Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.
Options
Comments
-
As has been pointed out to you on numerous previous occasions, when you copy somebody else's prose, you need to attribute it so that people can check it if they want to.In this day and age ... once a quote is indicated on an internet site ... the attribution is easily obtained (if anybody wants it) and is only a click away on google ... something you obviously did yourself, when you looked at my quote!!!
Anything else is plagiarizing. It's really not that hard to understand :rolleyes:0 -
I wasn't copying somebody else's prose ... I was clearly quoting it.As has been pointed out to you on numerous previous occasions, when you copy somebody else's prose, you need to attribute it so that people can check it if they want to.
Anything else is plagiarizing. It's really not that hard to understand :rolleyes:
... although, why let this fact stand in your way, when you clearly want to attack me personally, instead of my ideas !!0 -
As has been pointed out to you on numerous previous occasions, when you copy somebody else's prose, you need to attribute it so that people can check it if they want to. Anything else amounts to plagiarization.I wasn't copying somebody else's prose ... I was clearly quoting it. ... although, why let this fact stand in your way, when you clearly want to attack me personally, instead of my ideas !!
I'll rebut any of your ideas once you produce one which hasn't been debunked once or more in the past.
Please, fire away
0 -
We'll have to agree to differ on this unfounded statement.They're different because at least one, and probably both, were fabricated.
The lineage in Luke were the male antecedents of Mary ... and this was very important in establishing the genetic lineage of Jesus Christ back to David and thereby back to Adam.The one-was-Joseph's and one-was-Mary's notion was debunked long ago. As with many christians today, the jews did not consider then women to be of much importance in the matter of child-bearing or parenthood and did not spend much time or interest in recording their lineage.
... and both the Jews and Christians today consider women to be equal to men when it comes to reproduction and parenthood ... and this is recognised in both Jewish and Christian marriage.
It's news to me that the Egyptians traced their ancestry back to Adam !!!And quite apart from the massive differences all the way back to David which is ably pointed out by oldrnwisr above, the line dissipates again from Amminadab and then from Abraham backwards, with Luke deriving Mary from Adam, and thence God - much in the then-contemporary fashion for which notable Greek families were descended from Hercules, Zeus, Apollo or any of the other gods. As did the Egyptians and no doubt, the Zoroastrians too.
... and oldrnwisr's comments are now in shreds ... because there are two separate genealogies in Matthew and Luke ... and not one (defective one), as he has argued.
God and the things of God are eternal.JC - the year isn't 1123 but 2017.0 -
I'll let the readers and observers of this thread decide whether I was copying or quoting the Institute of Creation Research in the post that you have accused me of plagiarizing !!!As has been pointed out to you on numerous previous occasions, when you copy somebody else's prose, you need to attribute it so that people can check it if they want to. Anything else amounts to plagiarization.
Promises ... promises !!!:)I'll rebut any of your ideas once you produce one which hasn't been debunked once or more in the past.
Please, fire away0 -
Advertisement
-
Mod:
The next time you copy text without providing a link to the original text will earn you a yellow card. The time after that will earn you a red card. Next after that will be a forum ban.I'll let the readers and observers of this thread decide whether I was copying or quoting the Institute of Creation Research in the post that you have accused me of plagiarizing !!!
The concept is not hard to understand and I've seen kids of five years old who are completely comfortable with it. Please feel free to PM me if the concept could, in any way whatsoever, remain unclear.0 -
The genealogies in Matthew and Luke are clearly two separate genelogies back to a common ancestor of David.
Matthew's genealogy is that of Joseph, the legal father of Jesus Christ, but not His actual father (who is God). It traces Joseph's antecedants back to David and establishes Jesus Christ's legal right to the throne as King of the Jewish Nation.
Both genealogies are common between David and Abraham ... and Matthew's genealogy stops at Abraham, whilst Luke's continues right back to Adam ... parallelling the genealogies from Adam to Abram (in Gen 5 and Gen 11:10-27) as it goes.
Luke's genealgy is that of Mary's male antecedants and it goes right back to Adam to establish Jesus Christ's human and genetic linkage back to Adam (via Mary) and his Human and genetic right to be called the second Adam.
Heli is listed as the father of Joseph, but he was the actual father of Mary and her sister, the wife of Zebedee. (Matthew 27:56; John 19:25). When there were no sons to preserve the inheritance in accordance with the Law of Moses (Numbers 27:1–11; Numbers 36:1–12), the daughters would marry within their tribe and the husband would become the legal son of their father, upon marriage, to keep up the family name. Therefore, Joseph, when he married Mary, became the son of Heli according to the Law of Moses and was therefore included in the genealogy.
OK, Mary's lineage and the daughters of Zelophehad all in one post. So be it.
There are a number of reasons why you're wrong so let's go through each one in turn.
1. The daughters of Zelophehad and Jewish inheritance
JC's argument rests on one of Jesus' genealogies (apologists have flip-flopped as to which one) tracing Mary's ancestry instead of Joseph's. However, there are two immediate problems with this. Firstly, the genealogy in Luke is explicitly stated as being Joseph's:
"When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Heli,"
Secondly, ancestry in Jewish tradition was always traced through the father:
" and they assembled all the congregation together on the first of the second month. Then they registered by ancestry in their families, by their fathers’ households, according to the number of names, from twenty years old and upward, head by head,"
Numbers 1:18
To get around this problem, apologists have tried to claim one of the ancestries as Mary's based on the story of the daughters of Zelophehad. The daughters go to Moses and tell him that their father has died without a male heir and ask if they can receive his inheritance instead. Moses asks God and God says OK:
"Further, you shall speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘If a man dies and has no son, then you shall transfer his inheritance to his daughter."
Numbers 27:8
However, this is as far as the bible supports the apologist argument. Firstly, it's made clear that the inheritance in question is not ancestry but a piece of land:
"and they said, “The Lord commanded my lord to give the land by lot to the sons of Israel as an inheritance, and my lord was commanded by the Lord to give the inheritance of Zelophehad our brother to his daughters."
Numbers 36:2
Secondly, contrary to JC's assertion, it is Mary who would assume the tribe of her husband, not the other way around. Mary would be assumed to be the daughter of Joseph's father. Joseph would never be considered to be the son of Mary's father. Indeed Numbers 36 makes it clear that the daughters of Zelophehad would only retain the land if they married within the same tribe:
"This is what the Lord has commanded concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying, ‘Let them marry whom they wish; only they must marry within the family of the tribe of their father."
Numbers 36:6
and that said inheritance would become the property of their husband's tribe should they marry outside their own:
" But if they marry one of the sons of the other tribes of the sons of Israel, their inheritance will be withdrawn from the inheritance of our fathers and will be added to the inheritance of the tribe to which they belong; thus it will be withdrawn from our allotted inheritance."
Numbers 36:3
So we're presented with two options. If Mary was of the same tribe as Joseph then we would expect the two lineages to converge fairly early on (working upwards from Joseph) and remain the same from that point on. But we don't. From Joseph to David there are only two concordant names, Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, the early leaders after the Babylonian exile. Before this point and after this point the names are entirely different.
On the other hand, if Mary was from a different tribe, then her lineage would be irrelevant because she, and her offspring, would acquire her husband's lineage, meaning that Jesus' ancestry would still be traced through Joseph, not Mary.
Also, it's important to note the lack of evidence in the bible for any of JC's contentions. We don't know if Mary's father was actually called Heli (Christian tradition actually names him as Joachim, from the Gospel of James). We don't know if Mary's father died without leaving a male heir. We don't know what Mary's original tribal affiliation was. Further, there's no precedent in the bible or anywhere else in the literature of the time for tracing ancestry through the mother. The only time this contention is seen is as an attempt to resolve the obvious contradiction.
2. The Shealtiel/Zerubbabel problem
As I've already noted, the two genealogies do match in two places, Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. This creates a problem for the Mary argument. Firstly, unlike names like Joseph or Matthew (and its variations), Shealtiel and Zerubbabel are quite uncommon names in the Old Testament. Secondly, they appear in exactly the same order in both genealogies. Thirdly, both names are placed in the middle of their respective genealogies from David to Jesus. So it's highly likely that the two lists are referring to the same Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, descendants of Jeconiah. This further highlights the discrepancies between the two lists. Firstly, the names and number of descendants of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel are different in both directions. Secondly, Shealtiel would have to be descended from both Nathan and Solomon at the same time.
3. The Nathan problem
As I explained in the last post, David's lineage rightly descends through Solomon and that anyone who wishes to be described as Messiah would need to also be descended from Solomon. So Luke's genealogy is clearly wrong. But let's for a second look at the Mary argument. Luke is recording Mary's genealogy. OK, but for what purpose? It's extremely unorthodox and is dropped in without any parenthetical statement to explain it, despite coming from someone who claims to have investigated everything carefully. Also, the purpose of including a genealogy at all is to portray Jesus as fulfilling one of the characteristics of the messiah, namely that he shall be a descendant of David and the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10, Jeremiah 23:5-8, Isaiah 11, 1 Chronicles 28, Psalm 89, Ezekiel 37 etc.). But as 1 Chronicles 22 points out, this lineage descends through Solomon so why recount a lineage that doesn't.
4. The generation problem
The other problem with the idea that these are two separate lineages of Joseph and Mary is that the two lists are different in number as well as name. Luke's list is longer by 15 names. That's not a small difference. As we can see from Matthew, he claims 14 generations from the Babylonian exile to Jesus or 41 years per generation. This fits well with the established meaning of 40 years per generation in the Old Testament. But this also means that there's a gap of 600 years between Mary's lineage and Joseph's despite having started in the same place and converged in the middle. That's longer than the entire period from the Babylonian exile to Jesus. So the two lists can't possibly be separate genealogies from two contempraneous people. Even if you add back the names that Matthew omits from 1 Chronicles you still have a 440 year gap to contend with.
To summarise the problems with the Mary argument:- A person's ancestry is always traced through the father, never through the mother and there are no other examples supporting the Mary lineage idea.
- Mary's father, family and tribe are not named in the bible.
- Luke's list is 15 names or 600 years longer than that in Matthew.
- The names converge in the middle making the discrepancies doubly problematic.
- The lineage in Luke is explicitly mentioned as being Joseph's and there's no suggestion that it belongs to Mary other than as a way to resolve the contradiction.
0 -
Hmmm...so one is a list of Joseph's antecedents, the other is a list of Mary's, and they have a number of common antecedents.The genealogies in Matthew and Luke are clearly two separate genelogies back to a common ancestor of David.
Matthew's genealogy is that of Joseph, the legal father of Jesus Christ, but not His actual father (who is God). It traces Joseph's antecedants back to David and establishes Jesus Christ's legal right to the throne as King of the Jewish Nation.
Both genealogies are common between David and Abraham ... and Matthew's genealogy stops at Abraham, whilst Luke's continues right back to Adam ... parallelling the genealogies from Adam to Abram (in Gen 5 and Gen 11:10-27) as it goes.
Luke's genealgy is that of Mary's male antecedants and it goes right back to Adam to establish Jesus Christ's human and genetic linkage back to Adam (via Mary) and his Human and genetic right to be called the second Adam.
Does that mean that Mary & Joseph were related to each other in more ways than man & wife.
Surely the bible has some rules in there about kissing cousins?0 -
They had a common ancestor in David and his lineage right back to Adam ... so they were 41st Cousins ... and therefore probably more distant relatives than most married couples today.spacecoyote wrote: »Hmmm...so one is a list of Joseph's antecedents, the other is a list of Mary's, and they have a number of common antecedents.
Does that mean that Mary & Joseph were related to each other in more ways than man & wife.
Surely the bible has some rules in there about kissing cousins?0 -
They had a common ancestor in David and his lineage right back to Adam ... so they were 41st Cousins ... and therefore probably more distant relatives than most married couples today.
Heh. I had a little wager with myself that you'd ignore oldrnwisr's dismantling of your genealogy nonsense and reply to the low-hanging fruit instead.0 -
Advertisement
-
As Tacitus, via the great Percy French noted:oscarBravo wrote: »Heh. I had a little wager with myself that you'd ignore oldrnwisr's dismantling of your genealogy nonsense and reply to the low-hanging fruit instead.Tacitus, Percy French wrote:He who fights and runs away, will live to fight another day.0 -
... and the words 'as was supposed' refers to the fact that we're hearing about the descent of Jesus via the paternity of Mary (and not Joseph).OK, Mary's lineage and the daughters of Zelophehad all in one post. So be it.
There are a number of reasons why you're wrong so let's go through each one in turn.
1. The daughters of Zelophehad and Jewish inheritance
JC's argument rests on one of Jesus' genealogies (apologists have flip-flopped as to which one) tracing Mary's ancestry instead of Joseph's. However, there are two immediate problems with this. Firstly, the genealogy in Luke is explicitly stated as being Joseph's:
"When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Heli,"
... and this is exactly how Mary's ancestry is traced through her paternal line.Secondly, ancestry in Jewish tradition was always traced through the father:
... and Mary did this ... she married a member of her tribe (Joseph) ... and thus her ancestry (and lands) is traced via Joseph, her husband and then on through her father and his paternal antecedents.
" and they assembled all the congregation together on the first of the second month. Then they registered by ancestry in their families, by their fathers’ households, according to the number of names, from twenty years old and upward, head by head,"
Numbers 1:18
To get around this problem, apologists have tried to claim one of the ancestries as Mary's based on the story of the daughters of Zelophehad. The daughters go to Moses and tell him that their father has died without a male heir and ask if they can receive his inheritance instead. Moses asks God and God says OK:
"Further, you shall speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘If a man dies and has no son, then you shall transfer his inheritance to his daughter."
Numbers 27:8
However, this is as far as the bible supports the apologist argument. Firstly, it's made clear that the inheritance in question is not ancestry but a piece of land:
"and they said, “The Lord commanded my lord to give the land by lot to the sons of Israel as an inheritance, and my lord was commanded by the Lord to give the inheritance of Zelophehad our brother to his daughters."
Numbers 36:2
Secondly, contrary to JC's assertion, it is Mary who would assume the tribe of her husband, not the other way around. Mary would be assumed to be the daughter of Joseph's father. Joseph would never be considered to be the son of Mary's father. Indeed Numbers 36 makes it clear that the daughters of Zelophehad would only retain the land if they married within the same tribe:
"This is what the Lord has commanded concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying, ‘Let them marry whom they wish; only they must marry within the family of the tribe of their father."
Numbers 36:6
and that said inheritance would become the property of their husband's tribe should they marry outside their own:
" But if they marry one of the sons of the other tribes of the sons of Israel, their inheritance will be withdrawn from the inheritance of our fathers and will be added to the inheritance of the tribe to which they belong; thus it will be withdrawn from our allotted inheritance."
Numbers 36:3
Mary's (paternal) lineage was traced through Joseph ... and on through her father Heli. Mary's male antecedent line was established by Luke ... and was very important in establishing the lineage of Jesus Christ back to Adam ... given that Joseph wasn't his genetic father ... and Mary was His only Human parent.So we're presented with two options. If Mary was of the same tribe as Joseph then we would expect the two lineages to converge fairly early on (working upwards from Joseph) and remain the same from that point on. But we don't. From Joseph to David there are only two concordant names, Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, the early leaders after the Babylonian exile. Before this point and after this point the names are entirely different.
On the other hand, if Mary was from a different tribe, then her lineage would be irrelevant because she, and her offspring, would acquire her husband's lineage, meaning that Jesus' ancestry would still be traced through Joseph, not Mary.
It is not resolving any contradiction ... it is simply tracing Mary's partriarchial lineage via Joseph, her husband and then on via her father.Also, it's important to note the lack of evidence in the bible for any of JC's contentions. We don't know if Mary's father was actually called Heli (Christian tradition actually names him as Joachim, from the Gospel of James). We don't know if Mary's father died without leaving a male heir. We don't know what Mary's original tribal affiliation was. Further, there's no precedent in the bible or anywhere else in the literature of the time for tracing ancestry through the mother. The only time this contention is seen is as an attempt to resolve the obvious contradiction.
... and the reason that the names and number of descendants of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel are different in both directions in the two genealogies is because (despite the supposed rarety of their names) they were four different people who happened to share two names.2. The Shealtiel/Zerubbabel problem
As I've already noted, the two genealogies do match in two places, Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. This creates a problem for the Mary argument. Firstly, unlike names like Joseph or Matthew (and its variations), Shealtiel and Zerubbabel are quite uncommon names in the Old Testament. Secondly, they appear in exactly the same order in both genealogies. Thirdly, both names are placed in the middle of their respective genealogies from David to Jesus. So it's highly likely that the two lists are referring to the same Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, descendants of Jeconiah. This further highlights the discrepancies between the two lists. Firstly, the names and number of descendants of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel are different in both directions. Secondly, Shealtiel would have to be descended from both Nathan and Solomon at the same time.
... because the objective of Luke was to list the true Human descent of Jesus from Adam, via the one Human Being He had as a genetic parent (Mary).3. The Nathan problem
As I explained in the last post, David's lineage rightly descends through Solomon and that anyone who wishes to be described as Messiah would need to also be descended from Solomon. So Luke's genealogy is clearly wrong. But let's for a second look at the Mary argument. Luke is recording Mary's genealogy. OK, but for what purpose? It's extremely unorthodox and is dropped in without any parenthetical statement to explain it, despite coming from someone who claims to have investigated everything carefully. Also, the purpose of including a genealogy at all is to portray Jesus as fulfilling one of the characteristics of the messiah, namely that he shall be a descendant of David and the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10, Jeremiah 23:5-8, Isaiah 11, 1 Chronicles 28, Psalm 89, Ezekiel 37 etc.). But as 1 Chronicles 22 points out, this lineage descends through Solomon so why recount a lineage that doesn't.
... and the objective of Matthew was to list the true legal descent of Jesus from King David via His legal father (Joseph).
There are 54 generations between Abram and Mary and 40 generations between Abram and Joseph ... which can be explained by a different average generation length in both genealogies 54 generations with a 40 year average generation length is equal to 40 generations with a 54 year average generation length.4. The generation problem
The other problem with the idea that these are two separate lineages of Joseph and Mary is that the two lists are different in number as well as name. Luke's list is longer by 15 names. That's not a small difference. As we can see from Matthew, he claims 14 generations from the Babylonian exile to Jesus or 41 years per generation. This fits well with the established meaning of 40 years per generation in the Old Testament. But this also means that there's a gap of 600 years between Mary's lineage and Joseph's despite having started in the same place and converged in the middle. That's longer than the entire period from the Babylonian exile to Jesus. So the two lists can't possibly be separate genealogies from two contempraneous people. Even if you add back the names that Matthew omits from 1 Chronicles you still have a 440 year gap to contend with.0 -
You're 'jumping the gun' ... see my Post above !!!:)oscarBravo wrote: »Heh. I had a little wager with myself that you'd ignore oldrnwisr's dismantling of your genealogy nonsense and reply to the low-hanging fruit instead.0 -
Who wrote the Bible? What is known about the authors? Why should it be considered an authoritive source on the subject of the Earth's age?0
-
God inspired the writing of the Bible ... and He was there when the Earth was Created ... so that makes Him the (ultimate) authority on the age of the Earth.:)Professor Moriarty wrote: »Who wrote the Bible? What is known about the authors? Why should it be considered an authoritive source on the subject of the Earth's age?0 -
Basically, nobody knows.Professor Moriarty wrote: »Who wrote the Bible?
Essentially, nothing is known about who the authors were, what their motivations were, why they wrote it, how they wrote it, under what conditions they wrote it and for the most part, even the very simple questions of who wrote it and when it was written.Professor Moriarty wrote: »What is known about the authors?
The lack of information is almost complete.
Because creationists believe it is and religion is unevidenced belief - but converted to knowledge with post-fact evidence constructed (or ignored) to suit.Professor Moriarty wrote: »Why should it be considered an authoritive source on the subject of the Earth's age?0 -
There is quite a bit known about the authorship of the Bible.Basically, nobody knows.Essentially, nothing is known about who the authors were, what their motivations were, why they wrote it, how they wrote it, under what conditions they wrote it and for the most part, even the very simple questions of who wrote it and when it was written.
The lack of information is almost complete.
The Bible consists of 66 books written in 3 languages on 3 Continents by 40 different authors over 1,500 years ... all under the inspiration of God.
Moses was the first person to write the Bible, while John, the Evangelist, was the last.
Here is an Alphabetical list of the Authors:-
Quote:
"Alphabetical List of Old Testament Authors
Amos: The book of Amos
Daniel: The book of Daniel
David: Psalms (Other authors wrote portions of Psalms as well)
Ezekiel: The book of Ezekiel
Ezra: The book of Ezra (Additionally Ezra is thought to have written 1st and 2nd Chronicles and possibly portions of Nehemiah)
Habakkuk: The book of Habakkuk
Haggai: The book of Haggai
Hosea: The book of Hosea
Isaiah: The book of Isaiah
Jeremiah: 1st and 2nd Kings, Lamentations, the book of Jeremiah
Joel: The book of Joel
Jonah: The book of Jonah
Joshua: The book of Joshua
Malachi: The book of Malachi
Micah: The book of Micah
Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Moses possibly compiled/wrote the book of Job)
Nahum: The book of Nahum
Nehemiah: The book of Nehemiah
Obadiah: The book of Obadiah
Samuel: (Samuel is believed to have written 1st and 2nd Samuel, Ruth, and Judges)
Solomon: Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, Song of Solomon (also known as Song of Songs)
Zechariah: The book of Zechariah
Zephaniah: The book of Zephaniah
Alphabetical List of New Testament Authors
James: The book of James
John: Gospel of John, 1st John , 2nd John, 3rd John, Revelation
Jude: Book of Jude
Luke: Gospel of Luke, Acts of the Apostles
Mark: Gospel of Mark
Matthew: Gospel of Matthew
Paul: Romans, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, 1st and 2nd Timothy, Titus, Philemon (possibly the book of Hebrews)
Peter: 1st and 2nd Peter"
http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/who-wrote-the-bible
You're describing Human Nature there Robin ... and such failings are just as likely to be found in an Evolutionist as in a Creationist.:)Because creationists believe it is and religion is unevidenced belief - but converted to knowledge with post-fact evidence constructed (or ignored) to suit.0 -
Ah, religious language games againThere is quite a bit known about the authorship of the Bible.
Yes, there are plenty of pieces of the bible which have names attached to them.
However, essentially, nothing is known about how these names were attached to the people who were presumably behind them, what their motivations were, why they wrote it, how they wrote it, under what conditions they wrote it and for the most part, even the very simple questions of whether the attributed person wrote it in the first place and when it was written.
In my personal experience, creationists fabricate a world view to suit their pre-determined need to have a father figure. People who accept the scientific consensus which is based upon repeated observation, by defintion, don't do that.You're describing Human Nature there Robin ... and such failings are just as likely to be found in an Evolutionist as in a Creationist.
Your attempt to reduce reality-based science to the level of fabricated creationism isn't really all that honest :rolleyes:0 -
We'll have to agree to differ on that.Ah, religious language games again
Yes, there are plenty of pieces of the bible which have names attached to them.
However, essentially, nothing is known about how these names were attached to the people who were presumably behind them, what their motivations were, why they wrote it, how they wrote it, under what conditions they wrote it and for the most part, even the very simple questions of whether the attributed person wrote it in the first place and when it was written.In my personal experience, creationists fabricate a world view to suit their pre-determined need to have a father figure. People who accept the scientific consensus which is based upon repeated observation, by defintion, don't do that.
It's quite clear who the authors were ... and what they wrote is there in black and white for everyone to see and read.
If God Created the world and everything therein then that is the reality for everyone, whether they believe it or not.Your attempt to reduce reality-based science to the level of fabricated creationism isn't really all that honest :rolleyes:
It is the alternative hypothesis to the one that claims everything created itself ... and I'll graciously leave it to each person to decide which hypothesis has the greater logic and evidence.:)0 -
But if God inspired the Bible and you don't believe in God, then the Bible is just an anthology of stories written by a collection of men thousands of years ago. How does a collection of stories form the basis for determining the age of a planet?0
-
Advertisement
-
... and the words 'as was supposed' refers to the fact that we're hearing about the descent of Jesus via the paternity of Mary (and not Joseph).
Well, here's the thing Christians continue to get wrong. The bible wasn't written in English. In Luke's case it was written in Koine Greek. In the original text the phrase "as was supposed" is given as:
ων υιος, ως ενομιζετο (oon huios, hoos enomizeto)
Now let's break this phrase down.
The first part ων υιος simply means "he was the son of".
The second part ως ενομιζετο is the crucial bit. ως is the particle used to compare, and can be translated as "as, like, as though, as if," ενομιζετο is the aorist passive tense of the verb νομιζω ( "I suppose/consider"), so basically ενομιζετο means "He was supposed/considered." When you put it all together the whole phrase should read "He was the son of, as he was considered". So Luke is telling the audience that, although he knows that Jesus isn't the physical son of Joseph, he was considered his son, so he is going to use Joseph in the genealogy.... and this is exactly how Mary's ancestry is traced through her paternal line.
No, I mean father to son, without exception. There is no precedent or any other example of a man's lineage being traced through his mother's side of the family. Luke's lineage explicitly states that it traces Joseph's lineage and no other internal or external evidence suggests that this is Mary's lineage. Apologists have offered assertions and speculation over the years that this is Mary's lineage but it is merely to avoid the obvious contradiction.
You see, the genealogical contradiction is just one symptom of the overall contradiction between Matthew and Luke when it comes to the nativity narrative. At every point in the story Matthew and Luke contradict each other. For example:
In Matthew's gospel Jesus is born during the reign of King Herod (Matthew 2:3). In Luke's gospel Jesus is born at the time of the census of Quirinius (Luke 2:1-2). King Herod died in 4BCE while Quirinius wasn't even appointed governor until 6 CE. This means that both accounts can't be true.
In Matthew's gospel Jesus is born in a house and Joseph and Mary are evidently living there already (no mention is made of travelling to Bethlehem). (Matthew 2:11). In Luke's gospel Joseph and Mary are living in Nazareth and have to travel to Bethlehem (because everyone had to go back to the city where their ancestors from 1000 years ago lived apparently) and thus, not having a house, Jesus is born in a stable. (Luke 2:7)
In Matthew's gospel Joseph takes Mary and Jesus into Egypt as soon as the Magi are gone and remains there until after Herod's death. They then move to Nazareth in fulfillment of a prophecy (He shall be called a Nazarene) which funnily enough appears nowhere in the OT and seems to have been fabricated by Matthew. (Matthew 2:13-23). In Luke's gospel Joseph and Mary wait around in Bethlehem for 8 days for purification reasons and then travel to Jerusalem, for Jesus to be presented at the Temple. Jesus, Joseph and Mary then return quietly and peacefully to Nazareth where they came from (Luke 2:21-22, 39). It should also be noted that in Matthew's gospel Joseph's original intent was to return to Bethlehem but that he was afraid of returning to Judea because Archelaus had taken his father's place on the throne. An angel then warn's Joseph not to go back to Judea and instead move (not return) to Nazareth to fulfill the made-up prophecy.
It should also be pointed out that like Luke's genealogy, he manages to **** up his own nativity narrative and be internally contradictory. In Luke 2:1-2 as we've already seen, Jesus is born at the time of the census of Quirinius which took place around 7CE. Now in Luke 3:1 we get the story of Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist, the passing of the torch from John to Jesus and the start of Jesus' public ministry. Luke gives us two pieces of date information here. Firstly, in Luke 3:1, we are told that this happens in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, which began sometime in the 2nd half of 29CE. So 29/30CE. We are also told that Jesus was thirty at this point (Luke 3:23). So Jesus is 30 years old, despite having only been born 22 years ago. Really?
The blatant contradictions between Matthew and Luke as well as Luke's own internal inconsistencies mean that neither one is a reliable account. One of the accounts must be wrong and the likelihood is that both accounts are wrong and, more importantly, both accounts are fabricated, designed to build a backstory for a person about whom very little was known (despite the claims in the gospels). Luke's distorted genealogy (which again is presented as Joseph's without any parenthetical statement or explanation) is symptomatic of this.... and Mary did this ... she married a member of her tribe (Joseph) ... and thus her ancestry (and lands) is traced via Joseph, her husband and then on through her father and his paternal antecedents.
No, you're doubly wrong. Firstly, as I said the last time we don't know what Mary's tribe was so your claim that she married within her own tribe is wild speculation on your part. The closest we get to a tribal affiliation for Mary is the revelation that she is related to Elizabeth and that Elizabeth was a Levite. However, it's far more likely that Elizabeth was a levite because she married a Levite (Zacharias). Even if Mary was a Levite, that would mean she married outside her tribe when she married Joseph.
Secondly, Mary would take on her husband's lineage when she got married. This means that her father would become Joseph's father not the other way around. Jesus' lineage would be traced through Joseph because as far as most people were concerned Joseph was his father.Mary's (paternal) lineage was traced through Joseph ... and on through her father Heli. Mary's male antecedent line was established by Luke ... and was very important in establishing the lineage of Jesus Christ back to Adam ... given that Joseph wasn't his genetic father ... and Mary was His only Human parent.
Except that her father wasn't called Heli. In fact, if we restrict ourselves to the biblical canon, we have no idea what Mary's father was called. The first reference to Mary's father by name comes from the Gospel of James and it names him as Joachim which most Christian traditions still hold to today.
Secondly, you don't need Mary's line to trace Jesus back to Adam. Through Joseph (according to Matthew) Jesus already traces his lineage back to Adam.
Also, as I keep saying it's very likely that no record of Jesus' lineage actually existed. If it did Matthew wouldn't have needed to borrow one from 1 Chronicles and start making changes to it as well. If there was a common source available to both Matthew and Luke then they would have used it. A matrilineal ancestry would have been disregarded by the audience of the day so if a patrilineal ancestry was available the authors would have used it and both lists would be the same (just like the other common material shared by Matthew and Luke but not Mark).It is not resolving any contradiction ... it is simply tracing Mary's partriarchial lineage via Joseph, her husband and then on via her father.
No, it is trying (and failing) to resolve a contradiction. None of the speculative elements of the apologist argument are sugggested by or supported by any evidence in the bible. There's no evidence of a matrilineal ancestry ever being used, there's no evidence Mary's father was called Heli, there's no evidence for Mary's tribal affiliation, nothing other than the contradiction itself suggests that there are two separate lineages in play.... and the reason that the names and number of descendants of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel are different in both directions in the two genealogies is because (despite the supposed rarety of their names) they were four different people who happened to share two names.
Where's your evidence that these are four different people. As I said, the names are quite rare in the Old Testament and they appear in roughly the same place in both lists and in the same order. Further, they are referenced as father and son in the OT in Ezra 3:2, 3:8, 5:2, Nehemiah 12:1, Haggai 1:1, 1:12, 1:14, 2:2, 2:23. Further, 1 Chronicles 3:17 identifies Shealtiel as the son of Jeconiah consistent with Matthew's list (obviously) but contradicting Luke. When Zerubbabel is named in Ezra 2:2 as returning from the Babylonian exile he is accompanied by a group of named others which is repeated in Nehemiah 7:7. Zerubbabel along with Jeshua son of Jozadak and their respective brothers are the ones who restore the temple after the exile. This feat is mentioned of Zerubbabel's is mentioned in Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai and Zechariah. Indeed it would seem this action on the part of Zerubbabel caused God to lift the curse that he had earlier placed on Zerubbabel's grandfather Jeconiah. So where's the other Shealtiel and Zerubbabel? Where are they mentioned? How do you know they're different? We're supposed to believe that Joseph had two pretty famous ancestors who came out of exile, restored the temple, reignited the priesthood and were rulers of Judah and that Mary somehow at the same period in her ancestry in the same order had two ancestors who were two completely different people. I'd like to get the odds on that in Vegas.... because the objective of Luke was to list the true Human descent of Jesus from Adam, via the one Human Being He had as a genetic parent (Mary).
... and the objective of Matthew was to list the true legal descent of Jesus from King David via His legal father (Joseph).
More wild speculation. Where does Luke explain this objective. Nowhere does he mention any such purpose nor does he mention Mary's lineage as being important. He's copying what Matthew did, building a lineage for Jesus but he's making up his own names.There are 54 generations between Abram and Mary and 40 generations between Abram and Joseph ... which can be explained by a different average generation length in both genealogies 54 generations with a 40 year average generation length is equal to 40 generations with a 54 year average generation length.
Actually, from Abraham to Joseph there are only 39 generations in Matthew's list while there are 55 generations from Abraham to Joseph in Luke's list (There's also a discrepancy between Luke and Matthew in the generations between Abraham and David. Matthew lists Ram as the father of Admminadab while Luke has the name Arni in place of Ram and Admin between Arni and Admminadab. Even without the contradiction between Arni and Ram, Luke's still got an extra name in his list. Arni was changed to Ram in copies of Luke somewhere around the start of the 6th century. Earlier manuscripts say Arni).
Secondly, the generation length in Matthew can't be 54 years on average because Matthew outlines the span of time in Matthew 1:17. He says that there are 14 generations between the Babylonian exile and the birth of Jesus. That's 586 years or 41 years per generation.
Finally, for the two lists to be approximate, Mary's list would have to have a generational span of approximately 28 years. Now you also contend that Mary and Joseph come from the same tribe. You also contend that the convergence in the lists at Zerubbabel and Shealtiel are coincidental. Therefore, you're asking us to believe that two different lineages within the same tribe maintained a 40% difference in generational turnover for 600 years. If we were talking about two different social classes in today's society where one group is wealthy and gets educated marries and has children later in life while the other is poor, working class and marries young, you might have a chance. But we're talking about two groups within the same tribe at the same time in the same place under the same conditions. We're talking about a tribe which at it's peak was about 75,000 people. Seriously?
Once again it ought to be repeated. Matthew and Luke are the only two authors to introduce a nativity narrative. Their stories contradict each other at every major point and the genealogy is just another facet of this. Both authors, along with Mark and John make numerous mistakes and contradict each other when retelling the story of Jesus to the point that we are left with the only viable conclusion, that the gospels are fictional novels, designed to create a legend around a fairly obscure and unsung character.0 -
Professor Moriarty wrote: »Who wrote the Bible? What is known about the authors? Why should it be considered an authoritive source on the subject of the Earth's age?
As Rob pointed out, nobody really knows. Let's take the New Testament. Out of 27 books, we're only sure of who wrote 7 of them (the genuine Pauline epistles: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon). Everything else is either anonymous or pseudepigraphal. The gospels are all anonymous and even early Church fathers opined that the true identity of the authors was unimportant:
"That the character of the diction of the epistle entitled To the Hebrews has not the apostle’s rudeness in speech, who confessed himself rude in speech, that is, in style, but that the epistle is better Greek in the framing of its diction, will be admitted by everyone who is able to discern differences of style. But again, on the other hand, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged writings of the apostle, to this also everyone will consent as true who has given attention to reading the apostle…. But as for myself, if I were to state my own opinion, I should say that the thoughts are the apostle’s, but that the style and composition belonged to one who called to mind the apostle’s teachings and, as it were, made short notes of what his master said. If any church, therefore, holds this epistle as Paul’s, let it be commended for this also. For not without reason have the men of old handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows. Yet the account which has reached us [is twofold], some saying that Clement, who was bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, others, that it was Luke, he who wrote the Gospel and the Acts."
Origen
We can build a rough outline of who wrote the gospels but if you're hoping for an identification with a real person you're out of luck. For example, Mark's gospel is written in Greek by someone either from Rome, writing in Rome or who has spent a great deal of time there. There are 18 latin loanwords in the NT and 10 of them occur in Mark. Secondly, we know that whoever wrote Mark never set foot in Palestine and never consulted anyone who did. The mistakes Mark makes with regard to Jewish geography, law and customs make this abundantly clear. Mark is also familiar with Greek literature borrowing heavily as he does from the Homeric epics as a framework for the Jesus story.
On top of this we have the problem that the gospels contain numerous forged additions or fabricated events. For example, the original ending of Mark's gospel concludes at Chapter 16, Verse 8. The oldest manuscripts all stop there. It is a natural cliffhanger ending for the story where the women run away frightened. It's kinda like the ending of every episode of the Adam West Batman series, a teaser to leave the reader wanting to find out more about Christianity. The longer ending is a later forgery and coincidentally the basis for pentecostalism.
Another example is a conversation that takes place between Jesus and Nicodemus in John Chapter 3. In this conversation Jesus says:
"Jesus replied, "Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again."
Nicodemus then becomes confused, asking Jesus how he can possibly be born a second time. Now people reading original copies of Luke's gospel would have gotten the obvious joke in the story. You see, the words "born again" in English are translated from the word ἄνωθεν (anōthen) in Greek. The word anothen is deliberately ambiguous in Greek and the phrase can either mean born again or born from above. The implication of the story is that Jesus meant born from above which Nicodemus picked up as born again. However, the only way that the story makes sense is for the conversation to have taken place in Greek, something that is extremely unlikely to have happened between two Jews in 1st century Palestine. It's a fabricated story designed to impart a theological message. So again, another Christian sect is based on a fabrication.
We're not even scratching the surface of the surface of this problem but hopefully you get an idea of the scale of the task. If you want to explore the topic further we could create a new thread or alternatively Bart Ehrman has a detailed treatment of this in Lost Christianities, Jesus Interrupted, Misquoting Jesus and Forged.0 -
As Rob pointed out, nobody really knows. Let's take the New Testament. Out of 27 books, we're only sure of who wrote 7 of them (the genuine Pauline epistles: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon). Everything else is either anonymous or pseudepigraphal. The gospels are all anonymous and even early Church fathers opined that the true identity of the authors was unimportant:
"That the character of the diction of the epistle entitled To the Hebrews has not the apostle’s rudeness in speech, who confessed himself rude in speech, that is, in style, but that the epistle is better Greek in the framing of its diction, will be admitted by everyone who is able to discern differences of style. But again, on the other hand, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged writings of the apostle, to this also everyone will consent as true who has given attention to reading the apostle…. But as for myself, if I were to state my own opinion, I should say that the thoughts are the apostle’s, but that the style and composition belonged to one who called to mind the apostle’s teachings and, as it were, made short notes of what his master said. If any church, therefore, holds this epistle as Paul’s, let it be commended for this also. For not without reason have the men of old handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows. Yet the account which has reached us [is twofold], some saying that Clement, who was bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, others, that it was Luke, he who wrote the Gospel and the Acts."
Origen
We can build a rough outline of who wrote the gospels but if you're hoping for an identification with a real person you're out of luck. For example, Mark's gospel is written in Greek by someone either from Rome, writing in Rome or who has spent a great deal of time there. There are 18 latin loanwords in the NT and 10 of them occur in Mark. Secondly, we know that whoever wrote Mark never set foot in Palestine and never consulted anyone who did. The mistakes Mark makes with regard to Jewish geography, law and customs make this abundantly clear. Mark is also familiar with Greek literature borrowing heavily as he does from the Homeric epics as a framework for the Jesus story.
On top of this we have the problem that the gospels contain numerous forged additions or fabricated events. For example, the original ending of Mark's gospel concludes at Chapter 16, Verse 8. The oldest manuscripts all stop there. It is a natural cliffhanger ending for the story where the women run away frightened. It's kinda like the ending of every episode of the Adam West Batman series, a teaser to leave the reader wanting to find out more about Christianity. The longer ending is a later forgery and coincidentally the basis for pentecostalism.
Another example is a conversation that takes place between Jesus and Nicodemus in John Chapter 3. In this conversation Jesus says:
"Jesus replied, "Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again."
Nicodemus then becomes confused, asking Jesus how he can possibly be born a second time. Now people reading original copies of Luke's gospel would have gotten the obvious joke in the story. You see, the words "born again" in English are translated from the word ἄνωθεν (anōthen) in Greek. The word anothen is deliberately ambiguous in Greek and the phrase can either mean born again or born from above. The implication of the story is that Jesus meant born from above which Nicodemus picked up as born again. However, the only way that the story makes sense is for the conversation to have taken place in Greek, something that is extremely unlikely to have happened between two Jews in 1st century Palestine. It's a fabricated story designed to impart a theological message. So again, another Christian sect is based on a fabrication.
We're not even scratching the surface of the surface of this problem but hopefully you get an idea of the scale of the task. If you want to explore the topic further we could create a new thread or alternatively Bart Ehrman has a detailed treatment of this in Lost Christianities, Jesus Interrupted, Misquoting Jesus and Forged.
Very impressive! From geneticist to Biblical scholar. God bless your breadth of knowledge.0 -
Forgot to say last night, that in addition to not knowing who wrote the biblical texts, not knowing what their motivations were, not knowing why they wrote it, nor how they wrote it, nor under what conditions they wrote it, nor when, nor where - the NT writers didn't make it clear how they knew Jesus, nor how they knew what they were writing was accurate and St Paul (only some of whose Letters may have been written by him) never met Jesus at all - we also don't know how the text was stored and transmitted once written, nor do we know what edits were made, intentionally or unintentionally to the texts.It's quite clear who the authors were ... and what they wrote is there in black and white for everyone to see and read.
What we do know though is that changes certainly were made, since we have that wonderful marginal note in the Codex Vaticanus (Hebrews 1:3) which indicates that quite apart from any approved changes being made to the text, there was a constant risk of unapproved changes being made as well:Some Ancient Scribe wrote:αμαθεστατε και κακε, αφες τον παλαιον, μη μεταποιει
Fool and knave, can't you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!
0 -
We're not even scratching the surface of the surface of this problem but hopefully you get an idea of the scale of the task. If you want to explore the topic further we could create a new thread or alternatively Bart Ehrman has a detailed treatment of this in Lost Christianities, Jesus Interrupted, Misquoting Jesus and Forged.
Currently reading Lost Christianities having come to it from reading a bit about the persecution of the Cathars and Bogomils. Very entertaining, in terms of what did and didn't make it into the bible and why, and how the content could so easily have been very different.0 -
Luke is telling the audience that, because he knows that Jesus isn't the physical son of Joseph, he is going to use Mary's genealogy via Joseph and then via her paternal line as convention demanded.Well, here's the thing Christians continue to get wrong. The bible wasn't written in English. In Luke's case it was written in Koine Greek. In the original text the phrase "as was supposed" is given as:
ων υιος, ως ενομιζετο (oon huios, hoos enomizeto)
Now let's break this phrase down.
The first part ων υιος simply means "he was the son of".
The second part ως ενομιζετο is the crucial bit. ως is the particle used to compare, and can be translated as "as, like, as though, as if," ενομιζετο is the aorist passive tense of the verb νομιζω ( "I suppose/consider"), so basically ενομιζετο means "He was supposed/considered." When you put it all together the whole phrase should read "He was the son of, as he was considered". So Luke is telling the audience that, although he knows that Jesus isn't the physical son of Joseph, he was considered his son, so he is going to use Joseph in the genealogy.
This was an exception, because Mary was His only Earthly parent and therefore Jesus lineage via Mary's genealogy was important.No, I mean father to son, without exception. There is no precedent or any other example of a man's lineage being traced through his mother's side of the family.
There is no contradiction the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are obviously two different lineages ... one Joseph's and the other Mary's.Luke's lineage explicitly states that it traces Joseph's lineage and no other internal or external evidence suggests that this is Mary's lineage. Apologists have offered assertions and speculation over the years that this is Mary's lineage but it is merely to avoid the obvious contradiction.
Herod died in 4 BC allright ... but it seems that although Varus was governor, he was not a good leader, while Quirinius was a significant military leader ... so when it came to the census, which was a taxation mechanism, liable to generate trouble, Caesar Augustus sent Quirinius to conduct the Census thereby effectively elevating Quirinius to the position of a governing authority—even higher than the actual Governor Varus during that time. Quirinius was so successful that he was later appointed Governor. Some historians believe that Quirinius was actual governor of Syria twice - before and after Varus ... which would again mean that he was the governing authority when the Census called in 7 BC was conducted between 7 and 5 BC when, Jesus was born (there is a calendar inaccuracy issue that places Jesus birth in 6 BC).You see, the genealogical contradiction is just one symptom of the overall contradiction between Matthew and Luke when it comes to the nativity narrative. At every point in the story Matthew and Luke contradict each other. For example:
In Matthew's gospel Jesus is born during the reign of King Herod (Matthew 2:3). In Luke's gospel Jesus is born at the time of the census of Quirinius (Luke 2:1-2). King Herod died in 4BCE while Quirinius wasn't even appointed governor until 6 CE. This means that both accounts can't be true.
Luke is an account of the events immediately surrounding the birth of Jesus such as his birth in the temporary accommodation of a stable, because they were away from their home and the local Inn was booked out. Matthew's account is primarily focussed on events well after the birth of Jesus, such as the visit of the wise men and the slaughter of all chidren under two years by Herod, thereby indicating that Jesus wasn't a newborn, at the time ... and was naturally living in a house, having obviously left the temporary accommodation, that the stable provided on the night that He was born.In Matthew's gospel Jesus is born in a house and Joseph and Mary are evidently living there already (no mention is made of travelling to Bethlehem). (Matthew 2:11). In Luke's gospel Joseph and Mary are living in Nazareth and have to travel to Bethlehem (because everyone had to go back to the city where their ancestors from 1000 years ago lived apparently) and thus, not having a house, Jesus is born in a stable. (Luke 2:7)
This is a turn of phrase indicating the general contempt that Jesus would be held as indicated by the OT Prophets. Nazareth, as a large Roman garrison town was held in contempt by the Jews and this is reflected in the dismissal in Jn 1:46 "Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?" Nathanael asked.In Matthew's gospel Joseph takes Mary and Jesus into Egypt as soon as the Magi are gone and remains there until after Herod's death. They then move to Nazareth in fulfillment of a prophecy (He shall be called a Nazarene) which funnily enough appears nowhere in the OT and seems to have been fabricated by Matthew. (Matthew 2:13-23).
Mt 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
Again these are two accounts from two perspectives.In Luke's gospel Joseph and Mary wait around in Bethlehem for 8 days for purification reasons and then travel to Jerusalem, for Jesus to be presented at the Temple. Jesus, Joseph and Mary then return quietly and peacefully to Nazareth where they came from (Luke 2:21-22, 39). It should also be noted that in Matthew's gospel Joseph's original intent was to return to Bethlehem but that he was afraid of returning to Judea because Archelaus had taken his father's place on the throne. An angel then warn's Joseph not to go back to Judea and instead move (not return) to Nazareth to fulfill the made-up prophecy.
Luke is focussed on the events immediately surrrounding the birth of Jesus ... and he then skips on to twelve years later with the account of Jesus teaching in the temple.
Matthew is focussed on the events of the childhood of Jesus i.e. his first 2 years.0 -
... so you believe in the Triune God then????Professor Moriarty wrote: »Very impressive! From geneticist to Biblical scholar. God bless your breadth of knowledge.
... and call on Him for blessing???0 -
Going out on a limb here, but it's more likely to be the Flying Spaghetti Monster, bless his holy passata.... so you believe in the Triune God then????
No doubt Professor Moriarty will correct me if it's some other deity, major or minor, past or present, slightly made up or completely made up.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Luke is telling the audience that, because he knows that Jesus isn't the physical son of Joseph, he is going to use Mary's genealogy via Joseph and then via her paternal line as convention demanded
This was an exception, because Mary was His only Earthly parent and therefore Jesus lineage via Mary's genealogy was important.
There is no contradiction the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are obviously two different lineages ... one Joseph's and the other Mary's.
There's no point in repeating your baseless assertions unless you're going to back them up with evidence.Herod died in 4 BC allright ... but it seems that although Varus was governor, he was not a good leader, while Quirinius was a significant military leader ... so when it came to the census, which was a taxation mechanism, liable to generate trouble, Caesar Augustus sent Quirinius to conduct the Census thereby effectively elevating Quirinius to the position of a governing authority—even higher than the actual Governor Varus during that time. Quirinius was so successful that he was later appointed Governor. Some historians believe that Quirinius was actual governor of Syria twice - before and after Varus ... which would again mean that he was the governing authority when the Census called in 7 BC was conducted between 7 and 5 BC when, Jesus was born (there is a calendar inaccuracy issue that places Jesus birth in 6 BC).
Just like a lot of your claims, pretty much everything you've said above is wrong.
There is a lot of material to cover here so to begin with I'll outline what the Bible says and what the apologetic response is and then move on to show why this apologetic defense is wrong.- Matthew's gospel places Jesus' birth at a time when Herod The Great is alive and King of Judea (Matthew 2:1)
- Luke's gospel places Jesus' birth at a time when Quirinius had been appointed governor of Syria and was in the process of conducting a census of the province (Luke 2:2)
- At the time of Herod the Great's kingship the Roman governor of Syria was Quintillius Varus.
- Apologists claim that Quirinius may have had a second, earlier governorship of Syria before Varus.
- JC's claim above is that the census took place between 7 and 5 BCE with Jesus' birth taking place in 6BCE.
Problem 1 - Judea and Syria
The first problem with the apologetic argument is the possibility of a census taking place during Herod's time at all. Under Herod, Judea was a client kingdom of the Roman empire and mostly left to its own devices as long as Herod paid tribute (taxes) to the empire. So Judea under Herod was free from any kind of Roman rule as long as it plays by the rules which meant that it was exempt from censuses. As historian Geza Vermes notes:
"He was a client king of Rome and a personal friend of the Emperor Augustus. That implied that as long as he paid his dues to his overlord, he enjoyed considerable independence."
Herod did play by the rules and he was free to do as he pleased. In fact, had Herod been under any kind of direct Roman administration the slaughter of the newborns in Matthew's gospel would have been unlikely.
It wasn't until Herod died and his son Archelaus took over that the problems began. Herod Archelaus didn't feel like playing by the rules and began squandering the money he should have been paying as tribute. In 6CE things came to breaking point and the Roman authorities deposed Archelaus, annexed Judea, made it part of the province of Syria and appointed a new governor Quirinius. This is outlined by Josephus in Antiquities 18:
"Moreover, Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus's money; but the Jews, although at the beginning they took the report of a taxation heinously, yet did they leave off any further opposition to it, by the persuasion of Joazar, who was the son of Beethus, and high priest; so they, being over-pesuaded by Joazar's words, gave an account of their estates, without any dispute about it."
Furthermore, Josephus dates this event:
"WHEN Cyrenius had now disposed of Archelaus's money, and when the taxings were come to a conclusion, which were made in the thirty-seventh year of Caesar's victory over Antony at Actium"
Caesar's victory was in 31BCE, so 37 years later would be 6CE. Josephus also makes a second earlier reference to this event in Antiquities 17 when he says:
"But in the tenth year of Archelaus's government, both his brethren, and the principal men of Judea and Samaria, not being able to bear his barbarous and tyrannical usage of them, accused him before Caesar, and that especially because they knew he had broken the commands of Caesar, which obliged him to behave himself with moderation among them. ...
So Archelaus's country was laid to the province of Syria; and Cyrenius, one that had been consul, was sent by Caesar to take account of people's effects in Syria, and to sell the house of Archelaus."
Since Herod died in 4BCE, the tenth year of Archelaus' government would be 6CE.
Even early Christian leaders talk about Quirinius and his leadership of Judea. In his First Apology, Justin Martyr speaks about the political environment at the time of Jesus' birth:
"Now there is a village in the land of the Jews, thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judaea."
A census of citizens of Judea could not and would not have taken place prior to 6CE because until then Judea was a client kingdom and exempt from direct taxation or censuses.
Problem 2 - The life of Publius Sulpicius Quirinius
The next problem is that we actually know a great deal about Quirinius' life and we know that Quirinius couldn't have been governor of Syria twice such that he was governor of Syria at a time where Kind Herod was still alive. You can see the full list here but the relevant section is below:
28-25 BCE - Cicero Minor
25-23 BCE - Marcus Terentius Varro
23-13 BCE - Marcus Vispanius Agrippa
13/12 - 10/9 BCE - Marcus Titius
9 - 7/6 BCE - Gaius Sentius Saturnius
7/6 BCE - 4BCE - Publius Quinctilius Varus
So, there's no point at which Quirinius could have been governor before Varus. I've gone back as far as 28 BCE because as noted by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops in their commentary on Luke 2:
"Although universal registrations of Roman citizens are attested in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and A.D. 14 and enrollments in individual provinces of those who are not Roman citizens are also attested, such a universal census of the Roman world under Caesar Augustus is unknown outside the New Testament."
We also know what Quirinius was actually doing all this time. In 12 BCE he spent a year in Rome as consul, the highest position in the imperial senate and second only to the emperor. Then after his year he went to Turkey to lead a campaign against the Homonadenses from 12 BCE to 1 BCE including a period as legate of Galatia between 5BCE and 3BCE.
So there's no possibility of Quirinius having any involvement in Syria in 6BCE or at any time before his actual governorship in 6CE.
Problem 3 - Luke 3 and Tiberius
Another problem for JC's idea that Jesus was actually born in 6BCE is presented in Chapter 3 of Luke's gospel which has already been mentioned. Luke explicitly dates the beginning of Jesus' ministry as taking place in the 15th year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius. This places it in 29CE. Luke also states that Jesus was 30 years old at this time. So this would place Jesus' birth no earlier than 1BCE. Had Jesus been born when JC says he was then he would have turned thirty in 24CE.Luke is an account of the events immediately surrounding the birth of Jesus such as his birth in the temporary accommodation of a stable, because they were away from their home and the local Inn was booked out. Matthew's account is primarily focussed on events well after the birth of Jesus, such as the visit of the wise men and the slaughter of all chidren under two years by Herod, thereby indicating that Jesus wasn't a newborn, at the time ... and was naturally living in a house, having obviously left the temporary accommodation, that the stable provided on the night that He was born.
OK, let's explore this idea using the chronologies in Luke and Matthew. In Luke's gospel the timeline looks like this:- Joseph and Mary are living in Nazareth (2:4)
- Because of the census carried out by Quirinius (2:2), they travel to Bethlehem to register (2:4)
- Jesus is born in Bethlehem in temporary accommodation (2:7).
- After 41 days (Leviticus 12:1-4), they travel to Jerusalem about 5 miles away (2:21-22)
- They then left Jerusalem and returned to their home in Nazareth. (2:39)
Now, Matthew's narrative:- Jesus is born in Bethlehem, with no prior mention of Joseph or Mary's place of residence (2:1)
- The Magi arrive in Jerusalem looking for Jesus (2:1)
- Herod asks his high priests for information and they tell him about Bethlehem (2:5)
- The Magi travel to Bethlehem and visit Jesus in a house (2:11)
- Having seen Jesus they then return home, in a direction other than north (2:12)
- Just after the Magi leave Joseph, Mary and Jesus travel to Egypt (2:13)
- They stay there until Herod is dead (2:15)
- After Herod's death the family return but settle in Nazareth (2:23)
So, according to JC's contention, Jesus is born in 6BCE and Luke's narrative depicts the events immediately after Jesus' birth while Matthew's comes much later at a time when Jesus is close to two years old. However this creates several problems with the text of Matthew 2 and Luke 2.
Firstly, Luke 2:39 shows the family returning to live in Nazareth after just over a month has elapsed since Jesus' birth. If the Magi then visit Jesus when he was close to two years old that would have to be in Nazareth since a) Matthew 2:11 states that they visited a house and b) Luke 2:39 indicates that they were living in Nazareth. However, this creates a non-sequitur with Matthew's narrative. If the Magi visited Nazareth then why doesn't Matthew mention this. It only says they visited Bethlehem. If they're living in Nazareth then why do they flee to Egypt after the Magi leave. Nazareth is 70 miles north of Bethlehem and fleeing to Egypt would mean travelling south straight into harm's way.
Secondly, Matthew 2:2 states:
"and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”
It's a little late don't you think. If Jesus is close to two years old it took them a hell of a long time to get there. After all, it's not through word of mouth that the Magi learn of Jesus but a star. So that star hung around for two years over Bethlehem while the family were actually in Nazareth? Really? Why didn't the star move to Nazareth and save the Magi the trip?
Next, if the Magi did in fact visit Jesus in a house in Bethlehem when he was close to two years old that would mean that Joseph and Mary would have had to travel again from Nazareth to Bethlehem and buy/rent a house just so that they could be visited by the Magi. That would be expensive for most people but especially for a construction worker like Joseph.
Finally, Matthew's sole objective in having the flight to Egypt is to portray Jesus as having fulfilled another prophecy as outlined in Matthew 2:15
"where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”
But like a lot of Matthew's prophecies this passage is misquoted and misapplied from its original source.
"“When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son."
Hosea 11:1
Hosea 11:1 refers to Israel and the exodus, not Jesus. It's hard to find a clearer example of deliberate quote-mining.This is a turn of phrase indicating the general contempt that Jesus would be held as indicated by the OT Prophets. Nazareth, as a large Roman garrison town was held in contempt by the Jews and this is reflected in the dismissal in Jn 1:46 "Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?" Nathanael asked.
Once again there are several problems with this.
Firstly, as I've already pointed out, this contempt as you call it is evidenced nowhere in the Old Testament. Nazareth is not mentioned once.
Secondly, the only reference to contempt towards Nazareth comes from a disciple who is only mentioned twice in the entire New Testament in John 1 and 21. None of the synoptic gospels mention Nathanael nor his contempt for his neighbouring village.
Thirdly, there is this idea of Nazareth as a "large" Roman garrison town. Like the majority of your claims there is no evidence for this and all the evidence we do have speaks against it.
The closest evidence of civilisation to Nazareth is a graveyard and funerary centre at Kfar HaHoresh about two miles from Nazareth. Excavations in and around the Nazareth basin from 1955 onwards show that whatever town might have existed on the site was wiped out by the Assyrians sometime around 720BCE. No other excavations have uncovered artifacts prior to 2nd century CE. Some scholars have suggested that, based on Alexandre's excavations of a bathhouse, Nazareth might have been home to a village with a maximum population of 480. So while Nathanael who was supposedly from Cana would have known about Nazareth, it's unlikely that anyone outside the locality would have known about this one horse town.
The earliest extrabiblical reference to Nazareth isn't until 300CE in a tablet talking about the Bar Kokhba revolt in 132CE. Additionally in 375 Epiphanius writes in Panarion that Nazareth was among the towns where there was no gentile or Samaritan (i.e. non-Jewish) populations.
There's no evidence that Nazareth was occupied at all in Jesus' time and the evidence from the New Testament, when combined with archaeological evidence suggests that at best Nazareth was an out of the way obscure little village. A perfect setting for a rags-to-riches story. If you're going to make up a story about Jesus' background you're hardly going to pick a large town where there would be lots of witnesses who would have heard something about this Jesus. Better to pick some obscure unsung hamlet (as Douglas Adams would say).0
Advertisement