Oh Christ!!

[Minimalist]

The squirming is the result of the lack of understanding of the true nature of the provincial government and its administration and lack of written records about various administrators; speciifically when were they assigned and replaced and what were their specific duties in relation to the others.

Fine up to here. The squirming is because there is a minimum 10 year gap between Herod's death and Quirinius' appointment. This has nothing to do with provincial administration. Matthew and Luke contradict each other and the apologists tend to want to make Luke conform because they want to retain the story of Herod killing children.

The apologists are not convincing.

[Digit]

To be honest Min, I'd be a lot more dubious about early accounts of anything if they did actually agree. As regards which Roman was where etc I have my doubts that the average man in the area knew or cared who was in charge.
To quote an example, at the height of the campaign over here about apartheid, a Times reporter in SA found villagers who didn't even know who the SA Prime Minister was, it didn't really matter to them.
It's also highly probable that many Indians during the Raj could not name the Viceroy, I think we are perhaps placing our views where theu are unwarrented.

[Minimalist]

I'd be a lot more dubious about early accounts of anything if did they actually agree.

See, I spend too much time arguing with Fundies. Arch insists that both gospels are completely correct.

It's an easy argument to shoot holes in if you know a little something about history.

[Forum Monk]

It's an easy argument to shoot holes in if you know a little something about history.

I think this a little misleading Min. History is not supplying answers to this and for this reason you are forced to resort to Josephus as a source. We have already established that in the large picture, the goings on in a relatively small district of Judea, are not worthy of mention in Roman annals. The only sources which address the happenings in an around Judea are Josephus and the gospels. And in reality you are choosing to eliminate at least one gospel inspite of the fact that every historical document ever written is rife with errors, inconsistencies and contradictions. We know some things from profane history about the appointments and administration of the provinces and the rest is fill-in the blanks.

It would not take long to compare Josephus' writings with later histories and discover that he did not report everything. For that reason some details considered important by one group may be a non-event to another. I am not surprised there are omissions between the writings of Josephus and the testament of Luke as they are clearly directed to different audiences. In fact, the gospel of Like was a letter written to an unknown Theophilus. And the tired arguement that Luke was written around 130ce or later is not worth mentioning as it is not supported by Lukes own testamony as one who travelled for a time with Paul.

The mere fact that Luke mentions the "first" census under Quirinius implies there were several and whether Quirinius was procurator, governor or just a lower level administrator in ca. 6 bce is a matter of reasonable debate. Many very intelligent, well researched, and notable scholars have looked at the same evidence as you and reached a different conclusion.

[Forum Monk]

To be honest Min, I'd be a lot more dubious about early accounts of anything if they did actually agree.

I see this as a brilliant statement and agree completely. If every detail in the gospels agreed people would scream collusion and how could it be denied. The fact that that are differences supports the idea of different people giving accounts at different times, speaking of things they personally witnessed or first-hand accounts. Good, bad or indifferent, there are few other sources speaking of those times.

[Minimalist]

The only sources which address the happenings in an around Judea are Josephus and the gospels.

That is far from true. Granted that Roman historians tended to focus on major themes of importance to them but that did not stop them from mentioning these people, as Tacitus did.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirinius As noted here,

The Gospel of Luke mentions Quirinius, governor of Syria, in relation to a census of the "whole world". Historians however tend to regard this as a mistake, for Luke and the Gospel of Matthew date the events surrounding the birth of Jesus to the reign of Herod the Great, who by the accounts of Josephus, Strabo, and Tacitus died in 4 BC, nearly ten years before Quirinius became governor of Syria.

We know Herod died in 4 BC. We know from Tacitus that at Herod's death it was necessary for the then governor of Syria, P. Quinctillius Varus, to intervene against a usurper named Simon and so carry out the will of Herod (and Augustus) that the area be partitioned amonst Herod's sons.

It would not take long to compare Josephus' writings with later histories and discover that he did not report everything.

But that is not the case. He did report it and nothing in his account is contradicted by any other source, except one of the gospels which is the document which is on trial here. Let's remember that not only does it contradict Josephus it also contradicts Matthew. Granted that we do not have multiple sources but for many ancient events do we have that luxury? We have only Caesar's Commentaries for the War in Gaul, certainly a self-serving document that needs to be read with care, but still there is nothing else.


Nonetheless, Quirinius' career remains reasonably well known: Consul in 12 BC. Governor of Pamphylia around 9-5, celebrated a triumph for his victories, probably governor of Asia in 3 BC, although this is uncertain and later rector to Gaius Caesar until his death in battle. In 6 he was named governor of Syria.

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?nod ... tnode_id=0

But if you have heard of Sulpicius, it is surely thanks to the evangelist Luke (2:1-2):

At that time an edict went out from Caesar Augustus that a census should be taken of the whole world. (This was the first census under Quirinius as governor of Syria.) (Translated in Brown 393.)

This passage raises a famous problem in the New Testament, because Quirinius' dates as governor (AD 6-7) conflict with Luke's general setting of the birth narrative's time "In the days of Herod, King of Judaea" (1:1), i.e., no later than Herod's death in 4 BC. Much ink has been spilled trying to reconcile this glaring error, and solutions have included taking Herod to stand for the son of Herod the Great, Sulpicius as having held an unattested earlier governorship of Syria, and similar flailings against the obvious solution: Luke was simply inaccurate here.

As this author goes on to say...

Except possibly for people with fundamentalist leanings, no one worries much about Luke's anachronism anymore,

That's Arch and you don't want to be confused with him!

as I infer from the treatments of three Catholic priests (and eminent NT scholars) who have written about the scholarly problem: J.P. Meier (A Marginal Jew I, 212-213: "Attempts to reconcile Luke 2:1 with the facts of ancient history are hopelessly contrived"), R.E. Brown (The Birth of the Messiah, 393-396, 547-556: "When all is evaluated, the weight of evidence is strongly against the possibility of reconciling the information in Luke 1 and Luke 2"), and J.P. Fitzmyer (The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, 393: "it is clear that the census is a purely literary device used by him (i.e., Luke) to associate Mary and Joseph, residents of Nazareth, with Bethlehem, the town of David, because he knows of a tradition, also attested in Matthew 2, that Jesus was born in Bethlehem").

The striking historical fact associated with the name of P. Sulpicius Quirinius, therefore, is that we do not know the year of Jesus' birth. (Nor the day. December 25 was taken from Mithraism.)

Underlining added.

[Minimalist]

To be honest Min, I'd be a lot more dubious about early accounts of anything if they did actually agree.

I see this as a brilliant statement and agree completely. If every detail in the gospels agreed people would scream collusion and how could it be denied. The fact that that are differences supports the idea of different people giving accounts at different times, speaking of things they personally witnessed or first-hand accounts. Good, bad or indifferent, there are few other sources speaking of those times.

Yes, and Alexandra Ripley wrote a sequel to Margaret Mitchell's, Gone With the Wind.

They are both still works of fiction.

[Digit]

Without getting involved in whether the Gospels are accurate Min, but following on your 'gone with the wind' comment, why would the four Apostles bother to write at all. Mitchell made money out of her writings. The fact that the Gospels were written after the events, in modern terms would seem to imply that somebody was writing, not necessarily from first hand accounts, about events that happened, or they believed happened, before the memory was lost.
That is, after all, what we do isn't it?
From that I cannot accept that inaccuracies prove them false, nor that their late date does so either.
As a student of WW2, and one who has met many who fought in that conflict, I feel that if we apply some of your, and other's arguments, to the WW2 time frame we would be accusing them of the same offences as are being hurled at the Gospels.
No offence intended.

[Forum Monk]

It is absurd to take a document like Luke and assert that it is worthless and totally false because of an assumed inaccuracy. As I have already stated, every historical book ever written from the beginning of time is flawed and with most of these we treasure their importance and quote them ad infinitum.

The gospels and other biblical documents are favorite targets of certain groups, due to the fact that a particular importance is placed on them by religious groups such as christians and jews. If christians claim a book is truth, you can bet people will line up to discredit it. This happens nowhere else in secular documentation.

In the past and now, to some extent, christians use the bible to justify prejudicial, racist and antireligious campaigns, as opposed to a wealth of good works and moral teaching. So these kinds of critisms should be expected. Seems one bad wipes a whole lot of good in the minds of people.

[Minimalist]

Fellows, I personally don't assume that Luke (or the others) are "False" because of a few contradictions. I assume they are false because the story never happened and was contrived after the Great Revolt to give "christians" a bit of plausible deniability from "jews" who were still being skewered on Roman spear points.

Let's remember that the basic argument of the Fundies is that all scripture is utterly true. When faced with evidence that it is not "true" they engage in a festival of denial and attempt to create a world which never existed so that it could be true.

The key here is Josephus. Fundies will bitch and moan about his "errors" and "exaggerations" when it comes to Luke but then blithely ignore the obvious forgery that is the Testimoniam Flavianum and hold Josephus up as "proof" that Jesus existed. They are a bit two-faced when it comes to stuff like that.

The known historical facts are few but simple:

1- Herod the Great died in 4 BC. (Per Strabo, Josephus and Tacitus.)
2- When Herod died, the governor of Syria was P. Quinctillius Varus. (Per Tacitus.)
3- Upon Herod's death his kingdom was divided among his sons. (Per Tacitus and Josephus)
4- In 6 AD, Augustus deposed Herod's son, Archelaus, converted Judaea to a Roman prefecture and attached it to the Province of Syria which at that time was getting a new governor, P. Sulpicius Quirinius. (Per Josephus)

Unhistorical facts:

"Matthew" says Jesus was born when Herod the Great was still alive.

"Luke" says Jesus was born when Quirinius was governor of Syria.

Both may be, but one must be, wrong.

All the rest of the arguments about history and sources and dual-governorships are simply mental gymnastics trying to find some way to reconcile the irreconcilable.

[Minimalist]

Oh, and btw, if you really want to look into the first issue, read "The Jesus Puzzle" by Earl Doherty.

[Forum Monk]

I assume they are false because the story never happened and was contrived after the Great Revolt to give "christians" a bit of plausible deniability from "jews" who were still being skewered on Roman spear points.

In reality, by the time of the great revolt, the christian movement was beginning to flourish in Asia Minor, as it was and continues to this day to be a mostly gentile phenomenon. (notwithstanding there is no such thing as a Jewish Christian.)

The key here is Josephus. Fundies will bitch and moan about his "errors" and "exaggerations" when it comes to Luke but then blithely ignore the obvious forgery that is the Testimoniam Flavianum and hold Josephus up as "proof" that Jesus existed. They are a bit two-faced when it comes to stuff like that.

There is evidence that the Testimonium Flavianum was altered. I actually think the Arabic version, or Eisler's version is much more plausible as Josephus would have likely viewed Jesus as a Jewish heretic. In any case, the fact he is mentioned is significant.

The known historical facts are few but simple:

1- Herod the Great died in 4 BC. (Per Strabo, Josephus and Tacitus.)
2- When Herod died, the governor of Syria was P. Quinctillius Varus. (Per Tacitus.)
3- Upon Herod's death his kingdom was divided among his sons. (Per Tacitus and Josephus)
4- In 6 AD, Augustus deposed Herod's son, Archelaus, converted Judaea to a Roman prefecture and attached it to the Province of Syria which at that time was getting a new governor, P. Sulpicius Quirinius. (Per Josephus)

I completely agree and so all other 'facts' are merely conjecture both on the part of the apologists and the secularists. The fact is Min, the more the apologists speculate, the more the secularists spin the facts to discred them. It is a worthless circular argument that goes no where until more discoveries may be found.

Unhistorical facts:
"Matthew" says Jesus was born when Herod the Great was still alive.
"Luke" says Jesus was born when Quirinius was governor of Syria.
Both may be, but one must be, wrong.

"Unhistorical" is your spin. But I do concede for the time being, we must accept the fact that Luke's statement in 2:2 can not be reconciled with external documentary evidence. It does not prove the statement is false, only that is can not be proved. Given that, I would say we have taken the Luke 2:2 arguments as far as possible and its pointless to continue.

[Forum Monk]

Oh, and btw, if you really want to look into the first issue, read "The Jesus Puzzle" by Earl Doherty.

Even among secularists and humanists, Doherty's work is considered a minority view point.

http://neonostalgia.com/resources/bible ... thing.html

[Digit]

Oh come on Min! First you say that you don't discredit the Gospels because of a few errors then you go on to list the errors that you want to use to discredit the writings!

[Minimalist]

I assume they are false because the story never happened and was contrived after the Great Revolt to give "christians" a bit of plausible deniability from "jews" who were still being skewered on Roman spear points.

In reality, by the time of the great revolt, the christian movement was beginning to flourish in Asia Minor, as it was and continues to this day to be a mostly gentile phenomenon. (notwithstanding there is no such thing as a Jewish Christian.)

That's their story....evidence for it is somewhat scanty.

The key here is Josephus. Fundies will bitch and moan about his "errors" and "exaggerations" when it comes to Luke but then blithely ignore the obvious forgery that is the Testimoniam Flavianum and hold Josephus up as "proof" that Jesus existed. They are a bit two-faced when it comes to stuff like that.

There is evidence that the Testimonium Flavianum was altered. I actually think the Arabic version, or Eisler's version is much more plausible as Josephus would have likely viewed Jesus as a Jewish heretic. In any case, the fact he is mentioned is significant.

Given Josephus' background as a pharisee and a member of a priestly family as well as his boot-licking behavior towards the Romans, it is fair to say that if Josephus had mentioned him at all it would have been with the same dismissiveness he reserved for other revolutionaries who were executed by Rome. In short, it would have gone something like: "Good. Served him right."

The known historical facts are few but simple:

1- Herod the Great died in 4 BC. (Per Strabo, Josephus and Tacitus.)
2- When Herod died, the governor of Syria was P. Quinctillius Varus. (Per Tacitus.)
3- Upon Herod's death his kingdom was divided among his sons. (Per Tacitus and Josephus)
4- In 6 AD, Augustus deposed Herod's son, Archelaus, converted Judaea to a Roman prefecture and attached it to the Province of Syria which at that time was getting a new governor, P. Sulpicius Quirinius. (Per Josephus)

I completely agree and so all other 'facts' are merely conjecture both on the part of the apologists and the secularists. The fact is Min, the more the apologists speculate, the more the secularists spin the facts to discred them. It is a worthless circular argument that goes no where until more discoveries may be found.

Oh, there are other pieces of archaeological evidence. There is an inscription from one of Quirinius' soldiers indicating that he served with Quirinius in his battles in Turkey when he was governor of Pamphylia. There's an obituary from Tacitus on Quirinius but it mainly deals with the exploits of Quirinius the soldier....not Quirinius the census taker. The Romans liked their soldiers better. The point is we "secularists" (or should I say, ATHEISTS) do not have to spin the facts. We have them. No "secularist" ever invented a second governorship of the same province. That's you guys forte.

Unhistorical facts:
"Matthew" says Jesus was born when Herod the Great was still alive.
"Luke" says Jesus was born when Quirinius was governor of Syria.
Both may be, but one must be, wrong.

"Unhistorical" is your spin. But I do concede for the time being, we must accept the fact that Luke's statement in 2:2 can not be reconciled with external documentary evidence. It does not prove the statement is false, only that is can not be proved. Given that, I would say we have taken the Luke 2:2 arguments as far as possible and its pointless to continue.

Would you be happier with "unsubstantiated" instead of "unhistorical?"