Census & AD 1

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
21

<< He says there is no way he can ride the fence on this one, when in fact, he could. >>

Only up to a point. One can ride one fence by assuming that Quirinius served two terms as governor, and the Staff Report did mention that. But there is no way to explain the absurd notion that people had to travel to the home city of their ancient ancestors for purposes of a census. That is so contrary to what we know about censuses in those days, that there’s no way of swallowing it.

I have written other staff reports based on biblical accounts, and I have been very careful to balance the “traditional” approach with the “scientific/scholarly” approach. However, there’s a limit. When the “traditional” approach requires a violation of known history or science, I can’t pretend there’s any balance.

22

You know, this is what makes me really sick. And this kind of thinking shows the immense bias, bordering on hatred of Christian thought. To think by labeling it Christian FUNDAMENTALIST automatically suspect is unbelieveably stupid as to be beyond the pale.

I think this shows what little minds you have.

Sir William Ramsey, who you seem to know nothing of, is considered one of the greatest archaelogists of our time - ANOTHER devout atheist, who when confronted with the accuracy of the Bible became a Christian.

Face it, mister! Many of the so-called “discrepencies” in the Bible that are brought up again and again are tired, worn out. And it really disappoints me to see The Straight Dope perpetuate many of them. It does NOTHING for their credibility.

johnnygeneric

23

I apologize for my ignorance of the Bible, but I’ve never read most of it. So I hope this won’t turn out to be a stupid question.

In Dr. Geisler’s PDF that johnnygeneric has linked to above, it is stated that it was common practice for people to be ordered to return to their home town’s or to the place where they owned property for a census. How was Bethelhem Joseph’s home town? He wasn’t just on vacation in Galilee, was he? He must not have owned property in the town, or they wouldn’t have ended up in the stable. It doesn’t seem like anyone’s idea of ‘home town’ is ‘where your ancestors lived.’ Your home town is where you live.

24

No, it’s not stupid, it’s called critical thought. (Try it! It’s fun! it’s exciting! And yes, you can do it in the privacy of your own home!) When you’re trying to determine the truth or fiction of a matter, you don’t turn to “scholars” who have a demonstratable bias. I suppose it could be argued that non-Christian writers have a bias as well, but in my book it’s a bias towards determining biblical veracity rather than just apologetics.

25

Critical thought is really very good, but when it flies in the face of good, sound explanations, then it becomes, well, pretty stupid.

What I love is the reasoning here. Well, when Lee Strobel or Sir Ramsey or Josh McDowell and a whole host of others were atheists they excercised cristical thought. Then after they weighed the evidence and decided “Well, maybe there’s something to this Christianity stuff after all!” all of a sudden their ideas stink, they’re biased and not worth even considering.

I’m telling you. YOU guys are the ones who are biased to the point of not even giving one inch to a valid claim made by Christianity. What’s amazing is you don’t even see how narrow-minded it makes you look. You end up looking like narrowminded, ignorant bigots.

johnnygeneric

26

And YOU are the one constatly making ad hominem attacks.

27

[Moderator hat on] We’ve been skating a little close to the edge here, and I’ve allowed it because the discussion has been reasonable. However, here I crack the whip: insults and snide comments about personalities are NOT permitted in this forum.

Keep to the topic, keep personalities out of it.

28

>>"Luke’s famous account of the census (Luke 2:1-6) reads as follows:

…when Quirinius was governor of Syria . . .

P. Sculpinius Quirinius was legate (governor) of Syria in the years 6 - 7 AD. He did order a census. However, the assumption that Jesus was born in the year of Quirinius’s census (6 AD) leads to irreconcilable chronological problems in the subsequent events of his life. It is entirely unlikely that Jesus was born in the year of Quirinius’s census; most scholars put Jesus’ birth around 4 BC, a good ten years before Quirinius’s census. "<<

JF>>Drawing conclusions and investigating potential difficulties from translations of texts, to me, always seems tenuous at best. Everybody does it, though. What I am talking about here is the translated word “governor”. So I am always left to find people who have studied the greek used from that time and hope they shed light on the matter. According to Craig Blomberg in his book The Historical Reliability of the Gospels on page 195 he briefly discusses Quirinius. About the word “governor” he writes :

“The word Luke uses [hegemoneuo] is a very general term meaning ‘to rule’ or ‘to lead’.”

And a little before that he states:
“…some ancient sources also speak of Quirinius leading military expeditions in the eastern provinces of the Roman empire a decade earlier in a manner most naturally explained if he held some official post in Syria (Tacitus, Annals 3:48; Florus Roman history 2:31)”

This does not strike me as, as you put it,

"…either ludicrous or just plain silly.

The one argument – that Quirinius served two different terms – has not been disproved, but there is no evidence backing it up either, beyond the author’s speculation. The existence of invisible leprechauns hiding under my desk hasn’t been “disproved” either, but I’m disinclined to present it as a serious possibility."

JF>>However we are not talking about leprechauns hiding under your desk. We are talking about history, and the evidence that Quirinius at least served in a leadership capacity prior to his official governorship exists and warrants due consideration. And fortunately among biblical scholars it is a serious consideration.

Now as to whether the census that Luke describes actually occured. I’ll do some more research on that. But one note about what I have read in your article and the mentions to it in other articles, Luke makes no mention of Quirinius ordering the census, only Caesar. So it seems to me, from my layman point of view, that Quirinius census later on would not be the one Luke is talking about. Especially if Jesus birth date is closer to 7-4 BC as I have read in some studies and as you put forth.

As far as I know no one these days puts Jesus birth in time with Quirinius’ census. So, I’m not sure what was the point in bringing that up. Maybe that was held in days past, long past, but I haven’t read any recent research or theories claiming this. I could be wrong.

As for disrespecting and disregarding a scholars research and conclusions because that person might be considered a “fundamentalist”; that is simply silly. Our court system doesn’t even do that. If it did, there would be no defense for the accused and no prosecution for the DA since all that they would present for evidence or testimony would be biased toward their respective positions. Such discrimination based on bias is specious. But if you have already made up your mind, then I guess disregarding someone on the basis of “bias” does make it easier to justify.

Just a thought,
Joe Futral

29

This was one of the points I wanted to get to but got bogged down with some posters asserting anything written by so-called fundamentalists was not worth considering.

The word “governor” falls under what I referred to earlier - people either unwilling or not thinking to consider the original greek text. The word for governor used in this text is a general term and does not necessarilly mean the actual post as governor. Quirinius was considered a key person and was muched loved by the emporer. He could have very easily held other posts during his lifetime that could deserve the title “hegemoneuo”.

You will find Caesar lists as some of his greatest accomplishments during his reign, several massive censuses (censi?) One of them occured at or about 8 BC. Since these were so massive they could have easily taken several years to complete. Thus, the timeframe would have included the time of Jesus’ birth. I haven’t studied this in detail and may have some problems, i.e. the details of the census may not jive with the description given by Luke entirely.

johnnygeneric

30

You know, the only people I’ve had bring William Ramsey to my attention are evangelical Christians. The only sources I could find on the net concerning him were published by evangelical Christians (and these quoted [without a proper citation, I might add] him only in passing). I’ve noticed that evangelical Christians our prone to hyperbole; a scientist on their side instantly becomes the “world’s most famous,” “world’s greatest,” or “world’s most renowned” expert on their subject. If anyone could direct me to non-partisan information on Ramsey, it would be greatly appreciated. One other thing- why is conversion so stereotyped? Why do we always hear about ‘PHD Atheists’ or
‘Atheist Lawyers’ who attempt to ‘disprove’ the Bible or existence of Jesus and then become so convinced of the evidence that they convert? As far as I know, Ramsey is the only archaeologist to exhibit this patter, though I’m not sure I really believe that he was an atheist. Other than him, the atheists-turned-apologists (Lewis, McDowell, Stroebel, etc.) never seem to have taken a basic class in archaeology, have they?

What makes me wonder is that people waste their time quibbling over historical minutiae. Any book which contains accounts of demon-induced illness, miraculous healings, magical transmutations (as of water into wine) and materializations (such as the miracle of the loathes and fish) dead people rising from their graves and other such instances of supernatural fantasy seems to me to be disbarred from the court of legitimate historical and archaeological inquiry. And to be fair, this would disqualify not only the Old and New Testaments, but the Qu’ran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Hadith of the Prophet, and various sources of Greco-Roman mythology as being historically accurate. There may well be a core of truth to be found in them, but this is to be established on the basis of scientific investigation, not blind faith in ancient fairy tales.

Luc
:cool:

Note : Coding fixed. - E.

31

You’re pathetic ramblings aren’t even worth replying to. But of course you guys have the famous Madelyn Murray O’Hare on your side! Oh! Now I’m scared!

johnnygeneric

32

Please see me here.

33

Please re-read what was actually said. The point is not that no Fundamentalist Christian can provide good research–some have. The point is that someone who can find no support outside the Fundamentalist Christian community for their views is very likely not providing good research.

Looked at another way: if I found an athiest critique of Scripture, but I could find no Christian commentary that accepted any of its points, I would suspect that that commentary was simply a polemic and that it had provided no valid research.

The scholars who actually work in the field constantly review and criticize other commentaries that present valid challenges. Any “scholar” who is routinely ignored by everyone except a particular group (and that group crows about how well respected he is) is liable to be a shill for the polemics of that side.

I’m curious as to your reliance on information from “Sir William Ramsey”. There was a W. M. Ramsay (no knighthood that I can find) who worked in the late 1800s and early 1900s who did provide some good initial legwork for understanding the 1st Century Roman Empire. However, while his early investigations provided some good background material, his speculations regarding specific events have generally been shown to have been not supportable through later research. There was also a Sir William Ramsay who was a chemist living at about the same time, who discovered the noble gasses. I have found no record that these two gentlemen were the same. (And if W.M. Ramsay was knighted, it does nothing to prove that his word is sacred. Neither Queen Victoria nor King Edward were known as reliable judges of scripture scholarship.)

34

"…The point is not that no Fundamentalist Christian can provide good research–some have. The point is that someone who can find no support outside the Fundamentalist Christian community for their views is very likely not providing good research.

Looked at another way: if I found an athiest critique of Scripture, but I could find no Christian commentary that accepted any of its points, I would suspect that that commentary was simply a polemic and that it had provided no valid research."

JF>>Straying a bit off topic here (ultimately anyway) but I would have to disagree. If the two views on a given topic or point of research are diametrically opposed, I see no reason why one side should accept anything the other side has to say. Opposing points of view by definition are not going to find solice in each other.

I read Craig Blomberg or William Lane Craig and I find very even handed, often highly regarded presentations of opposing views. Geisler’s article is coming from a source researcher, not just an essay purveying different points of view as maybe an article written by people like you and me.

I read Hyam Maccoby and I find no respect for the Christian perspective. that is when an opposing view is presented at all. Or even the article originally written here currently being discussed. I saw no balanced presentation. The author only briefly mentions opposing views, but quickly blows them off as absurd, even in the face of the scholars who are genuinly researching and , as you put it, working in the field for the answers to these questions. There wasn’t even a thoughtful presentation as to why he found the alternative positions absurd, only that he thinks them as such.

“The scholars who actually work in the field constantly review and criticize other commentaries that present valid challenges. Any “scholar” who is routinely ignored by everyone except a particular group (and that group crows about how well respected he is) is liable to be a shill for the polemics of that side.”

JF>>Well then, Geisler, Craig, Blomberg and many, many more archaeologists and biblical scholars who would strongly disagree with the SD article being discussed, have to fall within your definition of a genuine scholar. I am pleased to hear this!

Joe Futral

35

There were in fact two Sir William Ramsays living about the same time, one a chemist (1852-1916), the other an archaeologist (1851-1939), according to this entry from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. The chemist’s fame has endured, and an entry on him can be found in the current on-line version of the Britannica. The same cannot be said for the archaeologist, who has no corresponding entry in this same reference. Sic transit gloria mundi

36

Sir William Ramsay’s books can be found on file in Duke University’s Library website. Again, another cheap shot for no reason whatsoever. Such insinuations are not necessary and lack a certain sincerity.

In fact, if you go to Amazon.com and do a search on William Ramsay, you will find several of his books are still available, owing to the enduring intellect of the man.

Funny…I didn’t see any of Ramsay the chemist’s books available through Amazon.

Next time, stifle the remarks. They are so unbecoming.
johnnygeneric

37

<< In fact, if you go to Amazon.com and do a search on William Ramsay, you will find several of his books are still available, owing to the enduring intellect of the man. >>

The man died in 1939. No matter how brilliant the guy was, his knowledge base is just way, way, way out of date. Archaeological discoveries in the last fifty years or so have given us insights into life under Roman rule in Asia Minor that Ramsay just didn’t have.

I suspect that the fact that his books are still available is more tribute to his fundamentalist Christian views than to his archaeology.

38

What nonsense! More illogic and specious reasoning from jg. Evidently you feel that having a book available for sale on Amazon is more indicative of a lasting intellectual contribution than a listing in the Encyclopedia Britannica. There is an enormous amount of pure rubbish available on Amazon.

39

I find your reasoning just as illogical and specious! In fact, you missed the whole point. But why should I waste my time trying to point out the obvious to you?

You mentioned because he was no longer in the Britannica he’s no longer a major figure. His ideas are still read and appreciated to this day. What hogwash you throw out! You have GOT to do better than that.

Again, this whole argument dealing with Ramsay is stupid and a waste of breath. If you don’t want to consider him a major figure in archaeology, go ahead! It makes you look pretty, well, not very smart.

johnnygeneric

40

You know, you never really did answer The Ryan’s request for clarification on what you believe what the time period of the author of Luke’s life was. Your statement could be interpreted as meaning that Luke was an actual eyewitness to the life of Jesus, and wrote his gospel sometime after Jesus’s crucifixion.

Biblical scholars generally date the gospel of Luke to have been written after 70 CE, after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple. This would place the writing of Luke quite a number of decades after the birth of Jesus.

In fact, there is a hint in the opening verses of Luke that the author is working from other sources in his quest to compile his gospel:

“Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too, decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.” (Luke 1:1-4, NRSV) – emphasis added

No one knows who Theophilus is, and he is mentioned nowhere else in the Bible, but that isn’t the important part of the above quote. The important part is what I italicized. The author of Luke fully admits that he is working from information that was given to him by other sources. If those other sources have flaws and inaccuracies in them, then it wouldn’t be too surprising if those same flaws and inaccuracies pop up in his own work.
**

What I see here is that Luke is primarily a refinement of Mark and Matthew, two gospels that Biblical scholars accept as having been written earlier than Luke. In addition, there is material in Luke that does not appear in any other gospel, meaning that either the author of Luke drew upon sources that have been lost to us, or he invented the material himself.

Even if the author of Luke had access to the gospels of Mark and Matthew, there are some odd discrepencies between the three gospels. For instance, the genealogy of Jesus that Luke presents in Chapter 3, verses 23-38 is different from the genealogy presented in the gospel of Matthew (Chapter 1, verses 1-17).

**

You’re right about the Greek part. The author of Luke was highly fluent in Greek, and because of its polished style, the Greek language might even have been his native tongue…because of his strong fluency in Greek, the author of Luke might even have been a Gentile.