Thought I’d respond to a bunch of posts at once. It’d be nice if this board had multithreading, especially when these threads get to be several hundred posts long, but I guess I’ll take what I can get.
Nilvedman:
Most historians, archaeologists, and Biblical scholars consider the Exodus as much as a myth as the Garden of Eden, the Noachian flood, and the tower of Babel. The logistics of 2.5 million people being slaves in a country for 400 years, and then wandering through the wilderness for 40 more years without leaving a shred of evidence simply defy common sense.
You can probably raise doubts about certain historical figures, but others are pretty well established. I can’t fathom doubting Mohammed. Who started Islam? Who wrote (transcribed, whatever) the Qu’ran? There are also many contemporary references to Mohammed, some of them quite negative. These seems like pretty big things that you can’t just pooh-pooh away.
Danielinthewolvesden:
Asimov was mainly a sci-fi writer. He is ill qualified to write a history of the Bible. Of course, this didn’t stop him from writing a history of the entire universe, a subject which required expertise in the fields of cosmology, geophysics, biological evolution, archaeology, history, political science, etc.
I’m sure if you want to you can dig up dozens of authors who support your opinion. As can I. The point is not what others believe, but the underlying reasons for that belief. Both Asimov and Richards simply assert that Quirinius was governor twice. They provide no reasons for that belief, other than Richards’ obtuse reference to “records of the time.” On the other hand, the Carrier article I referenced provides specific and detailed reasons for doubting that Quirinius was governor twice, namely that such a possibility would contradict with the details of his military career, and that Quintilius Varus was governor from 6 B.C. to beyond Herod’s death in 4 B.C.
Unless you’d care to provide some sort of reason to believe that Quirinius was governor twice, I stand by my assertion.
So, the question is, what’s the only thing harder than proving someone or something existed? Proving that he/she/it didn’t exist. While writing off a literal interpretation of Genesis is relatively easy using scientific observation, the line is blurred further as we move forward on the time scale. In the end, sometimes it just requires a leap of faith (there’s the magic word!) that lets you believe some pretty amazing stuff. Kinda reminds me of the old saying, “If somebody tells you there are billions of stars in the universe, you’ll believe them, but if they tell you the paint’s wet, you have to touch it to make sure.”
That said, I’d like to hear a literalist perspective on all this. Anybody out there willing to defend the Biblical Creation, Garden of Eden, Tower of Babel, etc. as true stories? As long as you promise to think it all through…
My memory played me false on Mohammed. Although some writers do question almost everything about him, they do not question his existence. See Ibn Warraq’s “Why I Am Not a Muslim”, published in 1995 by Prometheus Press. His earlist biographer wrote 120 years after his death, and even “contemporary” accounts seem to be thirty years after his death.
The existence of Buddha is questioned by J.M. Robertson in his 1903 book “Pagan Christs”. My copy is a 1987 reprint from Dorset Press.
Isaac Asimov mainly a SF writer? He wrote far more non-fiction than fiction. All his books were carefully researched. And, they were unbaised, which I am afraid your source is not. Not only is Asimov unbiased, but his background would make him a serious unbeleiver, but he still accepts JC as an historical religous leader, and most of the Historical details of the Gospels as correct. He does cast doubt on several of the tenous connections matthew made with OT prophesies, etc. Your source is completely biased and one sided.
Of course, nobody can PROVE JC existed. You can’t prove Julius Caesar existed either. There are lots of myths about Caesar, also, and some details about his life contradict other info. However, not one serious historian doubts either existed as a Historical figure.
<Sigh> I probably shouldn’t have included that ad hominem against Asimov, but my point remains undiminished. Please provide some reasons to believe that Quirinius was governor twice. My source, no matter how biased and one-sided he may be, provided reasons to believe just the opposite. Among them:
Quirinius was fighting in Asia and helping Gaius in Armenia between 12 and 1 B.C.E.
Publicus Quintilius Varus was governor of Syria between 6 B.C. and the death of Herod in 4 B.C.E.
Judaea could not have been subjected to a census prior to 6 C.E. because it was not fully Roman-controlled until then.
Now, if you wish to convince me that Quirinius was governor twice, you need to actually refute these facts, not just call my source biased. Don’t simply quote Asimov again. I know what he thinks. Instead, provide me with a reason to believe that Quirinius could have been governor between 6-4 B.C.E. You could start by explaining how Quirinius could’ve been fighting in Asia and later helping Gaius in Armenia and still made time for a governorship of Syria. Or you could explain how it was possibly for Quirinius and Varus to be governor of Syria at the same time.
Don’t just repeat your claim that your source must be right because he’s unbiased and mine is biased. Provide real, actual evidence to support your position. Simply asserting that it is so over and over again doesn’t make it so.
As far as your last point goes, I don’t disagree with you that Jesus was a historical person. But you are totally incorrect in asserting that no reputable historian doubts his existence; many do.
You see, your source is simply wrong, and my source is correct. You say your source says “X”, which proves “Y”, but they are unable to show “X” is true. mainly, as they are concealing the facts by a clever bit of misdirection. To us, being a “General” in “Asia” is a far cry from being a “Governor” in “Syria”, but not so to th eRomans.
Thus it would be normal for Q to be Propreator, and still be a General fighting in Armenia & Asia (to the Romans, Syria WAS “asia”, remember), while a Procurator(Varus?) or other bureaucrat covers the mundane Governorship in Syria. In fact, based upon the status of Syria in 6BC (conquored territory), and that in 6AD (province, but the Province of Syria was that whole area) it would have been normal for there to be a Military OverCommander, and then later a Civil Governor. You could call Q “governor” in either case, but that would not have been his title in either case. The Romans had different types of “governors”, with differnt amounts of military authority, based upon the warlike status of the area. They had Procurators, ProPraetors & Proconsels, but no “Governors”. And the Romans had no “Over” Generals either. To command more than a legion (General), you also had political authority, also. Thus, in order for Q to be in “Military Command” in the Armenian & Asian* areas, he had to have civil authority over that general area, which included Syria, until later. (Ie he was Varus’s boss, as that was a “Combat zone”).
Asimov says Q “was in charge of Roman Military affairs in Syria*” (in 6-4BC), and “Governor of Syria” (in 6-9AD). In other words, Miltary-political General/Governor, then Political-Military Governor-General.
We get confused, as to us a General & a Governor are 2 entirely separate offices, but not so to the Romans.
*Remember, to the Romans, “Syria” is “Asia” and equates to the whole modern Isreal/Syria/Mediteranian Middle east.
Actually, the family name is Hasmonean, not Maccabee, but they were descended from the Maccabees, or “Hammers”. Funny, though, I remember Herod (the Great, son of Antipater, of whom we speak) marrying into the Hasmonean clan. Did he really eventually wipe out the whole line?
Good Point.
Here I’ll mention pinqy’s apparent equation of the “gospels” of Thomas, Mary, and Nicodemus with those of Luke and Mark. ::rolleyes:: There are reasons those aren’t in the canon. (Like, they’re late, they’re crap, they’re inconsistent with the more reliable older ones…) Parts of the Gospel of Matthew probably should be disregarded as well, but it has that wonderful “Sermon on the Mount”, so it was kept.
Oh, and pinqy, thanks for acknowledging that
Yeah, pretty definitely. You sort of have it backwards. Pontius Pilate was a historical figure, who was stuck into the Xtian accounts as were Agrippa, Herod, etc. We know he lived, and we know enough to doubt later Christian claims as to his sainthood.
Well, I’m assuming that when Carrier uses words like “general” and “Asia,” he is employing their modern usage. Just like if I were to say that a certain artifact from medieval England is 18 inches long, I would be using our modern definition of an inch, not the medieval definition which would be the width of the current king’s thumb.
However, I will grant that an Asian general and a Syrian governor could indeed be the same thing. This is why I am now going to cite several more sources to show that you are wrong.
“His victories over pirates as governor of Crete & Cyrene [14 BCE] earned his appointment as consul of Rome [12 BCE]. Then as governor of Galatia [6-2 BCE], he led a successful campaign against rebellious mountaineers, for which he was given a triumphal procession in Rome [2 BCE]. His trip to Syria [2 CE] as tutor of the emperor’s grandson, Gaius (Caligula), led to his appointment as imperial legate for that region when Archelaus was deposed [6 CE]. The gospel of Luke (2:1) mentions this assignment as the circumstance of Jesus’ birth.”
Nowhere is it mentioned that he was Syrian legate twice.
More importantly, it says this about Publius Quintilius Varus:
“[H]e was given a series of imperial appointments, including legate to Syria [6 BCE]. With brutal efficiency he crushed the Jewish revolt after Herod’s death [4 BCE], destroying the Galilean capitol of Sepphoris & crucifying thousands of Jews. He then was appointed governor of Germany, where he eventually committed suicide after suffering one of the most devastating defeats in Roman military history.”
So, Quirinius was the Galatian, not Syrian legate from 6-2 B.C.E. Furthermore, the text implies that he had never even been to Syria before 2 C.E., so it’s pretty bloody unlikely that he had any sort of political authority as legate, procurator, propraetor, proconsel, or anything else before 2 C.E.
Secondly, Varus is specifically listed as legate of Syria from 6-4 B.C.E.
I have several other on-line encyclopedia entries listing Varus as legate from 6-4 B.C.E.
Another website gives this list of Syrian governors:
Titius 13-7 B.C.
Q. Varus 7-4 B.C.
S. Saturninus 4-2 B.C.
Q. Varus 2 B.C.-A.D. 1
G. Caesar A.D. 1-4.
Now, what you have proposed to solve this obvious problem is a far-fetched how-it-could’ve-been scenario.
You propose that even though Varus was obviously legate of Syria during the reign of Herod, Luke–for reasons known only to him–decides to name Quirinius, who was the propraetor, without mentioning Varus, or even Herod for that matter. Considering that Quirinius was actually the governor of Galatia at that time, and that even Asimov admits that he was only in charge of military affairs, this seems pretty darn unlikely. I mean, even assuming that Asimov is right, why would Luke mention a man in charge of military affairs in connection with a census, which is obviously a civil matter?
Why can’t you just admit that this is a clear instance of a contradiction? I mean, it’s not like anything else in the birth narratives is consistent! It’s obvious that after the adult Jesus gained popularity, his followers decided to make up some stories about his birth and infancy. Since he was known as Jesus of Nazareth (or Jesus the Nazarene), it was obvious that he was from the town of Nazareth. But, Matthew and Luke both want Jesus to fulfill the prophecy of Micah 5:2, which would require him to be from Bethlehem. Luke decides to rely on the frequent Roman censuses, in order to make Joseph and Mary go from their home town of Nazareth to Bethlehem, where Jesus is born. (Of course, real censuses did not require people to return to their home towns, but that’s another problem entirely.) Matthew decides that Jesus’ family is from Bethlehem all along, but he also wants him to fulfill some other prophecies, so he has Jesus flee to Egypt when Herod goes on a killing rampage, and later return, not to Bethlehem, but to Nazareth. This is Matthew’s explanation of why Jesus is called Jesus of Nazareth. (Matthew claims that this also fulfills another prophecy, although it is not found anywhere in the Old Testament.)
Now, in this maze of made up stories, written decades after the fact, Matthew ends up dating Jesus’ birth to 4 B.C.E. and Luke ends up dating it to ~ 6 C.E. This is hardly surprising, since neither had any significant information upon which to base their stories. Furthermore, neither knew what the other was doing, and they certainly didn’t know that both stories would end up together in a canon of scripture some day, causing devout believers to spend tons of time trying to reconcile the contradictory details of two fictitious accounts.
A common rule in both science and common sense, known as Occam’s Razor, is when in doubt, choose the theory that doesn’t needlessly multiply entities. My theory is pretty simple: Matthew and Luke make up some spectacular stories about Jesus, and as a result they completely contradict. The other theory requires us to believe that both Matthew and Luke actually got everything right, but that:
They each omitted tons of details that the other included, for unknown reasons.
Matthew includes many events unknown to anyone else in history, such as the star of Bethlehem and Herod’s slaughter of the innocents.
Luke chooses to mention the Syrian propraetor, instead of its actual legate, for reasons unknown.
No other record of Roman censuses mention that people had to return to their home town, a policy that would have made for a bureaucratic mess.
Because there still is a lot of room. 1st, Galatia is in Asia Minor, and someone in overall military camnd there could well have been in command of all of “asia”. As far as your source using the “modern” definitaion of “asia”, nowhere does it list him going to China or Inida, or where most moderns would assume “asia” is - He stayed in “asia”, that is “asia minor & the middle east” , which includes Syria. Your source listing he was in “asia” implies we was nowhere near Judea, when in fact he was. Next, after you become “consul”, you automatically become “proconsul”, for 4 years +, thus after BC 10 , Q must have been Proconsul, ie “over-governor” somewhere. Next, “Varus” was a “procurator”, which is an undergovernor handling affairs for someone who is away, or not in the area. So there must have been someone who was V’s superior, “locally”.
As far as Matthew & Luke getting some details mixed up, or being unclear, I have said that seems to be the case. Again, they got the info re JC’s birth 2nd hand, and some 50+ years after. As far as the apparent “error”, I offer 2 separate but equally possible ways out of it; Q was Proconsul, and V was his procurator in 6BC, Q ordered a lesser census, whch V promulgated “under the orders of” Q (remember the Romans started this in 5BC or so, so there must have been something of a census), which was mixed up in peoples minds with the much larger, and more controversial census in 6AD, when V was actually Imperial legate. Or, possibly, as the name “Kyrinios” (actual original greek) was used, Luke (or the translators)got “Quirinius” mixed up with “Quintilus”, and the lesser census under the 1st Q with the greater census under the 2nd Q. Or, since Luke wrote his book timely, he actually got the history right, and other historians got some details wrong.
In any case, minor historical errors, do not invalidate the excsitance of someone. There are lots of myths & historical errors about the Ceasars, but they still existed (Just because Nero did not actaully “fiddle” during the fire, does not mean he did not exist, Julius was not delivered by Ceasarian)), and the same can be said about more modern figures (despite the fact that the “cherry tree story” is likely a myth, it does not argue for the non-existance of Geo. Washington; and because it seems like MM did not sleep with JFK, but rather his brother, that hardly means JFK did not exist).
For that matter, a complete absence of historical documentation wouldn’t cause Jesus to suddenly have never existed. But would you believe in the existence of Jesus if no one could offer any evidence at all?
The problem with your examples regarding Nero and JFK is that we have reliable information on those people. The information we have about Jesus is more like the information we have about Cinderella- a tale full of fantastical elements (transformation of a pumpkin into a carriage/transformation of water into wine) which doesn’t even get the prosaic historical facts straight (no Prince Charming/no census,) not to mention translation errors (glass slipper/born of a virgin.) The big difference is that no one is claiming that Cinderella is a real person, whereas people are claiming that Jesus was. It’s worth pointing out that at one time no one claimed that Job was a real person, and now creationists point to him as an eyewitness report of God describing dinosaurs.
Hmm… interesting. But don’t forget, we don’t know exact details on a lot of people. You baseball fans out there may have heard about the Yankee pitcher Orlando Hernandez, who, according to who you ask, may have been born within any range of years (sorry, no citation here, but there are other modern examples). In two thousand years, will those discrepancies invalidate his existance? Keep in mind that ancient historians were often more interested in telling a good story than in getting all the facts exactly right. This was not a time period that specializes in non-contradictory information.
I know that it is extremely unlikely that anybody will care about a baseball pitcher in two thousand years, but I’m using this as an example.
This is what I mean by “how-it-could’ve-been” scenarios. You don’t know what happened, but you do know that the Bible couldn’t possibly be in error, so there must be some solution. Maybe Quirinius was governor twice. Or at least pro-consul. Or maybe he wasn’t, and Quirinius in Luke was just a scribe’s mistake for Quintilius. Or maybe a minor census got confused for a major one. Or maybe this. Or maybe that. Ad nauseum.
Or maybe–just maybe–the Bible is actually in error! I will freely admit that anything that you postulate might be possible. But, it seems to me, given the weight of all of the evidence, that this is simply a chronological error in the Bible. It sure wouldn’t be the first!
As far as the existence of Jesus goes, I’m not questioning that. Read my previous post:
I do, however, greatly question the veracity of the birth narratives. In those days, in was popular to make up fantastical stories about the early years of those who had gained prominence as adults. Look at the stories of Matthew and Luke: other than the fact that Jesus was born in Bethlehem to Mary and Joseph, what facts do they have in common? Absolutely none! Luke seems completely unaware of the star of Bethlehem, the magi, Herod’s slaughter of the innocents, Jesus’ time in Egypt, etc. Matthew is completely unaware that Jesus and John the Baptist are cousins, the census of Quirinius, the visitation of the shepherds, the circumcision and purification of Jesus at the temple, Anna and Simeon, etc. They can’t even agree on what town Jesus’ family is from, or what happens immediately after his birth. Why should we expect them to get the year right? It’s obvious to anyone not blinded by Biblical dogma that these stories were simply created to glorify the birth of Jesus, and have no basis in fact whatsoever.
And I have never said the Bible is inerrant. I have said here that the details may have gotten mixed up after 40-50 years and 2nd hand info. But Luke could very well be right, and every time we make another dig, we validate the HISTORICAL truth of the Bible. For its time, the Bible has been shown, over and over, to be very accurate. Now, as for some of the miracles & stuff, and Matthew trying to make the prophesies of the OT fit with the NT facts, well, that you must take on faith. Does that mean that Luke might not have gotten 2 “governors” with similar names, mixed up? Sure, that is possible, but it is just as possible, that as a first hand account, he is right. In fact, I believe he is.
Okay, this seems like a pretty good place to end the Quirinius debate. You seem like you have nothing more to say, and frankly, neither do I. We both admit that the other might be correct, but since you didn’t post any more actual evidence to support your assertions, I think it would be wise to end it here on that note.
Now, let’s start a new debate! This one is over your ridiculous claim that archaeology has shown the Bible to be accurate over, and over again. Archaeology and other branches of science have shown some of the Bible to be accurate. They have shown much of the Bible, however, to be quite inaccurate. Some of the discrepancies between the Bible’s claims and scientific discoveries include:
The Bible says that the universe is 6000 years old and was created in 6 days; science says 15 billion years.
The Bible posits divine creation of man; science says evolution.
The Bible has patriarchs living past 900; science has been busting its butt for the last century to accomplish an average lifespan of 75 years.
The Bible says that the Hebrews were in captivity in Egypt for 430 years and later wandered through the Sinai desert for 40 years; archaeology has found no evidence of either of these stories and the logistics are worse that for that of the flood.
The Bible says that the sun stopped in the sky for Joshua to get his killing done in time; no one has found any record of this in any other civilization’s astronomical records.
The Bible (book of Matthew) says that dead saints arose from their graves during the crucifixion; no one else records this event, not even the other three gospels!
Now, if we allow prophecies into the question, it gets even worse! Tyre and Babylon are still here; the Nile has never dried up; Egypt was never desolate for 40 years; etc.
I’m now going to repost an e-mail I got showing just how much trust archaeologists place in the Bible. It’s long, but worth it:
Oh, my goodness! That’s a lot of citation, and I’m certainly not going to debate that the Bible is all literally true (I’m still waiting for someone to take that position, though). Sure, the Old Testament is true… in different senses and to different degrees. Was there a nomadic tribe? Almost certainly. Did they go into Egypt? Maybe. Did people live for 500, 600, 700 years back then. Almost 100% certainly not.
But… a story can have truth even if it is not historically accurate. The Ten Commandments are the basis for Judeo-Christian morality. Period. Whether the story of the Exodus is an accurate one is irrelevant. It is the morality, therefore it must have come from God. If it didn’t, it would be corrupt morality.
The Garden of Eden is part of a creation myth. However, it gets a point across: God loves us, but don’t screw with the big guy. I could go on, but I think you get the point.
Regarding the Gospels: Remember that we are dealing with four different accounts of events, each written and tailored toward a different audience. Sure, there are embellishments, inconsistencies, and some stuff was left out. I maintain that any event reported in all four Gospels can be regarded as true, within a slight level of skepticism. Four (more or less) independent accounts give me a reasonable level of certainty.
Well, I have (roughly) three, somewhat disconnected points to make here:
1.) If Genesis can be metaphorical, why not the resurrection? Anyway, it’s clear that the four accounts aren’t independent in the slightest. Matthew and Luke lifted material from Mark, plain and simple. (Incidentally, I find it interesting that many argue that the word-for-word correspondences between the synoptic gospels stem from the “fact” that the three authors were accurately quoting the words of Jesus. IIRC, don’t the word-for-word correspondences exist outside of direct quotes?) Even treating your test as valid, does the idea that Christ died as a sacrifice for our sins occur in all four gospels? What about the idea that Jesus is God?
2.) It’s not clear to me what, if anything, would be different about the evidence for Christ if he didn’t exist. We could still have four Gospels, monks could still insert forgeries into Josephus, and people would still point to a particular reference to the known historical figure of Chrestus as if he were Christ. Couldn’t the pro-existence arguments in this thread be applied, more or less, to the question of whether Christian Rosenkreuz existed?
3.) It appears to me that the proof of Jesus’ existence lies in Mark. If Jesus never existed, then Mark could have done like the author of the “gospel” of Rosenkreuz and simply put his message in the mouth of the fictional mouthpiece of Jesus. Instead, Mark takes pains to assure us that Jesus may have died, but that’s ok, because his real plan is to come back from the dead, go to heaven for a while, and come back very, very soon, and the reason he didn’t tell you that while he was alive is because it was a secret plan. Such a convoluted telling of the tale suggests that Jesus was a leader whose plans didn’t turn out like he intended, and so in order to keep the movement together, Mark has to rationalize the new message to jibe somewhat with what Jesus actually taught.
Opus1, excellent set of cites. If I may use a Biblical allusion (the irony), the historical accuracy of the Bible is a weak reed to lean on for your faith.
Which ten commandments would those be? The ones found in Ex. 20, Ex. 34, or Dt. 5? The only one actually referred to as the ten commandments by the Bible is in Ex. 34, which is hardly what I would call the basis of Judeo-Christian morality!
Anyway, I never ceased to be amazed at the number of people who insist that the ten commandments (the Ex. 20 ones) are a good moral code. I, for one, do think that they are corrupt and often stupid. They certainly shouldn’t be posted in the public schools.
Has anyone actually read the second commandment? All of it? “You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, YHWH, your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.”
Hmm. This is a good source of morality? God is so good that he punishes children for the things that their great-grandparents did (in direct violation of Ezek. 18:20 by the way).
Or, how about the 3rd and 4th commandments? Christians today violate those routinely!
The 7th commandment forbids adultery, which seems like a good idea, until we find out exactly what adultery is. It refers only to having sex with a married or pledged to be married woman. This is because women were considered property by the Hebrews, and you were using another man’s property by sleeping with his woman. You could screw around all you liked with single women, even if you were married.
No one even knows what the 8th commandment is–the word “steal” refers only to kidnapping a man into slavery. The prohibition against all theft is contained in Lev. 19:11.
The 10th commandment is horrible too. It supports slavery and the property status of women.
Even Jesus didn’t care much for the ten commandments. See Matt. 19:17-19, Matt. 22:37-40, Mark 10:19, Mark 12:28-31, John 13:34, John 15:12, etc.
Not to even mention all of the times Jesus broke the Sabbath!
Okay, I rescind that comment on the Ten Commandments. Blame it on that NRA ad I saw with Charlton Heston. Oh, well. I think my point still stands, that there is truth in all stories and mythology.
I’m sorry that I didn’t bring up the idea of the “New Covenant”. That was an oversight on my part.
Either way, I’m a little overmatched here, methinks. I’ll stand off from this particular debate until I actually have something substantive to say. Carry on, and ignore the man behind the curtain.
Oh, well. I think my point still stands, that there is truth in all stories and mythology.