians, you sure you were not a fundamental Christian in a past life.
I don't reject any historical writing out of hand without giving them first a fair reading. The difference between our method of research Trans is I am trying to prove the historical records, you are trying to prove your thesis. IMO that is an ass backwards way of addressing historical records.
I can see why you would question the 6000 but Josephus goes on to explain that the king imposed a fine on them and Pheroras's wife paid their fine for them. There would have been an accounting to this transaction.
I am not backdating anything. I have shown there was indeed a registration in the days of Herod the great, no backdating required. On the other hand you want to take the date of Luke's registration and forward date it to AD/6. You are not even looking to see if these were two different events. Your so stuck with proving your thesis that Luke is wrong that the possibility that they are separate events does not seem to have occurred to you.
Obviously not; as I have done so already multiple time and you just refuse to believe me.
Like you, when I first started to look into the history of things I was thinking they were related, but my further research indicates they are not.
That said I still have reservations about a AD/6 census and Joazar is one of those reasons. Another is that while Archeluas was in Rome getting crowned as it were Josephus also says he was fighting in a war and took the eldest of 4 brothers prisoner. Herod died in BCE 1 and if Archeleus reigned 9 or 10 years (Josephus states both) and was disposed in AD/6 by Cyrenius that only makes 6 or 7 years. Thus you can see why I have my doubts about the date of AD/6 census.
[font=Verdana]
Yes it could mean that or it could mean it was the first registration of it's kind that ever took place.
Your mixing two separate accounts up thinking they are one account and saying they don't make sense. Well if you try to make two separate accounts into one account of course it would not make sense. Try separating the accounts and you will see they do indeed make sense.
And just because 6000 Pharasees refused to be take the oath does not mean there was not a head count as you put it. That they refused to take the oath on the other hand does indeed show that there was.
That is not the only evidence I provided Trans. I backed up what I said with a lot more then the 6000. So even if we discounted the 6000 you still have to deal with all the other evidence I gave that shows there was indeed a registration in the days of Herod the great.
There's a lot here, which I shall have a look at, but just for now, I'll mention that I looked up the circumstances of the oath -taking to Augustus. from inscriptions relating to the taking of this oath in other places under the Roman thumb, the method was to assemble the people in the market -pace and they would take the oath, then an inscription was put up saying that they had done so. That doesn't sound like any kind of organized head -count and would not require people to go back to their ancestral cities any more than the roman tax -census would. Further, your evidence, as I recall just had Josephus saying that "6,000" pharisees refused to take the oath and were fined. That this fine was paid for them implies a lump sum and not any kind of head -count.
You post on the matter had this quote from the inscription of the Paphlagonians " 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 (?)."
Swearing together does not sound like anyone overseeing some kind of head -count.
And could I see why you date Herod's death to 1 BC? As you that makes Archelaus' time 6-7 years when Josephus says it was 10. So you have to doubt the 6 AD date. Generally the solution is to date his death to 4 BC and I don't recall your argument for any other date other than Josephus 'mis-dated'.
It is generally agreed by scholars that the Testimonium Flavianum is a "pious fraud" and therefore not authored by Josephus, but inserted by a subsequent scribe who was likely Christian or sympathetic to Christianity. It is out of context and clashes with the rest of Josephus as to style, isn't mentioned by early apologists prior to the likely date of insertion, etc.
So no that by itself doesn't invalidate anything else in Josephus.
Nor does anyone have an infallibility doctrine about Josephus, those kinds of special pleadings are normally reserved for Holy Writ. That said, that Josephus is as fallible as any historian or that someone has inserted a sponsored ad into his text does not render him chopped liver, either.
You seem to be fixated on discrediting Josephus in toto by any means here. Please point to a scholarly consensus that Josephus' body of work, or the work in question, is a completely discredited hoax from which nothing at all may be concluded with any confidence.
You simply missed my point mordant, try rereading why I said that in response to what Trans said.
Here I will make it easier on you.
Trans qoute
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.
There's a lot here, which I shall have a look at, but just for now, I'll mention that I looked up the circumstances of the oath -taking to Augustus. from inscriptions relating to the taking of this oath in other places under the Roman thumb, the method was to assemble the people in the market -pace and they would take the oath, then an inscription was put up saying that they had done so. That doesn't sound like any kind of organized head -count and would not require people to go back to their ancestral cities any more than the roman tax -census would. Further, your evidence, as I recall just had Josephus saying that "6,000" pharisees refused to take the oath and were fined. That this fine was paid for them implies a lump sum and not any kind of head -count.
You post on the matter had this quote from the inscription of the Paphlagonians " 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 (?)."
Swearing together does not sound like anyone overseeing some kind of head -count.
And could I see why you date Herod's death to 1 BC? As you that makes Archelaus' time 6-7 years when Josephus says it was 10. So you have to doubt the 6 AD date. Generally the solution is to date his death to 4 BC and I don't recall your argument for any other date other than Josephus 'mis-dated'.
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"
As to BCE 1 I will put together why I see it at that date. Possibly tomorrow.
You simply missed my point mordant, try rereading why I said that in response to what Trans said.
Here I will make it easier on you.
O,IC. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I do think that the argument against scripture that one error throws the whole thing into question would be unwarranted were it not for the claims of inerrancy made by many. That exposes the vulnerability that if it's wrong in one respect then it's not inerrant; game over unless you want to let go of inerrancy. To the extent I would mount such an argument, I'd have inerrancy in mind. But I do not think that you are an inerrantist, if memory serves.
At any rate with regards to Josephus, is your position then that in some regards he is confused / wrong and/or unreliable, and in others he's fine? If yes then my next question logically would be, what is your criteria for rejecting particular things?
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.
, it is taking your suggestion on board, though the point about the needless journey to Bethlehem is a rebuttal of Luke, so to speak.
