|
|
Post by 1dell on Mar 11, 2004 15:07:16 GMT -5
By the way, I am at work so it could take a minute, between typing and answering calls.
And this time, if I make a typo yall are going to have to live with it, I'll come back an correct it. I don't want to give the opposition ammunition when I come back and modify one of my typos and they see where I have edited one of my posts , I'll just leave it be since we gotta play that game.
Ever notice how Derek will say he wants to end the discussion and whatnot but lo and behold 3 or 4 days later he comes back with another entirely new argument? lolol, then he calls me emotional? lolol.
Then he gets all sensitive and thangs saying I called him names. Where he kicked this thing off insulting me. Hey I don't give dang, but dont insult a brother and then when you get insulted back you need to grab wittle blanky and then have your wife protect you.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoUrTnEy on Mar 11, 2004 15:12:18 GMT -5
not a problem 1dell.. kah lets get the popcorn and a comfy seat  |
|
|
|
Post by SatiyaH on Mar 11, 2004 15:25:09 GMT -5
I guess he thinks if he waits 3 and 4 days to respond I would have in that time forgotten. Have you all noticed how I post about 6 messages and then have to wait 3 and 4 days before he even comes back with one or 2 responses? And in that he avoids where I have proven him wrong AND the questions I ask in the process. LOL. So typical. Damn, didn't know you were just sitting there waiting for him to respond! Unlike many of US (see, I'm including myself) on here--he doesn't have the time to sit on the computer making posts and chatting. Last night, he didn't even get in until after 9pm, and still had to spend time with his family/kids and get in a little workout before bed. He is up at 6am everyday--walks, gets his son off to school, does some paperwork, on Thursday he has to get payroll in so he's home a bit in the mornings--he just happend to have time to post a "bit" this morning. Sometimes I'll call him and say "hey, this was the response to your post..." and he'll go "ok, and? I'm busy right now baby." Sometimes when he gets in he'll say, "oh yeah, let me get online for a few". He used to hang out online much more--but the change in weather has caused business to BOOM. You made a comment once about him attempting to make a living off of a book (I'll see if I can dig up your complete quote)--LOL, no way is he trying to sell a book for 20-25 dollars to make a living that way! I don't know how some of ya'll living--but that won't cut it this way! Too many mouths to feed (we got 4 kids). Put it like this--he can sit here and go tit for tat on a thread--or he can get his butt out and go negotiate a deal for 25K on building...I'm loving him more for choosing the latter! He'll get to you when he gets to you  SATIYAH HAS SPOKEN!  |
|
|
|
Post by SatiyaH on Mar 11, 2004 16:09:02 GMT -5
I just saw your last comment, about the wife protecting him thing--funny, but pathetic 1Dell  Trust, he didn't want me to get involved, but I have less patience than he does. He is my husband, and I am his wife--we do stand up for each other--that's what you're supposed to do. I would think less of a woman who sided with another man! It actually pissed him off a little that I did post a comment on here--because he knew you tactic would be to come back and say what you just did. I actually told him you weren't that low, silly me.  |
|
|
|
Post by CoUrTnEy on Mar 11, 2004 16:30:49 GMT -5
eventhough i agree with most of what 1dell said.. i have to agree with what you said about having time to post.. not everyone can get on here and spend half the day answering posts.. I just happen to be able too b/c my job involves me being on the computer all day and i have the freedom at my job to be able to chat and post.. however- i want to qualify one thing.. if i felt my man was wrong- i would not defend his point.. i may not speak out against him- i would leave that between him and whomever he was talking to.. if i felt he was RIGHT i would defend it to the hilt.. i think 1dell's point is right and correct minus what i just discussed  no disrespect to you at all Satiyah or you 1dell. I just saw your last comment, about the wife protecting him thing--funny, but pathetic 1Dell Trust, he didn't want me to get involved, but I have less patience than he does. He is my husband, and I am his wife--we do stand up for each other--that's what you're supposed to do. I would think less of a woman who sided with another man! It actually pissed him off a little that I did post a comment on here--because he knew you tactic would be to come back and say what you just did. I actually told him you weren't that low, silly me. |
|
|
|
Post by CoUrTnEy on Mar 11, 2004 17:00:14 GMT -5
dang it dang it dang.. satiyah i am so sorry. i meant to comment on your post and ended up hitting modify instead of quote.. then i ended up deleting it.. im sorry.. i m so 'shamed  |
|
|
|
Post by 1dell on Mar 11, 2004 17:02:05 GMT -5
Was Jesus taken to Egypt or Nazareth? Jesus was taken to Egypt after his birth. Matthew 2:14 ... "When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt."
Authorized King James Version Jesus was taken to Nazareth after his birth.
Luke Chapter 2:39... "And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth."
Authorized King James Version They are both right. They go together. I don't see where the descrepency is. See the problem is you are ASS-U-ming that they are still in Bet lekhem in mattityahu 2:14. But that is not the case and Lukas brings clarity to that. Go back to verse 13:
Mat 2:12 And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.
Mat 2:13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
After the Magi left, behold an Angel appears to Yosef telling Yosef to flee into egypt. hmm. Flee from where? Are we told where they are? But using scripture to interpret scripture we know they were in Nazaret at the time in light of Lukas' account. See we use all 4 gospels to find harmony NOT discord as you are trying to do. Like Courtney and Kah said, Different authors of the gospels had a different focus, Even Ihawakhanan says in his gospel:
Jhn 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
If you notice each of the authors have their particular focus: Mattityahu focuses on Ishua as the Messiah and fulfiller of prophecies, Marcus Focuses on Ishua the Miracle producer, Lukas focuses on Ishua the Healer, IHawakhanan focuses on Ishua the Divine Word of God. With all that baptist blood runnin in your veins I figured you would at least have learned that much in sunday school.
Dude what you are FAILING to real eyes is both Gospels are speaking of the same events but different timing of the events. Lukas only covers the first 8 days of Ishua then gives us general specifics up until again he is in the public eye at the temple at the age 12. So all those details surrounding ishua's birth are the first 8 days. Where we find them in Bet lekhem for the birth and census, while in the city of David they consecrate their Son according to the Law then go on back home to Nazaret. This being AFTER the Magi left. BAck in Mattiyahu, the Messiah is up to 2 years old. You think they stayed in Bet Lekhem for 2 years when their home was Nazaret? I guess you don't know how to blend the accounts. But I bet if you read 3 news papers that told you about how 5 soldiers died in Iraq yesterday, you would know how to blend the 3 different accounts to get the entire innerstanding of the event. Jesus birth in Bethlehem (Mat 2:6) The Holy family's journey to Egypt (Mat 2:14), King Herod's massacre of innocent children of Bethlehem (Mat 2:18), Then Joseph decision to relocate to Nazareth (Mat 2:23). Why were these significant events left out of The Gospel of Luke, Mark and John. How could they just blatantly miss mentioning these if they did indeed happen? Easy, Lukas had other issues that he wanted to address, he wanted there to be a uniqueness to his account. He even mentions this:
Luk 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Luk 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
Luk 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
Luk 1:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
Lukas acknowledged that there were other writings out there and set out to present events that others didn't address and accounts that were addressed. Thats well within his right to do so. Who are you to have a problem with that? Heck there are many moor Gospels out there that have not been included in the Bible. You tell me, why on earth would we have 4 gospels that said the exact same thing? Would that make sense to you? We have 2 Gospels written by his disciples Mattityahu and IHawakhanan, and 2 written by disciples who came later. Marcus and Lukas. Do you think if GTO Messiah and I wrote books about york that our books would be the EXACT same? He being a nuwaubian and me not being a nuwaubian? Do you believe for a minute that our books would be the exact same? Indeed not! they would be SIMILAR some of the events would overlap but he would have info that I wouldn't have and vica versa. It's so simple Matthew’s storytelling methods of Jesus birth and exodus to Egypt isn’t factual but Mythological*1 and based on earlier misinterpreted signs and symbols. Not to mention Matthew (name given to anonymous NT writer) was appeasing to the Jews fabricating Jesus out to be like Moses. Mattityahu was trying to make ishua out to be like Moshe? Where on earth are you getting that from? Moor speculation Derek? Come with some damn facts man! We can both speculate all day long> His exodus into Egypt is now a myth? LOLOL. dude!!! at one point that was the backbone of your defense, now you abandon that defense? Make up your mind!!! You really don't have a clue do you? And it's a mythi because...?? why? because derek that man who has been proven wrong time over and again says so?Stay tuned moor coming up next. |
|
|
|
Post by SatiyaH on Mar 11, 2004 17:02:35 GMT -5
dang it dang it dang.. satiyah i am so sorry. i meant to comment on your post and ended up hitting modify instead of quote.. then i ended up deleting it.. im sorry.. i m so 'shamed That's ok, I have "back arrow" buttons just for things like this  Here is my post again: I feel my husband is very right in what he is saying. I even showed in the post regarding how do each of us pray that I AM means I Exist. In proper grammar of English, specifically British English, as the Bible is King James Version that we are using--to say I AM as a response to a question, it means "I Exist"--it is not an acknowledgement of the question. He simply said "I exist". It was not an affirmation of the question at hand, but a statement, another parable I EXIST. You made a statement about you and Kah seeing something and you each had your own version. Well, the disciples were around Jeusus' age, they did not witness his birth nor his travels!  So see, I can get all up in this debate too, using my puddin knuckles. I chose to stay back, yet there were certain comments that my husband would not address that made me step in and say a few words. I was not defending him in the sense that 1Dell speaks--as if my husband can't handle his own. I am not defending him in the sense that you alluded, that I defend him either right or wrong. I stand by his side. I knew his views before this "debate" began. I know he is right. My statement regarding how I would not respect a woman who sides with another man instead of her own husband stands. I am not saying agree with everything your husband says and take it as though it is written in stone!--I'm saying, my husband has knowledge of things that I don't--I ask him to clarify that which I don't comprehend, help me to understand if I don't--I don't go to some other man asking him to. Prime example is when we were Nuwaubians--my favorite saying to couples was "Don't let York be the man of your house." My husband is my spiritual guide. It's his duty. There are some things in the Bible about that too(don't know where, just heard it before)--I'm sure 1Dell knows what I mean by that. |
|
|
|
Post by CoUrTnEy on Mar 11, 2004 17:11:04 GMT -5
i was just tickled by that "pudding knuckles".. i did get more out of what you said than that and i do understand what you are saying.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoUrTnEy on Mar 11, 2004 17:14:49 GMT -5
this point reminds me of a discussion about the passion movie.. some critics were saying that Mel left out important points of the story and my rebuttle to that is: the director has only so much time to work with and he is going to pick out points that are of significance to HIM . A different director may have different points that he found important- but does that make either of them wrong?? does that make either of them contradict the other?? the answer is-no it does not. that's my nickel's worth Was Jesus taken to Egypt or Nazareth? Jesus was taken to Egypt after his birth. Matthew 2:14 ... "When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt."
Authorized King James Version Jesus was taken to Nazareth after his birth.
Luke Chapter 2:39... "And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth."
Authorized King James Version They are both right. They go together. I don't see where the descrepency is. See the problem is you are ASS-U-ming that they are still in Bet lekhem in mattityahu 2:14. But that is not the case and Lukas brings clarity to that. Go back to verse 13:
Mat 2:12 And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.
Mat 2:13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
After the Magi left, behold an Angel appears to Yosef telling Yosef to flee into egypt. hmm. Flee from where? Are we told where they are? But using scripture to interpret scripture we know they were in Nazaret at the time in light of Lukas' account. See we use all 4 gospels to find harmony NOT discord as you are trying to do. Like Courtney and Kah said, Different authors of the gospels had a different focus, Even Ihawakhanan says in his gospel:
Jhn 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
If you notice each of the authors have their particular focus: Mattityahu focuses on Ishua as the Messiah and fulfiller of prophecies, Marcus Focuses on Ishua the Miracle producer, Lukas focuses on Ishua the Healer, IHawakhanan focuses on Ishua the Divine Word of God. With all that baptist blood runnin in your veins I figured you would at least have learned that much in sunday school.
Dude what you are FAILING to real eyes is both Gospels are speaking of the same events but different timing of the events. Lukas only covers the first 8 days of Ishua then gives us general specifics up until again he is in the public eye at the temple at the age 12. So all those details surrounding ishua's birth are the first 8 days. Where we find them in Bet lekhem for the birth and census, while in the city of David they consecrate their Son according to the Law then go on back home to Nazaret. This being AFTER the Magi left. BAck in Mattiyahu, the Messiah is up to 2 years old. You think they stayed in Bet Lekhem for 2 years when their home was Nazaret? I guess you don't know how to blend the accounts. But I bet if you read 3 news papers that told you about how 5 soldiers died in Iraq yesterday, you would know how to blend the 3 different accounts to get the entire innerstanding of the event. Jesus birth in Bethlehem (Mat 2:6) The Holy family's journey to Egypt (Mat 2:14), King Herod's massacre of innocent children of Bethlehem (Mat 2:18), Then Joseph decision to relocate to Nazareth (Mat 2:23). Why were these significant events left out of The Gospel of Luke, Mark and John. How could they just blatantly miss mentioning these if they did indeed happen? Easy, Lukas had other issues that he wanted to address, he wanted there to be a uniqueness to his account. He even mentions this:
Luk 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Luk 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
Luk 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
Luk 1:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
Lukas acknowledged that there were other writings out there and set out to present events that others didn't address and accounts that were addressed. Thats well within his right to do so. Who are you to have a problem with that? Heck there are many moor Gospels out there that have not been included in the Bible. You tell me, why on earth would we have 4 gospels that said the exact same thing? Would that make sense to you? We have 2 Gospels written by his disciples Mattityahu and IHawakhanan, and 2 written by disciples who came later. Marcus and Lukas. Do you think if GTO Messiah and I wrote books about york that our books would be the EXACT same? He being a nuwaubian and me not being a nuwaubian? Do you believe for a minute that our books would be the exact same? Indeed not! they would be SIMILAR some of the events would overlap but he would have info that I wouldn't have and vica versa. It's so simple Matthew’s storytelling methods of Jesus birth and exodus to Egypt isn’t factual but Mythological*1 and based on earlier misinterpreted signs and symbols. Not to mention Matthew (name given to anonymous NT writer) was appeasing to the Jews fabricating Jesus out to be like Moses. Mattityahu was trying to make ishua out to be like Moshe? Where on earth are you getting that from? Moor speculation Derek? Come with some damn facts man! We can both speculate all day long> His exodus into Egypt is now a myth? LOLOL. dude!!! at one point that was the backbone of your defense, now you abandon that defense? Make up your mind!!! You really don't have a clue do you? And it's a mythi because...?? why? because derek that man who has been proven wrong time over and again says so?Stay tuned moor coming up next. |
|
|
|
Post by 1dell on Mar 11, 2004 17:15:00 GMT -5
Sorry Sati, I thoroughly enjoy your and my friendship. really I do. And I don't like having to get you involved. I know you are an aries so I expect that fire out of you. But let him take his ass whoopin like a man. He hurled insult after insult at me in the paltalk room Even called me Weak, then when I start talking down back at his ass, all of a sudden you come to his rescue, then he wants to get all sensitive and thangs. Hell this man has been proven wrong over and over a dayum 'gin. And each time he comes back he brings new ish never dealing and squaring with the old ish. We start off with Ishua never said he was the Messiah or Christ now we on how talking Ishua's birth and stuff. I just saw your last comment, about the wife protecting him thing--funny, but pathetic 1Dell Trust, he didn't want me to get involved, but I have less patience than he does. He is my husband, and I am his wife--we do stand up for each other--that's what you're supposed to do. I would think less of a woman who sided with another man! It actually pissed him off a little that I did post a comment on here--because he knew you tactic would be to come back and say what you just did. I actually told him you weren't that low, silly me. |
|
|
|
Post by 1dell on Mar 11, 2004 17:28:11 GMT -5
Ok here is where we pull out the big guns. And everyone is right this bull jank does take a LOT of time to do coming up with posts and thangs. So I'll just save my self some time because I have moor important thangs to do too. And it's really a waste of time talking to someone who just don't get it and who refuses to improve and upgrade their knowledge. So I'll pull a derek and cut and paste info. But the difference is I am telling you all before hand that I am doing and not claiming that I wrote this, have fun. Whew! this saves me a lot of explaining and typing and page flipping and translating. Like I said people this argument right here is OLD, over a thousand years old to be exact. So there are many scholars who have done a tremendous job answering the sceptics. Oh and by the way if any of you are interested these tired arguments that Derek is coming up with you can easily find at www.infidels.org. Anyway with out further adieu the thorough rebuttal: THE CENSUS OF QUIRINIUS The Historicity of Luke 2:1-5 Ronald Marchant Feasterville, Pennsylvania Copyright © 1980 by Ronald Marchant. All rights reserved. ABSTRACT Critics have objected to every statement of fact in the census account of Luke 2:1-5. Here the critical view is analyzed with special attention to Quirinius' association with this census. A false correlation by critics between Luke's narrative and a later census described by Josephus seems to be the error involved. Although as yet no independent confirmation of Luke's census has turned up, similar events from the same period and locale substantiate every statement of his account. EDITOR'S NOTE Although the author is in agreement with the doctrinal statement of IBRI, it does not follow that all of the viewpoints espoused in this paper represent official positions of IBRI. Since one of the purposes of the IBRI report series is to serve as a preprint forum, it is possible that the author has revised some aspects of this work since it was first written. ISBN 0-944788-04-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE PROBLEM SKETCHED Luke's account of the setting of Christ's birth has often been criticized by those who would charge the Scripture with error. Unlike other passages of the Gospels which have scarcely any material which allows firm correlations with secular history (thus proving, for the critics, that the writers of the Gospels had no concern for, nor sense of, history), this section has abundant chronological and political content. It firmly roots the story of Christ's birth in the context of the worldwide administration of Roman government and shows how God uses unwitting and unwilling men to bring about His purposes. To some, however, the chronological exactness of the narrative invites rigorous questioning and skeptical contempt. Perhaps for them their theory of the composition and significance of the Scripture is better served by having certain "stock contradictions" between Biblical history and secular history or between different Scripture writers who describe the same events. Whatever their reasons, it is a matter of fact that scholars have called into question every statement of fact in the first five verses of Luke's second chapter. Indeed, if these doubts and accusations are warranted, then the trustworthiness of Luke and his Gospel is severely compromised. Let us look briefly at the issues involved in this case and try to see what is known about the events Luke describes as well as other historical parallels. In addition we shall try to identify assumptions that are made about the text both by its supporters and opponents. The Decree of Augustus It is doubted that there was any decree made by Augustus to "enroll the inhabited earth." No evidence for such an order is known. The Census while Quirinius was Governor of Syria The Greek text indicates that the census took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria. A chronological conflict is alleged as follows: Matt. 2:1 places the birth of Jesus in the reign of Herod the Great who, according to Josephus, died in 4 BC. Luke 2:2 places the trip of Joseph and Mary during the governorship of Quirinius, giving the census as the occasion for Jesus' birth in Bethlehem. Josephus (Antiquities 15.1.1) tells us of Quirinius being made ruler of Syria and coming to take a census of the Jews after the dismissal of Archelaus as ruler of Judea in AD 6. Thus, taking Josephus as the standard, there is a difference of ten years between the dates given by Matthew (prior to 4 BC) and Luke (after AD 6) for the birth of Christ. Further confusion occurs when the evidence of the church father Tertullian (Against Marcion 4.19) is admitted. He claims that the birth of Christ was recorded in the census of Sentius Saturninus, governor of Syria. With these conflicting sources the synchronism of the Biblical writers is alleged to be in serious contradiction. Return to Parental City There is no precedent for such a return to the city of one's parents in an enrolment for purposes of taxing property. This would have an effect counter to the Roman goal of replacing nationalistic and local patriotism with loyalty to the Empire. Here the critics see a contrivance to provide a Bethlehem birth for Jesus (as required by prophecy) when his parents are natives of Nazareth. Presence of Mary in Bethlehem There was no need for Mary to accompany Joseph to be enrolled, since such measures would require the heads of households only. Roman Census in a Client Kingdom If Luke 2 is not identified with Josephus' account of the census of AD 6, then it would force a census on the kingdom of Herod. This is felt to be unlikely. On the other hand, if Luke and Josephus correctly speak of the same event, then the problem is shifted to Matthew's credibility. However, Luke must then be wrong to connect Jesus' birth with John's (1:5, 24, 26; 3:1). Thus on every statement of fact in Luke 2:1-5, objections have been raised regarding its probability or verity. If the critical view is accepted, this seemingly historical account is only an attempt to cover up the writer's lack of definite knowledge of the facts (if there were any) which he is relating. Is this really a fair view of the historical reliability of this passage? Let us see. THE PARALLELS Our knowledge of ancient history, although continually expanding, is nonetheless partial and, in places, almost nil. In general, historians are aware of the limited knowledge they have of any given event in history and of the possibility that some events are recorded in only a single remaining source. Thus if we are adamant in demanding multiple-source confirmation of any given fact, we will suffer by having fewer facts in our fund of admissible knowledge. Our situation in assessing Luke 2 will depend, therefore, on an examination of a number of available historical parallels, keeping in mind our fragmentary knowledge of detail for the events we are studying. Let us look in turn at each of the points mentioned in sketching the problem above. To be continued. |
|
|
|
Post by kAHANyAH on Mar 11, 2004 17:30:56 GMT -5
i give up  |
|
|
|
Post by 1dell on Mar 11, 2004 17:35:15 GMT -5
The Decree of Augustus
It is true that we do not have an official decree1 from Augustan times ordering that all the people of the "inhabited world" be enrolled at a census. We must understand the motivation for the census as stemming from the administrative reorganization that occurred as Augustus built the Empire on the ruins of the Republic. Having consolidated his power after disposing of the other contenders for sole leadership in the wake of Julius Caesar's assassination, Augustus used this power to refashion the whole machinery of the Roman administration. He began this process by restoring economic stability to the war-weary society so as to generate the funds necessary to maintain the new imperial civil service and the large standing army for their peace-time roles of occupation and maintenance of order. To raise the needed revenue he devised the strategy of causing
the gradual disappearance of the tax-farming companies who levied the direct and indirect taxes. Their place was taken by the imperial officials or procurators, who were employed in the Emperor's name in all the provinces, both imperial and senatorial. These men, except those filling the highest positions, were almost all either imperial slaves or imperial freedmen. They had offices for collecting the taxes in the chief town of the province and branch offices elsewhere; and all the threads of this network of finance were gathered up in the personal treasury of the Emperor at Rome. Thus the financial administration of the Empire was gradually converted into an elaborate bureaucratlc machine, governed from the centre by the
Emperors.2
To allow for an accurate assessment and collection of the new taxes on both citizens and provincials a new procedure was devised and carried out.
A preparatory step in this direction was a general census of property owned in the provinces; this was started by Augustus and admirably carried out in Gaul by his stepson Drusus; and perhaps the same thing was done in Galatia, Syria and Palestine, the newly annexed provinces in the East.3
Rostovzeff is writing about the broad outlines of Imperial policy, not dealing with particular applications, but he acknowledges the possibility of such an occurrence in "Galatia, Syria and Palestine." In fact we have documentary evidence of such censuses carried out at this time in Egypt, Lebanon and Nabatea, to mention several other locations in the East. As in all the reforms which Augustus introduced, he was flexible to the utmost and made use of existing institutions and customs wherever possible. This pragmatic approach remained a characteristic of the Empire's method of dealing with existing cultures whenever they came to rule them and to integrate them into the overall fabric of the worldwide system they were weaving.
These censuses were seen by many provincials as intrusions. They were resisted to the point of bloodshed in Gaul (requiring forty years to complete!)4 and in Judea (Judas' rebellion of AD 6).5 In areas previously subject to severe regulation, however (e.g., Egypt), there was no such resistance. As each new area was added to the Roman territory this painful process was repeated.
It is true that we do not have any copy of an order from Augustus to the effect that a worldwide census was to be held at some given time. However, the knowledge that we do have of the initiatives of Augustus in centralizing and bureaucratizing the Roman administration of the Empire allows us to see how the census mentioned by Luke fits into the wider scheme of the regulation and taxation of the whole. The census was carried out by the legatus of that area. If necessary, military force was used. The census was an important and obligatory feature of Roman rule in every province. That Luke mentions the census in Judea that was the occasion of the birth of Christ is rather to his credit than to his fault.
The "Governorship" of Quirinius
Since the crux of the chronological problem is the matter of Quirinius' association with this census, most of our discussion will be concentrated here. Let us begin by noting that the phrase in the KJV "when ... was governor" translates the present active participle of the verb hegemoneuw. The sense of the word is "while ... was ruling." The reading of the KJV is perfectly acceptable, though it may make us Americans think of the position or office titled "governor," whereas the Greek is really less specific than that. The New Translation of the Bible renders it "when ... had the govenment." In fact, the Greek word denotes rulership or leadership in general. In Luke 3:1 the word appears twice, first in noun form referring to the emperor Tiberius' reign, then as a verb for Pontius Pilate's rule in Judea. Thus the one speaks of the superior to the governor of Syria, the other of his subordinate. Thus, although the word can mean "governor" in the technical sense, this is not necessary. To avoid confusion here, our text is better translated "while ... was ruling."
In the second verse there is another difficult word, protos, which the KJV translates adverbially as "first." This Greek word is a superlative adjective normally translated "first." It can refer either to (1) the first item of several things, or (2) the first of two things. Many have stated their misgivings over the lack or an object to which the comparison refers. The KJV treats the word as an adverb: "this taxing was first made when..." Others have suggested another adverbial rendering. They take the adverb to apply to the participle discussed in the previous paragraph and obtain: "this census took place before Quirinius was governor of Syria."6 This latter suggestion would allow us to place the census in the time of Herod regardless of the time of Quirinius' rulership in Syria.
Sir William Ramsay has said of this latter solution that it overlooks the obvious meaning of the words.7? He suggests that the simplest rendering be adopted -- "this was the first census while Quirinius was ruling Syria" -- and that our historical understanding be worked out on this basis. His suggestion, fitting the Classical meaning of protos, is that Luke is speaking of the first census of a series. Equally possible is the similar translation using the meaning of protos which came into vogue in Hellenistic Greek (the Greek of the N.T. period), namely: "this was the first census (of two) while Quirinius was ruling Syria." The essential meaning is the same as Ramsay's, but Luke would not necessarily imply there was an extended series of censuses following this one. It would serve primarily to distinguish the census which occasioned the birth of Christ from a later one which occurred while Quirinius was still (or again) ruling Syria. If this is the case, then we can see how Josephus might speak of the second census with which Quirinius was associated in Judea, whereas Luke correctly identifies the earlier census as that which brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem. Luke does in fact mention this second census in Acts 5:37, noting that it was opposed by Jewish rebels, fitting well with Josephus' description. We thus have good reason for rejecting the notion that Luke wrongly places the AD 6 census mentioned by Josephus before 4 BC as some critics have alleged.
Turning now to the "governorship" of Quirinius, we must ask the question: if Luke 2:2 is translated "this was the first census while Quirinius was ruling Syria," is it possible that Quirinius was ruling Syria at some time before the death of Herod the Great (before 4 BC)? The only known dates for Quirinius as governor of Syria are AD 6-7. However, an interesting possibility has been suggested by an inscription called the "Lapis Tiburtinus," a tombstone which records the achievements of an Augustan army officer. (See Appendix for text of inscription). The key phrase translates as "pro praetor of Syria twice."8 Unfortunately the stone is broken in such a way that the name of the officer is missing. There is no one of the governors of Syria whom we know to have been appointed twice to that office. William Ramsay thought the inscription referred to Quirinius.9 Sherwin-White does not.10 If it was Ouirinius who twice served as legatus or pro praetor of Syria, then the earlier term of office might well fit with the "first census" mentioned in Luke 2. However, the only certain gap in the line of the governors of Syria occurs between P. Quinctilius Varus (6-4 BC) and C. Caesar (1 BC - AD 4). This gap probably falls just after the death of Herod the Great, therefore too late to synchronize with the Gospel accounts of Jesus' birth. Unless some new information is found which allows for or proves that this gap falls within the lifetime of Herod, the evidence of the "Lapis Tiburtinus" will not materially affect the question of the historicity of Luke 2.
|
|
|
|
Post by 1dell on Mar 11, 2004 17:38:17 GMT -5
Summarizing so far, we have seen that the verb used in Luke 2:2 means "to rule" (including "to command") and that Luke distinguishes this census from one or more later ones by calling it the "first census." We have not yet seen how we can best understand this verse in its historical background.
The political control of Syria and the East was a major objective of Roman policy. Even prior to the Empire the Romans deemed it wise to have a supreme commander in the East. Pompey and later Mark Antony were two such. In 23 BC Augustus named M. Agrippa the vice-emperor of the Orient.11 His extraordinary authority is noted by Josephus (Antiquities 15.10.2): "Now Agrippa was about this time sent to succeed Caesar in the government of the countries beyond the lonian Sea." Agrippa held this post for ten years, even though he ruled in absentia through messengers part of this time. Agrippa died in March of 12 BC. Curiously enough, in August of that year Quirinius was released by Augustus from his duties as consul even though he still had four months to serve. We have no further information from antiquity as to Quirinius' next assignment, but we do know that sometime between 12 and 6 BC he successfully commanded the Roman army in a campaign against the Homonadensian tribe in the Taurus Mountains of Cilicia. Since the only Roman legion based in the whole of Asia belonged to Syria,12 and since the area to be conquered was contiguous to Syria, it is reasonable to think that Quirinius was placed in command of this Syrian legion and was given responsibility for overseeing the entire region in the effort to pacify the Homonadensians. If this is the path which Quirinius followed, it is possible to see his whole career in the East not simply as a series of isolated events, but as different functions of his overall command of the whole area. (See inscriptions in Appendix.)
How, then, do we understand the succession of the regular governors of Syria? Normally we would expect the governor to be the supreme commander in the area, the direct representative of the Emperor, the head of both civil and military affairs. This would leave no room for either an extraordinary commander over the whole region on the one hand, or else for a governor of Syria on the other, providing we understand the office of governor in its usual sense. The solution, it appears, lies in realizing that the office of governor of Syria was much less strictly defined than we might expect. If we can rely on Josephus' account (Antiquities 16.9.1) regarding the Roman government of Syria, he reports that during Herod's reign there was a hearing before Saturninus and Volumnius, the "officers of Caesar" (Greek Kaisaros hegemosi). Apparently the responsibilities of the office were very great and required an assistant to help with everyday affairs. Whether Voulmnius was co-equal with Saturninus or only his chief assistant, the passage still indicates that more than one person could be "governors" or "leaders of Syria" (twn Surias epistatountwn). The implication of these facts is that, at least during the period with which we are concerned, we cannot confine our conclusions about who was "ruling Syria" to the list of provincial governors which scholars have compiled. The objection that Quirinius was not governor (or legatus) of Syria until AD 6, and that therefore Luke is in error, thus falls to the ground.
Furthermore, based on our understanding of the irregular nature of Roman administration of the province, it appears highly likely that Quirinius was exercising an important command in the area of Syria from about 12 BC until 6 BC at least and possibly until AD 9 or even later. Like Agrippa before him, this may not have required his constant presence but would have made it imperative from him personally to oversee the more sensitive matters like the Homonadensian war, the census after Archelaus' banishment in AD 6, and very possibly the census mentioned in Luke 2.
We have some interesting epigraphic evidence which confirms our ideas about Quirinius' work and influence in the area. Two inscriptions have been found in the Roman garrison colony at Pisidian Antioch which record the fact that Quirinius was elected duumvir by the citizens. This was really an honorary appointment which Quirinius accepted and then assigned a local citizen to act as his praefect. There is also another inscription (found in Italy) which corroborates Quirinius' work of census-taking in the area north of Palestine. The "Lapis Venetus" is a tombstone inscription which summarizes the career of an army officer who served under Ouirinius. The relevant part reads: "On command of Quirinius I have carried out the census of Apamea, a city-state of one hundred and seventeen thousand citizens ..."13
As a final consideration on the question of the governorship of Quirinius, let us take note of a tradition which is preserved by Tertullian. In Against Marcion 4.19 he states that the census of Luke 2 was "taken in Judea by Sentius Saturninus." Luke, however, says that the census occurred "while Quirinius was ruling Syria." Neither passage requires that the man named was personally in charge of the census-taking. Each uses his rulership as a reference point for dating the event. It may well be that Saturninus was legatus of Syria and was responsible for the earlier census in Herod's kingdom (his dates as governor are 9-6 BC) as part or his jurisdiction over civil and administrative affairs. If Quirinius was in charge of the military affairs of Syria at the time, then he would be called in if there were any need for enforcement, as was necessary in the Apamean census and the Judean census of AD 6. This may indeed be the correct view of the actual census procedure, but we cannot be sure that Tertullian's information is accurate.14
To sum up this lengthy section: (1) The meaning of the text is best taken as "while Quirinius was ruling Syria." (2) This was the "first census" which took place during Quirinius' rule. (3) Roman policy in the East at this period was usually in the hands of a single supreme commander; the facts of Quirinius' career are consistent with the suggestion that he held this position near the end of Herod's kingship in Judea. (4) The text allows for the possibility that Quirinius was not directly in charge of the census, but that it was carried out by one of the Syrian governors, possibly Sentius Saturninus. (5) There is still a possibility that Quirinus twice held the office of governor of Syria and carried out a Judean census in each tenure.
The Return to Bethlehem
Unlike the question of the 'governorship" of Syria, there is no potential conflict with secular information on this point. The objection of critics here usually takes the form of a doubt that the Romans would require provincials to return home for a census.
The text twice asserts that it was necessary to return home: (1) everyone went to his own city (v. 3) (2) Joseph returned to Bethlehem because his family was from there (v, 4). This feature of the census seems to be central to the whole story Luke is relating.
There is, however, no necessity to assume that the procedure was the same in every Roman census. In verse one the official administrative policy of the Emperor is set forth. Then the second verse notes that this "first" Judean census occurred while Quirinius was ruling. With this we have moved to the particulars of this census, not necessarily the requirements for all censuses. The third verse may then reflect the circumstances of this particular census. Recall that the Roman administration often made use of existing forms of government in conquered lands. The East had long acquaintance with census procedures, as confirmed in the Mari texts, the finds at Tell el-Amarna and Ras Shamra, Herodotus' accounts of the Persian empire, and many documents from the Hellenistic period.15 This return may have been a feature of these earlier cesuses
|
|
