http://errancywiki.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=FreezBee&feedformat=atomErrancy Wiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T07:22:56ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.0http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=A_Prophecy_of_the_Crucifixion%3F&diff=46335A Prophecy of the Crucifixion?2007-03-24T11:43:27Z<p>FreezBee: Wikifying</p>
<hr />
<div>Source: [http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/pierce.html Psalm 22:16: A Prophecy of the Crucifixion?]<br />
<br />
<table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=5><br />
<tr valign="top"><br />
<td><br />
<h1>Psalm 22:16: A Prophecy of the Crucifixion?</h1><br />
<br />
Take a look at the King James Version Bible, or modern fundamentalist versions such as the New International Version and the New King James Version, under Psalm 22:16 <a href="#a">[a]</a> and you will find the following:<br />
<br />
:Psalm 22:16 KJV/NIV/NKJV<br />
:For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: ''they pierced'' my hands and my feet. <br />
<br />
*Fundamentalists have always claimed that the latter part of Psalm 22:16 "They <a href="#pierce">pierced</a> my hands and my feet" (which we shall designate as Psalm 22:16b) is a direct prophecy of the ''crucifixion''; with the "piercing" referring to the nails going through Jesus' hands and feet. Although this is ''not'' the reading found in the Hebrew Masoretic text, support is claimed from the readings found in a Dead Sea Scroll fragment and in ancient versions of the Bible such as the ''Septuagint'' and the ''Vulgate''. <br />
*This claim is '''false''', for a few reasons:<br />
<br />
*<b>The Hebrew Text Behind the King James Version</b><br><br />
Despite the claims of its accurate rendition of the original text, the Hebrew equivalent for "they pierced" was <i>not</i> found in the manuscripts available to the translators of the King James Version. Indeed the word rendered in those manuscripts means <a href="#lion">"like a lion"</a>.<p><br />
<br />
*'''The Dead Sea Scrolls'''<br><br />
The evidence from the <a href="#hev">Dead Sea Scrolls</a>, is ambiguous at best. The word found there, <i>kaaru</i>, has no known meaning and may actually be meaningless.<p><br />
*'''Ancient Versions'''<br />
<br />
*Before looking at the readings of the <a href="#text">ancient versions</a>, it is important to know some preliminary background information about them first.<br />
<br />
*A careful analysis of the <a href="#reading">readings</a> given in the ancient versions does not support "they pierced" as the correct translation. Indeed the analysis shows that there were two extant readings in the Hebrew text, one being <i>kaari</i> (like a lion) and the other <i>kaaru</i>. The very fact that translators did not translate the latter word consistently showed that even by that time, the meaning of that word was no longer known. <br />
<br />
*'''Use of Psalm 22:16b by the Early Christians'''<br><br />
<br />
<a href="#Xtian">No early Christian writer</a>, including the evangelists and Paul, until the time of Justin around the middle of the second century CE, made any explicit reference to the word "piercing" in Psalm 22:16b in relation to the crucifixion of Jesus although there were ample opportunities to do so.<br />
<br />
*A consideration of the various <a href="#internal">internal evidence</a> favors "like a lion" as the correct rendering of the word found in Psalm 22:16b.<p><br />
<br />
*We can <a href="#conclude">conclude with certainty</a> that there is no reference to the crucifixion in Psalm 22:16b and with some probability that the correct reading there remains "like a lion".<br />
<br />
==The Fundamentalist Claim==<br />
<br />
The King James Version and modern fundamentalist versions of the Bible, such as the NIV and the NKJV, translate Psalm 22:16 thus:<p><br />
<br />
<table width="100%"><tr><td width="10%"></td><td><br />
Psalm 22:16 KJV/NIV/NKJV<br><br />
For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: <i>they pierced</i> my hands and my feet. <br />
</td><td width="10%"></td></tr></table><p><br />
<br />
Surely, the believer will assert, this is one certain example of a prophecy fulfilled: "they pierced" can only refer to the puncturing of Jesus' flesh by the nails used in the crucifixion. It is then added that this translation is supported by the various ancient versions of the Bible. The Latin translation, the <i>Vulgate</i>, for instance, uses the word <i>foderunt</i>, which is the third person plural perfect verb for <i>fodio</i> which means "to prick", "to sting", "to jab", "to dig" or "to prod". Thus <i>foderunt</i> could be reasonably translated as "they pierced" or "they have pierced". Similarly the ancient Greek version, the <I>Septuagint</i>, the word used is <i>oruxan</i> (<i>&omega;&rho;&upsilon;&xi;&alpha;&nu;</i>) which supposedly means "to bore through". <a href="#2">[2]</a> <p><br />
<br />
The Hebrew <a href="hebrewcanon.html#masoretic">Masoretic Text</a> (MT) however, has a different word here. In order to see the picture clearly, I will provide the Hebrew as well the transliteration and meaning below.<p><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><br />
<table cellpadding=5 border=1 cellspacing=0><br />
<tr><td align=left><b>Hebrew</b></td><td valign=center align=left width=155><img src="image/hyod.gif" width=26><img src="image/hresh.gif" width=38><img src="image/haleph.gif" width=42><img src="image/hkaf.gif" width=39></td></tr><br />
<tr><td align=left><b>Alphabets</b></td><td align=left><i>yod&nbsp;&nbsp; resh&nbsp;&nbsp; aleph&nbsp;&nbsp; kaf</i></td></tr><br />
<tr><td align=left><b>Transliteration</b></td><td align=left><b>Y</b>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <b>R</b>&nbsp;&nbsp; (no sound)&nbsp;&nbsp; <b>K</b></td></tr><br />
<tr><td align=left><b>Pronunciation</b></td><td align=center><i>Kaari</i></td></tr><br />
</table><br />
</div><p><br />
<br />
Remember that Hebrew is read from right to left and in its original Biblical form is purely consonantal-the vowel points were added by later scribes (probably around 700 CE). <a href="#3">[3]</a> Thus for subsequent discussion we will concentrate only on the consonantal text. The word shown above actually consists of two words, the first letter (on the right) <i>kaf</i>, is a preposition (called an <i>inseparable</i> preposition because it is always attached to a noun) which means, in this case, "like" (as in <i>similar to</i>). The next three letters, <i>aleph-resh-yod</i>, form the noun <i>ari</i> which means "lion". The word is pronounced as <i>kaari</i> and is translated as "like (a) lion". Thus the words "they pierced" are <i>not</i> found in the MT. In the Jewish translation of the Tanakh this is what we find:<P><br />
<br />
<table width="100%"><tr><td width="10%"></td><td><br />
Psalm 22:17 JPS<br><br />
For dogs have compassed me; a company of evil doers have inclosed me; <i>like a lion</i> they are at my hands and my feet. <br />
</td><td width="10%"></td></tr></table><p><br />
<br />
<br />
However fundamentalists argue that this is a nonsensical reading because it lacks a verb. In the JPS translation above, the words "they are" have been added by the translators; in the MT the phrase actually reads "Like a lion my hands and my feet".<p> <br />
<br />
Furthermore, they claim, the words "like a lion" makes no sense within the context of the passage for "lions do no surround the feet of their victims". Thus they assert that <i>kaari</i> is a corruption of the original Hebrew reading which should be <i>karu</i>. <i>Karu</i> is the third person plural from of the word <i>karah</i> which means "to dig". This, supposedly, means "to pierce" and should be the correct rendering here. <a href="#4">[4]</a> Below is how both <i>karah</i> (he digs, to dig) and <i>karu</i> (they dig) are written in Hebrew: <a href="#b">[b]</a> <P><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><br />
<table cellpadding=5 border=1 cellspacing=0><br />
<tr><td valign=center align=left width=130><img src="image/hhe.gif" width=43><img src="image/hresh.gif" width=38><img src="image/hkaf.gif" width=39></td><td rowspan=5 valign=center width=55><img src="image/harrow.gif" width=50></td><td valign=center align=left width=115><img src="image/hvav.gif" width=28><img src="image/hresh.gif" width=38><img src="image/hkaf.gif" width=39></td></tr><br />
<tr><td align=left><i>&nbsp;&nbsp; he&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; resh&nbsp;&nbsp; kaf</i></td><td align=left><i>&nbsp;&nbsp; vav&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; resh&nbsp;&nbsp; kaf</i></td></tr><br />
<tr><td align=left><b>&nbsp;&nbsp; H&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; R&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; K</b></td><td align=left><b>&nbsp;&nbsp; U&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; R&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; K</b></td></tr><br />
<tr><td align=center><i>Karah</i></td><td align=center><i>Karu</i></td></tr><br />
<tr><td align=center>"To dig"</td><td align=center>"They dig"</td></tr><br />
</table><br />
</div><p><br />
<br />
Note that the change from "he digs" to "they dig" involves only the last letter, from a <i>he</i> of <i>karah</i> to the <i>vav</i> of <i>karu</i>. <p><br />
<br />
More recently it has been claimed that one of the fragments found in the Dead Sea, at Nahal Hever, has this passage from Psalms and actually reads "They pierced" here instead of "like a lion". This claim was made by the directors of Dead Sea Scrolls Institute in their book <i>The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible</i> <a href="#5">[5]</a>. Of course since it supports their presuppositions, we find many evangelical / fundamentalist websites and books touting this as proof that their original emendation of the passage is correct.<p><br />
<br />
Thus to summarize, these are the fundamentalist claims with respect to Psalm 22:16b:<P><br />
<br />
<ol><br />
<li>The reading of Psalm 22:16b found in the King James Version, "They pierced my hands and my feet", is an accurate rendition of the meaning of the original Hebrew text.<br />
<li>The discovery of a Dead Sea fragment supports the case that the original reading should be "they pierced my hands and my feet”.<br />
<li>This is supported by the readings found in the various ancient versions such as the Greek <i>Septuagint</i> and the Latin <i>Vulgate</i>.<br />
<li>The reading as it is found in the Masoretic Text is corrupt because it is both grammatically incorrect and does not make sense within the context.<br />
</ol><br />
<br />
We will review the evidence for these claims below.<p><br />
<br />
Back to the <a href="#top">top</a><p><br />
<br />
<h2><a name="lion">The Sources Behind the King James Version</a></h2><br />
<br />
Reading through some of the fundamentalist apologetic writings on the Hebrew original, one can be forgiven for <i>assuming</i> that the Hebrew manuscripts used by the translators of King James Bible already had the "correct" reading of <i>karu</i>. This however was not the case.<p><br />
<br />
The Hebrew exemplars available to the translators had <i>kaari</i>, i.e. like a lion. Evidence that the translators <i>knew</i> this meant like a lion can be found from these examples where the Hebrew word is found in other places in the Bible:<p><br />
<br />
<table width="100%"><tr><td width="10%"></td><td><br />
Numbers 24:9<br><br />
He couched, he lay down <i>as a lion</i> (Hebrew: <i>kaari</i>), and as a great lion: who shall stir him up?<p><br />
Isaiah 38:13<br><br />
I reckoned till morning, that, <i>as a lion</i> (Hebrew: <i>kaari</i>) , so will he break all my bones: from day even to night wilt thou make an end of me. <p><br />
Ezekiel 22:25<br><br />
There is a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst thereof, <i>like a</i> roaring <i>lion</i> (Hebrew: <i>kaari</i>) ravening the prey.<br />
</td><td width="10%"></td></tr></table><p><br />
<br />
The same word, <i>kaari</i>, was present in Psalm 22:16b. Anyone with a copy of <i>Strong's Concordance</i> can verify this. Under the entry no. 738 <i>ari, aryeh</i> in its Dictionary of Hebrew Words in the Bible, the meaning is given as "lion" with the additional note that it could also mean "pierce" as a "marginal reading"! That <i>ari</i> could mean <i>pierce</i> is, of course, nonsense. This reveals that the source of the translation for the passage in Psalm 22:16b was not the Hebrew originals but the other versions (in particular the Latin translations) available to them. <p> <br />
<br />
It must be pointed out that despite the claim in the cover page that the 1611 King James Version was "translated out of the original tongues" it was actually more of a <i>revision</i> of earlier an earlier English Bible, the 1602 edition of the Bishops Bible. <a href="#6">[6]</a> Furthermore it also made use of older <i>versions</i> of the Bible such as the various, old and new, Latin translations, as even the conservative F.F. Bruce admits:<P><br />
<br />
<table width="100%"><tr><td width="10%"></td><td><br />
The Authorized Version was formally a revision of the 1602 edition of the Bishop's Bible. But all existing English versions lay before the translators, and every available foreign version, Latin translations ancient and recent, the Targums and the Peshitta-all as aids to the elucidation of the Hebrew and Greek originals. <a href="#7">[7]</a> <br />
</td><td width="10%"></td></tr></table><p><br />
<br />
Thus the translators of the King James ignored the evidence of the Hebrew originals and the Targums and opted instead for the Latin translations which used the word <i>foderunt</i> meaning <i>pierce</i>. <a href="#8">[8]</a> Why did they do this? For the same reason why modern fundamentalist translators like the NIV and NKJV continue to do so, because it supports their presuppositions, not because it was based on the best available evidence!<p><br />
<br />
Back to the <a href="#top">top</a><p><br />
<br />
<h2><a name="hev">The Evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls</a></h2><br />
<br />
The evidence adduced to by some scholars comes from a scroll found in Nahal Hever, a location about 30 km south of Qumran. The document is designated as 5/6HevPs. <a href="#c">[c]</a> There is another manuscript, this one from Qumran, designated 4QPs<sup>f</sup> that has the verses from Psalm 22:14-17. However this document is not legible precisely at this point. Thus we are left with the manuscript from Nahal Hever. <a href="#10">[10]</a> <p><br />
<br />
There are three important items to keep in mind. Firstly, Nahal Hever manuscripts were <i>not</i> from the same time as the Qumran scrolls. While the Qumran manuscripts did predate the first Jewish War (70 CE), the manuscripts from Nahal Hever came from a later period; between the two Jewish Wars (between 70 CE and 135 CE). Thus it does not <i>predate</i> the Masoretic text since evidence from Biblical scrolls found in the surrounding location (at Masada-dated no later 73 CE and Wadi Murabba- dated to before 135 CE) shows that the consonantal text that eventually became the Masoretic text was already established by then. Secondly, the reading found in the at Nahal Hever was not new. There were a few Hebrew manuscripts that were already known to have that reading prior to its discovery. <a href="#11">[11]</a> Thirdly, despite the claims by Abegg, Flint and Ulrich in the <i>Dead Sea Scrolls Bible</i>, the passage in 5/6HevPs does <i>not</i> unambiguously read "pierce".<p><br />
<br />
First let us look at what is actually found in 5/6HevPs:<P><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><br />
<table cellspacing=0 cellpadding=5 border=1><tr><td width=157><b>Hebrew</b></td><td><b>Source</b></td><td><b>Trans</b></td><td><b>Meaning</b></td></tr><br />
<tr><td align=right><img src="image/hvav.gif" width=28><img src="image/hresh.gif" width=38><img src="image/hkaf.gif" width=39></td><td><b>-</b></td><td><i>Karu</i></td><td>"They dig"</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align=right><img src="image/hvav.gif" width=28><img src="image/hresh.gif" width=38><img src="image/haleph.gif" width=42><img src="image/hkaf.gif" width=39></td><td><b>5/6HevPs</b></td><td><i>Kaaru</i></td><td>(Unclear meaning)</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align=right><img src="image/hyod.gif" width=26><img src="image/hresh.gif" width=38><img src="image/haleph.gif" width=42><img src="image/hkaf.gif" width=39><br />
</td><td><b>Masoretic Text</b></td><td><i>Kaari</i></td><td>"Like (a) lion"</td></tr><br />
</table><br />
</div><p><br />
<br />
The word found in 5/6HevPs is given in the middle row of the table above. Note a few things, it is <i>not</i> spelt in the same way as <i>karu</i> (they dig) given in the top row. The former has an additional <i>aleph</i> between the <i>kaf</i> (K) and the <i>resh</i> (R). While fundamentalists are quick to speculate that this is merely an alternate, "Aramaizing" <a href="#d">[d]</a>, spelling for the word, it is still the case that <i>there is no other known example in the available Hebrew literature that spells "karu" this way</i>! <a href="#13">[13]</a><p><br />
<br />
The fundamentalists claim as support <i>other</i> Hebrew words that have alternate spellings. The logic is similar to someone who would claim that since colour/color are variant spellings in worldwide English, it therefore follows that "donour" is an acceptable variant for "donor" <a href="#e">[e]</a>! This is absurd of course. It must be emphasized that just because <I>some</i> words have variant spellings, it does not mean that <i>all</i> words have variant spellings.<p><br />
<br />
As it stands, the word found in 5/6HevPs <i>has no known meaning</i>. Some Jewish writers have labeled this word "Semitic rubbish". <a href="#14">[14]</a> It is merely <i>speculation</i> that the word <i>kaaru</i> is a variant spelling of <i>karu</i>.<p><br />
<br />
As we noted above, even before the discovery of 5/6HevPs, the word <i>kaaru</i>, is already found in a very few Hebrew manuscripts. For a long time scholars have tried to suggest the most probable meaning for the word. Apart from suggesting that it could be an alternate spelling of a known Hebrew word, these scholars turn to languages that are closely related to Hebrew for similar sounding words. Given below is a list of some of the suggestions made over the past eighty or so years: <a href="#15">[15]</a><p> <br />
<br />
<ul><br />
<li>G.R. Driver, "Textual and Linguistic Problems in the Book of Psalms" <i>HTR</i> 29.3 [1936]; 503-506<br />
<uL><li><i>To hack off / to shear</i> from the Assyrian <i>karu</i> which has that suggested meaning.</ul><p><br />
<li>J.M. Roberts, "A New Root for an Old Crux, Psalm XXII 17c," <i>VT</i>, 23.2 [1973]; 247-252<br><br />
<uL><li><i>To shrivel</i> from the Akkadian and Syrian <i>karu</i> (meaning "to be short"). <a href="#f">[f]</a></ul><p><br />
<li>R. Tournay, "Note sur le Psaume XXII 17," <i>VT</i>, 23.1 [1973], 111-112<br><br />
<uL><li><i>As to hack / slash</i> from the Phoenician, Ethiopic, Babylonian <i>aru</i> (the initial <i>kaf</i> being a comparative) meaning "cut branches". </ul><p><br />
<li>John Kaltner, "Psalm 22:17b: Second Guessing the Old Guess" <i>JBL</i> 117 [1998]; 503-506<br />
<uL><li><i>To bind</i> from the Arabic cognate <i>kwr</i> which actually means "to bind"</ul><p><br />
</ul><p><br />
<br />
Using meanings from related languages is a procedure that is fraught with uncertainties. Take a modern example between two rather closely related languages: German and English. It is all nice to know that <i>Haus</i> in German means "house" in English and that <i>gut</i> means "good". But it does not necessarily follow that <i>all</i> words that sound alike mean the same thing in both languages. A couple of examples should do: <i>Kind</i> in German does not have the same meaning as the word in English (it means "child") and <i>also</i> in German means "therefore". Thus finding meanings through related languages can, at best, be no more than <i>guesses</i>. This is why, despite speculating for close to a century, there has been no consensus reached as to what the meaning of <i>kaaru</i> could be.<p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Now let us go back to the suggestion that <i>kaaru</i> is a variant spelling of <i>karu</i>. Even if we are to accept, for the sake of argument, that this is probable (which it is not!), it still does not do what the fundamentalists want it to do. For <i>karu</i>, and its root <i>karah</i>, do <i>not</i> mean "pierce". Indeed the word is best translated as "to excavate" or "to dig". Given below are the instances of the use of the word <i>karah</i> in its various verbal forms in the Hebrew Bible: <a href="#16">[16]</a> <P><br />
<br />
<ul><br />
<li>to <i>dig</i> a pit:<br><br />
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Exodus 21:33; Psalm 7:15, 57:6, 94:13, 119:85; Proverbs 26:27; Jeremiah 18:20, 18:22<br />
<li>to <i>dig</i> a grave:<br><br />
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Genesis 50:5; II Chronicles 16:14<br />
<li>to <i>dig</i> a well:<br><br />
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Genesis 26:25; Numbers 21:18 <br />
<li>to <i>dig up</i> evil (metaphorical use): <br><br />
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Proverbs 16:27<br />
<li>to <i>dig</i> one's ear<br><br />
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Psalm 40:7<br />
</ul><p><br />
<br />
All the instances above show the meaning of <i>karah</i>; which is "to dig" or "to excavate". They do not have the connotation of "piercing" - as in <i>puncturing through</i> something. The last example is especially revealing. The KJV renders this passage metaphorically as "mine ears hast thou opened". The actual Hebrew is literally "ears you have dug for me". Within the context of Psalm 40:7, the meaning is clear, by <i>digging</i> his ear, the Psalmist is able to hear and understand what God wanted and did not want. If <i>karah</i> could be translated as "I pierce", this would mean that the Psalmist is <i>piercing his ears</i> to hear God more clearly!<p><br />
Furthermore had the Psalmist wanted the passage to mean "they pierce my hands and my feet", he had quite a few good Hebrew words that do have the precise meaning of "to pierce" to choose from:<P><br />
<ul><br />
<li><i>daqar</i> : to pierce or to stab through <a href="#17">[17]</a><br />
<ul><br />
<li>Zechariah 12:10 "They look at him whom they have <i>pierced</i>" (This was the verse used by John 19:34 as a prophecy fulfilled.)<br />
<li>I Samuel 31:4...""Draw your sword, and <i>thrust me through</i> with it..."<br />
</ul><p><br />
<br />
<li><i>naqav</i>: to pierce, to puncture or to perforate <a href="#18">[18]</a><br />
<ul><br />
<li>II Kings 18:21 (=Isaiah 36:6) "Behold, you are relying now on Egypt, that broken reed of a staff, which will <i>pierce</i> the hand of any man who leans on it. "<br />
<br />
<li>Habakkuk 3:14 "Thou didst <i>pierce</i> with thy shafts the head of his warriors..."<br />
</ul><p><br />
<li><i>ratsa</i>: to pierce or to bore <a href="#19">[19]</a><br />
<ul><br />
<li>Exodus 21:6 "...and his master shall <i>pierce</i> his ear with an awl..."<br />
</ul><br />
</ul><p><br />
<br />
Thus <i>karah</i> is an extremely poor choice of words if his intention was to prophesy the crucifixion.<p><br />
<br />
So let us summarize the "evidence" from the Dead Sea Scroll.<br />
<ol><br />
<li>The word <i>kaaru</i>, in the form found in 5/6HevPs has <i>no known meaning</i>.<p><br />
<li>The assertion that it could be an alternate spelling for <i>karu</i>, which means "they dig", is only a guess. There are a few other guesses which includes "to bind" and "to shrivel".<p><br />
<li>Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept, the guess above, it still does not do what the fundamentalists want it to do. For <i>karu</i> means "they dig" or "they excavate" and does not carry with it any connotation of piercing through, or puncturing through, the human flesh.<p><br />
<li>If the psalmist had wanted to mean "pierce" in the context of Psalms 22:16, there were other words that would have fitted his requirement better: <i>daqar, naqav</i> and <i>ratsa</i>.<p><br />
</ol><br />
In other words the "evidence" from the Dead Sea Scroll that the crucifixion was prophesied by Psalms 22:16b with the words "<i>They pierced</i> my hands and my feet" is non-existent.<p><br />
<br />
Why then did the authors/editors of <i>The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible</i> claimed that the true reading is "they pierce" when, as we have seen, scholars have been trying to guess at the meaning of the word for close to a century? Two of the three authors of that book Peter W. Flint and Martin G. Abegg are directors of the <i>Dead Sea Scrolls Institute</i>. If one visits the website for this institution the reasons become quite clear. We are told that the Dead Sea Scrolls Institute is an <i>evangelical</i> institute. [The term <i>evangelical</i> is used in Biblical scholarship to mean those scholars -who are mainly based in theological seminaries rather than major universities- who hold extremely conservative or fundamentalist views and presuppositions.] In an earlier posting (which was on line in April 2004) under the section, "We Believe", of that website, we are told the <i>raison d'être</i> of the institute. It said that evangelicals should not "sit back and surrender" the field of Dead Sea Scrolls research to what they termed "non-evangelicals". Within this context, "non-evangelicals" can only mean those scholars who do not share the <i>a priori</i> assumptions of fundamentalists, in other words, scholars who follow scientific critical historical methods! <a href="#20">[20]</a> Thus part of this strategy of "not surrendering" the field to non-evangelicals has to be to provide <i>evangelical slants</i> to the interpretation of the scrolls. Within this context, the reason the linguistically unlikely interpretation of <i>kaaru</i> as "they pierce", becomes clear. I suspect we should expect more "evangelical friendly" results to come out from this institute in the future!<p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Back to the <a href="#top">top</a><p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<h2><a name="text">The Ancient Versions</a></h2><br />
<br />
One of the claims of fundamentalists about this passage is that the ancient versions [i.e. translations] support the reading "they pierced" at Psalm 22:16b. <p><br />
<br />
There are two preliminary considerations that must be remembered before examining the readings of the ancient versions. Firstly, it should be remembered that the Hebrew Bible remains the most <I>direct</i> source for the original text. All translations are, in effect, <i>interpretations</i>. In translating, one to one correspondences of words between the languages are rare. More often there are always a few or even many choices of words that can be used in the translation. The choice of which word to use depends in many cases on how the translators actually understand the passage before them. How they understand the passage depends not only on the text that lies in front of them but also on the <i>presuppositions</i> of the translators. Therefore knowing the external influence that may affect the translation is important.<p><br />
<br />
Secondly, we must know what exactly was the <i>vorlage</i>, or the copy of the text, that the translation was made from. Was it the Hebrew text or was it already a version of the text? Some of the versions were not translated from the original Hebrew but from other versions. If this is the case, it must be remembered that this particular version does not form an independent witness to the original Hebrew text, especially if it supports the peculiar reading of the <i>vorlage</i>.<p><br />
<br />
Thus it is important to get a working knowledge of these various renditions of the Bible. Perhaps the most well known of the versions is the <i>Septuagint</i>. We have already described this version in detail <a href="hebrewcanon.html#septuagint">elsewhere</a> in this website. Here we will just note that the Septuagint was the Greek translation which was started around the third century BCE and probably completed around the first century BCE. The book of Psalms was probably translated into Greek around the second or third century BCE. <a href="#21">[21]</a> Although initially translated by Jews for the use of other Jews who no longer understood Hebrew, the early Christians <i>co-opted</i> the Septuagint and it became <i>the</i> Holy Scripture for them. In their disputes with Jews, the Christians quoted exclusively from the Septuagint. The Jews would retort back by comparing the Septuagint with their Hebrew original and noting that the former either had faulty translations or contained interpolations made by Christians. As a result of these disputes and the generally deteriorating textual situation, the Jews ceased using the Septuagint towards the end of the first century CE. <a href="#22">[22]</a><p><br />
<br />
In the second century CE, Jews dissatisfied with the Septuagint began new Greek translations of their Bible. Around 130 CE, a Jewish proselyte named Aquila, produced a version that followed the Hebrew very closely. About four decades later, Symmachus, who according to which church father you choose to believe, was either a Jewish Christian (Eusebius) or a Samaritan convert to Judaism (Epiphanius), published another Greek translation which, although generally faithful to the Hebrew original, is generally considered to be in more elegant Greek than Aquila's. Around the end of the second century another Greek translation, by another Jewish proselyte, Theodotian, was produced. Unlike the Septuagint, which is still available to us in its entirety, these three second century translations are today extant only in scroll fragments, palimpsests and in quotations by the church fathers. Indeed for Psalm 22:16, we have only the translations of Aquila and Symmachus; there is no extant fragment from Theodotion's version with this passage. <a href="#23">[23]</a><p><br />
<br />
The <i>Targums</i> refer to Aramaic translations of the Hebrew scriptures. Like the Septuagint originally, it was translated for Jews who could no longer understand the Hebrew - Aramaic having taken over as the <i>lingua franca</i> of post-exilic Palestine. Rather than a strict translation, the Targums are more accurately described as a <i>paraphrased</I> interpretation of the Hebrew Bible. Written Targums were in use by the third century CE, but the oral tradition dates back to pre-Christian times. <a href="#24">[24]</a><p><br />
<br />
Like Aramaic, Syriac is a language closely related to Hebrew. Syriac versions of the Bible are called Peshitta. The Peshitta was probably produced around 200CE. The origins of the Old Testament Peshitta is unclear and still debated among scholars. It is unclear if the translations were done by Jews or (Jewish?) Christians. As Bruce Metzger suggested, it is likely that some books of the Peshitta were translated by Jews while others by Christians. There is also uncertainty regarding the <i>vorlage</i> used for the various sections of the Old Testament. For instance, it is likely that the Pentateuch was translated directly from a Hebrew text while Isaiah was translated by someone who had obvious familiarity with the Septuagint. For our purposes it is important to note that the Peshitta translation of Psalms are rather free, as opposed to a strict-literal, translations. Furthermore it is quite obvious that the book of Psalms was translated by a Christian who already looked upon it as valuable proof text for the death and resurrection of Jesus. One clear example of this is in the introduction to Psalm 71. The Masoretic Text does not give a title for this, while the Septuagint attributes it only to David. The Peshitta however has this for an introduction: <a href="#25">[25]</a><p><br />
<br />
<table width="100%"><tr><td width="10%"></td><td><br />
Psalm 71: [Introduction in Peshitta]<br><br />
Being spoken to/by David: when Saul was fighting the house of David, and <i>a prophecy about the suffering and rising of the messiah</i>.<br />
</td><td width="10%"></td></tr></table><p><br />
<br />
Thus as far as establishing the original text of Psalm 22:16b is concerned, the value the Peshitta is very limited.<p><br />
<br />
Sometime around 235 CE, the Alexandrian church father, Origen (185-254) attempted to resolve the textual difficulties surrounding the various Bible version and the Hebrew text by publishing the <i>Hexapla</i>. It contained six columns consisting of the Hebrew text, the Hebrew text transliterated in Greek, Aquila's version, Symmachus' version, the Septuagint and Theodotian's version. There is very little that has been preserved of the Hexapla. However in the nineteenth century some fragments of the Hexapla were discovered in a Cairo synagogue <i>Geniza</i> <a href="#g">[g]</a>. In this Geniza, the Hexapla fragments dating from the sixth century CE, actually a palimpsest <a href="#h">[h]</a>, contain portions from Psalm 22:15-28! <a href="#26">[26]</a><p><br />
<br />
There is a Syriac translation of Origen's Hexapla, called the Syro-Hexapla, made around 616-617 CE. For our purposes the Syro-Hexapla contains translations in Psalms for the Septuagint, Aquila and Symmachus. Thus while these versions do not allow us <i>direct</I> access to the Hebrew text, they allows us to check the texts of the Septuagint and in some cases to reconstruct the lost Greek texts of Aquila and Symmachus. <a href="#27">[27]</a><p><br />
<br />
Finally we look at the Latin Versions. Most people think of the <i>Vulgate</i> and Jerome (342-420) when we speak today of the Latin Bible . However there are a few facts to keep in mind. While the Vulgate, <i>in general</i>, was a translation from the Hebrew by Jerome, the section of Psalms in this version was <i>not</i> translated from the Jewish Bible. The book of Psalms in the Vulgate is a translation by Jerome from the Septuagint-in other words it is a translation of a translation! Jerome did make another translation of Psalm, this time from the original Hebrew. However even in this case it must be kept in mind that he consulted other versions, Greek and Latin, in this translation as well.<p><br />
<br />
There is an older Latin version of the Bible, known appropriately as <i>Old Latin</i>. Unlike (most) of Jerome's Vulgate, the Old Latin is a translation of the Septuagint-it thus gives no <i>direct</i> evidence of the Hebrew text. We find evidence of the existence of Old Latin versions in the quotations of its text by second century Church fathers such as Tertullian (c150 CE-c220 CE) and Cyprian (c200-258). Indeed Latin Biblical texts can be found in areas where Latin was the predominant language, such as southern Gaul and North Africa, from as early as 150 CE.<a href="#28">[28]</a><p><br />
<br />
The chart below the ancient versions mentioned above. The dotted lines show the original <i>vorlage</i> used by each of the versions. The abbreviations next to the names of the versions will be used in the tabular comparison of the readings in the next section.<p><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><img src="image/2216versions.gif" width=470></div><p><br />
<br />
Back to the <a href="#top">top</a><p><br />
<br />
<h2><a name="reading">Readings from the Ancient Versions</a></h2><br />
<br />
<br />
Having acquainted ourselves with the various ancient versions, it is now time to examine their witness to the text of Psalm 22:16b. The table below gives all the readings from the Hebrew texts and the various ancient versions: <a href="#29">[29]</a> <a href="#i">[i]</a><p><br />
<br />
<div align=center><table border=1 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=5><br />
<tr><td><b>Text</b></td><td><b>Actual Reading</b></td><td><b>Translation</b></td></tr><br />
<tr><td><b>MT</b></td><td align=right><img src="image/MTread.gif" width=74></td><td align=left><font color=red>Like a lion</font> my hands and my feet.</td></tr><br />
<tr><td><b>DSS</b></td><td align=right><img src="image/DSSread.gif" width=76></td><td align=left><font color=red>They dig (?)</font> my hands and my feet.</td></tr><br />
<tr><td><b>T</b></td><td align=right><img src="image/Tread.gif" width=142></td><td align=left>Biting <font color=red>like a lion</font> my hands and my feet.</td></tr><br />
<tr><td><b>LXX</b></td><td align=left><font color=red>&omega;&rho;&upsilon;&xi;&alpha;&nu;</font> &chi;&epsilon;&iota;&rho;&alpha;&sigmaf; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &pi;&omicron;&delta;&alpha;&sigmaf; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon; </a></td><td align=left><font color=red>They dug</font> my hands and my feet.</td></tr><br />
<tr><td><b>&alpha;' (1)</b></td><td align=left><font color=red>&eta;&sigma;&chi;&upsilon;&nu;&alpha;&nu;</font> &chi;&epsilon;&iota;&rho;&alpha;&sigmaf; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &pi;&omicron;&delta;&alpha;&sigmaf; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon; </a></td><td align=left><font color=red>They disfigured</font> my hands and my feet.</td></tr><br />
<tr><td><b>&sigma;' </b></td><td align=left><font color=red>&omega;&sigmaf; &lambda;&epsilon;&omega;&nu;</font> &chi;&epsilon;&iota;&rho;&alpha;&sigmaf; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &pi;&omicron;&delta;&alpha;&sigmaf; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon; </a></td><td align=left><font color=red>Like a lion</font> my hands and my feet.</td></tr><br />
<tr><td><b>OL</b></td><td align=left><font color=red>foderunt </font> manus meas et pedes meos</a></td><td align=left><font color=red>They dug / pricked</font> my hands and my feet.</td></tr><br />
<tr><td><b>VP</b></td><td align=left><font color=red>foderunt </font> manus meas et pedes meos</a></td><td align=left><font color=red>They dug / pricked</font> my hands and my feet.</td></tr><br />
<tr><td><b>LJ</b></td><td align=left><font color=red>vinxerunt </font> manus meas et pedes meos</a></td><td align=left><font color=red>They bound / encircled</font> my hands and my feet.</td></tr><br />
<tr><td><b>S</b></td><td align=right><img src="image/Sread.gif" width=82></td><td align=left><font color=red>They hacked off / pierced</font> my hands and my feet.</td></tr><br />
<tr><td><b>SL</b></td><td align=right><img src="image/Sread.gif" width=82></td><td align=left><font color=red>They hacked off / pierced</font> my hands and my feet.</td></tr><br />
<tr><td><b>S&alpha;</b></td><td align=right><img src="image/SAread.gif" width=85></td><td align=left><font color=red>They fettered</font> my hands and my feet.</td></tr><br />
<tr><td><b>S&sigma;</b></td><td align=right><img src="image/SSread.gif" width=140></td><td align=left><font color=red>Like seeking to bind</font> my hands and my feet.</td></tr><br />
<br />
</table></div><p><br />
<br />
We note that the Targum of Psalms and Symmachus' Greek translation gives "like a lion", supporting the masoretic reading. The Targum adds the verb <i>biting</i> to make the sentence clearer. <p><br />
<br />
For Symmachus, it is important to note that &omega;&sigmaf; &lambda;&epsilon;&omega;&nu; (<i>like a lion</i>) is very likely the original reading. Some commentators, including the critical apparatus in the <i>Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensia</i> (the critical edition of the Leningrad codex of the Hebrew bible), made the erroneous assumption that the reading here should be &omega;&sigmaf; &zeta;&eta;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf; &delta;&eta;&sigma;&alpha;&iota; (<i>like seeking to bind</i>). It must be noted that this reading ("like seeking to bind") is the result of a reverse translation from the Syriac of the Syro-Hexapla back into Greek. Yet it clearly arose from a mistake made by the translators of the Syro-Hexapla in reading the original Greek in Origen's Hexapla. How this arose we will explain below.<p><br />
<br />
The ancient Greek manuscripts were written in uncials (i.e. all caps) and there was no space between the words. The mistake arose when the translators of the Syro-Hexapla misread three of the Greek letters and then rephrased the incorrect reading. The table below shows this process, the reading on top is from Symmachus and the one below is what the translator of the Syro-Hexapla read by mistake:<p><br />
<br />
<div align=center><br />
<table border=1 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=1><br />
<tr><td>&Omega;&Sigma;<font color=red><b>&Lambda;</b></font>&Epsilon;<font color=red><b>&Omega;</b></font>&Nu;&Tau;<font color=red><b>&Alpha;</b></font>&Sigma;&Chi;&Epsilon;&Iota;&Rho;&Alpha;&Sigma;&Mu;&Omicron;&Upsilon;...</td><td align=left>&omega;&sigmaf; &lambda;&epsilon;&omega;&nu; &tau;&alpha;&sigmaf; &chi;&epsilon;&iota;&rho;&alpha;&sigmaf; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon;...</td><td align=left>Like a lion my hands...</tr><br />
<tr><td>&Omega;&Sigma;<font color=red><b>&Delta;</b></font>&Epsilon;<font color=red><b>&Omicron;</b></font>&Nu;&Tau;<font color=red><b>&Epsilon;</b></font>&Sigma;&Chi;&Epsilon;&Iota;&Rho;&Alpha;&Sigma;&Mu;&Omicron;&Upsilon;...</td><td align=left>&omega;&sigmaf; &delta;&epsilon;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf; &chi;&epsilon;&iota;&rho;&alpha;&sigmaf; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon;...</td><td align=left>Like binding my hands...</tr><br />
</table><br />
</div><p><br />
<br />
Thus the Syro-Hexapla translator misread a <i>delta</i> (&Delta;) for a <i>lambda</i> (&Lambda;) , an <i>omicron</i> (O) for an <i>omega</i> (&Omega;) and an <i>epsilon</i> (E) for an <i>alpha</i> (A). These misreadings led him to separate the words out differently than what would have been the case; and instead of &omega;&sigmaf; &lambda;&epsilon;&omega;&nu; &tau;&alpha;&sigmaf; &chi;&epsilon;&iota;&rho;&alpha;&sigmaf; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon;... ("Like a lion my hands..."), the translation became &omega;&sigmaf; &delta;&epsilon;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf; &chi;&epsilon;&iota;&rho;&alpha;&sigmaf; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon;... ("Like binding my hands..."). This was then paraphrased to &omega;&sigmaf; &zeta;&eta;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf; &delta;&eta;&sigma;&alpha;&iota; &chi;&epsilon;&iota;&rho;&alpha;&sigmaf; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon;... ("Like seeking to bind my hands...")-which was the reading of the Syriac in the Syro-Hexapla. <a href="#30">[30]</a><p><br />
<br />
The Septuagint gives the reading here as &omega;&rho;&upsilon;&xi;&alpha;&nu; which is simply the third person plural past tense (aorist) of &omicron;&rho;&upsilon;&sigma;&sigma;&omega; which means "to dig". Like the Hebrew <i>karu</i>, it does not mean "pierce". The word appears 37 times in the Septuagint and in each and every case the meaning is always "to dig" (a tomb, a pit, a trench, a hole or a well). Thus a literal translation of this phrase in the Septuagint is <i>not</i> "They pierced my hands and my feet", but "They dug my hands and my feet"-something not very easily imagined! As Mark Hoffman remarked, "It seems quite unlikely that the LXX translators were trying to describe the crucifixion when translating verse 17c with &omicron;&rho;&upsilon;&sigma;&sigma;&omega;." <a href="#31">[31]</a> Unlikely indeed! For had the translators understood the word to mean "pierce", there was a perfectly good Greek word to use: &epsilon;&kappa;&kappa;&epsilon;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&omega; which means "to pierce". This was the word used they translators of the Septuagint used to translate Zechariah 12:10 "They look at him whom they have <i>pierced</i>". Similarly John 19:34 used the exact same words to describe the prophecy fulfillment. So whatever the word in the original Hebrew may mean in Psalm 22:16b, it is extremely unlikely that <i>the seventy</i> understood it in the way the Christians later understood it. <a href="#32">[32]</a><p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The two Latin versions that were translated from the Septuagint (Old Latin and the book of Psalms in the Vulgate) remained faithful to the reading of the Septuagint. The word they used here was <i>foderunt</i>-the third person plural perfect tense for <i>fodio</i>. Now <i>fodio</i>, like &omega;&rho;&upsilon;&xi;&alpha;&nu; in Greek, has the formal meaning of "to dig", but, unlike the Greek, it also has a looser, metaphorical, meaning of "to prick" or "to prod". <a href="#33">[33]</a> [We can see how the "smearing" of the less sharply applied Latin word could result in "to pierce" being eventually read here!] As an aside we see how meaningless it is for fundamentalists such as Gleason Archer (see above) to appeal to the Vulgate as support for their interpretation that the original meaning of the word is <i>to pierce</i>, for the Vulgate (for Psalms) was dependent upon the Septuagint and is not an independent witness to the original text.<p><br />
<br />
When we look at Jerome's translation from the Hebrew we find that the word he used was not <i>foderunt</I>, but <i>vinxerunt</i>, which means "they bound" or "they encircled". This has implications on what was in the Hebrew <i>vorlage</i> available to Jerome. While the Septuagint translation allows the possibility of both <i>karu</i> (to dig) or <i>kaaru</i> (the unclear meaning which could have been <i>assumed</i> by the translators of the Septuagint to mean the same thing-see some scholarly speculations above), Jerome's translation had to come from his interpretation of <i>kaaru</i>, for otherwise he would have simply translated <i>they dig</i>. Jerome probably interpreted <i>kaaru</i> to be based on the root <i>kwr</i> which could mean <i>to be round</i> or <i>to make round</i>. <a href="#34">[34]</a><p><br />
<br />
As for Aquila's version, we have <i>two</i> different readings. According to Origen's Hexapla found at the Cairo Geniza and the church historian, Eusebius (c260-340), the Greek translation of Aquila gave the passage as "<i>they disfigured /shamed</i> my hands and feet". However according to the Syro-Hexapla's translation, Aquila's version had "<i>they fettered</i> my hands and my feet". Since we know Jerome was familiar with Aquila's version, Jerome's use of "they bound" could be taken to mean that "they fettered" was what was written in his copy of Aquila's Greek Bible. These different readings of Aquila most probably mean, as some scholars have suggested, that Aquila had two recensions, or editions, of his translation. The first one having "they disfigured" in Psalm 22:16b and the second having "they fettered" instead. Again it should be noted here that none of these words could have been derived from <i>karu</i>. This tells us that the word in Aquila's <i>vorlage</i> had to be <i>kaaru</i>. Aquila's first interpretation of <i>kaaru</i> was probably based on the assumption that it was rooted in words such as <i>nakar</i> or <i>hakar</i> which could mean something like "to disfigure" or "to shame". The second interpretation could be derived from an interpretation of <i>kaaru</i> similar to Jerome's guess described in the preceding paragraph. <a href="#35">[35]</a><p> <br />
<br />
Finally we look at the reading in the Peshitta. Here the Syriac word used could mean they "hack off" or "pierce/perforate". However as we have noted in the section above, the translation of the book of Psalms was probably made by a Christian who already looked to it as a source of prophecy for the death and resurrection of Jesus. According to Mark Hoffman, the translators of the Peshitta were probably no more "in the know" about the meaning of the Hebrew (assuming they were translating direct from a Hebrew <i>vorlage</i>) than the translators of the Septuagint and were "simply trying to make sense of the Hebrew in the same way as the LXX". In other words we cannot consider the Peshitta to be an independent source here for the Hebrew original. <a href="#36">[36]</a><p> <br />
<br />
We have reviewed the whole array of textual evidence and can now pause to consider what it tells us.<p><br />
<br />
<ol><br />
<li>There was no ambiguity when the word was translated (or read) as a noun - thus the Targum and Symmachus both translated the word as "like a lion". This means that the Hebrew text available to these translators read <i>kaari</i>, like the majority of the masoretic manuscripts. <p><br />
<br />
<li>When the word was read as a verb (with the <i>vav</i> suffix), the translations started to go all over the place. We have the Septuagint saying it means "to dig", Jerome thinking it means "to surround or to bind" and Aquila initially thinking it means "to shame" before finally changing his mind and deciding that it meant "to fetter". This range of translations can only mean that the alternate reading to <i>kaari</i> was not <i>karu</i> but <i>kaaru</i>. Furthermore by the time the versions were being translated it is obvious that the meaning of that word, if it had any meaning in the first place, was no longer known by the translators!.<p><br />
<br />
<li>In all cases where we know of a direct translation from the Hebrew text, there is not a single version that translates the Psalm 22:16b as "They pierced my hands and my feet".<p><br />
</ol><br />
<br />
Back to the <a href="#top">top</a><p><br />
<br />
<h2><a name="Xtian">Evidence from Early Christian Literature</a></h2><br />
<br />
One of the strongest arguments against the verse Psalm 22:16b being a prophecy of the crucifixion is the fact that <i>none of the New Testament authors made any reference to it</i>. This is extremely surprising if the Hebrew or the Greek of that verse was understood as "they pierce":<p><br />
<br />
<ul><br />
<li>Paul writing circa 53 CE in Galatians 3:13 mentioned the verse from Deuteronomy 23:22-23 about the curse of one who dies "hanging on a tree". This is the only connection of the crucifixion to the Old Testament that Paul tried to make. <a href="#37">[37]</a><p><br />
<li>All four gospels made allusions to Psalm 22:19 "They divide my garments among them, and for my raiment they cast lots":<p><br />
<table width="100%"><tr><td width="10%"></td><td><br />
Mark 15:24 (c70CE)<br><br />
And they crucified him, and divided his garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take. <P><br />
<br />
Matthew 27:35 (c90 CE)<br><br />
And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots; <p><br />
<br />
Luke 23:33-34 (c95 CE)<br><br />
And when they came to the place which is called The Skull, there they crucified him...And they cast lots to divide his garments. <p><br />
<br />
John 19:23-25 (c90 CE)<br><br />
When the soldiers had crucified Jesus they took his garments and made four parts, one for each soldier; also his tunic. But the tunic was without seam, woven from top to bottom; so they said to one another, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be." This was to fulfill the scripture, "They parted my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots." So the soldiers did this.<br />
</td><td width="10%"></td></tr></table><p><br />
Note that John even quoted the verse from Psalm directly to draw attention to the fulfillment of the prophecy! (John 19:24). Yet not one of the evangelists connected the crucifixion to the <i>piercing</i> of the hands and feet just two verses prior to this one in Psalm.<p><br />
<li>Furthermore the gospel of John even referred to <i>another</i> Old Testament prophecy, this one about the <i>piercing</i> of Jesus' side:<P><br />
<table width="100%"><tr><td width="10%"></td><td><br />
John 19:34,37<br> <br />
But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear...And again another scripture says, "They shall look on him whom they have pierced."<br />
</td><td width="10%"></td></tr></table><p> <p><br />
<br />
John was referring to the Zechariah 12:10. It is indeed strange that John would refer to this fulfillment but not the one in Psalm 22:16b.<br />
</ul><p><br />
<br />
Some fundamentalist apologists have tried to explain this way by saying that the evangelists and Paul knew that there were some "textual issues" regarding this phrase and thus refrained from quoting it although they fully realized its prophetic significance. This explanation had meets with a quick end when we remember that Matthew 1:22-23 quoted the <i>Septuagint</i> reading of Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy for the virgin birth. However the word "virgin" is found only in the Greek <i>Septuagint</I> and all extant Hebrew bibles (including the ones found in the Dead Sea) have "young woman" instead. Thus the author of Matthew had no problems with the "textual issues" relating to this particular passage! [For those interested in the issue surrounding the "prophecy of the virgin birth-we provide an analysis of this <a href="virgin.html#mistranslation">elsewhere</a> in this website.]<p><br />
<br />
When we go outside the New Testament into the writings of the apostolic fathers we get the same result. None, either explicitly or implicitly, tied Psalm 22:16b to the piercing of Jesus' hands and feet. A particularly poignant example is taken from the epistle of Barnabas (c130 CE):<P><br />
<br />
<table width="100%"><tr><td width="10%"></td><td><br />
Barnabas 5:13<br><br />
He himself willed thus to suffer, for it was necessary that He should suffer on the tree. For says he who prophesies regarding Him, "Spare my soul from the sword, fasten my flesh with nails; for the assemblies of the wicked have risen up against me."<br />
</td><td width="10%"></td></tr></table><p><br />
<br />
The passage, like the ones in the gospel is intriguing. For it is formed out of a combination of three different passages from Psalms:<P><br />
<br />
<table width="100%"><tr><td width="10%"></td><td><br />
Psalm 22:20<br><br />
Deliver my soul from the sword...<p><br />
Psalm 119:120<br><br />
Nail my flesh with your fear; for I am afraid of your judgments [Septuagint reading-Psalm 118:120]<p><br />
Psalm 22:17<br><br />
...a company of evildoers encircle me...<br />
<br />
</td><td width="10%"></td></tr></table><p><br />
<br />
This is another revealing text. Barnabas was obviously looking at Psalm 22 for the fulfillment of Jesus' death and crucifixion. Yet exactly at the point where one would expect him to use "They pierced my hands and my feet", he used a passage from Psalm 119:120! <a href="#38">[38]</a> There is really only one explanation for this: the author of the epistle of Barnabas do not read "pierce" into the Septuagint "they dug my hands and my feet".<p><br />
<br />
Let us pause here for a while and consider the evidence from early Christian literature, from the earliest extant evidence of Christian's use of the Old Testament as a source of prophecy of Jesus, there was not a single case, up to around 130 CE, of reference to the passage in Psalm 22:16b as alluding to the actual "piercing" of Jesus' hands and feet during the crucifixion.<p><br />
<br />
The first Christian writer to make a direct connection of Psalm 22:16 to the piercing of the crucifixion was Justin Martyr (c100 CE-c165 CE). These are the two passages from his writings that made this connection: <a href="#39">[39]</a><P><br />
<br />
<table width="100%"><tr><td width="10%"></td><td><br />
<i>First Apology</i> 35 (c155 CE)<br><br />
And again in other words, through another prophet, He says, "They pierced [&omega;&rho;&upsilon;&xi;&alpha;&nu;] My hands and My feet, and for My vesture they cast lots." And indeed David, the king and prophet, who uttered these things, suffered none of them; but Jesus Christ stretched forth His hands, being crucified by the Jews speaking against Him, and denying that He was the Christ. And as the prophet spoke, they tormented Him, and set Him on the judgment-seat, and said, Judge us. And the expression, "They pierced my hands and my feet," was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed [&pi;&alpha;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&tau;&omega;&nu;] in His hands and feet.<p><br />
<br />
<i>Dialogue with Trypho</i> 97 (c160 CE)<br><br />
David in the twenty-first Psalm thus refers to the suffering and to the cross in a parable of mystery: "They pierced [&omega;&rho;&upsilon;&xi;&alpha;&nu;] my hands and my feet; they counted all my bones. ..." For when they crucified Him, driving in [&epsilon;&mu;&pi;&eta;&sigma;&sigma;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf;] the nails, they pierced His hands and feet; and those who crucified Him parted His garments among themselves, each casting lots for what he chose to have, and receiving according to the decision of the lot. And this very Psalm you maintain does not refer to Christ; for you are in all respects blind, and do not understand that no one in your nation who has been called King or Christ has ever had his hands or feet pierced while alive, or has died in this mysterious fashion-to wit, by the cross-save this Jesus alone.<br />
<br />
</td><td width="10%"></td></tr></table><p><br />
<br />
<br />
Note that unlike the writings of Paul, the evangelists and Barnabas, <i>explicit</i> reference is now made to Psalm 22:16b as referring to the <i>piercing</I> of the nails at the crucifixion of Jesus. However even here it must be noted while he used the Septuagint word &omega;&rho;&upsilon;&xi;&alpha;&nu; (they dug) in his citation of Psalm 22:16b, in his later explanation he used words that fit the crucifixion more closely -&epsilon;&mu;&pi;&eta;&sigma;&sigma;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf; and &pi;&alpha;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&tau;&omega;&nu;. Both these terms are merely active and passive forms of the same root which means "to fix", "to make firm" or "to nail" something. The fact that Justin had to use this explanatory word to clarify Psalm 22:16b means that, regardless of his pretence, the term in Psalm 22:16b does not really make the prophecy clear.<p><br />
<br />
After Justin we find Psalm 22:16 being increasingly used by Christians as "proof text" of the crucifixion of Jesus. We find similar confident citings of Psalm 22:16b as a direct prophecy of the method of crucifixion in the writings of later Christian writers such as Tertullian (c150 CE-c220 CE), Cyprian (c200-258) and Eusebius (c260-c340). <a href="#40">[40]</a><P><br />
<br />
Tertullian was writing in Latin and used the word found in the Old Latin version of the Bible, <i>foderunt</i>,in his citation of Psalm 22:16. <i>Foderunt</i>, as we have seen above, means "they dug" but have the "width" in meaning to include "they pricked" or "they pierced".<p><br />
<br />
<table width="100%"><tr><td width="10%"></td><td><br />
Tertullian: <i>An Answer to the Jews</i> 10 (c197 CE)<br><br />
If you shall still seek for predictions of the Lord's cross, the twenty-first Psalm will at length be able to satisfy you, containing as it does the whole passion of Christ; singing, as He does, even at so early a date, His own glory. "They dug [<i>foderunt</i>]," He says, "my hands and feet"-which is the peculiar atrocity of the cross<br />
</td><td width="10%"></td></tr></table><p><br />
<br />
Cyprian was able to devote a whole section (section 20) in his <i>Second Book of Testimonies Against the Jews</i> (248 CE) to proving that the Old Testament prophesied that "The Jews would fasten Jesus to the cross". Eusebius in his <i>Proof of the Gospel</i> (c313 CE) 10:8 cited Psalm 22:16b as the main prophecy that "they fastened his [Jesus] hands and feet to the cross with nails".<p><br />
<br />
So the evidence from early Christian writings show that up to the middle of the second century CE <i>it never occurred to Christian writers that Psalm 22:16b was an explicit reference to the nailing of the crucifixion</i>. It all changed with Justin Martyr sometime after 150 CE. From then onwards the citations of Psalm 22:16b as an exact prophecy of Jesus' crucifixion became more and more common.<p><br />
<br />
This finding is enough for us to conclude that "they pierced" was never part of the original meaning of Psalm 22:16b. It was not present in the Hebrew Bible (regardless of whether the actual reading was <i>kaaru</i> or <i>kaari</i>) and it was not present in the Septuagint. <i>Certainly it was never understood as such by the earliest Christian writers-including the authors of the New Testament! </i><p><br />
<br />
We can now indulge in a bit of speculation. Justin, as was the custom during his time, was writing in Greek and it was quite obvious from the citations above that the link in the Greek Septuagint between Psalm 22:16b and the crucifixion is linguistically tenuous; Justin had to supplement the scriptural citation with other Greek words to make the meaning clear. So what made <i>him</i> see that connection when no one before did? Why did the <i>paradigm shift</i> happen with Justin?<p><br />
<br />
The most probable explanation is this: <b>Justin had access to the relatively new Latin translation of Psalm 22:16b and that <i>foderunt</i> was used as the translation for the Greek &omega;&rho;&upsilon;&xi;&alpha;&nu;</b>. <a href="#j">[j]</a> <i>Foderunt</i> encompasses within its meaning both "to dig" and "to pierce". Thus the shift from "dig" to "pierce", not possible in the Greek, was made possible by the Latin. We see from the quotation of Tertullian that no such linguistic problem exists when the Latin translation was used!<p><br />
<br />
As we have mentioned above Latin biblical text were already in circulation in Southern Gaul and North Africa by around 150 CE. These were areas where Latin was the dominant language and the need for a Latin translation of the Bible would have been felt most acutely. It is true that the Roman churches did not switch from Greek to Latin until the first half of the third century and Greek was still widely used there during that time. However probably an equal number of Romans used either Greek or Latin for daily communication and the resurgence of Latin was already beginning to make headway there before this time. Furthermore, Justin, although he was not born in Rome, was very probably of Roman descent and he spent the last two to three decades of his life in Rome. <a href="#41">[41]</a> He would certainly had shown an interest in Latin translation of the Bible (either the whole Bible or portions of it-such as some Psalms that may be used in Christian liturgy.) Justin, being one of the pre-eminent Christian apologist, would almost certainly had had access to a copy if the translation had made its way to Rome. Furthermore we noticed that Justin's innovative interpretation of Psalm 22:16b were made in his works that were published within a decade of 150 CE (<i>First Apology</i> c155 CE and <i>Dialogue</i> c160CE). Since the shift in meaning from "dig" to "pierce" allowed by the Latin translation would have been noticed by anyone with familiarity with the language, we would expect the first references of "piercing" to Psalm 22:16b to have happened shortly after the publication of the Latin bible. Justin's timing was exactly what one would expect.<p><br />
<br />
One question naturally arises: If Justin knew of this translation why did he not make any explicit citation of the passage in Latin? The answer is simple, the Latin translation was still <i>new</i> and was in no way authoritative. Anyone familiar with Justin's work will know that he already had his hands full defending the authority of the relatively ancient <i>Septuagint</i> against his Jewish opponents <a href="#42">[42]</a> One example is given below:<p><br />
<br />
<table width="100%"><tr><td width="10%"></td><td><br />
<i>Dialogue with Trypho</i> 68:6-8<br><br />
"If therefore, I shall show that this prophecy of Isaiah refers to our Christ, and not to Hezekiah, as you say, shall I not in this matter, too, compel you not to believe your teachers, <i>who venture to assert that the explanation which your seventy elders that were with Ptolemy the king of the Egyptians gave, is untrue in certain respects</i>? For some statements in the Scriptures, which appear explicitly to convict them of a foolish and vain opinion, these they venture to assert have not been so written. <br />
</td><td width="10%"></td></tr></table><p><br />
<br />
Quoting from a recent <i>Latin</i> translation would not had helped his case much against his Jewish opponents! Thus Justin probably read the Latin translation, finally "saw" that Psalm 22:16b refers to the crucifixion and tried to argue the case in his Greek writings without making direct reference to it. [By the time Tertullian was writing, around the end of the second century, the Latin translation was probably old enough to be cited without much embarrassment as to its authority.]<p><br />
<br />
The evidence from early Christian literature tells us this:<P><br />
<br />
<ol><br />
<li>Up to the year 150 CE, no Christian writer made the connection between Psalm 22:16b and the crucifixion of Jesus. The most likely explanation for this is that neither the Hebrew nor the Greek version of Psalm allows for this identification: "digging" and "piercing" do not share the same word within those languages.<p><br />
<br />
<li>It was only sometime after 150 CE, that the first Christian writer, Justin Martyr, made that explicit reference.<br />
<ul><br />
<li>It is very likely that Justin got this idea from the newly translated Latin version of the Bible; where the word <i>foderunt</i> could mean both "they dug" and "they pierced."<br />
</ul><br />
</ol><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Back to the <a href="#top">top</a><p><br />
<br />
<h2><a name="internal"><i>Like a Lion</i>: Still the Favored Reading</a></h2><br />
<br />
We have settled the case above that "They pierced" was never part of the original reading of Psalm 22:16. We now look at what the original reading could be. Note that any uncertainty with what this final reading could be in no way be taken to mean that the reading "they pierced" becomes more likely again, for we have eliminated that reading using considerations which are unrelated to what we will consider below.<p><br />
<br />
The critical apparatus of the <i>Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensia</i> gives the following summary of the textual evidence of Hebrew manuscripts regarding the reading found in Psalm 22:16b: <a href="#43">[43]</a><P><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><br />
<table cellspacing=0 cellpadding=5 border=1><tr><td width=157><b>Hebrew</b></td><td><b>Textual Witness</b></td><td><b>Trans</b></td><td><b>Meaning</b></td></tr><br />
<tr><td align=right><img src="image/hyod.gif" width=26><img src="image/hresh.gif" width=38><img src="image/haleph.gif" width=42><img src="image/hkaf.gif" width=39></td><td>Majority of manuscripts</td><td><i>Kaari</i></td><td>"Like (a) lion"</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align=right><img src="image/hvav.gif" width=28><img src="image/hresh.gif" width=38><img src="image/haleph.gif" width=42><img src="image/hkaf.gif" width=39></td><td>"A few" manuscripts</td><td><i>Kaaru</i></td><td>(Unclear meaning)</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align=right><img src="image/hvav.gif" width=28><img src="image/hresh.gif" width=38><img src="image/hkaf.gif" width=39></td><td>Two manuscripts</td><td><i>Karu</i></td><td>"They dig"</td></tr><br />
</table><br />
</div><p><br />
<br />
We see that the majority of the available Hebrew manuscripts support the reading of <i>kaari</i> ("like a lion"), while "a few" (defined as between three to ten manuscripts by the <i>BHS</i>) support the reading found in Nahal Hever, <i>kaaru </i> (with unclear meaning-as we have seen above) and two manuscripts supporting <i>karu</i> ("they dig"). From our analysis of the ancient versions above we can see that the first two of these three readings were in existence from around the turn of the common era. <i>Kaari</i> is supported by the Targums and the Greek version of Symmachus. While the proliferations of verbal meanings ("they hack", "they shame", "they disfigured", "they bound", "they dig", "they fettered" etc) can all be traced to the translators (like the modern scholars we see above!) trying to make sense of a word <i>kaaru</i> that was no longer meaningful to them. Had the original <i>vorlage</i> available to them been <i>karu</i> these would all had translated the word the same way; as "they dig". So we can say that both a study of the ancient versions and the Hebrew manuscripts support this conclusion: that in the two centuries before and after the beginning of the common era there were <i>two</i> variant readings in the Hebrew: <i>kaari</i> and <i>kaaru</i>.<p><br />
<br />
A look at the table above also shows the probable cause of the variant: the two words differ only in the final alphabet, the <i>yod</i> of <i>kaari</i> has been changed into the <i>vav</i> of <i>kaaru</i> (or vice versa). Even someone uninitiated with the Hebrew alphabet can see how easy it is to mistake a <i>yod</i> for the slightly longer <i>vav</i>. We know that mistakes of graphical confusion like these did happen and were quite common in the ancient Hebrew manuscripts. <a href="#44">[44]</a><p><br />
<br />
The questions become, how do we choose between these two readings? <i>External criteria</i> - such as general reliability, numerical preponderance and age of documents - <i>cannot</i> be used for this particular case. Some scholars tend to have a bias in favor of the Masoretic Text primarily due to the fact in many cases it has shown itself to be the best witness to the text. In other words the MT is generally more reliable than other witnesses. <a href="#45">[45]</a> While this is true in general, it cannot be applied to all specific instances. Similarly, like the case of the <a href="ntmanuscript.html#texttype">New Testament manuscripts</a> numerical preponderance doesn't really count for much, for if 100 copies are made from a single defective manuscript, what we have is not 101 witnesses to the original text but merely 101 faulty manuscripts! <i>Manuscripts should be weighed not counted</i>! <a href="#46">[46]</a> Furthermore, as we have seen above, we have evidence that the two variant readings date from very early times.<p> <br />
<br />
We are left basically with the internal criteria. P. Kyle McCarter, Jr. in his book <i>Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible</i> <a href="#47">[47]</a> listed the following rules used by textual critics:<p> <br />
<br />
<ol><br />
<li><i>The more difficult reading is preferable</i>: in other words ancient scribes tend to see what they <i>expected</i> to see. Thus the more familiar reading is more often the one that is secondary. Of course, this does not apply to obvious nonsense: "The more difficult reading is not to be preferred when it is garbage."<p><br />
<li><i>The shorter reading is preferable</i>: scribes tend to expand an ancient text-this arises from their concern to preserve the text as fully as possible thus causing them to keep later glosses, duplications and explanations in the text.<p><br />
<li><i>The reading should be appropriate for its context</i><p><br />
<li><i>Be suspicious of readings that "improve" on the text</i>: Readings that offer stylistic improvements, modernize, conform the text to more familiar norms and that resolve contradictions are suspect.<br />
</ol><br />
<br />
In other words, the rules boil down to a basic common-sensical question: "what would have changed into the other?"<p><br />
<br />
Since the mistake probably occurred due to the graphical confusion between the <i>yod</i> and the <i>vav</i> as the end of the word, the only rule really applicable here is rule 3. In other words-which of the two readings fit the context of the passage best?<p><br />
<br />
Most discussions surrounding this verse usually start by critiquing the fact that the MT reading is missing a verb and is literally rendered as "like a lion my hands and my feet"-supposedly a meaningless phrase. Since the alternate reading "kaaru" <i>looks</i> like a verb, the <i>vav</i> suffix indicating a third person plural verbal form, the discussion then normally continues in trying to find the meaning of the root <i>kaar</i>. This, as we have seen above, have led to the proliferation of suggestions from modern scholars <i>and</i> to the varied translations in the ancient versions. This leads me to two reasons why I am very skeptical about <i>kaaru</i> being the original reading here:<p><br />
<br />
<ul><br />
<li>The possibility that <i>kaaru</i> could be <i>nonsense</i> is hardly ever discussed. Yet given that graphical confusion is very likely the cause of the variant reading, this possibility must be taken seriously.<p><br />
<br />
<li>The one thing about the Psalm 22 that seems to have escaped the attention of all commentators (Christian <i>and</i> Jewish) is this: <I>at no time were the Psalmist's enemies described as physically harming him</i>! <a href="#k">[k]</a> Note the bull, the dog and the lion all are described as surrounding him (Psalm 22:12, 16), the lion is described as "opening its mouth" (Psalm 22:13) and his enemies may "stare and gloat" over him and "divide his clothes" among themselves (Psalm 22: 17-18). He asked for deliverance against the power (literally "hand") of the dog, the mouth of the lion and the horns of the bull (Psalm 22:20-21), but they are never described as actually doing anything to him (yet). Thus if Psalm 22:16b were to describe him hands and feet being bitten, dug, hacked off, pierced, bound or fettered, this would be the only line in the whole of Psalm 22 where physical harm would actually be described as being inflicted on the psalmist.<p><br />
</ul><br />
<br />
When these two reasons - the possibility that <i>kaaru</i> may be meaningless and the fact that any verb which describe a physical attack on the psalmist goes against the grain of Psalm 22 - are combined, we can see that by itself-<i>kaaru</i> becomes a very unlikely alternative.<p><br />
<br />
When we turn back to the MT reading, supported by the Targums and Symmachus, we find that some scholars have been too quick to dismiss the sentence as meaningless. Part of the problem comes in reading "like a lion" as the beginning a line or <i>stich</i>. However the phrase could easily have fallen within the previous line, forming this couplet:<p><br />
<br />
<table width="100%"><tr><td width="10%"></td><td><br />
For dogs have compassed me.<br><br />
The assembly of the wicked have encircled me like a lion. <br />
</td><td width="10%"></td></tr></table><p><br />
<br />
This (suggested) couplet takes the poetic form know as "synonymous parallelism"- in both lines we have the imagery of animals (dogs/lion) and the idea of being surrounded/encircled by them. This parallelism is lost if any of the suggestions for <i>kaaru</i> were to be inserted here. <a href="#l">[<i>l</i>]</a><p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
What to do with "my hands and my feet"? For this we have to absorb the whole imagery of Psalm 22:11-21. [The translation below is taken from the NRSV except that I have changed the punctuation at verse 16 and have replaced the NRSV's "they shriveled" back to "like a lion".]<p><br />
<br />
<table width="100%"><tr><td width="10%"></td><td><br />
Psalm 22: 11-21<br><br />
11 Do not be far from me, <i>for trouble is near</i><br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;and there is no one to help. <p><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;12 Many bulls encircle me,<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;strong bulls of Bashan surround me;<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;13 they open wide their mouths at me,<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;like a ravening and roaring lion. <p><br />
<br />
14 I am poured out like water,<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;and all my bones are out of joint;<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;my heart is like wax;<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;it is melted within my breast; <br><br />
15 my mouth is dried up like a potsherd,<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;and my tongue sticks to my jaws;<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;you lay me in the dust of death. <p><br />
<br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;16 For dogs are all around me;<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;a company of evildoers encircles me like a lion.<P><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;My hands and feet;<br><br />
<br />
17 I can count all my bones. <p><br />
<br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;They stare and gloat over me;<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;18 they divide my clothes among themselves,<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;and for my clothing they cast lots. <p><br />
<br />
19 But you, O LORD, do not be far away!<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;O my help, come quickly to my aid! <p><br />
<br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;20 Deliver my soul from the sword,<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;my life from the power of the dog!<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;21 Save me from the mouth of the lion! <br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;From the horns of the wild oxen you have rescued me.<br />
</td><td width="10%"></td></tr></table><p><br />
<br />
If we look at the whole passage above we find three basic themes: the Psalmist's call to God for help (Psalm 22:11 & 19), the description of the state of his anxiety (Psalm 22:14-15, 16b-17a) and the description of his enemies, metaphorically represented by three different animals -the bull/oxen, the dog and the lion. (Psalm 22:12-13, 16b-17a, 20-21). Indeed the imagery conveyed here (Psalm 22:14-15, 16b-17a) is someone surrounded by his enemies in a state of extreme despair, suffering physical discomfort and probably dehydrated and emaciated from his trials, calling out to God for deliverance. <p><br />
<br />
We can see that the imagery about <i>body parts</i> conveys an impression of his extreme despair and anxiety (Psalm 22:14-15 & 16b-17a). Thus when the Psalmist tells us he is "being poured out like water" he means that he is being drained of vitality and energy. That his bones are "out of joint" means his limbs are tired. His heart "melting like wax" means he is troubled or fearful. <a href="#m">[m]</a>. The next lines about his mouth and tongue probably refers to his thirst. That he is "laid in the dust of death" is understandable, for we have here a tired, fearful, thirsting and emaciated man. <a href="#48">[48]</a> After pausing to describe his enemies, he picked up the imagery of his body again in verse 16b and 17a. Raising his forearm slightly, looking at his weak limbs and emaciated body, he laments, "my hands and my feet...I can count all my bones!". Broken sentences like these convey exactly the impression the Psalmists would have wanted to convey: people in despair don't normally speak in complete sentences! <a href="#n">[n]</a><p><br />
<br />
This is not the only example of such a rhetorical technique in Psalm 22. We can also see this in the very first verse of that Psalm. Modern translations tends to smooth out these grammatically rough sentences; the NRSV gives Psalm 22:1b as "Why are you so far from helping me, from the words of my groaning?". The Hebrew literally reads, "Far from my salvation the words of my groaning". The word is not completely intelligible in the strictly grammatical sense. <a href="#p">[p]</a> However if we read the passage as "Far from my salvation...The words of my groaning", we can see that the Psalmist is saying that he is groaning about his state of being "far from salvation". <p><br />
<br />
The imagery is complete-and there is no difficulty with not requiring a verb after "my hands and my feet", for it is merely a rhetorical device to describe the state of mind the psalmist was in.<p><br />
<br />
Note also that Psalm 22:11-21 provides a coherent overall structure when Psalm 22:16b reads "like a lion". If we follow the description of the (metaphorical) animals that permeates this whole passage this is how the progression looks like: <a href="#50">[50]</a><p><br />
<br />
<div align=center><br />
<table width="100%"><tr><td width="10%"></td><td align=left><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A. <b>Bulls</b> Psalm 22:11<p><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;B. <b>Lion</b> (including mention of mouths) Psalm 22:13<p><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;C. <b> Dogs</b> Psalm 22:16a<p><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;X. <b> Lion</b> Psalm 22:16b<p><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;C'. <b> Dogs</b> Psalm 22:20<p><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;B'. <b>Lion</b> (including mention of mouth) Psalm 22:21a<p><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A'. <b>Oxen</b> Psalm 22:21b<br />
<br />
</td><td width="10%"></td></tr></table><br />
</div><p><br />
<br />
Note that the progression exhibits what is normally known as a <i>chiastic structure</i>. This is merely a device use in poetry and some types of prose that crosses the terms and ideas in this manner <b>A - B - C - X - C'- B'- A'</b>. The central "lion" forms the climax to the whole section in which his ordeal or anxiety is at its greatest. After that deliverance follows quickly. Thus a chiastic structure with a central climax fits the context of Psalm 22:11-21 very closely.<p><br />
<br />
<br />
These then, are the reasons why <i>kaari</i>, "like a lion", suits the context of Psalm 22 better than <i>kaaru</i>:<P><br />
<br />
<ol><br />
<li>It continues the imagery of animals (bulls, dogs and lions) as metaphors for his enemies.<p><br />
<li>It completes the couplet in verse 16 via synonymous parallelism. <p><br />
<br />
<li>It falls into the same "drift" as the rest of Psalm 22-where the Psalmist is <i>threatened</i>, or <i>feels threatened</i>, but is never described as being physically harmed or attacked.<p><br />
<li>It completes the overall chiastic structure of Psalm 22:11-21.<br />
</ol><p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Back to the <a href="#top">top</a><p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<h2><a name="conclude">Conclusion</a></h2><br />
<br />
In our long analysis we can make the following conclusions:<p><br />
<br />
We are <i>certain</i> that there is no prophecy of the crucifixion in Psalm 22:16b. There are two alternate readings in the Hebrew text circulating in the time around the turn of the common era; the first, <i>kaari</i> ("like a lion"), obviously has no relation to any crucifixion; the second, <i>kaaru</i> may be meaningless, but even if it is meaningful, none of the meaning guessed at by the ancient independent versions (Septuagint, Jerome's Psalm, Symmachus and Aquila) or by modern scholars compels a reading of "piercing". None of the early Christian writers, right up to 150 CE, interpreted Psalm 22:16b to be a direct reference to the crucifixion.<p><br />
<br />
The reading as it stands in the Masoretic Text, "like a lion" is still the most probable reading, for it fits into the imagery of the whole of Psalm 22 better than the guesses of modern scholars or the ancient translators.<p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Back to the <a href="#top">top</a><p><br />
<br />
<br />
<table width="100%"><tr><td width="10%"></td><td><br />
</td><td width="10%"></td></tr></table><p><br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>Notes</h3><br />
<table><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="a">a.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Psalm 22:16 is the normal rendering of chapter and verse for English bibles for this passage "For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.". However we find different chapter and verse designations in different versions. The Hebrew Tanakh (based on the masoretic text) gives this as Psalm 22:17, the Septuagint has Psalm 21:17 while the Vulgate, like the Septuagint, numbers this passage as Psalm 21:17.<br><br />
The reason for this discrepancy lies in how the chapters and verses are divided in Psalms. The Septuagint combines chapters 9 and 10 of the Hebrew bible into chapter 9. This means that after chapter 9, the Septuagint chapter numbers will be one behind the Hebrew bible. It further combines another two chapters,114 and 115, into one (113). However it splits the next chapter in the Hebrew bible (116) into two (114 & 115). Finally it splits chapter 147 of the Hebrew text into two (146 & 147). There are two combinations and two splits which means that both renditions of Psalms end with 150 chapters! Modern English bibles follow the Hebrew chapter numbering.<br><br />
The verses defer because the Hebrew bible counts the title of the psalm as the first verse whereas the English bibles do not. <a href="#1">[1]</a><br />
</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="b">b.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Note that <i>vav</i> is normally transliterated as "W", however in some case consonants such as <i>vav</i> (W) and <i>yod</i> (Y) can be read as the vowels "U" or "O" and "I". In the above case, the vav is transliterated as an "U".<br />
</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="c">c.</a></td><td><font size="-1">The designation for the documents found around the Dead Sea may look esoteric but is actually quite straightforward. The numbers and alphabets refer to the chronological order as well as the location in which the particular fragment was found and further details of the contents. Thus "4QD" means that the scroll was discovered in the <i>fourth</i> cave at <i>Qumran</i> and is entitled the <i><b>D</b></i>amascus document. More often numbers are given instead of the name of the document. Thus 4Q242 means the document is from the same location (fourth cave at Qumran) and is the <i>242nd</i> manuscript from that place. <a href="#9">[9]</a></font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="d">d.</a></td><td><font size="-1">The suggestion that the addition of the aleph between the kaf and resh is an "Aramaizing" spelling of the Hebrew <i>karah</i> (to dig), or the Assyrian <i>karu</i> (to lop off / to shear) is a favorite among fundamentalist. It was first suggested three quarters of a century ago by G.R. Driver ("Textual and Linguistic Problems of the Book of Psalms" <i>HTR</i> 29.3 [1936], 171-196). Driver however did not convince even himself and eventually took the view that the closest cognate would be similar cognates in Akkadian, Arabic and Syriac, which mean "to bind". <a href="#12">[12]</a> </font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="e">e.</a></td><td><font size="-1">The English and Americans spell <i>donor</i> the same way.</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="f">f.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Indeed the suggestion has been used in the NRSV:<br><br />
<br />
<table width="100%"><tr><td width="10%"></td><td><br />
Psalm 22:16b NRSV<br><br />
My hands and feet have shriveled...<br />
</td><td width="10%"></td></tr></table><p></font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="g">g.</a></td><td><font size="-1">A <i>Geniza</i> is a kind of storage room found in synagogues. It is sued to keep old manuscripts that are no longer usable until such a time where they can be disposed of properly. The whole point is to keep the holy scriptures, which contains the holy name of God, away from the possibility of being defiled or misused. Indeed the term Geniza comes from the Aramaic which means "to hide".</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="h">h.</a></td><td><font size="-1">A palimpsest is a document which has something else written on top of previous writings. </font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="i">i.</a></td><td><font size="-1">The table is derived from the extensive Appendix given in Mark George Vitalis Hoffman's 1996 Yale PhD dissertation <i>Psalm 22 (LXX 21) and the Crucifixion of Jesus</i>. Due to font limitation the Syriac text is transliterated into Hebrew. </font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="j">j.</a></td><td><font size="-1">As far as I know, nobody else have made this suggestion-of linking Justin's interpretation to the Latin translation of the Bible-before. So remember, you read it here first, folks!</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="k">k.</a></td><td><font size="-1"><i>Contra</i> Brent Strawn in "Psalm 22:17b: More Guessing", <i>Journal of Biblical Literature</i> 119/3 (2000) p 447 who mentioned that there were three occasions of reference of physical violence towards the Psalmist by his enemies. He verses he cited were: 22:12-13, 16 & 20-21 (Note Strawn was using the verse number of the Hebrew bible, so I have to minus one from there). Verse 16 is the point of the whole discussion so we will not be reviewing it here. I think Dr. Strawn in mistaken here. For verse 22:12-13 refers to the enemies of the Psalmist, metaphorically represented as bulls and lions, as surrounding him and "opening their mouth" <i>at</i> him. These are threatening gestures, no doubt - which would explain the following stanza where he describes his own fear and anxiety - but it does not presuppose any physical violence being inflicted on the Psalmist. Verse 22:20-21 is a thanksgiving stanza thanking God for saving him <i>from</i> the "power [literally "hand"] of the dog", the "mouth of the lion" and the "horns of the bull". Again there is no indication that he actually was physically attacked for the deliverance seem to be one who rejoices after managing to <i>avoid</i> such attacks!<br />
<font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="l"><i>l</i>.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Although the second <i>stich</i> (<i>stich</i> is just a fancy term for the smallest "sentence unit" in a poetry) is longer than the first, I think this reconstruction still falls within the metrical rules of Hebrew poetry. The first line of the couple in Hebrew could contain 3 stresses if the syllable for initial <i>ki</i> ("for"), is stressed for emphasis. The second line contains four stresses. This pattern of stresses, 3/4, corresponds to the <i>Qinah</i>, or lamentation, poetic line which normally has two stichs of unequal lengths. Similarly the next couplet [My hands and my feet/I can count all my bones] has the 2/2 pattern of stresses and falls within the "normal" Hebrew poetical metrical arrangement.<br />
<font></td></tr><br />
<br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="m">m.</a></td><td><font size="-1">We find the same imagery in one of the extra-biblical scrolls as Qumran:<br><br />
<table width="100%"><tr><td width="10%"></td><td><br />
1QH 4:33-34<br><br />
As for me shaking and trembling seize me, and all my bones are quivering; my heart melts like wax before fire and my knees are like water pouring down a steep place.<br />
</td><td width="10%"></td></tr></table><br />
Here too, "heart melting like wax" refers to the state of extreme distress and fear.<br />
</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="n">n.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Of course we are not saying that the Psalmist was actually in a physical state of hunger, thirst and near death - but merely that this was the <i>imagery</i> he chose to describe (perhaps) his spiritual anxiety and despair.<br />
<font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="p">p.</a></td><td><font size="-1">It must be noted that for this particular "broken passage" in Psalm 22:1, <i>all ancient versions support the reading of the Hebrew text</i>. <a href="#49">[49]</a><br />
<font></td></tr><br />
</table><p><br />
<br />
===References===<br />
<table><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="1">1.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Hoffman, Psalm 22 (LXX 21) and the Crucifixion of Jesus: <i>notations</i> page</font></td></tr><br />
<br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="2">2.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties: p37</font></td></tr><br />
<br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="3">3.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Würthwein, The Text of the Old Testament: p21</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="4">4.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Archer <i>op. cit.</i>: p37</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="5">5.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Abegg, Flint & Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: p518-519 </font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="6">6.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Metzger, The Bible in Translation: p76-77</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="7">7.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Bruce, The Books and the Parchments: p229</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="8">8.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Asimov, Guide to the Bible: p895</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="9">9.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Eisenmann & Wise, Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered: p1<br><br />
Wise, Abegg & Cook: p39</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="10">10.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Vanderkam & Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: p124-125</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="11">11.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Shanks (ed), Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls, p145<br><br />
Strawn, Brent, A., "Psalm 22:17b: More Guessing" <i>Journal of Biblical Literature</i> 119/3 (2000) p447-448 n41<br><br />
Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible: p28<br><br />
Würthwein, <i>op. cit.</i>: p32</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="12">12.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Hoffman, <i>op. cit.</i>: p175 </font></td></tr><br />
<br />
<br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="13">13.</a></td><td><font size="-1"><i>ibid.</i>: p174 </font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="14">14.</a></td><td><font size="-1"><a href="http://www.outreachjudaism.org/like-a-lion.html" target="new">Outreach Judaism Q&A</a></font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="15">15.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Hoffman, <i>op. cit.</i>: p174-175<br><br />
Strawn, Brent, A., <i>op. cit.</i>: p439-451</font></td></tr><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="16">16.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Brown, Driver & Briggs, The BDB Hebrew and English Lexicon: p500</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="17">17.</a></td><td><font size="-1"><i>ibid.</i>: p201<br><br />
Callahan, Secret Origins of the Bible: p366</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="18">18.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Brown, Driver & Briggs <i>op. cit.</i>: p666</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="19">19.</a></td><td><font size="-1"><i>ibid.</i>: p954</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="20">20.</a></td><td><font size="-1"><a href="http://www.twu.ca/Biblical/DSSI/main.asp" target=new>Dead Sea Scrolls Institute Main Page</a></font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="21">21.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Hoffman, <i>op. cit.</i>: p37</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="22">22.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Hoffman, <i>op. cit.</i>: p37<br><br />
Metzger, <i>op. cit.</i>: p18-19<br><br />
Würthwein, <i>op. cit.</i>: p52-54</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="23">23.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Hoffman, <i>op. cit.</i>: p37-38,473<br><br />
Metzger, <i>op. cit.</i>: p19<br><br />
Würthwein, <i>op. cit.</i>: p55-56</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="24">24.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Hoffman, <i>op. cit.</i>: p36-37<br><br />
Metzger, <i>op. cit.</i>: p20-24<br><br />
Würthwein, <i>op. cit.</i>: p55-56</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="25">25.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Hoffman, <i>op. cit.</i>: p39, 270-271<br><br />
Metzger, <i>op. cit.</i>: p26-27<br><br />
Tov, <i>op. cit.</i>: p152<br><br />
Würthwein, <i>op. cit.</i>: p85-90</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="26">26.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Hoffman, <i>op. cit.</i>: p37-38<br><br />
Metzger, <i>op. cit.</i>: p19<br><br />
Würthwein, <i>op. cit.</i>: p11,57 </font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="27">27.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Hoffman, <i>op. cit.</i>: p38-39<br><br />
Würthwein, <i>op. cit.</i>: p59</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="28">28.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Hoffman, <i>op. cit.</i>: p39-40<br><br />
Metzger, <i>op. cit.</i>: p29-35<br><br />
Würthwein, <i>op. cit.</i>: p91-99</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="29">29.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Hoffman, <i>op. cit.</i>: p450-554 (Appendix A)</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="30">30.</a></td><td><font size="-1"><i>ibid.</i>: p44, p173 & p466</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="31">31.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Callahan, <i>op. cit.</i>: p365<br><br />
Hoffman, <i>op. cit.</i>: 179-180</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="32">32.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Callahan, <i>op. cit.</i>: p366<br></font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="33">33.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Traupman, Latin & English Dictionary: p183</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="34">34.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Hoffman, <i>op. cit.</i>: p46</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="35">35.</a></td><td><font size="-1"><i>ibid</i>: p45-46</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="36">36.</a></td><td><font size="-1"><i>ibid</i>: p178<font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="37">37.</a></td><td><font size="-1"><i>ibid</i>: p182</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="38">38.</a></td><td><font size="-1"><i>ibid</i>: p182-183</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="39">39.</a></td><td><font size="-1"><i>ibid</i>: p184-186</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="40">40.</a></td><td><font size="-1"><i>ibid</i>: p188-190</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="41">41.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Bruce, The Books and the Parchments: p63, p202-203<br><br />
Ferguson, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity: p647-649<br><br />
Metzger, <i>op.cit</i>: p30-31<br />
Würthwein, <i>op. cit.</i>: p91</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="42">42.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Dunn, Jews and Christians: p41-69</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="43">43.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Elliger & Rudolph, Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensia: p1104</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="44">44.</a></td><td><font size="-1"><br />
McCarter, Textual Criticism: p43-49<br><br />
Würthwein, <i>op. cit.</i>: p108</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="45">45.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Würthwein, <i>op. cit.</i>: p115-116</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="46">46.</a></td><td><font size="-1">McCarter, <i>op. cit.</i>: p71-72</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="47">47.</a></td><td><font size="-1"><i>ibid.</i>: p72-74</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="48">48.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Hoffman, <i>op. cit.</i>: p158-167<br><br />
Weiser, The Psalm: p223-224</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="49">49.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Hoffman, <i>op. cit.</i>: p112</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="50">50.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Strawn, <i>op. cit.</i>: p447</font></td></tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
<br />
{{Category: Legends}}</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:FreezBee&diff=46239User talk:FreezBee2007-03-11T12:10:48Z<p>FreezBee: /* Request to FB to create Legends page for Tobin's Psalm 22:17 article */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Request to FB to create Legends page for Tobin's Psalm 22:17 article ==<br />
<br />
<font color=blue>JW:</font><br />
<br />
FB, the Carrier Legends article is now finalized. The next Legends article will be Paul Tobin's:<br />
<br />
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/pierce.html ([[A Prophecy of the Crucifixion?]])<br />
<br />
Psalm 22:17 article which he has given me permission to reproduce here. Can you get it started here by creating a new Legends page for it and than copying it best you can so the links work? If necessary I should be able to get help from Tobin to accomplish this.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 14:38, 13 Jan 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Hi Joe - I've been busy the last couple of months elsewhere, so I've first read youyr message today march 4. I'll try to look at it over the next few days, but I may not be able to dedicate much time, I'm afraid.<br />
--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 06:56, 4 Mar 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Hi FB. Just do the best you can. Thanks.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 08:51, 5 Mar 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
OK, I suggest that we make a Legends category - rather than naming any pages "Legends", since only one page would be able to have that name.--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 06:52, 11 Mar 2007 (CDT)<br />
<br />
I have created the page and done a rough copy - I'll try and fix things up over the next few days. --[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 07:10, 11 Mar 2007 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== Blah blah ==<br />
<br />
Ooh, just found out how to label links!!! --[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 05:40, 27 Jan 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
Today I've learned to add a page to a Category and to make lists --[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 08:09, 30 Jan 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
FB, thanks for showing me how to use Wiki color and size. For the Carrier Legends article I still need to place his personal information in an Inset and set up a PayPal account for him. Do you know how to do this?<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 09:44, 12 Nov 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
: Could you be more specific about how you want the box to look? --[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 07:56, 10 Dec 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
FB<br />
:If you give me your email I can send you Carrier's original article and format so you can see exactly what I want.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 11:09, 10 Dec 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
:It's pwemail@hotmail.com<br />
:--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 11:37, 11 Dec 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
Great job FB, the article looks pretty slick. It's already getting a lot of compliments. Can you put in a PayPal link for Carrier at the end of the article?<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 08:43, 14 Dec 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
:It's not something I've done before, so I wouldn't recommend that I tried :-)<br />
:The code would look something like this:<br />
<br />
<pre><br />
<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="paypal@secularstudents.org"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Donate to the Secular Student Alliance"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="item_number" value="Hemant-Church no encrypt"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="bn" value="PP-DonationsBF"> <br />
<p style="text-align: center"> <br />
<input type="image" src="https://www.paypal.com/en_US/i/btn/x-click-but04.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!"> <br />
<br><br />
<font size="1">Donate to the SSA</font></p><br />
</form><br />
</pre><br />
<br />
:This is a link for the ''Secular Student Alliance'' (copied from [http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/08/17/godless-whos-who/ this page]), and for Richard it would of course have to be his account address instead and what else may need to be changed.<br />
:--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 09:46, 14 Dec 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Also, for my Mark 1:1 article I can not figure out how to link it to the Transmission Category Page.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 10:56, 12 Nov 2006 (CST)</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=A_Prophecy_of_the_Crucifixion%3F&diff=9676A Prophecy of the Crucifixion?2007-03-11T12:08:13Z<p>FreezBee: Starting page</p>
<hr />
<div>Source: [http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/pierce.html Psalm 22:16: A Prophecy of the Crucifixion?]<br />
<br />
<table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=5><br />
<tr valign="top"><br />
<td><br />
<h1>Psalm 22:16: A Prophecy of the Crucifixion?</h1><br />
<br />
Take a look at the King James Version Bible, or modern fundamentalist versions such as the New International Version and the New King James Version, under Psalm 22:16 <a href="#a">[a]</a> and you will find the following:<br />
<br />
:Psalm 22:16 KJV/NIV/NKJV<br />
:For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: ''they pierced'' my hands and my feet. <br />
<br />
<br />
<a name="top"><ul></a><br />
<li>Fundamentalists have always claimed that the latter part of Psalm 22:16 "They <a href="#pierce">pierced</a> my hands and my feet" (which we shall designate as Psalm 22:16b) is a direct prophecy of the <i>crucifixion</i>; with the "piercing" referring to the nails going through Jesus' hands and feet. Although this is <i>not</i> the reading found in the Hebrew Masoretic text, support is claimed from the readings found in a Dead Sea Scroll fragment and in ancient versions of the Bible such as the <i>Septuagint</i> and the <i>Vulgate</i>. <p><br />
<li>This claim is <b>false</b>, for a few reasons:<p><br />
<ul><br />
<li><b>The Hebrew Text Behind the King James Version</b><br><br />
Despite the claims of its accurate rendition of the original text, the Hebrew equivalent for "they pierced" was <i>not</i> found in the manuscripts available to the translators of the King James Version. Indeed the word rendered in those manuscripts means <a href="#lion">"like a lion"</a>.<p><br />
<br />
<li><b>The Dead Sea Scrolls</b><br><br />
The evidence from the <a href="#hev">Dead Sea Scrolls</a>, is ambiguous at best. The word found there, <i>kaaru</i>, has no known meaning and may actually be meaningless.<p><br />
<li><b>Ancient Versions</b><br />
<uL><br />
<li>Before looking at the readings of the <a href="#text">ancient versions</a>, it is important to know some preliminary background information about them first.<br />
<br />
<li>A careful analysis of the <a href="#reading">readings</a> given in the ancient versions does not support "they pierced" as the correct translation. Indeed the analysis shows that there were two extant readings in the Hebrew text, one being <i>kaari</i> (like a lion) and the other <i>kaaru</i>. The very fact that translators did not translate the latter word consistently showed that even by that time, the meaning of that word was no longer known. <br />
</ul><p><br />
<li><b>Use of Psalm 22:16b by the Early Christians</b><br><br />
<br />
<a href="#Xtian">No early Christian writer</a>, including the evangelists and Paul, until the time of Justin around the middle of the second century CE, made any explicit reference to the word "piercing" in Psalm 22:16b in relation to the crucifixion of Jesus although there were ample opportunities to do so.<br />
<br />
</ul><p><br />
<br />
<li>A consideration of the various <a href="#internal">internal evidence</a> favors "like a lion" as the correct rendering of the word found in Psalm 22:16b.<p><br />
<br />
<li>We can <a href="#conclude">conclude with certainty</a> that there is no reference to the crucifixion in Psalm 22:16b and with some probability that the correct reading there remains "like a lion".<br />
<br />
</ul><br />
<br />
<br />
<h2><a name="pierce">The Fundamentalist Claim</a></h2><br />
<br />
The King James Version and modern fundamentalist versions of the Bible, such as the NIV and the NKJV, translate Psalm 22:16 thus:<p><br />
<br />
<table width="100%"><tr><td width="10%"></td><td><br />
Psalm 22:16 KJV/NIV/NKJV<br><br />
For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: <i>they pierced</i> my hands and my feet. <br />
</td><td width="10%"></td></tr></table><p><br />
<br />
Surely, the believer will assert, this is one certain example of a prophecy fulfilled: "they pierced" can only refer to the puncturing of Jesus' flesh by the nails used in the crucifixion. It is then added that this translation is supported by the various ancient versions of the Bible. The Latin translation, the <i>Vulgate</i>, for instance, uses the word <i>foderunt</i>, which is the third person plural perfect verb for <i>fodio</i> which means "to prick", "to sting", "to jab", "to dig" or "to prod". Thus <i>foderunt</i> could be reasonably translated as "they pierced" or "they have pierced". Similarly the ancient Greek version, the <I>Septuagint</i>, the word used is <i>oruxan</i> (<i>&omega;&rho;&upsilon;&xi;&alpha;&nu;</i>) which supposedly means "to bore through". <a href="#2">[2]</a> <p><br />
<br />
The Hebrew <a href="hebrewcanon.html#masoretic">Masoretic Text</a> (MT) however, has a different word here. In order to see the picture clearly, I will provide the Hebrew as well the transliteration and meaning below.<p><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><br />
<table cellpadding=5 border=1 cellspacing=0><br />
<tr><td align=left><b>Hebrew</b></td><td valign=center align=left width=155><img src="image/hyod.gif" width=26><img src="image/hresh.gif" width=38><img src="image/haleph.gif" width=42><img src="image/hkaf.gif" width=39></td></tr><br />
<tr><td align=left><b>Alphabets</b></td><td align=left><i>yod&nbsp;&nbsp; resh&nbsp;&nbsp; aleph&nbsp;&nbsp; kaf</i></td></tr><br />
<tr><td align=left><b>Transliteration</b></td><td align=left><b>Y</b>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <b>R</b>&nbsp;&nbsp; (no sound)&nbsp;&nbsp; <b>K</b></td></tr><br />
<tr><td align=left><b>Pronunciation</b></td><td align=center><i>Kaari</i></td></tr><br />
</table><br />
</div><p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Remember that Hebrew is read from right to left and in its original Biblical form is purely consonantal-the vowel points were added by later scribes (probably around 700 CE). <a href="#3">[3]</a> Thus for subsequent discussion we will concentrate only on the consonantal text. The word shown above actually consists of two words, the first letter (on the right) <i>kaf</i>, is a preposition (called an <i>inseparable</i> preposition because it is always attached to a noun) which means, in this case, "like" (as in <i>similar to</i>). The next three letters, <i>aleph-resh-yod</i>, form the noun <i>ari</i> which means "lion". The word is pronounced as <i>kaari</i> and is translated as "like (a) lion". Thus the words "they pierced" are <i>not</i> found in the MT. In the Jewish translation of the Tanakh this is what we find:<P><br />
<br />
<table width="100%"><tr><td width="10%"></td><td><br />
Psalm 22:17 JPS<br><br />
For dogs have compassed me; a company of evil doers have inclosed me; <i>like a lion</i> they are at my hands and my feet. <br />
</td><td width="10%"></td></tr></table><p><br />
<br />
<br />
However fundamentalists argue that this is a nonsensical reading because it lacks a verb. In the JPS translation above, the words "they are" have been added by the translators; in the MT the phrase actually reads "Like a lion my hands and my feet".<p> <br />
<br />
Furthermore, they claim, the words "like a lion" makes no sense within the context of the passage for "lions do no surround the feet of their victims". Thus they assert that <i>kaari</i> is a corruption of the original Hebrew reading which should be <i>karu</i>. <i>Karu</i> is the third person plural from of the word <i>karah</i> which means "to dig". This, supposedly, means "to pierce" and should be the correct rendering here. <a href="#4">[4]</a> Below is how both <i>karah</i> (he digs, to dig) and <i>karu</i> (they dig) are written in Hebrew: <a href="#b">[b]</a> <P><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><br />
<table cellpadding=5 border=1 cellspacing=0><br />
<tr><td valign=center align=left width=130><img src="image/hhe.gif" width=43><img src="image/hresh.gif" width=38><img src="image/hkaf.gif" width=39></td><td rowspan=5 valign=center width=55><img src="image/harrow.gif" width=50></td><td valign=center align=left width=115><img src="image/hvav.gif" width=28><img src="image/hresh.gif" width=38><img src="image/hkaf.gif" width=39></td></tr><br />
<tr><td align=left><i>&nbsp;&nbsp; he&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; resh&nbsp;&nbsp; kaf</i></td><td align=left><i>&nbsp;&nbsp; vav&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; resh&nbsp;&nbsp; kaf</i></td></tr><br />
<tr><td align=left><b>&nbsp;&nbsp; H&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; R&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; K</b></td><td align=left><b>&nbsp;&nbsp; U&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; R&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; K</b></td></tr><br />
<tr><td align=center><i>Karah</i></td><td align=center><i>Karu</i></td></tr><br />
<tr><td align=center>"To dig"</td><td align=center>"They dig"</td></tr><br />
</table><br />
</div><p><br />
<br />
Note that the change from "he digs" to "they dig" involves only the last letter, from a <i>he</i> of <i>karah</i> to the <i>vav</i> of <i>karu</i>. <p><br />
<br />
More recently it has been claimed that one of the fragments found in the Dead Sea, at Nahal Hever, has this passage from Psalms and actually reads "They pierced" here instead of "like a lion". This claim was made by the directors of Dead Sea Scrolls Institute in their book <i>The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible</i> <a href="#5">[5]</a>. Of course since it supports their presuppositions, we find many evangelical / fundamentalist websites and books touting this as proof that their original emendation of the passage is correct.<p><br />
<br />
Thus to summarize, these are the fundamentalist claims with respect to Psalm 22:16b:<P><br />
<br />
<ol><br />
<li>The reading of Psalm 22:16b found in the King James Version, "They pierced my hands and my feet", is an accurate rendition of the meaning of the original Hebrew text.<br />
<li>The discovery of a Dead Sea fragment supports the case that the original reading should be "they pierced my hands and my feet”.<br />
<li>This is supported by the readings found in the various ancient versions such as the Greek <i>Septuagint</i> and the Latin <i>Vulgate</i>.<br />
<li>The reading as it is found in the Masoretic Text is corrupt because it is both grammatically incorrect and does not make sense within the context.<br />
</ol><br />
<br />
We will review the evidence for these claims below.<p><br />
<br />
Back to the <a href="#top">top</a><p><br />
<br />
<h2><a name="lion">The Sources Behind the King James Version</a></h2><br />
<br />
Reading through some of the fundamentalist apologetic writings on the Hebrew original, one can be forgiven for <i>assuming</i> that the Hebrew manuscripts used by the translators of King James Bible already had the "correct" reading of <i>karu</i>. This however was not the case.<p><br />
<br />
The Hebrew exemplars available to the translators had <i>kaari</i>, i.e. like a lion. Evidence that the translators <i>knew</i> this meant like a lion can be found from these examples where the Hebrew word is found in other places in the Bible:<p><br />
<br />
<table width="100%"><tr><td width="10%"></td><td><br />
Numbers 24:9<br><br />
He couched, he lay down <i>as a lion</i> (Hebrew: <i>kaari</i>), and as a great lion: who shall stir him up?<p><br />
Isaiah 38:13<br><br />
I reckoned till morning, that, <i>as a lion</i> (Hebrew: <i>kaari</i>) , so will he break all my bones: from day even to night wilt thou make an end of me. <p><br />
Ezekiel 22:25<br><br />
There is a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst thereof, <i>like a</i> roaring <i>lion</i> (Hebrew: <i>kaari</i>) ravening the prey.<br />
</td><td width="10%"></td></tr></table><p><br />
<br />
The same word, <i>kaari</i>, was present in Psalm 22:16b. Anyone with a copy of <i>Strong's Concordance</i> can verify this. Under the entry no. 738 <i>ari, aryeh</i> in its Dictionary of Hebrew Words in the Bible, the meaning is given as "lion" with the additional note that it could also mean "pierce" as a "marginal reading"! That <i>ari</i> could mean <i>pierce</i> is, of course, nonsense. This reveals that the source of the translation for the passage in Psalm 22:16b was not the Hebrew originals but the other versions (in particular the Latin translations) available to them. <p> <br />
<br />
It must be pointed out that despite the claim in the cover page that the 1611 King James Version was "translated out of the original tongues" it was actually more of a <i>revision</i> of earlier an earlier English Bible, the 1602 edition of the Bishops Bible. <a href="#6">[6]</a> Furthermore it also made use of older <i>versions</i> of the Bible such as the various, old and new, Latin translations, as even the conservative F.F. Bruce admits:<P><br />
<br />
<table width="100%"><tr><td width="10%"></td><td><br />
The Authorized Version was formally a revision of the 1602 edition of the Bishop's Bible. But all existing English versions lay before the translators, and every available foreign version, Latin translations ancient and recent, the Targums and the Peshitta-all as aids to the elucidation of the Hebrew and Greek originals. <a href="#7">[7]</a> <br />
</td><td width="10%"></td></tr></table><p><br />
<br />
Thus the translators of the King James ignored the evidence of the Hebrew originals and the Targums and opted instead for the Latin translations which used the word <i>foderunt</i> meaning <i>pierce</i>. <a href="#8">[8]</a> Why did they do this? For the same reason why modern fundamentalist translators like the NIV and NKJV continue to do so, because it supports their presuppositions, not because it was based on the best available evidence!<p><br />
<br />
Back to the <a href="#top">top</a><p><br />
<br />
<h2><a name="hev">The Evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls</a></h2><br />
<br />
The evidence adduced to by some scholars comes from a scroll found in Nahal Hever, a location about 30 km south of Qumran. The document is designated as 5/6HevPs. <a href="#c">[c]</a> There is another manuscript, this one from Qumran, designated 4QPs<sup>f</sup> that has the verses from Psalm 22:14-17. However this document is not legible precisely at this point. Thus we are left with the manuscript from Nahal Hever. <a href="#10">[10]</a> <p><br />
<br />
There are three important items to keep in mind. Firstly, Nahal Hever manuscripts were <i>not</i> from the same time as the Qumran scrolls. While the Qumran manuscripts did predate the first Jewish War (70 CE), the manuscripts from Nahal Hever came from a later period; between the two Jewish Wars (between 70 CE and 135 CE). Thus it does not <i>predate</i> the Masoretic text since evidence from Biblical scrolls found in the surrounding location (at Masada-dated no later 73 CE and Wadi Murabba- dated to before 135 CE) shows that the consonantal text that eventually became the Masoretic text was already established by then. Secondly, the reading found in the at Nahal Hever was not new. There were a few Hebrew manuscripts that were already known to have that reading prior to its discovery. <a href="#11">[11]</a> Thirdly, despite the claims by Abegg, Flint and Ulrich in the <i>Dead Sea Scrolls Bible</i>, the passage in 5/6HevPs does <i>not</i> unambiguously read "pierce".<p><br />
<br />
First let us look at what is actually found in 5/6HevPs:<P><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><br />
<table cellspacing=0 cellpadding=5 border=1><tr><td width=157><b>Hebrew</b></td><td><b>Source</b></td><td><b>Trans</b></td><td><b>Meaning</b></td></tr><br />
<tr><td align=right><img src="image/hvav.gif" width=28><img src="image/hresh.gif" width=38><img src="image/hkaf.gif" width=39></td><td><b>-</b></td><td><i>Karu</i></td><td>"They dig"</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align=right><img src="image/hvav.gif" width=28><img src="image/hresh.gif" width=38><img src="image/haleph.gif" width=42><img src="image/hkaf.gif" width=39></td><td><b>5/6HevPs</b></td><td><i>Kaaru</i></td><td>(Unclear meaning)</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align=right><img src="image/hyod.gif" width=26><img src="image/hresh.gif" width=38><img src="image/haleph.gif" width=42><img src="image/hkaf.gif" width=39><br />
</td><td><b>Masoretic Text</b></td><td><i>Kaari</i></td><td>"Like (a) lion"</td></tr><br />
</table><br />
</div><p><br />
<br />
The word found in 5/6HevPs is given in the middle row of the table above. Note a few things, it is <i>not</i> spelt in the same way as <i>karu</i> (they dig) given in the top row. The former has an additional <i>aleph</i> between the <i>kaf</i> (K) and the <i>resh</i> (R). While fundamentalists are quick to speculate that this is merely an alternate, "Aramaizing" <a href="#d">[d]</a>, spelling for the word, it is still the case that <i>there is no other known example in the available Hebrew literature that spells "karu" this way</i>! <a href="#13">[13]</a><p><br />
<br />
The fundamentalists claim as support <i>other</i> Hebrew words that have alternate spellings. The logic is similar to someone who would claim that since colour/color are variant spellings in worldwide English, it therefore follows that "donour" is an acceptable variant for "donor" <a href="#e">[e]</a>! This is absurd of course. It must be emphasized that just because <I>some</i> words have variant spellings, it does not mean that <i>all</i> words have variant spellings.<p><br />
<br />
As it stands, the word found in 5/6HevPs <i>has no known meaning</i>. Some Jewish writers have labeled this word "Semitic rubbish". <a href="#14">[14]</a> It is merely <i>speculation</i> that the word <i>kaaru</i> is a variant spelling of <i>karu</i>.<p><br />
<br />
As we noted above, even before the discovery of 5/6HevPs, the word <i>kaaru</i>, is already found in a very few Hebrew manuscripts. For a long time scholars have tried to suggest the most probable meaning for the word. Apart from suggesting that it could be an alternate spelling of a known Hebrew word, these scholars turn to languages that are closely related to Hebrew for similar sounding words. Given below is a list of some of the suggestions made over the past eighty or so years: <a href="#15">[15]</a><p> <br />
<br />
<ul><br />
<li>G.R. Driver, "Textual and Linguistic Problems in the Book of Psalms" <i>HTR</i> 29.3 [1936]; 503-506<br />
<uL><li><i>To hack off / to shear</i> from the Assyrian <i>karu</i> which has that suggested meaning.</ul><p><br />
<li>J.M. Roberts, "A New Root for an Old Crux, Psalm XXII 17c," <i>VT</i>, 23.2 [1973]; 247-252<br><br />
<uL><li><i>To shrivel</i> from the Akkadian and Syrian <i>karu</i> (meaning "to be short"). <a href="#f">[f]</a></ul><p><br />
<li>R. Tournay, "Note sur le Psaume XXII 17," <i>VT</i>, 23.1 [1973], 111-112<br><br />
<uL><li><i>As to hack / slash</i> from the Phoenician, Ethiopic, Babylonian <i>aru</i> (the initial <i>kaf</i> being a comparative) meaning "cut branches". </ul><p><br />
<li>John Kaltner, "Psalm 22:17b: Second Guessing the Old Guess" <i>JBL</i> 117 [1998]; 503-506<br />
<uL><li><i>To bind</i> from the Arabic cognate <i>kwr</i> which actually means "to bind"</ul><p><br />
</ul><p><br />
<br />
Using meanings from related languages is a procedure that is fraught with uncertainties. Take a modern example between two rather closely related languages: German and English. It is all nice to know that <i>Haus</i> in German means "house" in English and that <i>gut</i> means "good". But it does not necessarily follow that <i>all</i> words that sound alike mean the same thing in both languages. A couple of examples should do: <i>Kind</i> in German does not have the same meaning as the word in English (it means "child") and <i>also</i> in German means "therefore". Thus finding meanings through related languages can, at best, be no more than <i>guesses</i>. This is why, despite speculating for close to a century, there has been no consensus reached as to what the meaning of <i>kaaru</i> could be.<p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Now let us go back to the suggestion that <i>kaaru</i> is a variant spelling of <i>karu</i>. Even if we are to accept, for the sake of argument, that this is probable (which it is not!), it still does not do what the fundamentalists want it to do. For <i>karu</i>, and its root <i>karah</i>, do <i>not</i> mean "pierce". Indeed the word is best translated as "to excavate" or "to dig". Given below are the instances of the use of the word <i>karah</i> in its various verbal forms in the Hebrew Bible: <a href="#16">[16]</a> <P><br />
<br />
<ul><br />
<li>to <i>dig</i> a pit:<br><br />
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Exodus 21:33; Psalm 7:15, 57:6, 94:13, 119:85; Proverbs 26:27; Jeremiah 18:20, 18:22<br />
<li>to <i>dig</i> a grave:<br><br />
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Genesis 50:5; II Chronicles 16:14<br />
<li>to <i>dig</i> a well:<br><br />
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Genesis 26:25; Numbers 21:18 <br />
<li>to <i>dig up</i> evil (metaphorical use): <br><br />
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Proverbs 16:27<br />
<li>to <i>dig</i> one's ear<br><br />
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Psalm 40:7<br />
</ul><p><br />
<br />
All the instances above show the meaning of <i>karah</i>; which is "to dig" or "to excavate". They do not have the connotation of "piercing" - as in <i>puncturing through</i> something. The last example is especially revealing. The KJV renders this passage metaphorically as "mine ears hast thou opened". The actual Hebrew is literally "ears you have dug for me". Within the context of Psalm 40:7, the meaning is clear, by <i>digging</i> his ear, the Psalmist is able to hear and understand what God wanted and did not want. If <i>karah</i> could be translated as "I pierce", this would mean that the Psalmist is <i>piercing his ears</i> to hear God more clearly!<p><br />
Furthermore had the Psalmist wanted the passage to mean "they pierce my hands and my feet", he had quite a few good Hebrew words that do have the precise meaning of "to pierce" to choose from:<P><br />
<ul><br />
<li><i>daqar</i> : to pierce or to stab through <a href="#17">[17]</a><br />
<ul><br />
<li>Zechariah 12:10 "They look at him whom they have <i>pierced</i>" (This was the verse used by John 19:34 as a prophecy fulfilled.)<br />
<li>I Samuel 31:4...""Draw your sword, and <i>thrust me through</i> with it..."<br />
</ul><p><br />
<br />
<li><i>naqav</i>: to pierce, to puncture or to perforate <a href="#18">[18]</a><br />
<ul><br />
<li>II Kings 18:21 (=Isaiah 36:6) "Behold, you are relying now on Egypt, that broken reed of a staff, which will <i>pierce</i> the hand of any man who leans on it. "<br />
<br />
<li>Habakkuk 3:14 "Thou didst <i>pierce</i> with thy shafts the head of his warriors..."<br />
</ul><p><br />
<li><i>ratsa</i>: to pierce or to bore <a href="#19">[19]</a><br />
<ul><br />
<li>Exodus 21:6 "...and his master shall <i>pierce</i> his ear with an awl..."<br />
</ul><br />
</ul><p><br />
<br />
Thus <i>karah</i> is an extremely poor choice of words if his intention was to prophesy the crucifixion.<p><br />
<br />
So let us summarize the "evidence" from the Dead Sea Scroll.<br />
<ol><br />
<li>The word <i>kaaru</i>, in the form found in 5/6HevPs has <i>no known meaning</i>.<p><br />
<li>The assertion that it could be an alternate spelling for <i>karu</i>, which means "they dig", is only a guess. There are a few other guesses which includes "to bind" and "to shrivel".<p><br />
<li>Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept, the guess above, it still does not do what the fundamentalists want it to do. For <i>karu</i> means "they dig" or "they excavate" and does not carry with it any connotation of piercing through, or puncturing through, the human flesh.<p><br />
<li>If the psalmist had wanted to mean "pierce" in the context of Psalms 22:16, there were other words that would have fitted his requirement better: <i>daqar, naqav</i> and <i>ratsa</i>.<p><br />
</ol><br />
In other words the "evidence" from the Dead Sea Scroll that the crucifixion was prophesied by Psalms 22:16b with the words "<i>They pierced</i> my hands and my feet" is non-existent.<p><br />
<br />
Why then did the authors/editors of <i>The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible</i> claimed that the true reading is "they pierce" when, as we have seen, scholars have been trying to guess at the meaning of the word for close to a century? Two of the three authors of that book Peter W. Flint and Martin G. Abegg are directors of the <i>Dead Sea Scrolls Institute</i>. If one visits the website for this institution the reasons become quite clear. We are told that the Dead Sea Scrolls Institute is an <i>evangelical</i> institute. [The term <i>evangelical</i> is used in Biblical scholarship to mean those scholars -who are mainly based in theological seminaries rather than major universities- who hold extremely conservative or fundamentalist views and presuppositions.] In an earlier posting (which was on line in April 2004) under the section, "We Believe", of that website, we are told the <i>raison d'être</i> of the institute. It said that evangelicals should not "sit back and surrender" the field of Dead Sea Scrolls research to what they termed "non-evangelicals". Within this context, "non-evangelicals" can only mean those scholars who do not share the <i>a priori</i> assumptions of fundamentalists, in other words, scholars who follow scientific critical historical methods! <a href="#20">[20]</a> Thus part of this strategy of "not surrendering" the field to non-evangelicals has to be to provide <i>evangelical slants</i> to the interpretation of the scrolls. Within this context, the reason the linguistically unlikely interpretation of <i>kaaru</i> as "they pierce", becomes clear. I suspect we should expect more "evangelical friendly" results to come out from this institute in the future!<p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Back to the <a href="#top">top</a><p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<h2><a name="text">The Ancient Versions</a></h2><br />
<br />
One of the claims of fundamentalists about this passage is that the ancient versions [i.e. translations] support the reading "they pierced" at Psalm 22:16b. <p><br />
<br />
There are two preliminary considerations that must be remembered before examining the readings of the ancient versions. Firstly, it should be remembered that the Hebrew Bible remains the most <I>direct</i> source for the original text. All translations are, in effect, <i>interpretations</i>. In translating, one to one correspondences of words between the languages are rare. More often there are always a few or even many choices of words that can be used in the translation. The choice of which word to use depends in many cases on how the translators actually understand the passage before them. How they understand the passage depends not only on the text that lies in front of them but also on the <i>presuppositions</i> of the translators. Therefore knowing the external influence that may affect the translation is important.<p><br />
<br />
Secondly, we must know what exactly was the <i>vorlage</i>, or the copy of the text, that the translation was made from. Was it the Hebrew text or was it already a version of the text? Some of the versions were not translated from the original Hebrew but from other versions. If this is the case, it must be remembered that this particular version does not form an independent witness to the original Hebrew text, especially if it supports the peculiar reading of the <i>vorlage</i>.<p><br />
<br />
Thus it is important to get a working knowledge of these various renditions of the Bible. Perhaps the most well known of the versions is the <i>Septuagint</i>. We have already described this version in detail <a href="hebrewcanon.html#septuagint">elsewhere</a> in this website. Here we will just note that the Septuagint was the Greek translation which was started around the third century BCE and probably completed around the first century BCE. The book of Psalms was probably translated into Greek around the second or third century BCE. <a href="#21">[21]</a> Although initially translated by Jews for the use of other Jews who no longer understood Hebrew, the early Christians <i>co-opted</i> the Septuagint and it became <i>the</i> Holy Scripture for them. In their disputes with Jews, the Christians quoted exclusively from the Septuagint. The Jews would retort back by comparing the Septuagint with their Hebrew original and noting that the former either had faulty translations or contained interpolations made by Christians. As a result of these disputes and the generally deteriorating textual situation, the Jews ceased using the Septuagint towards the end of the first century CE. <a href="#22">[22]</a><p><br />
<br />
In the second century CE, Jews dissatisfied with the Septuagint began new Greek translations of their Bible. Around 130 CE, a Jewish proselyte named Aquila, produced a version that followed the Hebrew very closely. About four decades later, Symmachus, who according to which church father you choose to believe, was either a Jewish Christian (Eusebius) or a Samaritan convert to Judaism (Epiphanius), published another Greek translation which, although generally faithful to the Hebrew original, is generally considered to be in more elegant Greek than Aquila's. Around the end of the second century another Greek translation, by another Jewish proselyte, Theodotian, was produced. Unlike the Septuagint, which is still available to us in its entirety, these three second century translations are today extant only in scroll fragments, palimpsests and in quotations by the church fathers. Indeed for Psalm 22:16, we have only the translations of Aquila and Symmachus; there is no extant fragment from Theodotion's version with this passage. <a href="#23">[23]</a><p><br />
<br />
The <i>Targums</i> refer to Aramaic translations of the Hebrew scriptures. Like the Septuagint originally, it was translated for Jews who could no longer understand the Hebrew - Aramaic having taken over as the <i>lingua franca</i> of post-exilic Palestine. Rather than a strict translation, the Targums are more accurately described as a <i>paraphrased</I> interpretation of the Hebrew Bible. Written Targums were in use by the third century CE, but the oral tradition dates back to pre-Christian times. <a href="#24">[24]</a><p><br />
<br />
Like Aramaic, Syriac is a language closely related to Hebrew. Syriac versions of the Bible are called Peshitta. The Peshitta was probably produced around 200CE. The origins of the Old Testament Peshitta is unclear and still debated among scholars. It is unclear if the translations were done by Jews or (Jewish?) Christians. As Bruce Metzger suggested, it is likely that some books of the Peshitta were translated by Jews while others by Christians. There is also uncertainty regarding the <i>vorlage</i> used for the various sections of the Old Testament. For instance, it is likely that the Pentateuch was translated directly from a Hebrew text while Isaiah was translated by someone who had obvious familiarity with the Septuagint. For our purposes it is important to note that the Peshitta translation of Psalms are rather free, as opposed to a strict-literal, translations. Furthermore it is quite obvious that the book of Psalms was translated by a Christian who already looked upon it as valuable proof text for the death and resurrection of Jesus. One clear example of this is in the introduction to Psalm 71. The Masoretic Text does not give a title for this, while the Septuagint attributes it only to David. The Peshitta however has this for an introduction: <a href="#25">[25]</a><p><br />
<br />
<table width="100%"><tr><td width="10%"></td><td><br />
Psalm 71: [Introduction in Peshitta]<br><br />
Being spoken to/by David: when Saul was fighting the house of David, and <i>a prophecy about the suffering and rising of the messiah</i>.<br />
</td><td width="10%"></td></tr></table><p><br />
<br />
Thus as far as establishing the original text of Psalm 22:16b is concerned, the value the Peshitta is very limited.<p><br />
<br />
Sometime around 235 CE, the Alexandrian church father, Origen (185-254) attempted to resolve the textual difficulties surrounding the various Bible version and the Hebrew text by publishing the <i>Hexapla</i>. It contained six columns consisting of the Hebrew text, the Hebrew text transliterated in Greek, Aquila's version, Symmachus' version, the Septuagint and Theodotian's version. There is very little that has been preserved of the Hexapla. However in the nineteenth century some fragments of the Hexapla were discovered in a Cairo synagogue <i>Geniza</i> <a href="#g">[g]</a>. In this Geniza, the Hexapla fragments dating from the sixth century CE, actually a palimpsest <a href="#h">[h]</a>, contain portions from Psalm 22:15-28! <a href="#26">[26]</a><p><br />
<br />
There is a Syriac translation of Origen's Hexapla, called the Syro-Hexapla, made around 616-617 CE. For our purposes the Syro-Hexapla contains translations in Psalms for the Septuagint, Aquila and Symmachus. Thus while these versions do not allow us <i>direct</I> access to the Hebrew text, they allows us to check the texts of the Septuagint and in some cases to reconstruct the lost Greek texts of Aquila and Symmachus. <a href="#27">[27]</a><p><br />
<br />
Finally we look at the Latin Versions. Most people think of the <i>Vulgate</i> and Jerome (342-420) when we speak today of the Latin Bible . However there are a few facts to keep in mind. While the Vulgate, <i>in general</i>, was a translation from the Hebrew by Jerome, the section of Psalms in this version was <i>not</i> translated from the Jewish Bible. The book of Psalms in the Vulgate is a translation by Jerome from the Septuagint-in other words it is a translation of a translation! Jerome did make another translation of Psalm, this time from the original Hebrew. However even in this case it must be kept in mind that he consulted other versions, Greek and Latin, in this translation as well.<p><br />
<br />
There is an older Latin version of the Bible, known appropriately as <i>Old Latin</i>. Unlike (most) of Jerome's Vulgate, the Old Latin is a translation of the Septuagint-it thus gives no <i>direct</i> evidence of the Hebrew text. We find evidence of the existence of Old Latin versions in the quotations of its text by second century Church fathers such as Tertullian (c150 CE-c220 CE) and Cyprian (c200-258). Indeed Latin Biblical texts can be found in areas where Latin was the predominant language, such as southern Gaul and North Africa, from as early as 150 CE.<a href="#28">[28]</a><p><br />
<br />
The chart below the ancient versions mentioned above. The dotted lines show the original <i>vorlage</i> used by each of the versions. The abbreviations next to the names of the versions will be used in the tabular comparison of the readings in the next section.<p><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><img src="image/2216versions.gif" width=470></div><p><br />
<br />
Back to the <a href="#top">top</a><p><br />
<br />
<h2><a name="reading">Readings from the Ancient Versions</a></h2><br />
<br />
<br />
Having acquainted ourselves with the various ancient versions, it is now time to examine their witness to the text of Psalm 22:16b. The table below gives all the readings from the Hebrew texts and the various ancient versions: <a href="#29">[29]</a> <a href="#i">[i]</a><p><br />
<br />
<div align=center><table border=1 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=5><br />
<tr><td><b>Text</b></td><td><b>Actual Reading</b></td><td><b>Translation</b></td></tr><br />
<tr><td><b>MT</b></td><td align=right><img src="image/MTread.gif" width=74></td><td align=left><font color=red>Like a lion</font> my hands and my feet.</td></tr><br />
<tr><td><b>DSS</b></td><td align=right><img src="image/DSSread.gif" width=76></td><td align=left><font color=red>They dig (?)</font> my hands and my feet.</td></tr><br />
<tr><td><b>T</b></td><td align=right><img src="image/Tread.gif" width=142></td><td align=left>Biting <font color=red>like a lion</font> my hands and my feet.</td></tr><br />
<tr><td><b>LXX</b></td><td align=left><font color=red>&omega;&rho;&upsilon;&xi;&alpha;&nu;</font> &chi;&epsilon;&iota;&rho;&alpha;&sigmaf; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &pi;&omicron;&delta;&alpha;&sigmaf; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon; </a></td><td align=left><font color=red>They dug</font> my hands and my feet.</td></tr><br />
<tr><td><b>&alpha;' (1)</b></td><td align=left><font color=red>&eta;&sigma;&chi;&upsilon;&nu;&alpha;&nu;</font> &chi;&epsilon;&iota;&rho;&alpha;&sigmaf; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &pi;&omicron;&delta;&alpha;&sigmaf; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon; </a></td><td align=left><font color=red>They disfigured</font> my hands and my feet.</td></tr><br />
<tr><td><b>&sigma;' </b></td><td align=left><font color=red>&omega;&sigmaf; &lambda;&epsilon;&omega;&nu;</font> &chi;&epsilon;&iota;&rho;&alpha;&sigmaf; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon; &kappa;&alpha;&iota; &pi;&omicron;&delta;&alpha;&sigmaf; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon; </a></td><td align=left><font color=red>Like a lion</font> my hands and my feet.</td></tr><br />
<tr><td><b>OL</b></td><td align=left><font color=red>foderunt </font> manus meas et pedes meos</a></td><td align=left><font color=red>They dug / pricked</font> my hands and my feet.</td></tr><br />
<tr><td><b>VP</b></td><td align=left><font color=red>foderunt </font> manus meas et pedes meos</a></td><td align=left><font color=red>They dug / pricked</font> my hands and my feet.</td></tr><br />
<tr><td><b>LJ</b></td><td align=left><font color=red>vinxerunt </font> manus meas et pedes meos</a></td><td align=left><font color=red>They bound / encircled</font> my hands and my feet.</td></tr><br />
<tr><td><b>S</b></td><td align=right><img src="image/Sread.gif" width=82></td><td align=left><font color=red>They hacked off / pierced</font> my hands and my feet.</td></tr><br />
<tr><td><b>SL</b></td><td align=right><img src="image/Sread.gif" width=82></td><td align=left><font color=red>They hacked off / pierced</font> my hands and my feet.</td></tr><br />
<tr><td><b>S&alpha;</b></td><td align=right><img src="image/SAread.gif" width=85></td><td align=left><font color=red>They fettered</font> my hands and my feet.</td></tr><br />
<tr><td><b>S&sigma;</b></td><td align=right><img src="image/SSread.gif" width=140></td><td align=left><font color=red>Like seeking to bind</font> my hands and my feet.</td></tr><br />
<br />
</table></div><p><br />
<br />
We note that the Targum of Psalms and Symmachus' Greek translation gives "like a lion", supporting the masoretic reading. The Targum adds the verb <i>biting</i> to make the sentence clearer. <p><br />
<br />
For Symmachus, it is important to note that &omega;&sigmaf; &lambda;&epsilon;&omega;&nu; (<i>like a lion</i>) is very likely the original reading. Some commentators, including the critical apparatus in the <i>Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensia</i> (the critical edition of the Leningrad codex of the Hebrew bible), made the erroneous assumption that the reading here should be &omega;&sigmaf; &zeta;&eta;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf; &delta;&eta;&sigma;&alpha;&iota; (<i>like seeking to bind</i>). It must be noted that this reading ("like seeking to bind") is the result of a reverse translation from the Syriac of the Syro-Hexapla back into Greek. Yet it clearly arose from a mistake made by the translators of the Syro-Hexapla in reading the original Greek in Origen's Hexapla. How this arose we will explain below.<p><br />
<br />
The ancient Greek manuscripts were written in uncials (i.e. all caps) and there was no space between the words. The mistake arose when the translators of the Syro-Hexapla misread three of the Greek letters and then rephrased the incorrect reading. The table below shows this process, the reading on top is from Symmachus and the one below is what the translator of the Syro-Hexapla read by mistake:<p><br />
<br />
<div align=center><br />
<table border=1 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=1><br />
<tr><td>&Omega;&Sigma;<font color=red><b>&Lambda;</b></font>&Epsilon;<font color=red><b>&Omega;</b></font>&Nu;&Tau;<font color=red><b>&Alpha;</b></font>&Sigma;&Chi;&Epsilon;&Iota;&Rho;&Alpha;&Sigma;&Mu;&Omicron;&Upsilon;...</td><td align=left>&omega;&sigmaf; &lambda;&epsilon;&omega;&nu; &tau;&alpha;&sigmaf; &chi;&epsilon;&iota;&rho;&alpha;&sigmaf; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon;...</td><td align=left>Like a lion my hands...</tr><br />
<tr><td>&Omega;&Sigma;<font color=red><b>&Delta;</b></font>&Epsilon;<font color=red><b>&Omicron;</b></font>&Nu;&Tau;<font color=red><b>&Epsilon;</b></font>&Sigma;&Chi;&Epsilon;&Iota;&Rho;&Alpha;&Sigma;&Mu;&Omicron;&Upsilon;...</td><td align=left>&omega;&sigmaf; &delta;&epsilon;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf; &chi;&epsilon;&iota;&rho;&alpha;&sigmaf; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon;...</td><td align=left>Like binding my hands...</tr><br />
</table><br />
</div><p><br />
<br />
Thus the Syro-Hexapla translator misread a <i>delta</i> (&Delta;) for a <i>lambda</i> (&Lambda;) , an <i>omicron</i> (O) for an <i>omega</i> (&Omega;) and an <i>epsilon</i> (E) for an <i>alpha</i> (A). These misreadings led him to separate the words out differently than what would have been the case; and instead of &omega;&sigmaf; &lambda;&epsilon;&omega;&nu; &tau;&alpha;&sigmaf; &chi;&epsilon;&iota;&rho;&alpha;&sigmaf; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon;... ("Like a lion my hands..."), the translation became &omega;&sigmaf; &delta;&epsilon;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf; &chi;&epsilon;&iota;&rho;&alpha;&sigmaf; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon;... ("Like binding my hands..."). This was then paraphrased to &omega;&sigmaf; &zeta;&eta;&tau;&omicron;&upsilon;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf; &delta;&eta;&sigma;&alpha;&iota; &chi;&epsilon;&iota;&rho;&alpha;&sigmaf; &mu;&omicron;&upsilon;... ("Like seeking to bind my hands...")-which was the reading of the Syriac in the Syro-Hexapla. <a href="#30">[30]</a><p><br />
<br />
The Septuagint gives the reading here as &omega;&rho;&upsilon;&xi;&alpha;&nu; which is simply the third person plural past tense (aorist) of &omicron;&rho;&upsilon;&sigma;&sigma;&omega; which means "to dig". Like the Hebrew <i>karu</i>, it does not mean "pierce". The word appears 37 times in the Septuagint and in each and every case the meaning is always "to dig" (a tomb, a pit, a trench, a hole or a well). Thus a literal translation of this phrase in the Septuagint is <i>not</i> "They pierced my hands and my feet", but "They dug my hands and my feet"-something not very easily imagined! As Mark Hoffman remarked, "It seems quite unlikely that the LXX translators were trying to describe the crucifixion when translating verse 17c with &omicron;&rho;&upsilon;&sigma;&sigma;&omega;." <a href="#31">[31]</a> Unlikely indeed! For had the translators understood the word to mean "pierce", there was a perfectly good Greek word to use: &epsilon;&kappa;&kappa;&epsilon;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&omega; which means "to pierce". This was the word used they translators of the Septuagint used to translate Zechariah 12:10 "They look at him whom they have <i>pierced</i>". Similarly John 19:34 used the exact same words to describe the prophecy fulfillment. So whatever the word in the original Hebrew may mean in Psalm 22:16b, it is extremely unlikely that <i>the seventy</i> understood it in the way the Christians later understood it. <a href="#32">[32]</a><p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The two Latin versions that were translated from the Septuagint (Old Latin and the book of Psalms in the Vulgate) remained faithful to the reading of the Septuagint. The word they used here was <i>foderunt</i>-the third person plural perfect tense for <i>fodio</i>. Now <i>fodio</i>, like &omega;&rho;&upsilon;&xi;&alpha;&nu; in Greek, has the formal meaning of "to dig", but, unlike the Greek, it also has a looser, metaphorical, meaning of "to prick" or "to prod". <a href="#33">[33]</a> [We can see how the "smearing" of the less sharply applied Latin word could result in "to pierce" being eventually read here!] As an aside we see how meaningless it is for fundamentalists such as Gleason Archer (see above) to appeal to the Vulgate as support for their interpretation that the original meaning of the word is <i>to pierce</i>, for the Vulgate (for Psalms) was dependent upon the Septuagint and is not an independent witness to the original text.<p><br />
<br />
When we look at Jerome's translation from the Hebrew we find that the word he used was not <i>foderunt</I>, but <i>vinxerunt</i>, which means "they bound" or "they encircled". This has implications on what was in the Hebrew <i>vorlage</i> available to Jerome. While the Septuagint translation allows the possibility of both <i>karu</i> (to dig) or <i>kaaru</i> (the unclear meaning which could have been <i>assumed</i> by the translators of the Septuagint to mean the same thing-see some scholarly speculations above), Jerome's translation had to come from his interpretation of <i>kaaru</i>, for otherwise he would have simply translated <i>they dig</i>. Jerome probably interpreted <i>kaaru</i> to be based on the root <i>kwr</i> which could mean <i>to be round</i> or <i>to make round</i>. <a href="#34">[34]</a><p><br />
<br />
As for Aquila's version, we have <i>two</i> different readings. According to Origen's Hexapla found at the Cairo Geniza and the church historian, Eusebius (c260-340), the Greek translation of Aquila gave the passage as "<i>they disfigured /shamed</i> my hands and feet". However according to the Syro-Hexapla's translation, Aquila's version had "<i>they fettered</i> my hands and my feet". Since we know Jerome was familiar with Aquila's version, Jerome's use of "they bound" could be taken to mean that "they fettered" was what was written in his copy of Aquila's Greek Bible. These different readings of Aquila most probably mean, as some scholars have suggested, that Aquila had two recensions, or editions, of his translation. The first one having "they disfigured" in Psalm 22:16b and the second having "they fettered" instead. Again it should be noted here that none of these words could have been derived from <i>karu</i>. This tells us that the word in Aquila's <i>vorlage</i> had to be <i>kaaru</i>. Aquila's first interpretation of <i>kaaru</i> was probably based on the assumption that it was rooted in words such as <i>nakar</i> or <i>hakar</i> which could mean something like "to disfigure" or "to shame". The second interpretation could be derived from an interpretation of <i>kaaru</i> similar to Jerome's guess described in the preceding paragraph. <a href="#35">[35]</a><p> <br />
<br />
Finally we look at the reading in the Peshitta. Here the Syriac word used could mean they "hack off" or "pierce/perforate". However as we have noted in the section above, the translation of the book of Psalms was probably made by a Christian who already looked to it as a source of prophecy for the death and resurrection of Jesus. According to Mark Hoffman, the translators of the Peshitta were probably no more "in the know" about the meaning of the Hebrew (assuming they were translating direct from a Hebrew <i>vorlage</i>) than the translators of the Septuagint and were "simply trying to make sense of the Hebrew in the same way as the LXX". In other words we cannot consider the Peshitta to be an independent source here for the Hebrew original. <a href="#36">[36]</a><p> <br />
<br />
We have reviewed the whole array of textual evidence and can now pause to consider what it tells us.<p><br />
<br />
<ol><br />
<li>There was no ambiguity when the word was translated (or read) as a noun - thus the Targum and Symmachus both translated the word as "like a lion". This means that the Hebrew text available to these translators read <i>kaari</i>, like the majority of the masoretic manuscripts. <p><br />
<br />
<li>When the word was read as a verb (with the <i>vav</i> suffix), the translations started to go all over the place. We have the Septuagint saying it means "to dig", Jerome thinking it means "to surround or to bind" and Aquila initially thinking it means "to shame" before finally changing his mind and deciding that it meant "to fetter". This range of translations can only mean that the alternate reading to <i>kaari</i> was not <i>karu</i> but <i>kaaru</i>. Furthermore by the time the versions were being translated it is obvious that the meaning of that word, if it had any meaning in the first place, was no longer known by the translators!.<p><br />
<br />
<li>In all cases where we know of a direct translation from the Hebrew text, there is not a single version that translates the Psalm 22:16b as "They pierced my hands and my feet".<p><br />
</ol><br />
<br />
Back to the <a href="#top">top</a><p><br />
<br />
<h2><a name="Xtian">Evidence from Early Christian Literature</a></h2><br />
<br />
One of the strongest arguments against the verse Psalm 22:16b being a prophecy of the crucifixion is the fact that <i>none of the New Testament authors made any reference to it</i>. This is extremely surprising if the Hebrew or the Greek of that verse was understood as "they pierce":<p><br />
<br />
<ul><br />
<li>Paul writing circa 53 CE in Galatians 3:13 mentioned the verse from Deuteronomy 23:22-23 about the curse of one who dies "hanging on a tree". This is the only connection of the crucifixion to the Old Testament that Paul tried to make. <a href="#37">[37]</a><p><br />
<li>All four gospels made allusions to Psalm 22:19 "They divide my garments among them, and for my raiment they cast lots":<p><br />
<table width="100%"><tr><td width="10%"></td><td><br />
Mark 15:24 (c70CE)<br><br />
And they crucified him, and divided his garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take. <P><br />
<br />
Matthew 27:35 (c90 CE)<br><br />
And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots; <p><br />
<br />
Luke 23:33-34 (c95 CE)<br><br />
And when they came to the place which is called The Skull, there they crucified him...And they cast lots to divide his garments. <p><br />
<br />
John 19:23-25 (c90 CE)<br><br />
When the soldiers had crucified Jesus they took his garments and made four parts, one for each soldier; also his tunic. But the tunic was without seam, woven from top to bottom; so they said to one another, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be." This was to fulfill the scripture, "They parted my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots." So the soldiers did this.<br />
</td><td width="10%"></td></tr></table><p><br />
Note that John even quoted the verse from Psalm directly to draw attention to the fulfillment of the prophecy! (John 19:24). Yet not one of the evangelists connected the crucifixion to the <i>piercing</i> of the hands and feet just two verses prior to this one in Psalm.<p><br />
<li>Furthermore the gospel of John even referred to <i>another</i> Old Testament prophecy, this one about the <i>piercing</i> of Jesus' side:<P><br />
<table width="100%"><tr><td width="10%"></td><td><br />
John 19:34,37<br> <br />
But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear...And again another scripture says, "They shall look on him whom they have pierced."<br />
</td><td width="10%"></td></tr></table><p> <p><br />
<br />
John was referring to the Zechariah 12:10. It is indeed strange that John would refer to this fulfillment but not the one in Psalm 22:16b.<br />
</ul><p><br />
<br />
Some fundamentalist apologists have tried to explain this way by saying that the evangelists and Paul knew that there were some "textual issues" regarding this phrase and thus refrained from quoting it although they fully realized its prophetic significance. This explanation had meets with a quick end when we remember that Matthew 1:22-23 quoted the <i>Septuagint</i> reading of Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy for the virgin birth. However the word "virgin" is found only in the Greek <i>Septuagint</I> and all extant Hebrew bibles (including the ones found in the Dead Sea) have "young woman" instead. Thus the author of Matthew had no problems with the "textual issues" relating to this particular passage! [For those interested in the issue surrounding the "prophecy of the virgin birth-we provide an analysis of this <a href="virgin.html#mistranslation">elsewhere</a> in this website.]<p><br />
<br />
When we go outside the New Testament into the writings of the apostolic fathers we get the same result. None, either explicitly or implicitly, tied Psalm 22:16b to the piercing of Jesus' hands and feet. A particularly poignant example is taken from the epistle of Barnabas (c130 CE):<P><br />
<br />
<table width="100%"><tr><td width="10%"></td><td><br />
Barnabas 5:13<br><br />
He himself willed thus to suffer, for it was necessary that He should suffer on the tree. For says he who prophesies regarding Him, "Spare my soul from the sword, fasten my flesh with nails; for the assemblies of the wicked have risen up against me."<br />
</td><td width="10%"></td></tr></table><p><br />
<br />
The passage, like the ones in the gospel is intriguing. For it is formed out of a combination of three different passages from Psalms:<P><br />
<br />
<table width="100%"><tr><td width="10%"></td><td><br />
Psalm 22:20<br><br />
Deliver my soul from the sword...<p><br />
Psalm 119:120<br><br />
Nail my flesh with your fear; for I am afraid of your judgments [Septuagint reading-Psalm 118:120]<p><br />
Psalm 22:17<br><br />
...a company of evildoers encircle me...<br />
<br />
</td><td width="10%"></td></tr></table><p><br />
<br />
This is another revealing text. Barnabas was obviously looking at Psalm 22 for the fulfillment of Jesus' death and crucifixion. Yet exactly at the point where one would expect him to use "They pierced my hands and my feet", he used a passage from Psalm 119:120! <a href="#38">[38]</a> There is really only one explanation for this: the author of the epistle of Barnabas do not read "pierce" into the Septuagint "they dug my hands and my feet".<p><br />
<br />
Let us pause here for a while and consider the evidence from early Christian literature, from the earliest extant evidence of Christian's use of the Old Testament as a source of prophecy of Jesus, there was not a single case, up to around 130 CE, of reference to the passage in Psalm 22:16b as alluding to the actual "piercing" of Jesus' hands and feet during the crucifixion.<p><br />
<br />
The first Christian writer to make a direct connection of Psalm 22:16 to the piercing of the crucifixion was Justin Martyr (c100 CE-c165 CE). These are the two passages from his writings that made this connection: <a href="#39">[39]</a><P><br />
<br />
<table width="100%"><tr><td width="10%"></td><td><br />
<i>First Apology</i> 35 (c155 CE)<br><br />
And again in other words, through another prophet, He says, "They pierced [&omega;&rho;&upsilon;&xi;&alpha;&nu;] My hands and My feet, and for My vesture they cast lots." And indeed David, the king and prophet, who uttered these things, suffered none of them; but Jesus Christ stretched forth His hands, being crucified by the Jews speaking against Him, and denying that He was the Christ. And as the prophet spoke, they tormented Him, and set Him on the judgment-seat, and said, Judge us. And the expression, "They pierced my hands and my feet," was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed [&pi;&alpha;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&tau;&omega;&nu;] in His hands and feet.<p><br />
<br />
<i>Dialogue with Trypho</i> 97 (c160 CE)<br><br />
David in the twenty-first Psalm thus refers to the suffering and to the cross in a parable of mystery: "They pierced [&omega;&rho;&upsilon;&xi;&alpha;&nu;] my hands and my feet; they counted all my bones. ..." For when they crucified Him, driving in [&epsilon;&mu;&pi;&eta;&sigma;&sigma;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf;] the nails, they pierced His hands and feet; and those who crucified Him parted His garments among themselves, each casting lots for what he chose to have, and receiving according to the decision of the lot. And this very Psalm you maintain does not refer to Christ; for you are in all respects blind, and do not understand that no one in your nation who has been called King or Christ has ever had his hands or feet pierced while alive, or has died in this mysterious fashion-to wit, by the cross-save this Jesus alone.<br />
<br />
</td><td width="10%"></td></tr></table><p><br />
<br />
<br />
Note that unlike the writings of Paul, the evangelists and Barnabas, <i>explicit</i> reference is now made to Psalm 22:16b as referring to the <i>piercing</I> of the nails at the crucifixion of Jesus. However even here it must be noted while he used the Septuagint word &omega;&rho;&upsilon;&xi;&alpha;&nu; (they dug) in his citation of Psalm 22:16b, in his later explanation he used words that fit the crucifixion more closely -&epsilon;&mu;&pi;&eta;&sigma;&sigma;&omicron;&nu;&tau;&epsilon;&sigmaf; and &pi;&alpha;&gamma;&epsilon;&nu;&tau;&omega;&nu;. Both these terms are merely active and passive forms of the same root which means "to fix", "to make firm" or "to nail" something. The fact that Justin had to use this explanatory word to clarify Psalm 22:16b means that, regardless of his pretence, the term in Psalm 22:16b does not really make the prophecy clear.<p><br />
<br />
After Justin we find Psalm 22:16 being increasingly used by Christians as "proof text" of the crucifixion of Jesus. We find similar confident citings of Psalm 22:16b as a direct prophecy of the method of crucifixion in the writings of later Christian writers such as Tertullian (c150 CE-c220 CE), Cyprian (c200-258) and Eusebius (c260-c340). <a href="#40">[40]</a><P><br />
<br />
Tertullian was writing in Latin and used the word found in the Old Latin version of the Bible, <i>foderunt</i>,in his citation of Psalm 22:16. <i>Foderunt</i>, as we have seen above, means "they dug" but have the "width" in meaning to include "they pricked" or "they pierced".<p><br />
<br />
<table width="100%"><tr><td width="10%"></td><td><br />
Tertullian: <i>An Answer to the Jews</i> 10 (c197 CE)<br><br />
If you shall still seek for predictions of the Lord's cross, the twenty-first Psalm will at length be able to satisfy you, containing as it does the whole passion of Christ; singing, as He does, even at so early a date, His own glory. "They dug [<i>foderunt</i>]," He says, "my hands and feet"-which is the peculiar atrocity of the cross<br />
</td><td width="10%"></td></tr></table><p><br />
<br />
Cyprian was able to devote a whole section (section 20) in his <i>Second Book of Testimonies Against the Jews</i> (248 CE) to proving that the Old Testament prophesied that "The Jews would fasten Jesus to the cross". Eusebius in his <i>Proof of the Gospel</i> (c313 CE) 10:8 cited Psalm 22:16b as the main prophecy that "they fastened his [Jesus] hands and feet to the cross with nails".<p><br />
<br />
So the evidence from early Christian writings show that up to the middle of the second century CE <i>it never occurred to Christian writers that Psalm 22:16b was an explicit reference to the nailing of the crucifixion</i>. It all changed with Justin Martyr sometime after 150 CE. From then onwards the citations of Psalm 22:16b as an exact prophecy of Jesus' crucifixion became more and more common.<p><br />
<br />
This finding is enough for us to conclude that "they pierced" was never part of the original meaning of Psalm 22:16b. It was not present in the Hebrew Bible (regardless of whether the actual reading was <i>kaaru</i> or <i>kaari</i>) and it was not present in the Septuagint. <i>Certainly it was never understood as such by the earliest Christian writers-including the authors of the New Testament! </i><p><br />
<br />
We can now indulge in a bit of speculation. Justin, as was the custom during his time, was writing in Greek and it was quite obvious from the citations above that the link in the Greek Septuagint between Psalm 22:16b and the crucifixion is linguistically tenuous; Justin had to supplement the scriptural citation with other Greek words to make the meaning clear. So what made <i>him</i> see that connection when no one before did? Why did the <i>paradigm shift</i> happen with Justin?<p><br />
<br />
The most probable explanation is this: <b>Justin had access to the relatively new Latin translation of Psalm 22:16b and that <i>foderunt</i> was used as the translation for the Greek &omega;&rho;&upsilon;&xi;&alpha;&nu;</b>. <a href="#j">[j]</a> <i>Foderunt</i> encompasses within its meaning both "to dig" and "to pierce". Thus the shift from "dig" to "pierce", not possible in the Greek, was made possible by the Latin. We see from the quotation of Tertullian that no such linguistic problem exists when the Latin translation was used!<p><br />
<br />
As we have mentioned above Latin biblical text were already in circulation in Southern Gaul and North Africa by around 150 CE. These were areas where Latin was the dominant language and the need for a Latin translation of the Bible would have been felt most acutely. It is true that the Roman churches did not switch from Greek to Latin until the first half of the third century and Greek was still widely used there during that time. However probably an equal number of Romans used either Greek or Latin for daily communication and the resurgence of Latin was already beginning to make headway there before this time. Furthermore, Justin, although he was not born in Rome, was very probably of Roman descent and he spent the last two to three decades of his life in Rome. <a href="#41">[41]</a> He would certainly had shown an interest in Latin translation of the Bible (either the whole Bible or portions of it-such as some Psalms that may be used in Christian liturgy.) Justin, being one of the pre-eminent Christian apologist, would almost certainly had had access to a copy if the translation had made its way to Rome. Furthermore we noticed that Justin's innovative interpretation of Psalm 22:16b were made in his works that were published within a decade of 150 CE (<i>First Apology</i> c155 CE and <i>Dialogue</i> c160CE). Since the shift in meaning from "dig" to "pierce" allowed by the Latin translation would have been noticed by anyone with familiarity with the language, we would expect the first references of "piercing" to Psalm 22:16b to have happened shortly after the publication of the Latin bible. Justin's timing was exactly what one would expect.<p><br />
<br />
One question naturally arises: If Justin knew of this translation why did he not make any explicit citation of the passage in Latin? The answer is simple, the Latin translation was still <i>new</i> and was in no way authoritative. Anyone familiar with Justin's work will know that he already had his hands full defending the authority of the relatively ancient <i>Septuagint</i> against his Jewish opponents <a href="#42">[42]</a> One example is given below:<p><br />
<br />
<table width="100%"><tr><td width="10%"></td><td><br />
<i>Dialogue with Trypho</i> 68:6-8<br><br />
"If therefore, I shall show that this prophecy of Isaiah refers to our Christ, and not to Hezekiah, as you say, shall I not in this matter, too, compel you not to believe your teachers, <i>who venture to assert that the explanation which your seventy elders that were with Ptolemy the king of the Egyptians gave, is untrue in certain respects</i>? For some statements in the Scriptures, which appear explicitly to convict them of a foolish and vain opinion, these they venture to assert have not been so written. <br />
</td><td width="10%"></td></tr></table><p><br />
<br />
Quoting from a recent <i>Latin</i> translation would not had helped his case much against his Jewish opponents! Thus Justin probably read the Latin translation, finally "saw" that Psalm 22:16b refers to the crucifixion and tried to argue the case in his Greek writings without making direct reference to it. [By the time Tertullian was writing, around the end of the second century, the Latin translation was probably old enough to be cited without much embarrassment as to its authority.]<p><br />
<br />
The evidence from early Christian literature tells us this:<P><br />
<br />
<ol><br />
<li>Up to the year 150 CE, no Christian writer made the connection between Psalm 22:16b and the crucifixion of Jesus. The most likely explanation for this is that neither the Hebrew nor the Greek version of Psalm allows for this identification: "digging" and "piercing" do not share the same word within those languages.<p><br />
<br />
<li>It was only sometime after 150 CE, that the first Christian writer, Justin Martyr, made that explicit reference.<br />
<ul><br />
<li>It is very likely that Justin got this idea from the newly translated Latin version of the Bible; where the word <i>foderunt</i> could mean both "they dug" and "they pierced."<br />
</ul><br />
</ol><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Back to the <a href="#top">top</a><p><br />
<br />
<h2><a name="internal"><i>Like a Lion</i>: Still the Favored Reading</a></h2><br />
<br />
We have settled the case above that "They pierced" was never part of the original reading of Psalm 22:16. We now look at what the original reading could be. Note that any uncertainty with what this final reading could be in no way be taken to mean that the reading "they pierced" becomes more likely again, for we have eliminated that reading using considerations which are unrelated to what we will consider below.<p><br />
<br />
The critical apparatus of the <i>Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensia</i> gives the following summary of the textual evidence of Hebrew manuscripts regarding the reading found in Psalm 22:16b: <a href="#43">[43]</a><P><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><br />
<table cellspacing=0 cellpadding=5 border=1><tr><td width=157><b>Hebrew</b></td><td><b>Textual Witness</b></td><td><b>Trans</b></td><td><b>Meaning</b></td></tr><br />
<tr><td align=right><img src="image/hyod.gif" width=26><img src="image/hresh.gif" width=38><img src="image/haleph.gif" width=42><img src="image/hkaf.gif" width=39></td><td>Majority of manuscripts</td><td><i>Kaari</i></td><td>"Like (a) lion"</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align=right><img src="image/hvav.gif" width=28><img src="image/hresh.gif" width=38><img src="image/haleph.gif" width=42><img src="image/hkaf.gif" width=39></td><td>"A few" manuscripts</td><td><i>Kaaru</i></td><td>(Unclear meaning)</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align=right><img src="image/hvav.gif" width=28><img src="image/hresh.gif" width=38><img src="image/hkaf.gif" width=39></td><td>Two manuscripts</td><td><i>Karu</i></td><td>"They dig"</td></tr><br />
</table><br />
</div><p><br />
<br />
We see that the majority of the available Hebrew manuscripts support the reading of <i>kaari</i> ("like a lion"), while "a few" (defined as between three to ten manuscripts by the <i>BHS</i>) support the reading found in Nahal Hever, <i>kaaru </i> (with unclear meaning-as we have seen above) and two manuscripts supporting <i>karu</i> ("they dig"). From our analysis of the ancient versions above we can see that the first two of these three readings were in existence from around the turn of the common era. <i>Kaari</i> is supported by the Targums and the Greek version of Symmachus. While the proliferations of verbal meanings ("they hack", "they shame", "they disfigured", "they bound", "they dig", "they fettered" etc) can all be traced to the translators (like the modern scholars we see above!) trying to make sense of a word <i>kaaru</i> that was no longer meaningful to them. Had the original <i>vorlage</i> available to them been <i>karu</i> these would all had translated the word the same way; as "they dig". So we can say that both a study of the ancient versions and the Hebrew manuscripts support this conclusion: that in the two centuries before and after the beginning of the common era there were <i>two</i> variant readings in the Hebrew: <i>kaari</i> and <i>kaaru</i>.<p><br />
<br />
A look at the table above also shows the probable cause of the variant: the two words differ only in the final alphabet, the <i>yod</i> of <i>kaari</i> has been changed into the <i>vav</i> of <i>kaaru</i> (or vice versa). Even someone uninitiated with the Hebrew alphabet can see how easy it is to mistake a <i>yod</i> for the slightly longer <i>vav</i>. We know that mistakes of graphical confusion like these did happen and were quite common in the ancient Hebrew manuscripts. <a href="#44">[44]</a><p><br />
<br />
The questions become, how do we choose between these two readings? <i>External criteria</i> - such as general reliability, numerical preponderance and age of documents - <i>cannot</i> be used for this particular case. Some scholars tend to have a bias in favor of the Masoretic Text primarily due to the fact in many cases it has shown itself to be the best witness to the text. In other words the MT is generally more reliable than other witnesses. <a href="#45">[45]</a> While this is true in general, it cannot be applied to all specific instances. Similarly, like the case of the <a href="ntmanuscript.html#texttype">New Testament manuscripts</a> numerical preponderance doesn't really count for much, for if 100 copies are made from a single defective manuscript, what we have is not 101 witnesses to the original text but merely 101 faulty manuscripts! <i>Manuscripts should be weighed not counted</i>! <a href="#46">[46]</a> Furthermore, as we have seen above, we have evidence that the two variant readings date from very early times.<p> <br />
<br />
We are left basically with the internal criteria. P. Kyle McCarter, Jr. in his book <i>Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible</i> <a href="#47">[47]</a> listed the following rules used by textual critics:<p> <br />
<br />
<ol><br />
<li><i>The more difficult reading is preferable</i>: in other words ancient scribes tend to see what they <i>expected</i> to see. Thus the more familiar reading is more often the one that is secondary. Of course, this does not apply to obvious nonsense: "The more difficult reading is not to be preferred when it is garbage."<p><br />
<li><i>The shorter reading is preferable</i>: scribes tend to expand an ancient text-this arises from their concern to preserve the text as fully as possible thus causing them to keep later glosses, duplications and explanations in the text.<p><br />
<li><i>The reading should be appropriate for its context</i><p><br />
<li><i>Be suspicious of readings that "improve" on the text</i>: Readings that offer stylistic improvements, modernize, conform the text to more familiar norms and that resolve contradictions are suspect.<br />
</ol><br />
<br />
In other words, the rules boil down to a basic common-sensical question: "what would have changed into the other?"<p><br />
<br />
Since the mistake probably occurred due to the graphical confusion between the <i>yod</i> and the <i>vav</i> as the end of the word, the only rule really applicable here is rule 3. In other words-which of the two readings fit the context of the passage best?<p><br />
<br />
Most discussions surrounding this verse usually start by critiquing the fact that the MT reading is missing a verb and is literally rendered as "like a lion my hands and my feet"-supposedly a meaningless phrase. Since the alternate reading "kaaru" <i>looks</i> like a verb, the <i>vav</i> suffix indicating a third person plural verbal form, the discussion then normally continues in trying to find the meaning of the root <i>kaar</i>. This, as we have seen above, have led to the proliferation of suggestions from modern scholars <i>and</i> to the varied translations in the ancient versions. This leads me to two reasons why I am very skeptical about <i>kaaru</i> being the original reading here:<p><br />
<br />
<ul><br />
<li>The possibility that <i>kaaru</i> could be <i>nonsense</i> is hardly ever discussed. Yet given that graphical confusion is very likely the cause of the variant reading, this possibility must be taken seriously.<p><br />
<br />
<li>The one thing about the Psalm 22 that seems to have escaped the attention of all commentators (Christian <i>and</i> Jewish) is this: <I>at no time were the Psalmist's enemies described as physically harming him</i>! <a href="#k">[k]</a> Note the bull, the dog and the lion all are described as surrounding him (Psalm 22:12, 16), the lion is described as "opening its mouth" (Psalm 22:13) and his enemies may "stare and gloat" over him and "divide his clothes" among themselves (Psalm 22: 17-18). He asked for deliverance against the power (literally "hand") of the dog, the mouth of the lion and the horns of the bull (Psalm 22:20-21), but they are never described as actually doing anything to him (yet). Thus if Psalm 22:16b were to describe him hands and feet being bitten, dug, hacked off, pierced, bound or fettered, this would be the only line in the whole of Psalm 22 where physical harm would actually be described as being inflicted on the psalmist.<p><br />
</ul><br />
<br />
When these two reasons - the possibility that <i>kaaru</i> may be meaningless and the fact that any verb which describe a physical attack on the psalmist goes against the grain of Psalm 22 - are combined, we can see that by itself-<i>kaaru</i> becomes a very unlikely alternative.<p><br />
<br />
When we turn back to the MT reading, supported by the Targums and Symmachus, we find that some scholars have been too quick to dismiss the sentence as meaningless. Part of the problem comes in reading "like a lion" as the beginning a line or <i>stich</i>. However the phrase could easily have fallen within the previous line, forming this couplet:<p><br />
<br />
<table width="100%"><tr><td width="10%"></td><td><br />
For dogs have compassed me.<br><br />
The assembly of the wicked have encircled me like a lion. <br />
</td><td width="10%"></td></tr></table><p><br />
<br />
This (suggested) couplet takes the poetic form know as "synonymous parallelism"- in both lines we have the imagery of animals (dogs/lion) and the idea of being surrounded/encircled by them. This parallelism is lost if any of the suggestions for <i>kaaru</i> were to be inserted here. <a href="#l">[<i>l</i>]</a><p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
What to do with "my hands and my feet"? For this we have to absorb the whole imagery of Psalm 22:11-21. [The translation below is taken from the NRSV except that I have changed the punctuation at verse 16 and have replaced the NRSV's "they shriveled" back to "like a lion".]<p><br />
<br />
<table width="100%"><tr><td width="10%"></td><td><br />
Psalm 22: 11-21<br><br />
11 Do not be far from me, <i>for trouble is near</i><br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;and there is no one to help. <p><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;12 Many bulls encircle me,<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;strong bulls of Bashan surround me;<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;13 they open wide their mouths at me,<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;like a ravening and roaring lion. <p><br />
<br />
14 I am poured out like water,<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;and all my bones are out of joint;<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;my heart is like wax;<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;it is melted within my breast; <br><br />
15 my mouth is dried up like a potsherd,<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;and my tongue sticks to my jaws;<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;you lay me in the dust of death. <p><br />
<br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;16 For dogs are all around me;<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;a company of evildoers encircles me like a lion.<P><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;My hands and feet;<br><br />
<br />
17 I can count all my bones. <p><br />
<br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;They stare and gloat over me;<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;18 they divide my clothes among themselves,<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;and for my clothing they cast lots. <p><br />
<br />
19 But you, O LORD, do not be far away!<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;O my help, come quickly to my aid! <p><br />
<br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;20 Deliver my soul from the sword,<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;my life from the power of the dog!<br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;21 Save me from the mouth of the lion! <br><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;From the horns of the wild oxen you have rescued me.<br />
</td><td width="10%"></td></tr></table><p><br />
<br />
If we look at the whole passage above we find three basic themes: the Psalmist's call to God for help (Psalm 22:11 & 19), the description of the state of his anxiety (Psalm 22:14-15, 16b-17a) and the description of his enemies, metaphorically represented by three different animals -the bull/oxen, the dog and the lion. (Psalm 22:12-13, 16b-17a, 20-21). Indeed the imagery conveyed here (Psalm 22:14-15, 16b-17a) is someone surrounded by his enemies in a state of extreme despair, suffering physical discomfort and probably dehydrated and emaciated from his trials, calling out to God for deliverance. <p><br />
<br />
We can see that the imagery about <i>body parts</i> conveys an impression of his extreme despair and anxiety (Psalm 22:14-15 & 16b-17a). Thus when the Psalmist tells us he is "being poured out like water" he means that he is being drained of vitality and energy. That his bones are "out of joint" means his limbs are tired. His heart "melting like wax" means he is troubled or fearful. <a href="#m">[m]</a>. The next lines about his mouth and tongue probably refers to his thirst. That he is "laid in the dust of death" is understandable, for we have here a tired, fearful, thirsting and emaciated man. <a href="#48">[48]</a> After pausing to describe his enemies, he picked up the imagery of his body again in verse 16b and 17a. Raising his forearm slightly, looking at his weak limbs and emaciated body, he laments, "my hands and my feet...I can count all my bones!". Broken sentences like these convey exactly the impression the Psalmists would have wanted to convey: people in despair don't normally speak in complete sentences! <a href="#n">[n]</a><p><br />
<br />
This is not the only example of such a rhetorical technique in Psalm 22. We can also see this in the very first verse of that Psalm. Modern translations tends to smooth out these grammatically rough sentences; the NRSV gives Psalm 22:1b as "Why are you so far from helping me, from the words of my groaning?". The Hebrew literally reads, "Far from my salvation the words of my groaning". The word is not completely intelligible in the strictly grammatical sense. <a href="#p">[p]</a> However if we read the passage as "Far from my salvation...The words of my groaning", we can see that the Psalmist is saying that he is groaning about his state of being "far from salvation". <p><br />
<br />
The imagery is complete-and there is no difficulty with not requiring a verb after "my hands and my feet", for it is merely a rhetorical device to describe the state of mind the psalmist was in.<p><br />
<br />
Note also that Psalm 22:11-21 provides a coherent overall structure when Psalm 22:16b reads "like a lion". If we follow the description of the (metaphorical) animals that permeates this whole passage this is how the progression looks like: <a href="#50">[50]</a><p><br />
<br />
<div align=center><br />
<table width="100%"><tr><td width="10%"></td><td align=left><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A. <b>Bulls</b> Psalm 22:11<p><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;B. <b>Lion</b> (including mention of mouths) Psalm 22:13<p><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;C. <b> Dogs</b> Psalm 22:16a<p><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;X. <b> Lion</b> Psalm 22:16b<p><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;C'. <b> Dogs</b> Psalm 22:20<p><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;B'. <b>Lion</b> (including mention of mouth) Psalm 22:21a<p><br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A'. <b>Oxen</b> Psalm 22:21b<br />
<br />
</td><td width="10%"></td></tr></table><br />
</div><p><br />
<br />
Note that the progression exhibits what is normally known as a <i>chiastic structure</i>. This is merely a device use in poetry and some types of prose that crosses the terms and ideas in this manner <b>A - B - C - X - C'- B'- A'</b>. The central "lion" forms the climax to the whole section in which his ordeal or anxiety is at its greatest. After that deliverance follows quickly. Thus a chiastic structure with a central climax fits the context of Psalm 22:11-21 very closely.<p><br />
<br />
<br />
These then, are the reasons why <i>kaari</i>, "like a lion", suits the context of Psalm 22 better than <i>kaaru</i>:<P><br />
<br />
<ol><br />
<li>It continues the imagery of animals (bulls, dogs and lions) as metaphors for his enemies.<p><br />
<li>It completes the couplet in verse 16 via synonymous parallelism. <p><br />
<br />
<li>It falls into the same "drift" as the rest of Psalm 22-where the Psalmist is <i>threatened</i>, or <i>feels threatened</i>, but is never described as being physically harmed or attacked.<p><br />
<li>It completes the overall chiastic structure of Psalm 22:11-21.<br />
</ol><p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Back to the <a href="#top">top</a><p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<h2><a name="conclude">Conclusion</a></h2><br />
<br />
In our long analysis we can make the following conclusions:<p><br />
<br />
We are <i>certain</i> that there is no prophecy of the crucifixion in Psalm 22:16b. There are two alternate readings in the Hebrew text circulating in the time around the turn of the common era; the first, <i>kaari</i> ("like a lion"), obviously has no relation to any crucifixion; the second, <i>kaaru</i> may be meaningless, but even if it is meaningful, none of the meaning guessed at by the ancient independent versions (Septuagint, Jerome's Psalm, Symmachus and Aquila) or by modern scholars compels a reading of "piercing". None of the early Christian writers, right up to 150 CE, interpreted Psalm 22:16b to be a direct reference to the crucifixion.<p><br />
<br />
The reading as it stands in the Masoretic Text, "like a lion" is still the most probable reading, for it fits into the imagery of the whole of Psalm 22 better than the guesses of modern scholars or the ancient translators.<p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Back to the <a href="#top">top</a><p><br />
<br />
<br />
<table width="100%"><tr><td width="10%"></td><td><br />
</td><td width="10%"></td></tr></table><p><br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>Notes</h3><br />
<table><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="a">a.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Psalm 22:16 is the normal rendering of chapter and verse for English bibles for this passage "For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.". However we find different chapter and verse designations in different versions. The Hebrew Tanakh (based on the masoretic text) gives this as Psalm 22:17, the Septuagint has Psalm 21:17 while the Vulgate, like the Septuagint, numbers this passage as Psalm 21:17.<br><br />
The reason for this discrepancy lies in how the chapters and verses are divided in Psalms. The Septuagint combines chapters 9 and 10 of the Hebrew bible into chapter 9. This means that after chapter 9, the Septuagint chapter numbers will be one behind the Hebrew bible. It further combines another two chapters,114 and 115, into one (113). However it splits the next chapter in the Hebrew bible (116) into two (114 & 115). Finally it splits chapter 147 of the Hebrew text into two (146 & 147). There are two combinations and two splits which means that both renditions of Psalms end with 150 chapters! Modern English bibles follow the Hebrew chapter numbering.<br><br />
The verses defer because the Hebrew bible counts the title of the psalm as the first verse whereas the English bibles do not. <a href="#1">[1]</a><br />
</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="b">b.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Note that <i>vav</i> is normally transliterated as "W", however in some case consonants such as <i>vav</i> (W) and <i>yod</i> (Y) can be read as the vowels "U" or "O" and "I". In the above case, the vav is transliterated as an "U".<br />
</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="c">c.</a></td><td><font size="-1">The designation for the documents found around the Dead Sea may look esoteric but is actually quite straightforward. The numbers and alphabets refer to the chronological order as well as the location in which the particular fragment was found and further details of the contents. Thus "4QD" means that the scroll was discovered in the <i>fourth</i> cave at <i>Qumran</i> and is entitled the <i><b>D</b></i>amascus document. More often numbers are given instead of the name of the document. Thus 4Q242 means the document is from the same location (fourth cave at Qumran) and is the <i>242nd</i> manuscript from that place. <a href="#9">[9]</a></font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="d">d.</a></td><td><font size="-1">The suggestion that the addition of the aleph between the kaf and resh is an "Aramaizing" spelling of the Hebrew <i>karah</i> (to dig), or the Assyrian <i>karu</i> (to lop off / to shear) is a favorite among fundamentalist. It was first suggested three quarters of a century ago by G.R. Driver ("Textual and Linguistic Problems of the Book of Psalms" <i>HTR</i> 29.3 [1936], 171-196). Driver however did not convince even himself and eventually took the view that the closest cognate would be similar cognates in Akkadian, Arabic and Syriac, which mean "to bind". <a href="#12">[12]</a> </font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="e">e.</a></td><td><font size="-1">The English and Americans spell <i>donor</i> the same way.</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="f">f.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Indeed the suggestion has been used in the NRSV:<br><br />
<br />
<table width="100%"><tr><td width="10%"></td><td><br />
Psalm 22:16b NRSV<br><br />
My hands and feet have shriveled...<br />
</td><td width="10%"></td></tr></table><p></font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="g">g.</a></td><td><font size="-1">A <i>Geniza</i> is a kind of storage room found in synagogues. It is sued to keep old manuscripts that are no longer usable until such a time where they can be disposed of properly. The whole point is to keep the holy scriptures, which contains the holy name of God, away from the possibility of being defiled or misused. Indeed the term Geniza comes from the Aramaic which means "to hide".</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="h">h.</a></td><td><font size="-1">A palimpsest is a document which has something else written on top of previous writings. </font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="i">i.</a></td><td><font size="-1">The table is derived from the extensive Appendix given in Mark George Vitalis Hoffman's 1996 Yale PhD dissertation <i>Psalm 22 (LXX 21) and the Crucifixion of Jesus</i>. Due to font limitation the Syriac text is transliterated into Hebrew. </font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="j">j.</a></td><td><font size="-1">As far as I know, nobody else have made this suggestion-of linking Justin's interpretation to the Latin translation of the Bible-before. So remember, you read it here first, folks!</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="k">k.</a></td><td><font size="-1"><i>Contra</i> Brent Strawn in "Psalm 22:17b: More Guessing", <i>Journal of Biblical Literature</i> 119/3 (2000) p 447 who mentioned that there were three occasions of reference of physical violence towards the Psalmist by his enemies. He verses he cited were: 22:12-13, 16 & 20-21 (Note Strawn was using the verse number of the Hebrew bible, so I have to minus one from there). Verse 16 is the point of the whole discussion so we will not be reviewing it here. I think Dr. Strawn in mistaken here. For verse 22:12-13 refers to the enemies of the Psalmist, metaphorically represented as bulls and lions, as surrounding him and "opening their mouth" <i>at</i> him. These are threatening gestures, no doubt - which would explain the following stanza where he describes his own fear and anxiety - but it does not presuppose any physical violence being inflicted on the Psalmist. Verse 22:20-21 is a thanksgiving stanza thanking God for saving him <i>from</i> the "power [literally "hand"] of the dog", the "mouth of the lion" and the "horns of the bull". Again there is no indication that he actually was physically attacked for the deliverance seem to be one who rejoices after managing to <i>avoid</i> such attacks!<br />
<font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="l"><i>l</i>.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Although the second <i>stich</i> (<i>stich</i> is just a fancy term for the smallest "sentence unit" in a poetry) is longer than the first, I think this reconstruction still falls within the metrical rules of Hebrew poetry. The first line of the couple in Hebrew could contain 3 stresses if the syllable for initial <i>ki</i> ("for"), is stressed for emphasis. The second line contains four stresses. This pattern of stresses, 3/4, corresponds to the <i>Qinah</i>, or lamentation, poetic line which normally has two stichs of unequal lengths. Similarly the next couplet [My hands and my feet/I can count all my bones] has the 2/2 pattern of stresses and falls within the "normal" Hebrew poetical metrical arrangement.<br />
<font></td></tr><br />
<br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="m">m.</a></td><td><font size="-1">We find the same imagery in one of the extra-biblical scrolls as Qumran:<br><br />
<table width="100%"><tr><td width="10%"></td><td><br />
1QH 4:33-34<br><br />
As for me shaking and trembling seize me, and all my bones are quivering; my heart melts like wax before fire and my knees are like water pouring down a steep place.<br />
</td><td width="10%"></td></tr></table><br />
Here too, "heart melting like wax" refers to the state of extreme distress and fear.<br />
</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="n">n.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Of course we are not saying that the Psalmist was actually in a physical state of hunger, thirst and near death - but merely that this was the <i>imagery</i> he chose to describe (perhaps) his spiritual anxiety and despair.<br />
<font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="p">p.</a></td><td><font size="-1">It must be noted that for this particular "broken passage" in Psalm 22:1, <i>all ancient versions support the reading of the Hebrew text</i>. <a href="#49">[49]</a><br />
<font></td></tr><br />
</table><p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Back to the <a href="#top">top</a><p><br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>References</h3><br />
<table><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="1">1.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Hoffman, Psalm 22 (LXX 21) and the Crucifixion of Jesus: <i>notations</i> page</font></td></tr><br />
<br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="2">2.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties: p37</font></td></tr><br />
<br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="3">3.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Würthwein, The Text of the Old Testament: p21</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="4">4.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Archer <i>op. cit.</i>: p37</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="5">5.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Abegg, Flint & Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: p518-519 </font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="6">6.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Metzger, The Bible in Translation: p76-77</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="7">7.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Bruce, The Books and the Parchments: p229</td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="8">8.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Asimov, Guide to the Bible: p895</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="9">9.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Eisenmann & Wise, Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered: p1<br><br />
Wise, Abegg & Cook: p39</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="10">10.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Vanderkam & Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: p124-125</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="11">11.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Shanks (ed), Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls, p145<br><br />
Strawn, Brent, A., "Psalm 22:17b: More Guessing" <i>Journal of Biblical Literature</i> 119/3 (2000) p447-448 n41<br><br />
Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible: p28<br><br />
Würthwein, <i>op. cit.</i>: p32</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="12">12.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Hoffman, <i>op. cit.</i>: p175 </font></td></tr><br />
<br />
<br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="13">13.</a></td><td><font size="-1"><i>ibid.</i>: p174 </font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="14">14.</a></td><td><font size="-1"><a href="http://www.outreachjudaism.org/like-a-lion.html" target="new">Outreach Judaism Q&A</a></font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="15">15.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Hoffman, <i>op. cit.</i>: p174-175<br><br />
Strawn, Brent, A., <i>op. cit.</i>: p439-451</font></td></tr><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="16">16.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Brown, Driver & Briggs, The BDB Hebrew and English Lexicon: p500</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="17">17.</a></td><td><font size="-1"><i>ibid.</i>: p201<br><br />
Callahan, Secret Origins of the Bible: p366</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="18">18.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Brown, Driver & Briggs <i>op. cit.</i>: p666</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="19">19.</a></td><td><font size="-1"><i>ibid.</i>: p954</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="20">20.</a></td><td><font size="-1"><a href="http://www.twu.ca/Biblical/DSSI/main.asp" target=new>Dead Sea Scrolls Institute Main Page</a></font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="21">21.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Hoffman, <i>op. cit.</i>: p37</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="22">22.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Hoffman, <i>op. cit.</i>: p37<br><br />
Metzger, <i>op. cit.</i>: p18-19<br><br />
Würthwein, <i>op. cit.</i>: p52-54</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="23">23.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Hoffman, <i>op. cit.</i>: p37-38,473<br><br />
Metzger, <i>op. cit.</i>: p19<br><br />
Würthwein, <i>op. cit.</i>: p55-56</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="24">24.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Hoffman, <i>op. cit.</i>: p36-37<br><br />
Metzger, <i>op. cit.</i>: p20-24<br><br />
Würthwein, <i>op. cit.</i>: p55-56</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="25">25.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Hoffman, <i>op. cit.</i>: p39, 270-271<br><br />
Metzger, <i>op. cit.</i>: p26-27<br><br />
Tov, <i>op. cit.</i>: p152<br><br />
Würthwein, <i>op. cit.</i>: p85-90</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="26">26.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Hoffman, <i>op. cit.</i>: p37-38<br><br />
Metzger, <i>op. cit.</i>: p19<br><br />
Würthwein, <i>op. cit.</i>: p11,57 </font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="27">27.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Hoffman, <i>op. cit.</i>: p38-39<br><br />
Würthwein, <i>op. cit.</i>: p59</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="28">28.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Hoffman, <i>op. cit.</i>: p39-40<br><br />
Metzger, <i>op. cit.</i>: p29-35<br><br />
Würthwein, <i>op. cit.</i>: p91-99</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="29">29.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Hoffman, <i>op. cit.</i>: p450-554 (Appendix A)</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="30">30.</a></td><td><font size="-1"><i>ibid.</i>: p44, p173 & p466</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="31">31.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Callahan, <i>op. cit.</i>: p365<br><br />
Hoffman, <i>op. cit.</i>: 179-180</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="32">32.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Callahan, <i>op. cit.</i>: p366<br></font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="33">33.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Traupman, Latin & English Dictionary: p183</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="34">34.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Hoffman, <i>op. cit.</i>: p46</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="35">35.</a></td><td><font size="-1"><i>ibid</i>: p45-46</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="36">36.</a></td><td><font size="-1"><i>ibid</i>: p178<font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="37">37.</a></td><td><font size="-1"><i>ibid</i>: p182</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="38">38.</a></td><td><font size="-1"><i>ibid</i>: p182-183</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="39">39.</a></td><td><font size="-1"><i>ibid</i>: p184-186</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="40">40.</a></td><td><font size="-1"><i>ibid</i>: p188-190</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="41">41.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Bruce, The Books and the Parchments: p63, p202-203<br><br />
Ferguson, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity: p647-649<br><br />
Metzger, <i>op.cit</i>: p30-31<br />
Würthwein, <i>op. cit.</i>: p91</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="42">42.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Dunn, Jews and Christians: p41-69</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="43">43.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Elliger & Rudolph, Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensia: p1104</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="44">44.</a></td><td><font size="-1"><br />
McCarter, Textual Criticism: p43-49<br><br />
Würthwein, <i>op. cit.</i>: p108</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="45">45.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Würthwein, <i>op. cit.</i>: p115-116</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="46">46.</a></td><td><font size="-1">McCarter, <i>op. cit.</i>: p71-72</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="47">47.</a></td><td><font size="-1"><i>ibid.</i>: p72-74</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="48">48.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Hoffman, <i>op. cit.</i>: p158-167<br><br />
Weiser, The Psalm: p223-224</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="49">49.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Hoffman, <i>op. cit.</i>: p112</font></td></tr><br />
<tr><td valign="top"><a name="50">50.</a></td><td><font size="-1">Strawn, <i>op. cit.</i>: p447</font></td></tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
<p>Back to the <a href="#top">top</a><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
<div align="center"><br />
<hr width=90%><br />
<font size="-1"><br />
<a href="index.html">[Home]</a><br />
<a href="central.html">[The Central Thesis]</a> <br />
<a href="christianity.html">[Christianity]</a><br />
<a href="bibleanalysis.html">[The Bible]</a><br />
<a href="jesus.html">[Jesus]</a><br />
<a href="paulorigin.html">[Paul]</a><br />
<a href="god.html">[God]</a><br />
<a href="history.html">[History]</a> <br />
<a href="pascal.html">[Pascal's Wager]</a><br />
<a href="biblio.html">[Bibliography]</a><br />
<a href="links.html">[Links]</a><br><br />
<br />
<i>&copy; Paul N. Tobin 2004</i></font><br><br />
<font size="-1">For comments and queries, e-mail <a href="mailto:tobinator99 @hotmail.com?SUBJECT=Comments on Psalm 22:16: A Prophecy of the Crucifixion?">Paul Tobin</a><br><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Category: Legends}}</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:FreezBee&diff=9661User talk:FreezBee2007-03-11T11:55:46Z<p>FreezBee: /* Request to FB to create Legends page for Tobin's Psalm 22:17 article */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Request to FB to create Legends page for Tobin's Psalm 22:17 article ==<br />
<br />
<font color=blue>JW:</font><br />
<br />
FB, the Carrier Legends article is now finalized. The next Legends article will be Paul Tobin's:<br />
<br />
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/pierce.html ([[A Prophecy of the Crucifixion?]])<br />
<br />
Psalm 22:17 article which he has given me permission to reproduce here. Can you get it started here by creating a new Legends page for it and than copying it best you can so the links work? If necessary I should be able to get help from Tobin to accomplish this.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 14:38, 13 Jan 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Hi Joe - I've been busy the last couple of months elsewhere, so I've first read youyr message today march 4. I'll try to look at it over the next few days, but I may not be able to dedicate much time, I'm afraid.<br />
--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 06:56, 4 Mar 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Hi FB. Just do the best you can. Thanks.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 08:51, 5 Mar 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
OK, I suggest that we make a Legends category - rather than naming any pages "Legends", since only one page would be able to have that name.--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 06:52, 11 Mar 2007 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== Blah blah ==<br />
<br />
Ooh, just found out how to label links!!! --[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 05:40, 27 Jan 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
Today I've learned to add a page to a Category and to make lists --[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 08:09, 30 Jan 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
FB, thanks for showing me how to use Wiki color and size. For the Carrier Legends article I still need to place his personal information in an Inset and set up a PayPal account for him. Do you know how to do this?<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 09:44, 12 Nov 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
: Could you be more specific about how you want the box to look? --[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 07:56, 10 Dec 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
FB<br />
:If you give me your email I can send you Carrier's original article and format so you can see exactly what I want.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 11:09, 10 Dec 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
:It's pwemail@hotmail.com<br />
:--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 11:37, 11 Dec 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
Great job FB, the article looks pretty slick. It's already getting a lot of compliments. Can you put in a PayPal link for Carrier at the end of the article?<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 08:43, 14 Dec 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
:It's not something I've done before, so I wouldn't recommend that I tried :-)<br />
:The code would look something like this:<br />
<br />
<pre><br />
<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="paypal@secularstudents.org"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Donate to the Secular Student Alliance"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="item_number" value="Hemant-Church no encrypt"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="bn" value="PP-DonationsBF"> <br />
<p style="text-align: center"> <br />
<input type="image" src="https://www.paypal.com/en_US/i/btn/x-click-but04.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!"> <br />
<br><br />
<font size="1">Donate to the SSA</font></p><br />
</form><br />
</pre><br />
<br />
:This is a link for the ''Secular Student Alliance'' (copied from [http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/08/17/godless-whos-who/ this page]), and for Richard it would of course have to be his account address instead and what else may need to be changed.<br />
:--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 09:46, 14 Dec 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Also, for my Mark 1:1 article I can not figure out how to link it to the Transmission Category Page.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 10:56, 12 Nov 2006 (CST)</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:FreezBee&diff=9660User talk:FreezBee2007-03-11T11:53:07Z<p>FreezBee: /* Request to FB to create Legends page for Tobin's Psalm 22:17 article */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Request to FB to create Legends page for Tobin's Psalm 22:17 article ==<br />
<br />
<font color=blue>JW:</font><br />
<br />
FB, the Carrier Legends article is now finalized. The next Legends article will be Paul Tobin's:<br />
<br />
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/pierce.html<br />
<br />
Psalm 22:17 article which he has given me permission to reproduce here. Can you get it started here by creating a new Legends page for it and than copying it best you can so the links work? If necessary I should be able to get help from Tobin to accomplish this.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 14:38, 13 Jan 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Hi Joe - I've been busy the last couple of months elsewhere, so I've first read youyr message today march 4. I'll try to look at it over the next few days, but I may not be able to dedicate much time, I'm afraid.<br />
--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 06:56, 4 Mar 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Hi FB. Just do the best you can. Thanks.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 08:51, 5 Mar 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
OK, I suggest that we make a Legends category - rather than naming any pages "Legends", since only one page would be able to have that name.--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 06:52, 11 Mar 2007 (CDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Blah blah ==<br />
<br />
Ooh, just found out how to label links!!! --[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 05:40, 27 Jan 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
Today I've learned to add a page to a Category and to make lists --[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 08:09, 30 Jan 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
FB, thanks for showing me how to use Wiki color and size. For the Carrier Legends article I still need to place his personal information in an Inset and set up a PayPal account for him. Do you know how to do this?<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 09:44, 12 Nov 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
: Could you be more specific about how you want the box to look? --[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 07:56, 10 Dec 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
FB<br />
:If you give me your email I can send you Carrier's original article and format so you can see exactly what I want.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 11:09, 10 Dec 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
:It's pwemail@hotmail.com<br />
:--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 11:37, 11 Dec 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
Great job FB, the article looks pretty slick. It's already getting a lot of compliments. Can you put in a PayPal link for Carrier at the end of the article?<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 08:43, 14 Dec 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
:It's not something I've done before, so I wouldn't recommend that I tried :-)<br />
:The code would look something like this:<br />
<br />
<pre><br />
<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="paypal@secularstudents.org"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Donate to the Secular Student Alliance"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="item_number" value="Hemant-Church no encrypt"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="bn" value="PP-DonationsBF"> <br />
<p style="text-align: center"> <br />
<input type="image" src="https://www.paypal.com/en_US/i/btn/x-click-but04.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!"> <br />
<br><br />
<font size="1">Donate to the SSA</font></p><br />
</form><br />
</pre><br />
<br />
:This is a link for the ''Secular Student Alliance'' (copied from [http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/08/17/godless-whos-who/ this page]), and for Richard it would of course have to be his account address instead and what else may need to be changed.<br />
:--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 09:46, 14 Dec 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Also, for my Mark 1:1 article I can not figure out how to link it to the Transmission Category Page.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 10:56, 12 Nov 2006 (CST)</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:FreezBee&diff=9659User talk:FreezBee2007-03-11T11:52:00Z<p>FreezBee: Concerning Legends</p>
<hr />
<div>== Request to FB to create Legends page for Tobin's Psalm 22:17 article ==<br />
<br />
<font color=blue>JW:</font><br />
<br />
FB, the Carrier Legends article is now finalized. The next Legends article will be Paul Tobin's:<br />
<br />
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/pierce.html<br />
<br />
Psalm 22:17 article which he has given me permission to reproduce here. Can you get it started here by creating a new Legends page for it and than copying it best you can so the links work? If necessary I should be able to get help from Tobin to accomplish this.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 14:38, 13 Jan 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Hi Joe - I've been busy the last couple of months elsewhere, so I've first read youyr message today march 4. I'll try to look at it over the next few days, but I may not be able to dedicate much time, I'm afraid.<br />
--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 06:56, 4 Mar 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Hi FB. Just do the best you can. Thanks.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 08:51, 5 Mar 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
OK, I suggest that we make a Legends category - rather than naming any pages "Legends", since only one page would be able to have that name.--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 06:52, 11 Mar 2007 (CDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Ooh, just found out how to label links!!! --[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 05:40, 27 Jan 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
Today I've learned to add a page to a Category and to make lists --[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 08:09, 30 Jan 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
FB, thanks for showing me how to use Wiki color and size. For the Carrier Legends article I still need to place his personal information in an Inset and set up a PayPal account for him. Do you know how to do this?<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 09:44, 12 Nov 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
: Could you be more specific about how you want the box to look? --[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 07:56, 10 Dec 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
FB<br />
:If you give me your email I can send you Carrier's original article and format so you can see exactly what I want.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 11:09, 10 Dec 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
:It's pwemail@hotmail.com<br />
:--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 11:37, 11 Dec 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
Great job FB, the article looks pretty slick. It's already getting a lot of compliments. Can you put in a PayPal link for Carrier at the end of the article?<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 08:43, 14 Dec 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
:It's not something I've done before, so I wouldn't recommend that I tried :-)<br />
:The code would look something like this:<br />
<br />
<pre><br />
<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="paypal@secularstudents.org"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Donate to the Secular Student Alliance"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="item_number" value="Hemant-Church no encrypt"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="bn" value="PP-DonationsBF"> <br />
<p style="text-align: center"> <br />
<input type="image" src="https://www.paypal.com/en_US/i/btn/x-click-but04.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!"> <br />
<br><br />
<font size="1">Donate to the SSA</font></p><br />
</form><br />
</pre><br />
<br />
:This is a link for the ''Secular Student Alliance'' (copied from [http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/08/17/godless-whos-who/ this page]), and for Richard it would of course have to be his account address instead and what else may need to be changed.<br />
:--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 09:46, 14 Dec 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Also, for my Mark 1:1 article I can not figure out how to link it to the Transmission Category Page.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 10:56, 12 Nov 2006 (CST)</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:FreezBee&diff=9647User talk:FreezBee2007-03-04T12:56:24Z<p>FreezBee: /* Request to FB to create Legends page for Tobin's Psalm 22:17 article */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
== Request to FB to create Legends page for Tobin's Psalm 22:17 article ==<br />
<br />
<font color=blue>JW:</font><br />
<br />
FB, the Carrier Legends article is now finalized. The next Legends article will be Paul Tobin's:<br />
<br />
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/pierce.html<br />
<br />
Psalm 22:17 article which he has given me permission to reproduce here. Can you get it started here by creating a new Legends page for it and than copying it best you can so the links work? If necessary I should be able to get help from Tobin to accomplish this.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 14:38, 13 Jan 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Hi Joe - I've been busy the last couple of months elsewhere, so I've first read youyr message today march 4. I'll try to look at it over the next few days, but I may not be able to dedicate much time, I'm afraid.<br />
--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 06:56, 4 Mar 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Ooh, just found out how to label links!!! --[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 05:40, 27 Jan 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
Today I've learned to add a page to a Category and to make lists --[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 08:09, 30 Jan 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
FB, thanks for showing me how to use Wiki color and size. For the Carrier Legends article I still need to place his personal information in an Inset and set up a PayPal account for him. Do you know how to do this?<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 09:44, 12 Nov 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
: Could you be more specific about how you want the box to look? --[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 07:56, 10 Dec 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
FB<br />
:If you give me your email I can send you Carrier's original article and format so you can see exactly what I want.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 11:09, 10 Dec 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
:It's pwemail@hotmail.com<br />
:--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 11:37, 11 Dec 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
Great job FB, the article looks pretty slick. It's already getting a lot of compliments. Can you put in a PayPal link for Carrier at the end of the article?<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 08:43, 14 Dec 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
:It's not something I've done before, so I wouldn't recommend that I tried :-)<br />
:The code would look something like this:<br />
<br />
<pre><br />
<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="paypal@secularstudents.org"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Donate to the Secular Student Alliance"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="item_number" value="Hemant-Church no encrypt"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="bn" value="PP-DonationsBF"> <br />
<p style="text-align: center"> <br />
<input type="image" src="https://www.paypal.com/en_US/i/btn/x-click-but04.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!"> <br />
<br><br />
<font size="1">Donate to the SSA</font></p><br />
</form><br />
</pre><br />
<br />
:This is a link for the ''Secular Student Alliance'' (copied from [http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/08/17/godless-whos-who/ this page]), and for Richard it would of course have to be his account address instead and what else may need to be changed.<br />
:--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 09:46, 14 Dec 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Also, for my Mark 1:1 article I can not figure out how to link it to the Transmission Category Page.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 10:56, 12 Nov 2006 (CST)</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:FreezBee&diff=9499User talk:FreezBee2006-12-14T15:46:00Z<p>FreezBee: How to set up a PayPal link</p>
<hr />
<div>Ooh, just found out how to label links!!! --[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 05:40, 27 Jan 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
Today I've learned to add a page to a Category and to make lists --[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 08:09, 30 Jan 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
FB, thanks for showing me how to use Wiki color and size. For the Carrier Legends article I still need to place his personal information in an Inset and set up a PayPal account for him. Do you know how to do this?<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 09:44, 12 Nov 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
: Could you be more specific about how you want the box to look? --[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 07:56, 10 Dec 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
FB<br />
:If you give me your email I can send you Carrier's original article and format so you can see exactly what I want.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 11:09, 10 Dec 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
:It's pwemail@hotmail.com<br />
:--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 11:37, 11 Dec 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
Great job FB, the article looks pretty slick. It's already getting a lot of compliments. Can you put in a PayPal link for Carrier at the end of the article?<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 08:43, 14 Dec 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
:It's not something I've done before, so I wouldn't recommend that I tried :-)<br />
:The code would look something like this:<br />
<br />
<pre><br />
<form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="paypal@secularstudents.org"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Donate to the Secular Student Alliance"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="item_number" value="Hemant-Church no encrypt"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0"> <br />
<input type="hidden" name="bn" value="PP-DonationsBF"> <br />
<p style="text-align: center"> <br />
<input type="image" src="https://www.paypal.com/en_US/i/btn/x-click-but04.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!"> <br />
<br><br />
<font size="1">Donate to the SSA</font></p><br />
</form><br />
</pre><br />
<br />
:This is a link for the ''Secular Student Alliance'' (copied from [http://friendlyatheist.com/2006/08/17/godless-whos-who/ this page]), and for Richard it would of course have to be his account address instead and what else may need to be changed.<br />
:--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 09:46, 14 Dec 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Also, for my Mark 1:1 article I can not figure out how to link it to the Transmission Category Page.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 10:56, 12 Nov 2006 (CST)</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Legends&diff=9437Legends2006-12-13T17:27:30Z<p>FreezBee: /* AUTHOR QUALIFICATIONS */</p>
<hr />
<div>JW: <br />
: 1) This Article still needs to be Formatted<br />
<br />
: 2) An Inset is needed for Carrier description.<br />
<br />
: 3) Need list of Syrian Governors 12-3 BCE.<br />
<br />
: 4) Need detail for Coin chronology<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== '''''Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth''''' '''by Richard Carrier (2006''') ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== '''INTRODUCTION''' ===<br />
<br />
It is widely acknowledged that Quirinius became "governor of Syria" in 6 C.E., only then conducting a census of Judaea, and that Herod the Great died in 4 B.C.E., ten years before. Since Matthew indisputably claims Jesus was born while Herod the Great was still alive, while Luke indisputably claims Jesus was born when Quirinius was governor of Syria during a census of Judaea, Luke and Matthew are clearly in contradiction regarding when Jesus was born. They disagree by at least ten years, which entails one of them has made a historical error (or both have).<br />
<br />
Because this contradiction is so clear and certain and strongly backed by evidence, inerrancy proponents have invented a dizzying array of attempts to remove this contradiction by reconciling the details in Matthew and Luke. I have examined and researched these efforts in thorough detail, perhaps more than anyone. I have found all of them unsuccessful, even ludicrously so. Consequently, the primary importance of this contradiction is that it is one of the clearest and most irrefutable examples of historical error in the Bible, which is perhaps why it has generated so many desperate attempts to wiggle out of it. <br />
<br />
And that is the second reason this error is so important: short of the vast and diverse "Bethlehem Star" literature, there is probably no other biblical error for which so many false, groundless, or implausible arguments have been contrived to "invent" or "revise" the historical facts of the ancient Roman world. As a teacher and a scholar, I find all this disinformation and wanton invention about the period I study quite appalling. And because there are so many such contrivances, relating to technical details of the social and political history of Rome that are difficult if not impossible for the average layman to investigate, duty demands that some impassioned expert do all the necessary research and make it available to the common reader. Otherwise, all those false claims might simply be believed and eventually become common assumptions.<br />
<br />
=== AUTHOR QUALIFICATIONS ===<br />
<table width=400 cellpadding=16 align=right border=0><br />
<tr><td><br />
<table style="background:#C0D8FF" cellpadding=16 width=100% border=0><br />
<tr><td><br />
<p><b>About Richard Carrier</b></p><br />
<p>Richard Carrier is one of the most popular authors at the [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/ Secular Web], and author of the book [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1420802933/102-1435806-2580904?n=283155 Sense and Goodness without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism](2005), and contributing author for [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/159102286X/internetinfidels/102-1435806-2580904 The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave](2005), and he has written articles for several print publications. He has a B.A. in history and classical civilizations from UC Berkeley, and an M.A. and M.Phil. in ancient history from Columbia University, where he is currently working on his dissertation in ancient science. While acquiring his degrees Carrier formally studied ancient Greek for over seven years, including papyrology, linguistics, and paleography. To learn more about him see [http://www.columbia.edu/~rcc20/about.html About Richard Carrier].<br />
</p><br />
</td></tr><br />
</table><br />
</td></tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
I am a published author with considerable qualifications in the study of ancient history and languages (see inset), which should give my findings some weight of authority. I thoroughly document all the arguments and evidence relating to this discrepancy in an extensive article at the Secular Web, [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html The Date of the Nativity in Luke] (2001). I will provide here only a summary of the major conclusions of that article, along with some of the most relevant evidence.<br />
<br />
Invariably people write to me proposing some "new" argument, without having bothered to read the complete article above, only to learn that their "new" argument is in fact "old" and already refuted there. I have received countless such emails to date, over several years, and have yet to hear of any fact or argument I haven't already addressed. I advise all challengers to read that original article ''in its entirety'' before proposing to challenge the fact that Luke contradicts Matthew on the year of Christ's birth.<br />
<br />
The present summary is no substitute for that, and is only provided here to conveniently summarize the current status of this biblical error for readers not intent on gainsaying what they don't like to hear.<br />
<br />
=== BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM ===<br />
<br />
The Gospel of Luke says ([[Luke 2|2:1-6]]) Jesus was born during a census, which the historian Josephus records took place after Herod the Great died, and after his successor, Archelaus, was deposed after a ten year reign (''Antiquities of the Jews'' [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.342 17.342-55], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.1 18.1-2], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.26 18.26]). But the Gospel of Matthew says ([[Matthew 2|2:1-3]]) Jesus was born when Herod the Great was still alive, possibly two years before he died ([[Matthew 2|2:7-16]]), and before Archelaus even took office ([[Matthew 2|2:19-22]]). On a plain reading of the Bible, this is a contradiction. Someone erred.<br />
<br />
Efforts to challenge this conclusion fall into three general categories: either Luke meant something other than his words actually say, or Josephus failed to mention some "other" time that Quirinius was governor and a census made of Judaea, or Josephus erred in dating relevant events. A fourth option, of arguing Matthew meant something other than what he said, is blocked by the absolute clarity with which he said it. There is no rational way to argue that Matthew was referring to the political situation anywhere near 6 C.E. Not only does Matthew's narrative make this clear, but the physical evidence from coins of the region leave little room for disputing that Herod ceased his reign in 4 B.C.E., Archelaus then succeeded him, then ceased his own reign ten years later in 5 C.E., and Roman control of Judaea began in the year 6 (the year the earliest Roman coins struck for Judaea begin).<span id="up1"></span>[[#ref1|1]] These facts are also recorded by Josephus (who is generally quite reliable on matters of public chronology) and partly corroborated by another historian, Cassius Dio (e.g. ''Roman History'' [http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/55*.html#27.6 55.27.6]).<br />
<br />
Consequently, to this day no one has attempted to argue that Matthew was describing an event of 6 C.E. Instead, all efforts are directed to arguing that Luke was describing an event five to twelve years earlier than we think, either by trying to harmonize Luke with Josephus, or by attacking the accuracy or alleged omissions of Josephus. However, all such attempts have required inventing or distorting socio-political facts of the period, or twisting Greek grammar or vocabulary beyond anything that would be recognizable to an ancient reader. Allowing either tactic would permit us to prove that no text ever written in human history has ever been in error about anything. Such an irrational consequence convicts both tactics as unsound.<br />
<br />
=== ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #1 - Looking in Luke for a Different Date ===<br />
<br />
Some observe that Luke says John the Baptist was born during the reign of "Herod the King" ([[Luke 1:5|1:5]]) and appears to have Jesus born less than a year later ([[Luke 1|1:22-24]], [[Luke 1|1:31-36]], [[Luke 1:80|1:80]], [[Luke 2:1|2:1]], [[Luke 2|2:40-42]]), which appears to agree with Matthew. However, Matthew does not mention or date the birth of John, and despite the impression given by English translations, Luke is unclear how much time actually passed between his birth and that of Jesus. More importantly, Archelaus was also called Herod (even on his own coins) and even Josephus calls him a king (''Antiquities of the Jews'' [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.93 18.93]). Unlike Matthew, Luke provides no detail indicating either he or his source meant anything other than Herod Archelaus when dating the birth of John. Therefore, unless we assume Luke is contradicting ''himself'', we can't assume he dated either the birth of John or Jesus to the time of Herod the Great. So there is no case to be made from [[Luke 1:5|1:5]] that Luke agreed with Matthew.<br />
<br />
Likewise, when Luke dates the start of John's ministry to 28 C.E. ([[Luke 3:11|3:1]]) and then over twenty verses later says Jesus began his own ministry at "about thirty" ([[Luke 3:23|3:23]]) some assume the two ministries began the same year, which would place the birth of Jesus at "about" 3 B.C.E. which for a "rough" estimate is close enough to fit Matthew. But Luke never says the two ministries began the same year, and for various reasons it's unlikely they did. Luke clearly didn't know the year Jesus started his ministry, since he didn't know how old he was, despite claiming to know exactly when he was born. Since "about" thirty can be off by at least four years (26-34), and since Luke allows some time to pass between the start of John's ministry and the baptism of Jesus, and since scholars agree Jesus could have begun and ended his ministry anytime between 28 and 33 C.E., we are left with a window between 7 B.C.E. to 7 C.E. for his birth, far too wide to pin down. So there is no good case to be made from Luke [[Luke 3:1|3:1-23]] that he agreed with Matthew.<span id="up2"></span>[[#ref2|2]]<br />
<br />
==='''ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #2 - Inventing Another Governorship for Quirinius'''===<br />
<br />
Even fishing a different date out of Luke would leave a contradiction ''within Luke'', since the only chronological detail about Jesus that Luke is absolutely clear on is that he was born ''during'' "the first census when Quirinius was governing Syria" ([[Luke 2:2|2:2]]). All evidence confirms that Quirinius first became governor of Syria in 6 C.E. and the first Roman census of Judaea occurred at that time, and Luke clearly says this was a Roman census ([[Luke 2:1|2:1-6]]). So Luke didn't leave much room to maneuver. To reconcile Luke with Matthew, one must invent two facts nowhere in evidence: some other Syrian governorship for Quirinius ''and'' some other census affecting Judaea, both before Herod the Great died.<br />
<br />
But trying to invent an earlier Syrian governorship for Quirinius is a lost cause. Not only is there no evidence of it, and not only does it go against a plain reading of all the evidence we do have, but it's essentially impossible. No one ever governed the same province twice in the whole of Roman history. So the claim that Quirinius was the sole known exception is so extraordinary it certainly can't be maintained without evidence. Such an astonishing and unique honor could not have been omitted by Josephus or Tacitus (''Annals'' [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=3.48 3.48]), yet both describe his career without any mention of it. Historical evidence also confirms other men governed Syria between 12 and 3 B.C.E., so Quirinius could not have been governor then, and he was not qualified to hold that office before the year 12.<span id="up3"></span>[[#ref3|3]]<br />
<br />
Stymied by all these facts, inerrantists have resorted to everything from fabricating evidence of dual governorships or other fictional offices Quirinius is supposed to have held, to changing the year of Herod's death. None of this is even remotely reasonable, and most of it is based on the fantasies of amateurs or the abandoned conjectures of long dead historians. First, the alleged physical evidence:<br />
<br />
==== The Lapis Tiburtinus ====<br />
<br />
This is a headless (and thus nameless) inscription that the Vatican has taken the liberty to "restore" with the name of Quirinius. It is then "interpreted" as saying he governed Syria twice. But the actual inscription does not say anyone governed Syria twice, nor does it belong to Quirinius. Scholars now believe it belongs to Lucius Calpurnius Piso, since it fits what we know of his career very well, while no basis exists for claiming it belongs to Quirinius. And even if it did, it doesn't say anything about governing Syria twice. It says the honoree "received the governorship of Asia and then again of Syria."<span id="up4"></span>[[#ref4|4]] <br />
<br />
==== The Lapis Venetus ====<br />
<br />
This is an inscription that really does mention Quirinius. It is the epitaph of Aemilius Secundus and reports he helped Quirinius conduct a census when the latter was governing Syria. So this inscription confirms that a census was taken of Syria when Quirinius was governor. It does not give a date, either for the census or the inscription itself. But there is no reason to believe this is a reference to any other census under Quirinius except the only one we know of, that of 6 C.E. Several inerrantists have simply "invented" early dates for this inscription, and then used these fabricated dates to claim this inscription as proof there was an earlier census under Quirinius. It proves no such thing.<span id="up5"></span>[[#ref5|5]]<br />
<br />
==== The Antioch Stones ====<br />
<br />
These are two stones commemorating the offices of Gaius Julius Caristanius Caesiano, both mentioning that he held the deputy management of a city duumvirate held by Quirinius. The date is unknown but probably before the year 1. Conjuring various fantasies, inerrantists finagle this city office into evidence of an earlier governorship of Syria, but no rational argument can produce that conclusion. First, a duumvirate is a city office and has nothing to do with a provincial governorship. Second, this duumvirate was held in Galatia, not Syria.<span id="up6"></span>[[#ref6|6]] <br />
<br />
==== The Vardaman Coins ====<br />
<br />
Jerry Vardaman claimed to have discovered microscopic letters literally covering ancient coins and inscriptions conveying all sorts of strange new facts, which he used to completely rewrite history. One of these amazing new "discoveries" was evidence Jesus was born in 11 or 12 B.C.E. Needless to say, Vardaman's claim constitutes fringe quackery that has gained no respect in the academic community. I inspected one of these coins myself under a magnifying glass and a digital microscope at the British Museum and found none of these amazing microscopic letters. Case closed.<span id="up7"></span>[[#ref7|7]] <br />
<br />
==== Sub-Commander Quirinius? ====<br />
<br />
Since none of this evidence supports an earlier governorship for Quirinius, and all other evidence makes such a thing virtually impossible, only two strategies remain for the inerrantists: either Quirinius held some other "special command" in Syria and wasn't governor ''per se'', or Quirinius held an unrecorded "dual-governorship" with some other governor. Neither of these proposals makes any sense in the context of Roman politics or historiography.<br />
<br />
First, the "sub-command" thesis. Luke's choice of vocabulary is somewhat imprecise, using a word that can refer to many different positions of command. Seizing on this, inerrantists argue that Luke meant "when Quirinius was holding a command in Syria," and not "when Quirinius was governing Syria." But stretching the word like this requires ignoring the grammar. Luke says "of Syria," not "in Syria," and thus he could not have been referring to some command ''in'' Syria but only a command ''of'' Syria. Even if we ignore Luke's grammar, the only real "command" anyone can find for Quirinius is a war he fought in Galatia, probably between 6 and 1 B.C.E. But there is no logical way Luke would refer to a census in Syria by referencing a war in Galatia, and no one would ever write or read "governing Syria" as meaning "fighting a war in Galatia." Unless Luke was a profoundly stupid man, or erred in his historical facts, he would have named the ''actual'' governor of Syria who oversaw a census in Judaea, not some unrelated officer in a faraway province.<span id="up8"></span>[[#ref8|8]]<br />
<br />
==== Co-Commander Quirinius? ====<br />
<br />
A completely different tactic, to get around the problem that all the governors of Syria between 12 and 3 B.C.E. are already known, is to claim Quirinius was holding a dual governorship with one of those other governors. Not only does this still require claiming Quirinius governed the same province twice, an oddity never before recorded in the history of Roman politics, but it also requires completely inventing the idea of a "dual governorship." Since there is no evidence in all of Roman history of any province assigned two governors at the same time, this is another extraordinary claim that requires evidence to be believed. Since there isn't any, inerrantists invent some.<br />
<br />
Josephus is cited as saying "Saturninus and Volumnius were in charge of Syria" (''Antiquities of the Jews'' [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=16.280 16.280]) which is said to "prove" Syria was special enough to be assigned two governors. But Volumnius was not a governor. He was a procurator (Josephus, ''Jewish War'' [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=1.538 1.538]), an office held only by men of fundamentally inferior rank, who were not even qualified to hold the office of a provincial governor. Conversely, a Roman who had achieved senatorial, and even consular rank--like Quirinius--would never deign to accept such a humiliating office as procurator. Socially, this would be as unbelievable as a United States president taking a job as shift manager at a local McDonald's. In Roman society, this would be so remarkable and unprecedented that, again, Josephus and Tacitus would not have omitted it from their accounts of his career. The same error is made using an inscription reporting that two "deputies," Rutilius Gallicus and Sentius Caecilianus, were assigned to the province of Africa. But this inscription clearly states that one of them was a praetor, and thus ''not'' of consular rank. So again, what we have here are not two governors, but a governor and his subordinate. Neither example supports even the ''conjecture'' that Quirinius ''could'' have held a dual-governorship, much less that he ever did so--or that anyone ever did. It would also make no logical sense for Luke to name a governor's subordinate rather than the actual governor of Syria.<span id="up9"></span>[[#ref9|9]]<br />
<br />
So there is no basis for that claim, either. Since Josephus records and thus confirms an actual census under Quirinius in 6 C.E. when Quirinius was, in fact, governor "of Syria," all exactly as Luke says, there is no plausible case to be made that Luke had any other event in mind. All the evidence we have corroborates this conclusion, and none supports any alternative or renders any even remotely plausible.<br />
<br />
==='''ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #3 - Inventing a New Date for Herod's Death'''===<br />
<br />
Since there is no reasonable way to get Quirinius to be governor of Syria anytime before 3 B.C.E., the natural last-ditch resort is to argue that Herod didn't really die in 4 B.C.E. Since there is no clear evidence who was governing Syria after 3 B.C.E., or where Quirinius was in those years, inerrantists fantasize that their imaginary "earlier governorship" of Quirinius fell around then and simply failed to be mentioned. This still doesn't avoid all the problems noted before--from a total lack of evidence to the extraordinary implausibility of a second governorship. It also requires rewriting history.<br />
<br />
Josephus already says Varus, not Quirinius, was governing Syria when Herod died (''Jewish War'' [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=1.9 1.9-10]), and despite attempts to argue otherwise, Josephus is very clear and precise in his chronology for these events and cites several first-hand sources for them, while the manuscript tradition for the relevant details is completely sound, so there is no plausible case to made that he is mistaken.<span id="up10"></span>[[#ref10|10]] Likewise, as mentioned earlier, evidence from coins corroborates all of this, including the reigns of Herod's successors, Philip, Antipas and Archelaus. The reign of Archelaus is further corroborated by Cassius Dio ([http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/55*.html#27.6 55.27.6]).<br />
<br />
Josephus also mentions a lunar eclipse soon before Herod's death, and astronomers note there was such an eclipse in 5 B.C.E. and 1 B.C.E. Inerrantists therefore want Herod to have died in or shortly after 1 B.C.E. However, not only is all evidence against such a notion, but the Jewish ''Scroll of Fasting'' records the calendar day of Herod's death, and it preceded that of the eclipse of 1 B.C.E, but not that of 5 B.C.E. Since Josephus says his death followed (not preceeded) an eclipse, the eclipse Josephus mentions was probably that of the year 5. In the end, there is simply no evidence Herod died later than the year 4, and no plausible case to be made that he did.<br />
<br />
==='''ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #4 - Inventing Another Census'''===<br />
<br />
There is no reasonable case to be made that Quirinius ever "governed Syria" before 6 C.E. Yet inventing such a fantasy contrary to all evidence and precedent is not even enough to eliminate the contradiction between Matthew and Luke. A census of Judaea before 6 C.E. must ''also'' be invented contrary to all evidence and precedent. This is because Luke's description establishes three facts: the census affected Judaea ([[Luke 2|2:4-5]]), it was conducted under the administration of Syria ([[Luke 2:2|2:2]]), and it was specifically a ''Roman'' census ([[Luke 2:1|2:1]]). These three facts rule out every attempt to argue that Luke meant some other census or event than the one recorded for 6 C.E.<br />
<br />
Before 6 C.E. Judaea was a nominally free kingdom, not a Roman province. Having sided with Augustus in the civil war that established him as emperor, Judaea was granted a favorable treaty assuring relative independence. This is proven by the coin evidence that Judaea continued to be governed by its own kings and rulers, not Roman officials, until 6 C.E., and extensively confirmed by Josephus and Cassius Dio. Though such "allied kingdoms" were kept under a tight leash and informally controlled and meddled with, all evidence regarding the legal and political practices of Roman emperors in the first century and before confirms that these states were not subject to direct Roman administration, taxation or levies. That was, in fact, the very ''point'' of not annexing them as provinces: not only to reward friendly states (and thus encourage other states to be friendly), but to avoid the headache and expense of taking over a region that was already pacified, subservient, and paying sufficient dues.<br />
<br />
Therefore, it is historically impossible that a Roman census was conducted under a Roman provincial governor when Judaea was still an allied kingdom. But it was typical and logical that immediately upon annexing a new territory a census would be taken of it. This was necessary to begin direct taxation and levies. So when Josephus describes Archelaus being removed from office, then Judaea being annexed to Syria and placed under the Roman command of Quirinius and his prefect Coponius, and then a census being conducted for the specific purpose of taking account of what Archelaus had left them, this description makes complete historical sense. In contrast, no other hypothesized "census" scenario makes any historical sense at all. <br />
<br />
As Josephus reports, and as all logic and precedent entail, Judaea was not being directly taxed by Rome nor administered by Romans before the year 6, and therefore there would be no purpose for Augustus to order a census there (Luke [[Luke 2:1|2:1]]). Since forcing such a census on an allied kingdom in violation of its honor and its treaties would be such an astonishing and devastating insult contrary to all known precedent, there is no way it wouldn't have been noticed by historians like Josephus, nor any reason the Romans would undertake such a pointless and dangerous task. They would have nothing to gain by it, and plenty to lose, and Augustus was not so reckless as to think otherwise.<span id="up11"></span>[[#ref11|11]]<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, inerrantists must have the impossible in order to save their bible from error. So these are the arguments they have attempted:<br />
<br />
==== Luke Meant "Before Quirinius"? ====<br />
<br />
The word translated "first" in Luke [[Luke 2:2|2:2]] can in certain contexts mean "before." But for various reasons such a meaning would not be grammatically correct in this case. Luke can only have meant, and all his readers would only have understood his sentence to mean, the first Augustan census that happened under Quirinius. And that is how all translators correctly interpret it.<span id="up12"></span>[[#ref12|12]]<br />
<br />
==== Romans Subjected Allied Kingdoms to a Census? ====<br />
<br />
Since the very idea of Romans conducting a census of an allied kingdom is wholly implausible and unprecedented, inerrantists have tried to invent evidence of it. The same Lapis Venetus discussed above is cited as "evidence" that the free state of Apamea was subject to an official Roman census. However, neither that census nor the inscription itself is dated, and as noted above there is no reason to believe the inscription refers to any other census than that of 6 C.E. Regardless, since no city named "Apamea" was free after 12 B.C.E. and Quirinius was not of consular rank before that year, it is impossible that the Apamea referred to in this inscription was an independent kingdom at the time. The only other "evidence" offered is a census revolt put down by legions in Cappadocia in 36 C.E. (Tacitus, ''Annals'' [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=6.41 6.41]). Since Cappadocia was annexed as a Roman province in 17 C.E. (''Annals'' [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=2.42 2.42], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=2.56 2.56]) this census was clearly not of an allied kingdom.<span id="up13"></span>[[#ref13|13]]<br />
<br />
==== Jesus Born During Census of 8 B.C.E.? ====<br />
<br />
There is a modern myth that the Romans regularly conducted a census of their empire every 14 years. This is not true. There was little coordination between censuses of Roman citizens and censuses of provincial inhabitants, and rarely any fixed period of years between censuses, not even for citizens. Though Egypt continued to maintain a 14-year census cycle that the Romans inherited from the previous Ptolemaic government, this was not extended to or consistently coordinated with any other province. Other provinces were assessed when they could be, often at various different times from each other.<span id="up14"></span>[[#ref14|14]]<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, this myth of a 14-year cycle is often used to support a claim that it would have been the census of 8 B.C.E. when Jesus was born, during the governorship of Saturninus rather than Quirinius. Why? Because some claim Tertullian said Jesus was born during the census of Saturninus (''Against Marcion'' [http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-31.htm#P5992_1802834 4.19]). But Tertullian doesn't say that. He says "censuses were conducted in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus" that confirm Jesus had brothers. Since these brothers had to have been born after Jesus, Tertullian cannot be referring to any census during which Jesus was born. There was in fact another Sentius Saturninus who was governor of Syria from 19 to 21 C.E. (the son of the former Sentius Saturninus) and it's almost certain this is whom Tertullian means.<span id="up15"></span>[[#ref15|15]]<br />
<br />
So there is no support for linking Luke's census with any census of 8 B.C.E. Though we know there was a universal census conducted in that year, it was only of Roman citizens, not the provinces. It therefore could not have been the census Luke describes, which clearly affected non-citizen inhabitants of Judaea. Indeed, Judaea was not even a Roman territory in the year 8, nor was Quintilian governing Syria then.<br />
<br />
==== Herod's Census? ====<br />
<br />
Since all those arguments fail, the last resort is to claim that it wasn't really a Roman census but a census conducted by Herod the Great. The immediate problem with this is that Luke does not say any such thing. He is quite clear that he means a census ordered by Augustus, not Herod, and carried out under Quirinius, specifically in connection with Syria, not under Herod independently. Judaea was annexed to Syria under Quirinius in 6 C.E. and immediately subject to a census. Obviously that's the census Luke means. <br />
<br />
Nevertheless, the desperate plea is made that Luke "really meant" an unknown Herodian census. Apart from resting on no evidence at all, this claim is implausible for a number of reasons. Herod had no need of conducting a census, for the tribute owed him and that he owed Rome was a fixed annual sum. It didn't matter how many people were paying. Yet a census entails a vast outlay of expenses to cover administration and recordkeeping, and ties up a considerable amount of manpower. It also entails a significant inconvenience to the population, as even Luke's description makes clear. The Jews also had a tradition of cultural and moral hostility to a peacetime census. For example, [[2 Samuel 24|2 Samuel 24:1-17]] and [[1 Chronicles 21|1 Chronicles 21:1-17]] depict the very idea of a peacetime census as sinful and Satanic, and when the Romans finally started subjecting Judaeans to a census in 6 C.E., many violently rebelled ([[Acts 5:37|Acts 5:37]]) and Josephus, ''Antiquities of the Jews'' [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.1 18.1-8] & [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=20.102 20.102] and ''Jewish War'' [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=2.433 2.433-34] & [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=7.252 7.252-54]). For all these reasons, Herod had nothing to gain and plenty to lose by conducting his own census. To go ahead and do it anyway would have been so remarkable and unprecedented it could not have been omitted by historians like Josephus. Yet somehow no one noticed this remarkable census. And since Herod's involvement would be the most remarkable thing about it, it's inexplicable why Luke never mentions this, but only links the census to Roman decrees, Roman magistrates, and Roman provinces.<span id="up16"></span>[[#ref16|16]]<br />
<br />
==== Herod's Oath? ====<br />
<br />
Stymied again, inerrantists resort to the last ditch effort of claiming Luke didn't really mean a "census" but an "oath-taking." And since according to Josephus (''Antiquities of the Jews'' [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=16.136 16.136], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.30 17.34-43], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.89 17.89]) Herod commanded his subjects in Judaea to swear an oath of loyalty to Rome in or around 8 B.C.E., "obviously" that's what Luke meant. This is an indefensible thesis. Luke says "census" not "oath." Nor does he describe a situation where Herod is commanding people to take oaths, but of Augustus commanding people to be assessed. Moreover, the only possible rationale for Joseph's travel ([[Luke 2|Luke 2:3-5]]) is a tribal census register or the possession of taxable property in Bethlehem subject to a census. In contrast, an oath could be sworn anywhere and did not require traveling, nor is there evidence mass oaths involved precise counting. And, again, Quirinius was still not governing Syria in 8 B.C.E.<br />
<br />
Some claim Luke meant an oath Augustus had made to him every five years, but this oath was only made "by the consuls and priests" of Rome, not even all citizens much less any provincials (''Res Gestae'' [http://classics.mit.edu/Augustus/deeds.html#85 9]). So this would never have involved Herod or Judaea. Some claim an annual oath was sworn by all the people subject to Rome on the anniversary of the emperor's accession, but even if that were the case, Judaea was not subject to Rome until 6 C.E., and an annual oath could not have involved constantly returning to one's ancestral city every year, or surely such an amazing inconvenience would be mentioned in the histories of the period. Others claim the event during which Jesus was born was when "the people of Rome" proclaimed Augustus "Father of the Nation" in 2 B.C.E., though that again requires reinventing the date of Herod's death, inventing an impossible second governorship for Quirinius, and ignoring what Luke actually says. And after all that, this event was only a vote made by Roman citizens anyway. So this would never have involved Judaeans.<span id="up17"></span>[[#ref17|17]]<br />
<br />
When everything above is considered, there is simply no way Luke [[Luke 2|Luke 2:1-6]] could have meant or ever been read as referring to any national oath.<br />
<br />
=== CONCLUSION ===<br />
<br />
There is no reasonable way to get Matthew and Luke to agree with each other on the year Jesus was born. Luke clearly dates his birth in 6 C.E. and Matthew clearly dates it before 4 B.C.E. (possibly as early as 8 or 6 B.C.E.). Everyone concedes Matthew 's narrative cannot be fudged to fit 6 C.E. And all attempts to force Luke to fit Matthew require groundless assertions contrary to all evidence and precedent, and always require declaring that in one way or another Luke didn't mean what he said. Not one of these proposed "solutions" rests on any evidence other than complete fabrications or distortions.<br />
<br />
Ample evidence supports the conclusion that Luke meant no other year than 6 C.E., and no clear case can be made that Luke had any other year in mind. There is no way Quirinius could have governed Syria in any earlier year, nor could he have co-ruled Syria or been holding any other office there that Luke would refer to. There is no evidence that Augustus ever did or even would order a census of a Judaean kingdom before its annexation to Syria in 6 C.E. And Luke can neither have meant nor been describing a national "oath." Neither the ''Lapis Tiburtinus'', nor the ''Lapis Venetus'', nor the Antioch Stones even remotely imply any other conclusion. The Vardaman coins are definitively bogus. No reasonable case can be made that Herod the Great was still alive after 4 B.C.E. It's grammatically impossible to read [[Luke 2:2|Luke 2:2]] as saying "before Quirinius governed Syria." And there is no rationale for assuming a census of Roman citizens in 8 B.C.E. would ever have affected the lives of any Judaean, and no evidence that Herod ever did or even would order a census of his own people, nor is it at all reasonable to interpret Luke as referring to such a thing.<br />
<br />
There is no escaping the conclusion. Matthew contradicts Luke on a question of historical fact, and this entails either Matthew or Luke reports something historically false. The Bible is in error.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<span id="ref1"></span>[[#up1|1]] See Burnett's Roman Provincial Coinage (1992), including the supplemental volume with corrections.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref2"></span>[[#up2|2]] For more on the basic problem and these date-fishing efforts see [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#I The Basic Problem] in my full Secular Web article. <br />
<br />
<span id="ref3"></span>[[#up3|3]] Marcus Titius from 12 to 9 B.C.E., Sentius Saturninus from 9 to 6 B.C.E., and Quintilius <br />
Varus from 6 to 3 B.C.E., each serving a typical three year term, and both historians and <br />
inscriptions confirm Quirinius did not achieve consular rank until 12 B.C.E.. Under Roman law <br />
and principle, such a rank was a political prerequisite for holding a provincial <br />
proconsulship. For previous governors: Josephus, ''Antiquities of the Jews'' [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=16.229 16.270-81], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=16.344 16.344], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.6 17.6-7], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.24 17.24], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.57 17.57], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.89 17.89-133], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.221 17.221-23], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.250 17.250-98]; Josephus, ''Jewish War'' [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=1.577 1.577], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=1.617 1.617-39], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=2.66 2.66-80]; Strabo <br />
[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0239&layout=&loc=16.1.28 16.1.28];<br />
Velleius <br />
[http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Velleius_Paterculus/2D*.html#117.2 2.117.2];<br />
Tacitus, ''Histories'' <br />
[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0080&layout=&loc=5.9 5.9.2].<br />
Coin evidence also exists for their terms, though without precise dates. The consulship of Quirinius is reported in surviving consular lists etched in stone (see the entry for him in Pauly, Wissowa, and Kroll, ''Realencyclopâdie der klassischen Altertumwissenschaft'') and by Cassius Dio [http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/54*.html#28.254.28.2. 54.28.2] <br />
For more on the problems of inventing a new governorship for Quirinius see "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#II Was Quirinius Twice Governor?]" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
<br />
<span id="ref4"></span>[[#up4|4]] For more see "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Tiburtinus The Lapis Tiburtinus]" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
<br />
<span id="ref5"></span>[[#up5|5]] For more see "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Tiburtinus The Lapis Venetus]" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
<br />
<span id="ref6"></span>[[#up6|6]] For more see "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Antioch The Antioch Stones]" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
<br />
<span id="ref7"></span>[[#up7|7]] For my published reports on the Vardaman debacle, see Richard Carrier, [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000BDYR5K/104-0038808-8852709?n=551440 "Pseudohistory in Jerry Vardaman's Magic Coins: The Nonsense of Micrographic Letters]," ''Skeptical Inquirer'' 26.2 (March-April 2002): pp. 39-41, 61; and Richard Carrier, [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000BE1UO0/104-0038808-8852709?n=551440 "More on Vardaman's Microletters,"] ''Skeptical Inquirer'' 26.4 (July-August 2002): pp. 60-61. For summary details, see "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Vardaman Vardaman's Magic 'Coin']" in my full Secular Web article.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref8"></span>[[#up8|8]] For more see "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#legate Was Quirinius a Special Legate in B.C. Syria?]" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
<br />
<span id="ref9"></span>[[#up9|9]] For more see "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#dual Was Quirinius Sharing Command with a Previous Governor?]" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
<br />
<span id="ref10"></span>[[#up10|10]] Several wholly implausible arguments for rewriting the chronology in Josephus have been offered by Jack Finegan in his ''Handbook of Biblical Chronology'' (1998, revised edition). <br />
Finegan's errors consist of faulty math, implausible and unsupported conjectures, and relying on incompetent manuscript analysis. These gaffes are barely worthy of attention. Nevertheless, I address them in detail under "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#alive Was Herod Alive in 2 B.C.?]" in my full Secular Web article.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref11"></span>[[#up11|11]] For more on the basic problems of inventing an earlier census see "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#III Was There a Roman Census in Judaea Before Quirinius?]" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
<br />
<span id="ref12"></span>[[#up12|12]] For full discussion of the grammatical problem, see "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Word Did Luke Mean 'Before' Quirinius?]" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
<br />
<span id="ref13"></span>[[#up13|13]] For more see "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Apamea Was Apamea a Free City?]" in my full Secular Web article.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref14"></span>[[#up14|14]] For more on the nature of Roman census-taking see "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#census How Often Was the Census Held?]" in my full Secular Web article.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref15"></span>[[#up15|15]] For this and several other attempts to argue that Luke "only" got the governor wrong see "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Tertullian Was 'Quirinius' a Mistake for Someone Else?]" in my full Secular Web article.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref16"></span>[[#up16|16]] For more detail on all these points see "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Herod Was it a Census Conducted by Herod the Great?]" in my full Secular Web article.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref17"></span>[[#up17|17]] For more see "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#lastditch Two Last Ditch Attempts]" in my full Secular Web article.</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Legends&diff=9436Legends2006-12-13T17:25:10Z<p>FreezBee: /* AUTHOR QUALIFICATIONS */ Adding box</p>
<hr />
<div>JW: <br />
: 1) This Article still needs to be Formatted<br />
<br />
: 2) An Inset is needed for Carrier description.<br />
<br />
: 3) Need list of Syrian Governors 12-3 BCE.<br />
<br />
: 4) Need detail for Coin chronology<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== '''''Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth''''' '''by Richard Carrier (2006''') ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== '''INTRODUCTION''' ===<br />
<br />
It is widely acknowledged that Quirinius became "governor of Syria" in 6 C.E., only then conducting a census of Judaea, and that Herod the Great died in 4 B.C.E., ten years before. Since Matthew indisputably claims Jesus was born while Herod the Great was still alive, while Luke indisputably claims Jesus was born when Quirinius was governor of Syria during a census of Judaea, Luke and Matthew are clearly in contradiction regarding when Jesus was born. They disagree by at least ten years, which entails one of them has made a historical error (or both have).<br />
<br />
Because this contradiction is so clear and certain and strongly backed by evidence, inerrancy proponents have invented a dizzying array of attempts to remove this contradiction by reconciling the details in Matthew and Luke. I have examined and researched these efforts in thorough detail, perhaps more than anyone. I have found all of them unsuccessful, even ludicrously so. Consequently, the primary importance of this contradiction is that it is one of the clearest and most irrefutable examples of historical error in the Bible, which is perhaps why it has generated so many desperate attempts to wiggle out of it. <br />
<br />
And that is the second reason this error is so important: short of the vast and diverse "Bethlehem Star" literature, there is probably no other biblical error for which so many false, groundless, or implausible arguments have been contrived to "invent" or "revise" the historical facts of the ancient Roman world. As a teacher and a scholar, I find all this disinformation and wanton invention about the period I study quite appalling. And because there are so many such contrivances, relating to technical details of the social and political history of Rome that are difficult if not impossible for the average layman to investigate, duty demands that some impassioned expert do all the necessary research and make it available to the common reader. Otherwise, all those false claims might simply be believed and eventually become common assumptions.<br />
<br />
=== AUTHOR QUALIFICATIONS ===<br />
<table width=380 cellpadding=16 align=right border=0><br />
<tr><td><br />
<table style="background:#C0E0FF" cellpadding=16 width=100% border=0><br />
<tr><td><br />
<p><b>About Richard Carrier</b></p><br />
<p>Richard Carrier is one of the most popular authors at the [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/ Secular Web], and author of the book [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1420802933/102-1435806-2580904?n=283155 Sense and Goodness without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism](2005), and contributing author for [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/159102286X/internetinfidels/102-1435806-2580904 The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave](2005), and he has written articles for several print publications. He has a B.A. in history and classical civilizations from UC Berkeley, and an M.A. and M.Phil. in ancient history from Columbia University, where he is currently working on his dissertation in ancient science. While acquiring his degrees Carrier formally studied ancient Greek for over seven years, including papyrology, linguistics, and paleography. To learn more about him see [http://www.columbia.edu/~rcc20/about.html About Richard Carrier].<br />
</p><br />
</td></tr><br />
</table><br />
</td></tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
I am a published author with considerable qualifications in the study of ancient history and languages (see inset), which should give my findings some weight of authority. I thoroughly document all the arguments and evidence relating to this discrepancy in an extensive article at the Secular Web, [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html The Date of the Nativity in Luke] (2001). I will provide here only a summary of the major conclusions of that article, along with some of the most relevant evidence.<br />
<br />
Invariably people write to me proposing some "new" argument, without having bothered to read the complete article above, only to learn that their "new" argument is in fact "old" and already refuted there. I have received countless such emails to date, over several years, and have yet to hear of any fact or argument I haven't already addressed. I advise all challengers to read that original article ''in its entirety'' before proposing to challenge the fact that Luke contradicts Matthew on the year of Christ's birth.<br />
<br />
The present summary is no substitute for that, and is only provided here to conveniently summarize the current status of this biblical error for readers not intent on gainsaying what they don't like to hear.<br />
<br />
=== BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM ===<br />
<br />
The Gospel of Luke says ([[Luke 2|2:1-6]]) Jesus was born during a census, which the historian Josephus records took place after Herod the Great died, and after his successor, Archelaus, was deposed after a ten year reign (''Antiquities of the Jews'' [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.342 17.342-55], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.1 18.1-2], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.26 18.26]). But the Gospel of Matthew says ([[Matthew 2|2:1-3]]) Jesus was born when Herod the Great was still alive, possibly two years before he died ([[Matthew 2|2:7-16]]), and before Archelaus even took office ([[Matthew 2|2:19-22]]). On a plain reading of the Bible, this is a contradiction. Someone erred.<br />
<br />
Efforts to challenge this conclusion fall into three general categories: either Luke meant something other than his words actually say, or Josephus failed to mention some "other" time that Quirinius was governor and a census made of Judaea, or Josephus erred in dating relevant events. A fourth option, of arguing Matthew meant something other than what he said, is blocked by the absolute clarity with which he said it. There is no rational way to argue that Matthew was referring to the political situation anywhere near 6 C.E. Not only does Matthew's narrative make this clear, but the physical evidence from coins of the region leave little room for disputing that Herod ceased his reign in 4 B.C.E., Archelaus then succeeded him, then ceased his own reign ten years later in 5 C.E., and Roman control of Judaea began in the year 6 (the year the earliest Roman coins struck for Judaea begin).<span id="up1"></span>[[#ref1|1]] These facts are also recorded by Josephus (who is generally quite reliable on matters of public chronology) and partly corroborated by another historian, Cassius Dio (e.g. ''Roman History'' [http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/55*.html#27.6 55.27.6]).<br />
<br />
Consequently, to this day no one has attempted to argue that Matthew was describing an event of 6 C.E. Instead, all efforts are directed to arguing that Luke was describing an event five to twelve years earlier than we think, either by trying to harmonize Luke with Josephus, or by attacking the accuracy or alleged omissions of Josephus. However, all such attempts have required inventing or distorting socio-political facts of the period, or twisting Greek grammar or vocabulary beyond anything that would be recognizable to an ancient reader. Allowing either tactic would permit us to prove that no text ever written in human history has ever been in error about anything. Such an irrational consequence convicts both tactics as unsound.<br />
<br />
=== ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #1 - Looking in Luke for a Different Date ===<br />
<br />
Some observe that Luke says John the Baptist was born during the reign of "Herod the King" ([[Luke 1:5|1:5]]) and appears to have Jesus born less than a year later ([[Luke 1|1:22-24]], [[Luke 1|1:31-36]], [[Luke 1:80|1:80]], [[Luke 2:1|2:1]], [[Luke 2|2:40-42]]), which appears to agree with Matthew. However, Matthew does not mention or date the birth of John, and despite the impression given by English translations, Luke is unclear how much time actually passed between his birth and that of Jesus. More importantly, Archelaus was also called Herod (even on his own coins) and even Josephus calls him a king (''Antiquities of the Jews'' [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.93 18.93]). Unlike Matthew, Luke provides no detail indicating either he or his source meant anything other than Herod Archelaus when dating the birth of John. Therefore, unless we assume Luke is contradicting ''himself'', we can't assume he dated either the birth of John or Jesus to the time of Herod the Great. So there is no case to be made from [[Luke 1:5|1:5]] that Luke agreed with Matthew.<br />
<br />
Likewise, when Luke dates the start of John's ministry to 28 C.E. ([[Luke 3:11|3:1]]) and then over twenty verses later says Jesus began his own ministry at "about thirty" ([[Luke 3:23|3:23]]) some assume the two ministries began the same year, which would place the birth of Jesus at "about" 3 B.C.E. which for a "rough" estimate is close enough to fit Matthew. But Luke never says the two ministries began the same year, and for various reasons it's unlikely they did. Luke clearly didn't know the year Jesus started his ministry, since he didn't know how old he was, despite claiming to know exactly when he was born. Since "about" thirty can be off by at least four years (26-34), and since Luke allows some time to pass between the start of John's ministry and the baptism of Jesus, and since scholars agree Jesus could have begun and ended his ministry anytime between 28 and 33 C.E., we are left with a window between 7 B.C.E. to 7 C.E. for his birth, far too wide to pin down. So there is no good case to be made from Luke [[Luke 3:1|3:1-23]] that he agreed with Matthew.<span id="up2"></span>[[#ref2|2]]<br />
<br />
==='''ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #2 - Inventing Another Governorship for Quirinius'''===<br />
<br />
Even fishing a different date out of Luke would leave a contradiction ''within Luke'', since the only chronological detail about Jesus that Luke is absolutely clear on is that he was born ''during'' "the first census when Quirinius was governing Syria" ([[Luke 2:2|2:2]]). All evidence confirms that Quirinius first became governor of Syria in 6 C.E. and the first Roman census of Judaea occurred at that time, and Luke clearly says this was a Roman census ([[Luke 2:1|2:1-6]]). So Luke didn't leave much room to maneuver. To reconcile Luke with Matthew, one must invent two facts nowhere in evidence: some other Syrian governorship for Quirinius ''and'' some other census affecting Judaea, both before Herod the Great died.<br />
<br />
But trying to invent an earlier Syrian governorship for Quirinius is a lost cause. Not only is there no evidence of it, and not only does it go against a plain reading of all the evidence we do have, but it's essentially impossible. No one ever governed the same province twice in the whole of Roman history. So the claim that Quirinius was the sole known exception is so extraordinary it certainly can't be maintained without evidence. Such an astonishing and unique honor could not have been omitted by Josephus or Tacitus (''Annals'' [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=3.48 3.48]), yet both describe his career without any mention of it. Historical evidence also confirms other men governed Syria between 12 and 3 B.C.E., so Quirinius could not have been governor then, and he was not qualified to hold that office before the year 12.<span id="up3"></span>[[#ref3|3]]<br />
<br />
Stymied by all these facts, inerrantists have resorted to everything from fabricating evidence of dual governorships or other fictional offices Quirinius is supposed to have held, to changing the year of Herod's death. None of this is even remotely reasonable, and most of it is based on the fantasies of amateurs or the abandoned conjectures of long dead historians. First, the alleged physical evidence:<br />
<br />
==== The Lapis Tiburtinus ====<br />
<br />
This is a headless (and thus nameless) inscription that the Vatican has taken the liberty to "restore" with the name of Quirinius. It is then "interpreted" as saying he governed Syria twice. But the actual inscription does not say anyone governed Syria twice, nor does it belong to Quirinius. Scholars now believe it belongs to Lucius Calpurnius Piso, since it fits what we know of his career very well, while no basis exists for claiming it belongs to Quirinius. And even if it did, it doesn't say anything about governing Syria twice. It says the honoree "received the governorship of Asia and then again of Syria."<span id="up4"></span>[[#ref4|4]] <br />
<br />
==== The Lapis Venetus ====<br />
<br />
This is an inscription that really does mention Quirinius. It is the epitaph of Aemilius Secundus and reports he helped Quirinius conduct a census when the latter was governing Syria. So this inscription confirms that a census was taken of Syria when Quirinius was governor. It does not give a date, either for the census or the inscription itself. But there is no reason to believe this is a reference to any other census under Quirinius except the only one we know of, that of 6 C.E. Several inerrantists have simply "invented" early dates for this inscription, and then used these fabricated dates to claim this inscription as proof there was an earlier census under Quirinius. It proves no such thing.<span id="up5"></span>[[#ref5|5]]<br />
<br />
==== The Antioch Stones ====<br />
<br />
These are two stones commemorating the offices of Gaius Julius Caristanius Caesiano, both mentioning that he held the deputy management of a city duumvirate held by Quirinius. The date is unknown but probably before the year 1. Conjuring various fantasies, inerrantists finagle this city office into evidence of an earlier governorship of Syria, but no rational argument can produce that conclusion. First, a duumvirate is a city office and has nothing to do with a provincial governorship. Second, this duumvirate was held in Galatia, not Syria.<span id="up6"></span>[[#ref6|6]] <br />
<br />
==== The Vardaman Coins ====<br />
<br />
Jerry Vardaman claimed to have discovered microscopic letters literally covering ancient coins and inscriptions conveying all sorts of strange new facts, which he used to completely rewrite history. One of these amazing new "discoveries" was evidence Jesus was born in 11 or 12 B.C.E. Needless to say, Vardaman's claim constitutes fringe quackery that has gained no respect in the academic community. I inspected one of these coins myself under a magnifying glass and a digital microscope at the British Museum and found none of these amazing microscopic letters. Case closed.<span id="up7"></span>[[#ref7|7]] <br />
<br />
==== Sub-Commander Quirinius? ====<br />
<br />
Since none of this evidence supports an earlier governorship for Quirinius, and all other evidence makes such a thing virtually impossible, only two strategies remain for the inerrantists: either Quirinius held some other "special command" in Syria and wasn't governor ''per se'', or Quirinius held an unrecorded "dual-governorship" with some other governor. Neither of these proposals makes any sense in the context of Roman politics or historiography.<br />
<br />
First, the "sub-command" thesis. Luke's choice of vocabulary is somewhat imprecise, using a word that can refer to many different positions of command. Seizing on this, inerrantists argue that Luke meant "when Quirinius was holding a command in Syria," and not "when Quirinius was governing Syria." But stretching the word like this requires ignoring the grammar. Luke says "of Syria," not "in Syria," and thus he could not have been referring to some command ''in'' Syria but only a command ''of'' Syria. Even if we ignore Luke's grammar, the only real "command" anyone can find for Quirinius is a war he fought in Galatia, probably between 6 and 1 B.C.E. But there is no logical way Luke would refer to a census in Syria by referencing a war in Galatia, and no one would ever write or read "governing Syria" as meaning "fighting a war in Galatia." Unless Luke was a profoundly stupid man, or erred in his historical facts, he would have named the ''actual'' governor of Syria who oversaw a census in Judaea, not some unrelated officer in a faraway province.<span id="up8"></span>[[#ref8|8]]<br />
<br />
==== Co-Commander Quirinius? ====<br />
<br />
A completely different tactic, to get around the problem that all the governors of Syria between 12 and 3 B.C.E. are already known, is to claim Quirinius was holding a dual governorship with one of those other governors. Not only does this still require claiming Quirinius governed the same province twice, an oddity never before recorded in the history of Roman politics, but it also requires completely inventing the idea of a "dual governorship." Since there is no evidence in all of Roman history of any province assigned two governors at the same time, this is another extraordinary claim that requires evidence to be believed. Since there isn't any, inerrantists invent some.<br />
<br />
Josephus is cited as saying "Saturninus and Volumnius were in charge of Syria" (''Antiquities of the Jews'' [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=16.280 16.280]) which is said to "prove" Syria was special enough to be assigned two governors. But Volumnius was not a governor. He was a procurator (Josephus, ''Jewish War'' [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=1.538 1.538]), an office held only by men of fundamentally inferior rank, who were not even qualified to hold the office of a provincial governor. Conversely, a Roman who had achieved senatorial, and even consular rank--like Quirinius--would never deign to accept such a humiliating office as procurator. Socially, this would be as unbelievable as a United States president taking a job as shift manager at a local McDonald's. In Roman society, this would be so remarkable and unprecedented that, again, Josephus and Tacitus would not have omitted it from their accounts of his career. The same error is made using an inscription reporting that two "deputies," Rutilius Gallicus and Sentius Caecilianus, were assigned to the province of Africa. But this inscription clearly states that one of them was a praetor, and thus ''not'' of consular rank. So again, what we have here are not two governors, but a governor and his subordinate. Neither example supports even the ''conjecture'' that Quirinius ''could'' have held a dual-governorship, much less that he ever did so--or that anyone ever did. It would also make no logical sense for Luke to name a governor's subordinate rather than the actual governor of Syria.<span id="up9"></span>[[#ref9|9]]<br />
<br />
So there is no basis for that claim, either. Since Josephus records and thus confirms an actual census under Quirinius in 6 C.E. when Quirinius was, in fact, governor "of Syria," all exactly as Luke says, there is no plausible case to be made that Luke had any other event in mind. All the evidence we have corroborates this conclusion, and none supports any alternative or renders any even remotely plausible.<br />
<br />
==='''ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #3 - Inventing a New Date for Herod's Death'''===<br />
<br />
Since there is no reasonable way to get Quirinius to be governor of Syria anytime before 3 B.C.E., the natural last-ditch resort is to argue that Herod didn't really die in 4 B.C.E. Since there is no clear evidence who was governing Syria after 3 B.C.E., or where Quirinius was in those years, inerrantists fantasize that their imaginary "earlier governorship" of Quirinius fell around then and simply failed to be mentioned. This still doesn't avoid all the problems noted before--from a total lack of evidence to the extraordinary implausibility of a second governorship. It also requires rewriting history.<br />
<br />
Josephus already says Varus, not Quirinius, was governing Syria when Herod died (''Jewish War'' [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=1.9 1.9-10]), and despite attempts to argue otherwise, Josephus is very clear and precise in his chronology for these events and cites several first-hand sources for them, while the manuscript tradition for the relevant details is completely sound, so there is no plausible case to made that he is mistaken.<span id="up10"></span>[[#ref10|10]] Likewise, as mentioned earlier, evidence from coins corroborates all of this, including the reigns of Herod's successors, Philip, Antipas and Archelaus. The reign of Archelaus is further corroborated by Cassius Dio ([http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/55*.html#27.6 55.27.6]).<br />
<br />
Josephus also mentions a lunar eclipse soon before Herod's death, and astronomers note there was such an eclipse in 5 B.C.E. and 1 B.C.E. Inerrantists therefore want Herod to have died in or shortly after 1 B.C.E. However, not only is all evidence against such a notion, but the Jewish ''Scroll of Fasting'' records the calendar day of Herod's death, and it preceded that of the eclipse of 1 B.C.E, but not that of 5 B.C.E. Since Josephus says his death followed (not preceeded) an eclipse, the eclipse Josephus mentions was probably that of the year 5. In the end, there is simply no evidence Herod died later than the year 4, and no plausible case to be made that he did.<br />
<br />
==='''ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #4 - Inventing Another Census'''===<br />
<br />
There is no reasonable case to be made that Quirinius ever "governed Syria" before 6 C.E. Yet inventing such a fantasy contrary to all evidence and precedent is not even enough to eliminate the contradiction between Matthew and Luke. A census of Judaea before 6 C.E. must ''also'' be invented contrary to all evidence and precedent. This is because Luke's description establishes three facts: the census affected Judaea ([[Luke 2|2:4-5]]), it was conducted under the administration of Syria ([[Luke 2:2|2:2]]), and it was specifically a ''Roman'' census ([[Luke 2:1|2:1]]). These three facts rule out every attempt to argue that Luke meant some other census or event than the one recorded for 6 C.E.<br />
<br />
Before 6 C.E. Judaea was a nominally free kingdom, not a Roman province. Having sided with Augustus in the civil war that established him as emperor, Judaea was granted a favorable treaty assuring relative independence. This is proven by the coin evidence that Judaea continued to be governed by its own kings and rulers, not Roman officials, until 6 C.E., and extensively confirmed by Josephus and Cassius Dio. Though such "allied kingdoms" were kept under a tight leash and informally controlled and meddled with, all evidence regarding the legal and political practices of Roman emperors in the first century and before confirms that these states were not subject to direct Roman administration, taxation or levies. That was, in fact, the very ''point'' of not annexing them as provinces: not only to reward friendly states (and thus encourage other states to be friendly), but to avoid the headache and expense of taking over a region that was already pacified, subservient, and paying sufficient dues.<br />
<br />
Therefore, it is historically impossible that a Roman census was conducted under a Roman provincial governor when Judaea was still an allied kingdom. But it was typical and logical that immediately upon annexing a new territory a census would be taken of it. This was necessary to begin direct taxation and levies. So when Josephus describes Archelaus being removed from office, then Judaea being annexed to Syria and placed under the Roman command of Quirinius and his prefect Coponius, and then a census being conducted for the specific purpose of taking account of what Archelaus had left them, this description makes complete historical sense. In contrast, no other hypothesized "census" scenario makes any historical sense at all. <br />
<br />
As Josephus reports, and as all logic and precedent entail, Judaea was not being directly taxed by Rome nor administered by Romans before the year 6, and therefore there would be no purpose for Augustus to order a census there (Luke [[Luke 2:1|2:1]]). Since forcing such a census on an allied kingdom in violation of its honor and its treaties would be such an astonishing and devastating insult contrary to all known precedent, there is no way it wouldn't have been noticed by historians like Josephus, nor any reason the Romans would undertake such a pointless and dangerous task. They would have nothing to gain by it, and plenty to lose, and Augustus was not so reckless as to think otherwise.<span id="up11"></span>[[#ref11|11]]<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, inerrantists must have the impossible in order to save their bible from error. So these are the arguments they have attempted:<br />
<br />
==== Luke Meant "Before Quirinius"? ====<br />
<br />
The word translated "first" in Luke [[Luke 2:2|2:2]] can in certain contexts mean "before." But for various reasons such a meaning would not be grammatically correct in this case. Luke can only have meant, and all his readers would only have understood his sentence to mean, the first Augustan census that happened under Quirinius. And that is how all translators correctly interpret it.<span id="up12"></span>[[#ref12|12]]<br />
<br />
==== Romans Subjected Allied Kingdoms to a Census? ====<br />
<br />
Since the very idea of Romans conducting a census of an allied kingdom is wholly implausible and unprecedented, inerrantists have tried to invent evidence of it. The same Lapis Venetus discussed above is cited as "evidence" that the free state of Apamea was subject to an official Roman census. However, neither that census nor the inscription itself is dated, and as noted above there is no reason to believe the inscription refers to any other census than that of 6 C.E. Regardless, since no city named "Apamea" was free after 12 B.C.E. and Quirinius was not of consular rank before that year, it is impossible that the Apamea referred to in this inscription was an independent kingdom at the time. The only other "evidence" offered is a census revolt put down by legions in Cappadocia in 36 C.E. (Tacitus, ''Annals'' [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=6.41 6.41]). Since Cappadocia was annexed as a Roman province in 17 C.E. (''Annals'' [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=2.42 2.42], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=2.56 2.56]) this census was clearly not of an allied kingdom.<span id="up13"></span>[[#ref13|13]]<br />
<br />
==== Jesus Born During Census of 8 B.C.E.? ====<br />
<br />
There is a modern myth that the Romans regularly conducted a census of their empire every 14 years. This is not true. There was little coordination between censuses of Roman citizens and censuses of provincial inhabitants, and rarely any fixed period of years between censuses, not even for citizens. Though Egypt continued to maintain a 14-year census cycle that the Romans inherited from the previous Ptolemaic government, this was not extended to or consistently coordinated with any other province. Other provinces were assessed when they could be, often at various different times from each other.<span id="up14"></span>[[#ref14|14]]<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, this myth of a 14-year cycle is often used to support a claim that it would have been the census of 8 B.C.E. when Jesus was born, during the governorship of Saturninus rather than Quirinius. Why? Because some claim Tertullian said Jesus was born during the census of Saturninus (''Against Marcion'' [http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-31.htm#P5992_1802834 4.19]). But Tertullian doesn't say that. He says "censuses were conducted in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus" that confirm Jesus had brothers. Since these brothers had to have been born after Jesus, Tertullian cannot be referring to any census during which Jesus was born. There was in fact another Sentius Saturninus who was governor of Syria from 19 to 21 C.E. (the son of the former Sentius Saturninus) and it's almost certain this is whom Tertullian means.<span id="up15"></span>[[#ref15|15]]<br />
<br />
So there is no support for linking Luke's census with any census of 8 B.C.E. Though we know there was a universal census conducted in that year, it was only of Roman citizens, not the provinces. It therefore could not have been the census Luke describes, which clearly affected non-citizen inhabitants of Judaea. Indeed, Judaea was not even a Roman territory in the year 8, nor was Quintilian governing Syria then.<br />
<br />
==== Herod's Census? ====<br />
<br />
Since all those arguments fail, the last resort is to claim that it wasn't really a Roman census but a census conducted by Herod the Great. The immediate problem with this is that Luke does not say any such thing. He is quite clear that he means a census ordered by Augustus, not Herod, and carried out under Quirinius, specifically in connection with Syria, not under Herod independently. Judaea was annexed to Syria under Quirinius in 6 C.E. and immediately subject to a census. Obviously that's the census Luke means. <br />
<br />
Nevertheless, the desperate plea is made that Luke "really meant" an unknown Herodian census. Apart from resting on no evidence at all, this claim is implausible for a number of reasons. Herod had no need of conducting a census, for the tribute owed him and that he owed Rome was a fixed annual sum. It didn't matter how many people were paying. Yet a census entails a vast outlay of expenses to cover administration and recordkeeping, and ties up a considerable amount of manpower. It also entails a significant inconvenience to the population, as even Luke's description makes clear. The Jews also had a tradition of cultural and moral hostility to a peacetime census. For example, [[2 Samuel 24|2 Samuel 24:1-17]] and [[1 Chronicles 21|1 Chronicles 21:1-17]] depict the very idea of a peacetime census as sinful and Satanic, and when the Romans finally started subjecting Judaeans to a census in 6 C.E., many violently rebelled ([[Acts 5:37|Acts 5:37]]) and Josephus, ''Antiquities of the Jews'' [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.1 18.1-8] & [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=20.102 20.102] and ''Jewish War'' [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=2.433 2.433-34] & [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=7.252 7.252-54]). For all these reasons, Herod had nothing to gain and plenty to lose by conducting his own census. To go ahead and do it anyway would have been so remarkable and unprecedented it could not have been omitted by historians like Josephus. Yet somehow no one noticed this remarkable census. And since Herod's involvement would be the most remarkable thing about it, it's inexplicable why Luke never mentions this, but only links the census to Roman decrees, Roman magistrates, and Roman provinces.<span id="up16"></span>[[#ref16|16]]<br />
<br />
==== Herod's Oath? ====<br />
<br />
Stymied again, inerrantists resort to the last ditch effort of claiming Luke didn't really mean a "census" but an "oath-taking." And since according to Josephus (''Antiquities of the Jews'' [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=16.136 16.136], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.30 17.34-43], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.89 17.89]) Herod commanded his subjects in Judaea to swear an oath of loyalty to Rome in or around 8 B.C.E., "obviously" that's what Luke meant. This is an indefensible thesis. Luke says "census" not "oath." Nor does he describe a situation where Herod is commanding people to take oaths, but of Augustus commanding people to be assessed. Moreover, the only possible rationale for Joseph's travel ([[Luke 2|Luke 2:3-5]]) is a tribal census register or the possession of taxable property in Bethlehem subject to a census. In contrast, an oath could be sworn anywhere and did not require traveling, nor is there evidence mass oaths involved precise counting. And, again, Quirinius was still not governing Syria in 8 B.C.E.<br />
<br />
Some claim Luke meant an oath Augustus had made to him every five years, but this oath was only made "by the consuls and priests" of Rome, not even all citizens much less any provincials (''Res Gestae'' [http://classics.mit.edu/Augustus/deeds.html#85 9]). So this would never have involved Herod or Judaea. Some claim an annual oath was sworn by all the people subject to Rome on the anniversary of the emperor's accession, but even if that were the case, Judaea was not subject to Rome until 6 C.E., and an annual oath could not have involved constantly returning to one's ancestral city every year, or surely such an amazing inconvenience would be mentioned in the histories of the period. Others claim the event during which Jesus was born was when "the people of Rome" proclaimed Augustus "Father of the Nation" in 2 B.C.E., though that again requires reinventing the date of Herod's death, inventing an impossible second governorship for Quirinius, and ignoring what Luke actually says. And after all that, this event was only a vote made by Roman citizens anyway. So this would never have involved Judaeans.<span id="up17"></span>[[#ref17|17]]<br />
<br />
When everything above is considered, there is simply no way Luke [[Luke 2|Luke 2:1-6]] could have meant or ever been read as referring to any national oath.<br />
<br />
=== CONCLUSION ===<br />
<br />
There is no reasonable way to get Matthew and Luke to agree with each other on the year Jesus was born. Luke clearly dates his birth in 6 C.E. and Matthew clearly dates it before 4 B.C.E. (possibly as early as 8 or 6 B.C.E.). Everyone concedes Matthew 's narrative cannot be fudged to fit 6 C.E. And all attempts to force Luke to fit Matthew require groundless assertions contrary to all evidence and precedent, and always require declaring that in one way or another Luke didn't mean what he said. Not one of these proposed "solutions" rests on any evidence other than complete fabrications or distortions.<br />
<br />
Ample evidence supports the conclusion that Luke meant no other year than 6 C.E., and no clear case can be made that Luke had any other year in mind. There is no way Quirinius could have governed Syria in any earlier year, nor could he have co-ruled Syria or been holding any other office there that Luke would refer to. There is no evidence that Augustus ever did or even would order a census of a Judaean kingdom before its annexation to Syria in 6 C.E. And Luke can neither have meant nor been describing a national "oath." Neither the ''Lapis Tiburtinus'', nor the ''Lapis Venetus'', nor the Antioch Stones even remotely imply any other conclusion. The Vardaman coins are definitively bogus. No reasonable case can be made that Herod the Great was still alive after 4 B.C.E. It's grammatically impossible to read [[Luke 2:2|Luke 2:2]] as saying "before Quirinius governed Syria." And there is no rationale for assuming a census of Roman citizens in 8 B.C.E. would ever have affected the lives of any Judaean, and no evidence that Herod ever did or even would order a census of his own people, nor is it at all reasonable to interpret Luke as referring to such a thing.<br />
<br />
There is no escaping the conclusion. Matthew contradicts Luke on a question of historical fact, and this entails either Matthew or Luke reports something historically false. The Bible is in error.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<span id="ref1"></span>[[#up1|1]] See Burnett's Roman Provincial Coinage (1992), including the supplemental volume with corrections.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref2"></span>[[#up2|2]] For more on the basic problem and these date-fishing efforts see [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#I The Basic Problem] in my full Secular Web article. <br />
<br />
<span id="ref3"></span>[[#up3|3]] Marcus Titius from 12 to 9 B.C.E., Sentius Saturninus from 9 to 6 B.C.E., and Quintilius <br />
Varus from 6 to 3 B.C.E., each serving a typical three year term, and both historians and <br />
inscriptions confirm Quirinius did not achieve consular rank until 12 B.C.E.. Under Roman law <br />
and principle, such a rank was a political prerequisite for holding a provincial <br />
proconsulship. For previous governors: Josephus, ''Antiquities of the Jews'' [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=16.229 16.270-81], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=16.344 16.344], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.6 17.6-7], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.24 17.24], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.57 17.57], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.89 17.89-133], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.221 17.221-23], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.250 17.250-98]; Josephus, ''Jewish War'' [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=1.577 1.577], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=1.617 1.617-39], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=2.66 2.66-80]; Strabo <br />
[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0239&layout=&loc=16.1.28 16.1.28];<br />
Velleius <br />
[http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Velleius_Paterculus/2D*.html#117.2 2.117.2];<br />
Tacitus, ''Histories'' <br />
[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0080&layout=&loc=5.9 5.9.2].<br />
Coin evidence also exists for their terms, though without precise dates. The consulship of Quirinius is reported in surviving consular lists etched in stone (see the entry for him in Pauly, Wissowa, and Kroll, ''Realencyclopâdie der klassischen Altertumwissenschaft'') and by Cassius Dio [http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/54*.html#28.254.28.2. 54.28.2] <br />
For more on the problems of inventing a new governorship for Quirinius see "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#II Was Quirinius Twice Governor?]" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
<br />
<span id="ref4"></span>[[#up4|4]] For more see "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Tiburtinus The Lapis Tiburtinus]" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
<br />
<span id="ref5"></span>[[#up5|5]] For more see "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Tiburtinus The Lapis Venetus]" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
<br />
<span id="ref6"></span>[[#up6|6]] For more see "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Antioch The Antioch Stones]" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
<br />
<span id="ref7"></span>[[#up7|7]] For my published reports on the Vardaman debacle, see Richard Carrier, [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000BDYR5K/104-0038808-8852709?n=551440 "Pseudohistory in Jerry Vardaman's Magic Coins: The Nonsense of Micrographic Letters]," ''Skeptical Inquirer'' 26.2 (March-April 2002): pp. 39-41, 61; and Richard Carrier, [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000BE1UO0/104-0038808-8852709?n=551440 "More on Vardaman's Microletters,"] ''Skeptical Inquirer'' 26.4 (July-August 2002): pp. 60-61. For summary details, see "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Vardaman Vardaman's Magic 'Coin']" in my full Secular Web article.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref8"></span>[[#up8|8]] For more see "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#legate Was Quirinius a Special Legate in B.C. Syria?]" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
<br />
<span id="ref9"></span>[[#up9|9]] For more see "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#dual Was Quirinius Sharing Command with a Previous Governor?]" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
<br />
<span id="ref10"></span>[[#up10|10]] Several wholly implausible arguments for rewriting the chronology in Josephus have been offered by Jack Finegan in his ''Handbook of Biblical Chronology'' (1998, revised edition). <br />
Finegan's errors consist of faulty math, implausible and unsupported conjectures, and relying on incompetent manuscript analysis. These gaffes are barely worthy of attention. Nevertheless, I address them in detail under "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#alive Was Herod Alive in 2 B.C.?]" in my full Secular Web article.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref11"></span>[[#up11|11]] For more on the basic problems of inventing an earlier census see "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#III Was There a Roman Census in Judaea Before Quirinius?]" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
<br />
<span id="ref12"></span>[[#up12|12]] For full discussion of the grammatical problem, see "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Word Did Luke Mean 'Before' Quirinius?]" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
<br />
<span id="ref13"></span>[[#up13|13]] For more see "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Apamea Was Apamea a Free City?]" in my full Secular Web article.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref14"></span>[[#up14|14]] For more on the nature of Roman census-taking see "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#census How Often Was the Census Held?]" in my full Secular Web article.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref15"></span>[[#up15|15]] For this and several other attempts to argue that Luke "only" got the governor wrong see "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Tertullian Was 'Quirinius' a Mistake for Someone Else?]" in my full Secular Web article.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref16"></span>[[#up16|16]] For more detail on all these points see "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Herod Was it a Census Conducted by Herod the Great?]" in my full Secular Web article.<br />
<br />
<span id="ref17"></span>[[#up17|17]] For more see "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#lastditch Two Last Ditch Attempts]" in my full Secular Web article.</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:FreezBee&diff=9440User talk:FreezBee2006-12-11T17:37:14Z<p>FreezBee: </p>
<hr />
<div>Ooh, just found out how to label links!!! --[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 05:40, 27 Jan 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
Today I've learned to add a page to a Category and to make lists --[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 08:09, 30 Jan 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
FB, thanks for showing me how to use Wiki color and size. For the Carrier Legends article I still need to place his personal information in an Inset and set up a PayPal account for him. Do you know how to do this?<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 09:44, 12 Nov 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
: Could you be more specific about how you want the box to look? --[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 07:56, 10 Dec 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
FB<br />
:If you give me your email I can send you Carrier's original article and format so you can see exactly what I want.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 11:09, 10 Dec 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
:It's pwemail@hotmail.com<br />
:--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 11:37, 11 Dec 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Also, for my Mark 1:1 article I can not figure out how to link it to the Transmission Category Page.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 10:56, 12 Nov 2006 (CST)</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:FreezBee&diff=9432User talk:FreezBee2006-12-10T13:56:56Z<p>FreezBee: </p>
<hr />
<div>Ooh, just found out how to label links!!! --[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 05:40, 27 Jan 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
Today I've learned to add a page to a Category and to make lists --[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 08:09, 30 Jan 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
FB, thanks for showing me how to use Wiki color and size. For the Carrier Legends article I still need to place his personal information in an Inset and set up a PayPal account for him. Do you know how to do this?<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 09:44, 12 Nov 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
: Could you be more specific about how you want the box to look? --[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 07:56, 10 Dec 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Also, for my Mark 1:1 article I can not figure out how to link it to the Transmission Category Page.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 10:56, 12 Nov 2006 (CST)</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Talk:Isaiah_40:22&diff=46332Talk:Isaiah 40:222006-12-09T12:56:11Z<p>FreezBee: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Notes on Isaiah 40:22 ==<br />
<br />
In [[Isaiah 40]], the prophet tries to describe the greatness of God, and he asks in [[Isaiah 40:18|v. 18]] rhetorically his audience to provide an answer, "To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?". <br />
<br />
Subsequently Isaiah mentions craftsmen, so the text in v. 22 must be read with respect to this context: the sky is made by God and decorated like a craftsman would a palatial tent.<br />
<br />
Since the perspective, according to v. 18, is from the audience of the prophet, and not God's, the circle mentioned in that verse refers to the part of the earth limited by the horizon, a presumably disc-shaped surfaced, above which God sits.<br />
<br />
For a spherical earth, God cannot sit above, since there is no above or below. <br />
<br />
The sky is therefore to be thought of as stretched out horizontally.<br />
<br />
--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 06:56, 9 Dec 2006 (CST)</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Category:Transmission&diff=9763Category:Transmission2006-12-09T12:40:33Z<p>FreezBee: Creating "Category:Transmission"</p>
<hr />
<div>This is for claimed errors in transmission of text.</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Category:Transmission&diff=9429Category:Transmission2006-12-09T12:38:27Z<p>FreezBee: </p>
<hr />
<div>Errors in transmission</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_1:1&diff=9428Mark 1:12006-12-09T12:36:58Z<p>FreezBee: /* External links */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Mark 1]] > [[Mark 1:2|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
Edit this section if you suspect error.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''In Progress''':<br />
<br />
'''The Word According To <STRIKE>Garp</STRIKE>, <STRIKE>Mork</STRIKE>, Mark. An Inventory of Significant Editing in the First Gospel:'''<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
''Father O’Roarke: Welcome, welcome to Judas Ford used Autos. I’m your Holy square Host, Father O’Roarke.<br />
''<br />
<br />
''Tatoo: Do they know they’ll have to pay the full sticker price Boss?''<br />
<br />
''Father O’Roarke: Shhh, Tatoo. Friends, do you recall the 1966 Tarsus convertible? Ford, did, seven times. But seriously folks I’m not asking you to buy these cars on faith alone, I’m begging you to buy these cars. Please buy these cars. Take this 1999 Dodge Saint Regis. Please. Take it! Look at this resurrected 2000 Christler LeBarabba which we guarantee will be the last car that you’ll ever need (for the two thousandth straight year). See what we’ve done. Look at the changes we’ve made such as expanded leg room so that even a camel could sit comfortably.''<br />
<br />
''Tatoo: I’m cramped in here Boss.<br />
''<br />
''Father O’Roarke: Be quiet Tatoo.''<br />
<br />
''Tatoo: I can’t move my legs Boss.<br />
''<br />
''Father O’Roarke: Shut up Tatoo!''<br />
<br />
''Tatoo: Let me out of here boss, let me out of here!<br />
''<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
The purpose of this Thread is to Inventory Significant Editing in the First Gospel, Mark. Apologists commonly argue that Editing of the Christian Bible is relatively minor in significance. From the best known Internet Apologist, JP Holding:<br />
<br />
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.html#agree<br />
<br />
"Is any matter of the Christian faith affected by any variant reading? This is the most important issue for the average believer, and the good news is this: No doctrine of Christianity is in the least dependent on ANY textual variant."<br />
<br />
This Thread will demonstrate that JP Holding is wrong. Editing of "Mark" not only affects "doctrine of Christianity" it affects some of the most important doctrine.<br />
<br />
Before we start, let The Reader understand, that I would be glad to discuss this Issue Directly with JP Holding. Elas, he refuses to participate on all my Forums that have no censorship while he prevents me from participating on all his Forums which have censorship. Understand Dear Reader?<br />
<br />
As we begin our Textual Analysis let's use a very Christian Textbook, Bruce Metzger's ''A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament''. Note that this work is misleading as it gives an Implication that it is an Inventory of all Textual Variation. Actually though it's only what the authors consider Significant and there is far more variation than what is shown. Some is not shown because the meaning of the variation is considered insignificant such as the spelling of names and some because the witness for variation is considered too weak. <br />
<br />
Also consider that Metzger's protege and heir apparent, Bart Ehrman, perhaps now the greatest Textual Critic of the Christian Bible that the world has ever known, is now a Confessed Agnostic as a result of his study of Textual Variation! [Understatement]So maybe Ehrman knows something here.[/Understatement]<br />
<br />
'''Significant Variant #1:'''<br />
<br />
My favorite significant variant and one that Christianity traditionally Fails to identify is that "Matthew" and "Luke" are themselves priMarily Editing of "Mark". In my now famous [http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=150208 Mark's View Of The Disciples] Thread I Demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that "Mark's" primary purpose was to Discredit "The Disciples" as Witnesses to "Mark's" Jesus. "Matthew" and "Luke" Edited "Mark" to rehabilitate "The Disciples" as ''The'' Witnesses to their Jesus. In a follow-up Thread I Am going to isolate "Matthew" and "Luke" stories of the Disciples not found in "Mark" to demonstrate how few there are (showing lack of supposed historical witness and necessity of reliance on "Mark" for the basic Narrative) and that when not copying "Mark" the portrayal is Positive (showing Intent to Spin "The Disciples" The other Way). <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Significant Variant #2:'''<br />
<br />
[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Mark&chapter=1&verse=1 Mark 1:1]<br />
<br />
<font color=red size=3>???? ??? ?????????? ????? ??????? ???? ????</font><br />
<br />
Beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ son of God.<br />
<br />
<br />
And Metzger commentary:<br />
<br />
"1.1 ??????? [???? ????] {C}<br />
The absence of ???? ???? in ?* ? 28c al may be due to an oversight in copying, occasioned by the similarity of the endings of the nomina sacra. On the other hand, however, there was always a temptation (to which copyists often succumbed)1 to expand titles and quasi-titles of books. Since the combination of B D W al in support of ???? ???? is extremely strong, it was not thought advisable to omit the words altogether, yet because of the antiquity of the shorter reading and the possibility of scribal expansion, it was decided to enclose the words within square brackets."<br />
<br />
Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. 1994. A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition; a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) . United Bible Societies: London; New York<br />
<br />
<br />
<font color=blue>JW</font>:<br />
By not describing Jesus as "son of God" at the Start of the Gospel this helps Raise the issue of '''When''' and '''How''' "Mark's" Jesus became "son of god" and also helps create '''conlict''' with the supposed virgin birth narratives in "Matthew" and "Luke". <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Significant Variant #3:'''<br />
<br />
[[Mark 1:2]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Significant Variant #4:'''<br />
<br />
[[Mark 1:3]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Significant Variant #5:'''<br />
<br />
[[Mark 1:4]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Significant Variant #6:'''<br />
<br />
[[Mark 1:10]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Significant Variant #7:'''<br />
<br />
[[Mark 1:34]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Significant Variant #8:'''<br />
<br />
[[Mark 1:40]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Significant Variant #9:'''<br />
<br />
[[Mark 1:41]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Significant Variant #10:'''<br />
<br />
[[Mark 2:1]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Significant Variant #11:'''<br />
<br />
[[Mark 2:7]]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Significant Variant #12:'''<br />
<br />
[[Mark 2:14]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<font color=blue>Joseph</font><br />
<br />
EDITOR, n.<br />
:A person who combines the judicial functions of Minos, Rhadamanthus and Aeacus, but is placable with an obolus; a severely virtuous censor, but so charitable withal that he tolerates the virtues of others and the vices of himself; who flings about him the splintering lightning and sturdy thunders of admonition till he resembles a bunch of firecrackers petulantly uttering his mind at the tail of a dog; then straightway murmurs a mild, melodious lay, soft as the cooing of a donkey intoning its prayer to the evening star. Master of mysteries and lord of law, high-pinnacled upon the throne of thought, his face suffused with the dim splendors of the Transfiguration, his legs intertwisted and his tongue a-cheek, the editor spills his will along the paper and cuts it off in lengths to suit. And at intervals from behind the veil of the temple is heard the voice of the foreman demanding three inches of wit and six lines of religious meditation, or bidding him turn off the wisdom and whack up some pathos.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 17:06, 21 Oct 2006 (CDT)<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
Edit this section if you doubt error.<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
{{biblesites|Mark|1|1}}<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Transmissions]]</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Genesis_11:4&diff=9220Genesis 11:42006-11-08T17:57:54Z<p>FreezBee: /* Con */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Genesis 11:3|Previous Verse]] < [[Genesis 11]] > [[Genesis 11:5|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
And they said, Come, let us build us a city, and a tower, whose top [may reach] unto heaven, and let us make us a name; lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
The Hebrews believed that Heaven was a physical place, above the Firmament sky-dome (more on this in the [[Jude 1:14]] article), which could be reached by a tall tower.<br />
--[[User:Robert Stevens|Robert Stevens]] 12:14, 9 Nov 2005 (CST)<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
Glenn Miller ([http://christian-thinktank.com/gilgymess.html Good question--is Genesis merely a rip-off of other ANE lit?]) writes:<br />
<br />
:"Many of the individual episodes in Gen 1–11 may be seen to have a distinctly polemical thrust in their own right, particularly against the religious ideas associated most closely with Mesopotamia. For example, Gen 11:1–9, the tower of Babel story, is a satire on the claims of Babylon to be the center of civilization and its temple tower the gate of heaven (EE 6:50–80): Babel does not mean gate of God, but “confusion” and “folly.” Far from its temple’s top reaching up to heaven, it is so low that God has to descend from heaven just to see it! (11:4–9).<br />
<br />
So, we are dealing with a case of divine irony.<br />
<br />
--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 11:57, 8 Nov 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Gen&chapter=11&verse=4&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=genesis%2011:4;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis11.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Genesis&chapter=11&verse=4 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Genesis+11.4 Perseus]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Genesis_Chapter_11,_Verse_4 BibleWiki]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Science]]<br />
[[Category:Genesis]]<br />
[[Category:Pro]]</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_1:1&diff=9255Mark 1:12006-11-08T17:48:48Z<p>FreezBee: /* Pro */ Formatting fixup</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Mark 1]] > [[Mark 1:2|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
Edit this section if you suspect error.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''In Progress''':<br />
<br />
'''The Word According To <STRIKE>Garp</STRIKE>, <STRIKE>Mork</STRIKE>, Mark. An Inventory of Significant Editing in the First Gospel:'''<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
''Father O’Roarke: Welcome, welcome to Judas Ford used Autos. I’m your Holy square Host, Father O’Roarke.<br />
''<br />
<br />
''Tatoo: Do they know they’ll have to pay the full sticker price Boss?''<br />
<br />
''Father O’Roarke: Shhh, Tatoo. Friends, do you recall the 1966 Tarsus convertible? Ford, did, seven times. But seriously folks I’m not asking you to buy these cars on faith alone, I’m begging you to buy these cars. Please buy these cars. Take this 1999 Dodge Saint Regis. Please. Take it! Look at this resurrected 2000 Christler LeBarabba which we guarantee will be the last car that you’ll ever need (for the two thousandth straight year). See what we’ve done. Look at the changes we’ve made such as expanded leg room so that even a camel could sit comfortably.''<br />
<br />
''Tatoo: I’m cramped in here Boss.<br />
''<br />
''Father O’Roarke: Be quiet Tatoo.''<br />
<br />
''Tatoo: I can’t move my legs Boss.<br />
''<br />
''Father O’Roarke: Shut up Tatoo!''<br />
<br />
''Tatoo: Let me out of here boss, let me out of here!<br />
''<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
The purpose of this Thread is to Inventory Significant Editing in the First Gospel, Mark. Apologists commonly argue that Editing of the Christian Bible is relatively minor in significance. From the best known Internet Apologist, JP Holding:<br />
<br />
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.html#agree<br />
<br />
"Is any matter of the Christian faith affected by any variant reading? This is the most important issue for the average believer, and the good news is this: No doctrine of Christianity is in the least dependent on ANY textual variant."<br />
<br />
This Thread will demonstrate that JP Holding is wrong. Editing of "Mark" not only affects "doctrine of Christianity" it affects some of the most important doctrine.<br />
<br />
Before we start, let The Reader understand, that I would be glad to discuss this Issue Directly with JP Holding. Elas, he refuses to participate on all my Forums that have no censorship while he prevents me from participating on all his Forums which have censorship. Understand Dear Reader?<br />
<br />
As we begin our Textual Analysis let's use a very Christian Textbook, Bruce Metzger's ''A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament''. Note that this work is misleading as it gives an Implication that it is an Inventory of all Textual Variation. Actually though it's only what the authors consider Significant and there is far more variation than what is shown. Some is not shown because the meaning of the variation is considered insignificant such as the spelling of names and some because the witness for variation is considered too weak. <br />
<br />
Also consider that Metzger's protege and heir apparent, Bart Ehrman, perhaps now the greatest Textual Critic of the Christian Bible that the world has ever known, is now a Confessed Agnostic as a result of his study of Textual Variation! [Understatement]So maybe Ehrman knows something here.[/Understatement]<br />
<br />
'''Significant Variant #1:'''<br />
<br />
My favorite significant variant and one that Christianity traditionally Fails to identify is that "Matthew" and "Luke" are themselves priMarily Editing of "Mark". In my now famous [http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=150208 Mark's View Of The Disciples] Thread I Demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that "Mark's" primary purpose was to Discredit "The Disciples" as Witnesses to "Mark's" Jesus. "Matthew" and "Luke" Edited "Mark" to rehabilitate "The Disciples" as ''The'' Witnesses to their Jesus. In a follow-up Thread I Am going to isolate "Matthew" and "Luke" stories of the Disciples not found in "Mark" to demonstrate how few there are (showing lack of supposed historical witness and necessity of reliance on "Mark" for the basic Narrative) and that when not copying "Mark" the portrayal is Positive (showing Intent to Spin "The Disciples" The other Way). <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Significant Variant #2:'''<br />
<br />
[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Mark&chapter=1&verse=1 Mark 1:1]<br />
<br />
<font color=red size=3>???? ??? ?????????? ????? ??????? ???? ????</font><br />
<br />
Beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ son of God.<br />
<br />
<br />
And Metzger commentary:<br />
<br />
"1.1 ??????? [???? ????] {C}<br />
The absence of ???? ???? in ?* ? 28c al may be due to an oversight in copying, occasioned by the similarity of the endings of the nomina sacra. On the other hand, however, there was always a temptation (to which copyists often succumbed)1 to expand titles and quasi-titles of books. Since the combination of B D W al in support of ???? ???? is extremely strong, it was not thought advisable to omit the words altogether, yet because of the antiquity of the shorter reading and the possibility of scribal expansion, it was decided to enclose the words within square brackets."<br />
<br />
Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. 1994. A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition; a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) . United Bible Societies: London; New York<br />
<br />
<br />
<font color=blue>JW</font>:<br />
By not describing Jesus as "son of God" at the Start of the Gospel this helps Raise the issue of '''When''' and '''How''' "Mark's" Jesus became "son of god" and also helps create [B]conlict[/B] with the supposed virgin birth narratives in "Matthew" and "Luke". <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<font color=blue>Joseph</font><br />
<br />
EDITOR, n.<br />
A person who combines the judicial functions of Minos, Rhadamanthus and Aeacus, but is placable with an obolus; a severely virtuous censor, but so charitable withal that he tolerates the virtues of others and the vices of himself; who flings about him the splintering lightning and sturdy thunders of admonition till he resembles a bunch of firecrackers petulantly uttering his mind at the tail of a dog; then straightway murmurs a mild, melodious lay, soft as the cooing of a donkey intoning its prayer to the evening star. Master of mysteries and lord of law, high-pinnacled upon the throne of thought, his face suffused with the dim splendors of the Transfiguration, his legs intertwisted and his tongue a-cheek, the editor spills his will along the paper and cuts it off in lengths to suit. And at intervals from behind the veil of the temple is heard the voice of the foreman demanding three inches of wit and six lines of religious meditation, or bidding him turn off the wisdom and whack up some pathos.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 17:06, 21 Oct 2006 (CDT)<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
Edit this section if you doubt error.<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
{{biblesites|Mark|1|1}}</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Daniel_1:1&diff=9236Daniel 1:12006-11-08T17:40:16Z<p>FreezBee: /* Pro */ Adding subsection</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Daniel 1:1|Previous Verse]] < [[Daniel 1]] > [[Daniel 1:2|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
Possibly based on a misreading of other OT texts. C.f. e.g. [[2 Kings 24]]. Especially note:<br />
<br />
'' '''1''' During Jehoiakim's reign, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon invaded the land, and Jehoiakim became his vassal for three years. But then he changed his mind and rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar. '''2''' The LORD sent Babylonian, Aramean, Moabite and Ammonite raiders against him. He sent them to destroy Judah, in accordance with the word of the LORD proclaimed by his servants the prophets.'' <br />
<br />
A quick reading of these two verses might give the impression that the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem happened in the third year of Jehoiakim's reign.<br />
<br />
--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 03:32, 28 Jan 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
More detail from 2 Kings:<br />
<br />
''2 Kings 23:36 Jehoiakim was twenty and five years old when he began to reign; and '''he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem:''' and his mother`s name was Zebidah the daughter of Pedaiah of Rumah. 2 Kings 24:1 In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant three years: then he turned and rebelled against him. <br />
2 Kings 24:2 And Jehovah sent against him bands of the Chaldeans, and bands of the Syrians, and bands of the Moabites, and bands of the children of Ammon, and sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of Jehovah, which he spake by his servants the prophets. <br />
... <br />
2 Kings 24:6 So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers; and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead.'' <br />
<br />
So the text implies that Jehoiakim reigned a total of 11 years, 8 prior to Nebuchadnezzar, and three as a vassal, dying shortly after he rebelled. Unless one wants to argue that Jehoiakim's rebellion lasted 8 years before he was killed, which seems to be a strech that the text doesn't say. So it appears that Daniel 1:1 is based on misreading of 2Kng24:1<br />
<br />
As for the bands, does anyone know if "Chaldeans, and Syrians" is the same as "Babylonian, Aramean"? If those aren't synonyms, then here is another contradiction.<br />
<br />
Equinox 7.27.06<br />
<br />
=== 605 BC and Jeremiah 24 ===<br />
<br />
Concerning the reference to [[Jeremiah 24]] in the Con section under 605 BC, [[Jeremiah 24:1]] reads like this:<br />
<br />
:''Jehovah showed me, and, behold, two baskets of figs set before the temple of Jehovah, after that Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon had carried away captive Jeconiah the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, and the princes of Judah, with the craftsmen and smiths, from Jerusalem, and had brought them to Babylon.''<br />
<br />
The king carried away here is Jeconiah (Jehoiaki'''n'''), not Jehoiakim, so it's not an 605 BC event.<br />
<br />
--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 11:40, 8 Nov 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
<br />
'''609BC:''' After a brief 3-month reign beginning in the month of Tammuz (June 25-July 23), Egypt's Necho II deported Jehoahaz (Shallum) to Egypt where he died (cf. 2 Kings 23:31-34; 2 Chronicles 36).<br />
<br />
'''609-598 BC:''' Necho II appointed Jehoahaz's younger brother Jehoiakim as his tax-collector puppet king in September/October of 609BC (Jehoiakim began to reign late in the year 609BC, but the first year of a king's reign was ''reckoned'' by the Hebrews according to very specific calendar systems rather than from the day he aquired the throne for the sake of consistency and long term accuracy (see below). The practice of Israelite religion was allowed by Necho II as evidenced by his name (Jehoiakim: "YHWH raises up," changed from Eliakim, "God raises up"). He was condemned as evil by the prophets because while enforcing the extraction of heavy tribute for Necho II (1 Ki 23:31f.), he also enjoyed an opulent lifestyle (covetousness/theft) at the expense of the poor, and for murder, oppression, and violence (Jer 22:13-30). Not one to tolerate criticism, he persecuted the prophets for their condemnations, and tried to stop Jeremiah repeatedly, destroying his first book (Jer 36; cf. two seals belonging to Berachyahu (Baruch) ben Neryahu (son of Neriah), Jeremiah's personal scribe who wrote part of the Bible (Jer 36:4) have been found). <br />
<br />
'''608BC:''' According to the Babylonian Chronicle, Nabopolassar conducted a campaign in Uratu going north on the Tigris.<br />
<br />
'''607BC:''' Nebuchadnezzar is recorded commanding part of the Babylonian army in the Babylonian Chronicles.<br />
<br />
'''605BC:''' Battle of Carchemish: Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon defeats Necho II of Egypt and claims control over Syria/Palestine; he comes against Jerusalem in Jehoiakim's third year (Dan 1:1; Tishri system; cf. Thiele op cit). Jehoiakim, by force, changed his allegience from Egypt to Babylon (2 Ki 24:1-7). '''The first deportation to Babylon''' transpired at this time, during which numerous hostages were carried from Judea into Babylon including the prophet Daniel. The several thousand mostly upper class Judeans were compared to "good figs" which comprised a remnant and a future hope, as opposed to the "bad figs" who were left behind (Jer 24:29). God, said Jeremiah, was sparing them from the destruction to come. <br />
<br />
'''605BC:''' Fourth year of Jehoiakim (Tishri system); Babylonian overlordship in Judea.<br />
<br />
'''602BC:''' Seeing the inability of Babylon to crush Egypt, '''Jehoiakim rebelled'''. <br />
<br />
'''598BC (December):''' Jehoiakim dies in Jerusalem as Nebuchadnezzar was en route to crush it. He died just before Nebuchadnezzar arrived.<br />
<br />
Before the work of Edwin R. Thiele of the University of Chicago, Hebrew chronology was considered a hopeless tangle of contradictions, but not since (cf. Thiele, ''Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings''). His exhaustively documented analysis demonstrated that the years of the reigns of Biblical kings were not always counted from the day they ascended to the throne as we would do today, but primarily in accordance a variety of very specific calendar systems which were employed to facilitate greater accuracy and consistency over long periods of time. Which specific system was used varied according to when, where, and by whom the calculation was being done. For our purposes, in Judah, Tishri years were calculated; this system is reflected in Kings and Daniel (cf. for example Nisan years were used in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and in Babylonian records). In this system the first year of a king's reign was always calculated from the beginning of Tishri after their accession (there are other systems which were utilized during in the Bible during its long history as well). Note also the dates for this particular period are firmly fixed by an eclipse recorded during Nabonassar's reign (in Babylon) on April 22, 621BC, the year Nebuchadnezzar came to the throne. Hebrew chronology for this period is fixed by various documentable contacts between Babylon and the Hebrews. Hebrew chronological systems were both logical, and in Kenneth Kitchen's words, "impeccably accurate." <br />
<br />
These facts of history and chronology are well known and extremely well documented. It is obvious to informed observers that there is no contradiction (or really even the hint of one) between Daniel 1:1 and documentable events from secular history (see Thiele, ''Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings''; Kenneth Kitchen, ''On the Reliability of the Old Testament'' (2003) for more detailed information). If it is necessary to say so, the identities of which the contributor to the Pro section above was uncertain of are the Babylonian-Chaldean Empire and Syria-Aramea. -B. D. G. (sirhemlock@yahoo.com). <br />
<br />
Note: this section was written after the neutral comment which follows.<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.<br />
<br />
Chaldean is roughly a synonym to Babylonian, but I believe refers to the race of people; whereas Babylonian is any kingdom based on the city of Babylon. Syrian is a synonym to Aramean as well, although may be a later term, though I'm not sure of this.<br />
<br />
However, the dates are still a contradiction.<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Dan&chapter=1&verse=1&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=daniel%201:1;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/daniel/daniel1.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Daniel&chapter=1&verse=1 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Daniel+1.1 Perseus]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Daniel_Chapter_1,_Verse_1 BibleWiki]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Daniel]]<br />
[[Category:Contradictions]]<br />
[[Category:History]]<br />
[[Category:Pro]]<br />
[[Category:Neutral]]</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=1_Chronicles_1:36&diff=92161 Chronicles 1:362006-11-08T17:16:18Z<p>FreezBee: /* Pro */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[1 Chronicles 1:35|Previous Verse]] < [[1 Chronicles 1]] > [[1 Chronicles 1:37|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
The sons of Eliphaz: Teman, and Omar, Zephi, and Gatam, Kenaz, and Timna, and Amalek. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
Eliphaz is the son of Esau (see [[1 Chronicles 1:35]]), and here Timna and Amalek are sons of Eliphaz. But according to [[Genesis 36:12]], Timna was Eliphaz' concubine, and Amalek was her son.<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
Edit this section if you doubt error.<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=1Ch&chapter=1&verse=36&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=1%20chronicles%201:36;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1chronicles/1chronicles1.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=1%20Chronicles&chapter=1&verse=36 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=1%20Chronicles+1.36 Perseus]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/1%20Chronicles_Chapter_1,_Verse_36 BibleWiki]</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Talk:Luke_2:2&diff=8673Talk:Luke 2:22006-07-01T11:46:26Z<p>FreezBee: Re. Offensive Pro Argument</p>
<hr />
<div>Moved from neutral:<br />
<br />
''So, I guess someone should compare pro and con and try to reach some kind of conclusion on this matter. Who is up for the task? Should someone maybe check with Carrier to see if his article is still standing?<br />
<br />
''[[User:Opercularis|Opercularis]] 10:36, 28 Jan 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
'': I guees that this is more like a discussion and not really neutral arguements. If you/anyone agree then feel free to move this over to the discussion.<br />
''''<br />
[[User:Opercularis|Opercularis]] 07:01, 29 Jan 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
:''Done!'' --[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 07:56, 29 Jan 2006 (CST)''<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The [http://www.infidels.org Intterne Infidels] have a feedback thread on Richard Carrier's article here:[http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=71949 Nativity in Luke, discussion]. <br />
--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 07:55, 29 Jan 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== My bad, no doubt about that ==<br />
<br />
lol I didnt mean your link to a discussion in particular, but the whole neutral section in general looks like a discussion. Sorry for not being able to express myself more clearly.<br />
<br />
== Did someone serve twice as legate of Syria? ==<br />
<br />
In the page linked in the "Con" section we find this:<br />
<br />
<br />
''Also, it is worth noting that we have a MS that describes a soldier who was 'legate of Syria' TWICE during this timeframe.'' <br />
<br />
''There are two main interpretations of this MS: one is that it refers to Q. Varus (placing Quirinius as a procurator during the birth of Christ), and the other that it refers to Quirinius himself.''<br />
<br />
''The first option is defended by Ernest Martin in CKC:90:'' <br />
<br />
''" A Latin inscription found in 1764 about one-half mile south of the ancient villa of Quintilius Varus (at Tivoli, 20 miles east of Rome) states that the subject of the inscription had twice been governor of Syria. This can only refer to Quintilius Varus, who was Syrian governor at two different times. Numismatic evidence shows he ruled Syria from 6 to 4 B.C., and other historical evidence indicates that Varus was again governor from 2 B.C. to A.D. I. Between his two governorships was Sentius Saturninus, whose tenure lasted from 4 to 2 B.C. Significantly, Tertullian (third century) said the imperial records showed that censuses were conducted in Judea during the time of Sentius Saturninus. (Against Marcion 4:7). Tertullian also placed the birth of Jesus in 3 or 2 B.C. This is precisely when Saturninus would have been governor according to my new interpretation. That the Gospel of Luke says Quirinius was governor of Syria when the census was taken is resolved by Justin Martyr's statement (second century) that Quirinius was only a procurator (not governor) of the province (Apology 1:34). In other words, he was simply an assistant to Saturninus, who was the actual governor as Tertullian stated."'' <br />
<br />
''The second option is favored by William Ramsey (NBD, s.v. "Quirinius"):'' <br />
<br />
''"The possibility that Quirinius may have been governor of Syria on an earlier occasion (*Chronology of the NT) has found confirmation in the eyes of a number of scholars (especially W. M. Ramsay) from the testimony of the Lapis Tiburtinus (CIL, 14. 3613). This inscription, recording the career of a distinguished Roman officer, is unfortunately mutilated, so that the officer’s name is missing, but from the details that survive he could very well be Quirinius. It contains a statement that when he became imperial legate of Syria he entered upon that office ‘for the second time’ (Lat. iterum). The question is: did he become imperial legate of Syria for the second time, or did he simply receive an imperial legateship for the second time, having governed another province in that capacity on the earlier occasion?...The wording is ambiguous. Ramsay held that he was appointed an additional legate of Syria between 10 and 7 bc, for the purpose of conducting the Homanadensian war, while the civil administration of the province was in the hands of other governors, including Sentius Saturninus (8-6 bc), under whom, according to Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 4. 19), the census of Lk. 2:1ff. was held.''<br />
<br />
''Under either of these scenarios, SOMEONE served twice, and under either of these scenarios, Quirinius could EASILY have been responsible for the census.'' <br />
<br />
<br />
Asking in the iidb feedback forum, I was told that Richard Carrier had addressed these issues in his article, and the details can be found here: [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#census How Often Was the Census Held?]<br />
<br />
<br />
And, yes, Richard Carrier does address the issues.<br />
<br />
<br />
--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 03:35, 31 Jan 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Then what? ==<br />
<br />
I read Richard Carriers article sometime before christmas and I agree that he adresses all issues that the con sections mentions(as far as I can see). I think the conclusion I pasted into the PRO section is valid, thus in my mind this is a strong PRO. What about the CON then? Should there be a mention that the arguements are not valid/very weak or so? Are there no better CON attempts? It feels dishonest to mention the CON piece when it most likely (it seems) have been refuted by Carrier.<br />
<br />
I just dont know for sure what to do.<br />
<br />
:I see your point. I have not myself had time to check if all issues were addressed by Richard Carrier, but today (maybe), I can dedicate some time to a fuller check - I haven't myself read Carrier's article since spring 2003, so my memory of it is vague in places :-).<br />
:One problem in my most humble opinion is that the "Con" section only gives the link, no discussion, so it's an all or nothing, I would think. It's bit unfair having to write a rebuttal to everything, don't you think? I can't find anything that is not addressed by carrier, I suppose thet we should simply note in the "Pro" section that the page linked from "Con" section is fully rebutted. Who posted the link? Maybe that person has some idea of what to do.<br />
:--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 10:58, 31 Jan 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
:I agree to it, I will fix it soon<br />
<br />
[[User:Opercularis|Opercularis]] 12:23, 31 Jan 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
== The CTT article in closer look ==<br />
<br />
Moved to [[Luke_2:2#The_CTT_article_in_closer_look|Frontpage]]<br />
<br />
--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 06:07, 7 Feb 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
: Excellent job you did here! I actually did an atempt myself but I got completely lost on the way. I think this should be placed on the front page of Luke 2:2 page. One thing is for sure, it shouldnt be hid(?) away in the discussion section. Anyhow, the story itself, to me, looks like a myth, but try telling that to a believer...<br />
<br />
<br />
[[User:Opercularis|Opercularis]] 13:07, 5 Feb 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
:Done!<br />
:--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 06:07, 7 Feb 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I just found out that James Patrick Holding has a Miller vs. Carrier page as well: [http://www.tektonics.org/af/censuscheck.html Common Census].<br />
<br />
--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 05:23, 9 Feb 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
== Re. Offensive Pro Argument ==<br />
<br />
JW, you write that<br />
<br />
:Pro arguments at ErrancyWiki should primarily be Offensive. Let's construct an Offensive argument in the Pro section here and use Richard Carrier's related detailed article:<br />
<br />
:http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html<br />
<br />
:as a Source to first create an Outline of an Offensive argument.<br />
<br />
Why not use the article [[Legends#Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth By Richard Carrier (2006)|Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth By Richard Carrier (2006)]] in stead of the infidels.org article?<br />
<br />
--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 06:46, 1 Jul 2006 (CDT)</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_6:3&diff=29885Mark 6:32006-06-28T16:34:41Z<p>FreezBee: /* Neutral */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Mark 6:2|Previous Verse]] < [[Mark 6]] > [[Mark 6:4|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended in him. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
Edit this section if you suspect error.<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
Edit this section if you doubt error.<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.<br />
<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
Amazing similarities here and in the general Jesus story to:<br />
<br />
[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=20.102 Antiquities of the Jews 20.102]<br />
<br />
"CONCERNING THEUDAS AND THE SONS OF JUDAS THE GALILEAN; AS ALSO WHAT CALAMITY FELL UPON THE JEWS ON THE DAY OF THE PASSOVER.<br />
<br />
[97] NOW it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, 1 persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus's government.<br />
<br />
[100] Then came Tiberius Alexander as successor to Fadus; he was the son of Alexander the alabarch of Alexandria, which Alexander was a principal person among all his contemporaries, both for his family and wealth: he was also more eminent for his piety than this his son Alexander, for he did not continue in the religion of his country. Under these procurators that great famine happened in Judea, in which queen Helena bought corn in Egypt at a great expense, and distributed it to those that were in want, as I have related already. And besides this, the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain; I mean of that Judas who caused the people to revolt, when Cyrenius came to take an account of the estates of the Jews, as we have showed in a foregoing book. The names of those sons were James and Simon, whom Alexander commanded to be crucified. But now Herod, king of Chalcis, removed Joseph, the son of Camydus, from the high priesthood, and made Ananias, the son of Nebedeu, his successor. And now it was that Cumanus came as successor to Tiberius Alexander; as also that Herod, brother of Agrippa the great king, departed this life, in the eighth year of the reign of Claudius Caesar. He left behind him three sons; Aristobulus, whom he had by his first wife, with Bernicianus, and Hyrcanus, both whom he had by Bernice his brother's daughter. But Claudius Caesar bestowed his dominions on Agrippa, junior.<br />
<br />
[105] Now while the Jewish affairs were under the administration of Cureanus, there happened a great tumult at the city of Jerusalem, and many of the Jews perished therein. But I shall first explain the occasion whence it was derived. When that feast which is called the passover was at hand, at which time our custom is to use unleavened bread, and a great multitude was gathered together from all parts to that feast, Cumanus was afraid lest some attempt of innovation should then be made by them; so he ordered that one regiment of the army should take their arms, and stand in the temple cloisters, to repress any attempts of innovation, if perchance any such should begin; and this was no more than what the former procurators of Judea did at such festivals. But on the fourth day of the feast, a certain soldier let down his breeches, and exposed his privy members to the multitude,"<br />
<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
Can you find them dear Reader?<br />
<br />
<br />
: Well, I can spot the names "James" and "Simon", and someone offended someone; but that's all I can spy with my little eye. Should I use both eyes?<br />
: --[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 11:34, 28 Jun 2006 (CDT)<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Mar&chapter=6&verse=3&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=mark%206:3;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/mark/mark6.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Mark&chapter=6&verse=3 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Mark+6.3 Perseus]<br />
*[http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B41C006.htm HTML Bible]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Mark_Chapter_6,_Verse_3 BibleWiki]</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Luke_2:2&diff=8654Luke 2:22006-06-26T10:26:09Z<p>FreezBee: /* TEXT */ Fixing link</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Luke 2:1|Previous Verse]] < [[Luke 2]] > [[Luke 2:3|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
This was the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
The Pro argument as it stands is primarily a Defensive argument. It's mainly a '''Reaction''' to CTT's argument which is itself a Reaction to a Pro argument. Offensive arguments directly explain Why there is error. Too much Interaction with the related Con argument can distract from the effectiveness of the Pro argument.<br />
<br />
Pro arguments at ErrancyWiki should primarily be Offensive. Let's construct an Offensive argument in the Pro section here and use Richard Carrier's related detailed article:<br />
<br />
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html<br />
<br />
as a Source to first create an Outline of an Offensive argument.<br />
<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 09:58, 24 Jun 2006 (CDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Offensive Argument For Error===<br />
<br />
<br />
====DATING====<br />
<br />
<br />
=====LUKE=====<br />
<br />
<br />
======TEXT======<br />
<br />
[[Luke_2|Luke 2]]:<br />
:[[Luke_2:1|1]] "Now it came to pass in those days, there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be enrolled.<br />
<br />
:[[Luke_2:2|2]] This was the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria.<br />
<br />
:[[Luke_2:3|3]] And all went to enrol themselves, every one to his own city.<br />
<br />
:[[Luke_2:4|4]] And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David;<br />
<br />
:[[Luke_2:5|5]] to enrol himself with Mary, who was betrothed to him, being great with child.<br />
<br />
:[[Luke_2:6|6]] And it came to pass, while they were there, the days were fulfilled that she should be delivered.<br />
<br />
:[[Luke_2:7|7]] And she brought forth her firstborn son; and she wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.<br />
<br />
:[[Luke_2:8|8]] And there were shepherds in the same country abiding in the field, and keeping watch by night over their flock.<br />
<br />
:[[Luke_2:9|9]] And an angel of the Lord stood by them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.<br />
<br />
:[[Luke_2:10|10]] And the angel said unto them, Be not afraid; for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all the people:<br />
<br />
:[[Luke_2:11|11]] for there is born to you this day in the city of David a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord."<br />
<br />
<br />
======'''JOSEPHUS'''======<br />
<br />
'''Antiquities of the Jews''' <br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=14.389 14.389]<br />
<br />
" Antony also feasted Herod the first day of his reign. And thus did this man receive the kingdom, having obtained it on the hundred and eighty-fourth olympiad, when Caius Domitius Calvinus was consul the second time, and Caius Asinius Pollio [the first time]."<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=14.487 14.487]<br />
<br />
"[487] This destruction befell the city of Jerusalem when Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus were consuls of Rome 1 on the hundred eighty and fifth olympiad, on the third month, on the solemnity of the fast, as if a periodical revolution of calamities had returned since that which befell the Jews under Pompey; for the Jews were taken by him on the same day, and this was after twenty-seven years' time. So when Sosius had dedicated a crown of gold to God, he marched away from Jerusalem, and carried Antigonus with him in bonds to Antony; but Herod was afraid lest Antigonus should be kept in prison [only] by Antony, and that when he was carried to Rome by him, he might get his cause to be heard by the senate, and might demonstrate, as he was himself of the royal blood, and Herod but a private man, that therefore it belonged to his sons however to have the kingdom, on account of the family they were of, in case he had himself offended the Romans by what he had done. Out of Herod's fear of this it was that he, by giving Antony a great deal of money, endeavored to persuade him to have Antigonus slain, which if it were once done, he should be free from that fear. And thus did the government of the Asamoneans cease, a hundred twenty and six years after it was first set up. This family was a splendid and an illustrious one, both on account of the nobility of their stock, and of the dignity of the high priesthood, as also for the glorious actions their ancestors had performed for our nation; but these men lost the government by their dissensions one with another, and it came to Herod, the son of Antipater, who was of no more than a vulgar family, and of no eminent extraction, but one that was subject to other kings. And this is what history tells us was the end of the Asamonean family."<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=15.174 15.174]<br />
<br />
"[174] And this account we give the reader, as it is contained in the commentaries of king Herod: but other historians do not agree with them,"<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.191 17.191]<br />
<br />
"CONCERNING HEROD'S DEATH, AND TESTAMENT, AND BURIAL.<br />
<br />
[188] AND now Herod altered his testament upon the alteration of his mind; for he appointed Antipas, to whom he had before left the kingdom, to be tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, and granted the kingdom to Archclaus. He also gave Gaulonitis, and Trachonitis, and Paneas to Philip, who was his son, but own brother to Archclaus 1 by the name of a tetrarchy; and bequeathed Jarnnia, and Ashdod, and Phasaelis to Salome his sister, with five hundred thousand [drachmae] of silver that was coined. He also made provision for all the rest of his kindred, by giving them sums of money and annual revenues, and so left them all in a wealthy condition. He bequeathed also to Caesar ten millions [of drachmae] of coined money, besides both vessels of gold and silver, and garments exceeding costly, to Julia, Caesar's wife; and to certain others, five millions. When he had done these things, he died, the fifth day after he had caused Antipater to be slain; having reigned, since he had procured Antigonus to be slain, thirty-four years; but since he had been declared king by the Romans, thirty-seven. 2" <br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.342 17.342]<br />
<br />
"[342] 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. Whereupon Caesar, when he heard it, was very angry, and called for Archelaus's steward, who took care of his affairs at Rome, and whose name was Archelaus also; and thinking it beneath him to write to Archelaus, he bid him sail away as soon as possible, and bring him to us: so the man made haste in his voyage, and when he came into Judea, he found Archelaus feasting with his friends; so he told him what Caesar had sent him about, and hastened him away. And when he was come [to Rome], Caesar, upon hearing what certain accusers of his had to say, and what reply he could make, both banished him, and appointed Vienna, a city of Gaul, to be the place of his habitation, and took his money away from him."<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.26 18.26]<br />
<br />
"[26] 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, he deprived Joazar of the high priesthood, which dignity had been conferred on him by the multitude, and he appointed Ananus, the son of Seth, to be high priest; while Herod and Philip had each of them received their own tetrarchy, and settled the affairs thereof."<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Wars Of The Jews'''<br />
<br />
[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=1.665 1.1665]<br />
<br />
"[665] So Herod, having survived the slaughter of his son five days, died, having reigned thirty-four years since he had caused Antigonus to be slain, and obtained his kingdom; but thirty-seven years since he had been made king by the Romans. Now as for his fortune, it was prosperous in all other respects, if ever any other man could be so, since, from a private man, he obtained the kingdom, and kept it so long, and left it to his own sons; but still in his domestic affairs he was a most unfortunate man. Now, before the soldiers knew of his death, Salome and her husband came out and dismissed those that were in bonds, whom the king had commanded to be slain, and told them that he had altered his mind, and would have every one of them sent to their own homes. When these men were gone, Salome, told the soldiers [the king was dead], and got them and the rest of the multitude together to an assembly, in the amphitheater at Jericho, where Ptolemy, who was intrusted by the king with his signet ring, came before them, and spake of the happiness the king had attained, and comforted the multitude, and read the epistle which had been left for the soldiers, wherein he earnestly exhorted them to bear good-will to his successor; and after he had read the epistle, he opened and read his testament, wherein Philip was to inherit Trachonitis, and the neighboring countries, and Antipas was to be tetrarch, as we said before, and Archelaus was made king."<br />
<br />
======CASSIUS DIO======<br />
<br />
"[3.5] Roman History 55.27 (begun in 202 and completed around 235 A.D.). Dio's history is annalistic (it covers events year by year), and for the year 6 he reports that Archelaus' brothers accused him before Augustus who then deposed him and annexed his territory to Syria. He clearly does not have his account from Josephus because Dio says he does not know why Archelaus was deposed (though he should if he had read Josephus), does not call him Archelaus but Herod the Palestinian (his political name; Josephus uses only his real name), and implicates his brothers as his accusers even though Josephus only mentions "leading men in Judaea and Samaria."<br />
<br />
<br />
======'''APPIAN'''======<br />
<br />
Appian, BC 5.75<br />
<br />
<br />
======Coins======<br />
<br />
"For corroboration, coins minted in Judaea by Roman officials begin in A.D. 6 (Burnett, Roman Provincial Coinage, 1992, no. 4954: note that his supplemental volume corrects a typographical error: the coin in fact reads "Year 36 of Caesar," i.e. the 36th year after Actium or A.D. 5/6)."<br />
<br />
=====MATTHEW=====<br />
<br />
<br />
======TEXT======<br />
<br />
[[Matthew_2|Matthew 2]]:<br />
:[[Matthew_2:1|1]] "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, Wise-men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying,<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:2|2]] Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we saw his star in the east, and are come to worship him.<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:3|3]] And when Herod the king heard it, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:4|4]] And gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ should be born.<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:5|5]] And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written through the prophet,<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:6|6]] And thou Bethlehem, land of Judah, Art in no wise least among the princes of Judah: For out of thee shall come forth a governor, Who shall be shepherd of my people Israel.<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:7|7]] Then Herod privily called the Wise-men, and learned of them exactly what time the star appeared.<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:8|8]] And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search out exactly concerning the young child; and when ye have found [him,] bring me word, that I also may come and worship him.<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:9|9]] And they, having heard the king, went their way; and lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:10|10]] And when they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:11|11]] And they came into the house and saw the young child with Mary his mother; and they fell down and worshipped him; and opening their treasures they offered unto him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:12|12]] And being warned [of God] in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:13|13]] Now when they were departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I tell thee: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:14|14]] And he arose and took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt;<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:15|15]] and was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt did I call my son.<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:16|16]] Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the Wise-men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the male children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the borders thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had exactly learned of the Wise-men.<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:17|17]] Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying,<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:18|18]] A voice was heard in Ramah, Weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children; And she would not be comforted, because they are not.<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:19|19]] But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying,<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:20|20]] Arise and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead that sought the young child`s life.<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:21|21]] And he arose and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:22|22]] But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither; and being warned [of God] in a dream, he withdrew into the parts of Galilee,"<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
See also [[Legends#Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth By Richard Carrier (2006)|Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth]].<br />
<br />
Quirinius did not become governor until 6 CE. His census occurred ten years after the death of Herod the Great, who died in 4BCE. This contradicts [[Matthew 2:1|Matthew's]] claim that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod.<br />
<br />
<br />
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html<br />
<br />
'''Conclusion'''<br />
"There is no way to rescue the Gospels of Matthew and Luke from contradicting each other on this one point of historical fact. The contradiction is plain and irrefutable, and stands as proof of the fallibility of the Bible, as well as the falsehood of one of the two New Testament accounts of the Nativity."<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[User:Opercularis|Opercularis]] 16:32, 26 Jan 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
===The CTT article in closer look===<br />
The [http://www.christian-thinktank.com CTT] web-site is owned by [http://www.christian-thinktank.com/webbio.html Glenn M. Miller ], a "committed evangelical disciple of Jesus Christ", which certainly is no crime, but does of course give us some info on his stance. <br />
<br />
The article in question is (as of this writing) latest updated September 1 1999, and is formed as quotations from the book ''The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible'' by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Lane_Fox Robin Lane Fox], an Oxford New College teacher of classical literature and history. Two other books of his, ''The Search for Alexander'' and ''Alexander the Great: A Biography'', formed the background history of Oliver Stone's film [http://www.archaeology.org/online/interviews/fox.html Alexander]. <br />
<br />
The quotations are followed by Glenn Miller's comments/rebuttals, and I won't go into all of it here, but limit myself to a few highlights. <br />
<br />
<br />
====Were king Herod and Quirinius contemporaries?====<br />
'''Fox:''' The Gospel, therefore, assumes that Quirinius and King Herod were contemporaries, when they were separated by ten years or more. <br />
<br />
'''Miller:''' I assume you mean contemporaries in office--they were certainly contemporaries in life...Quirinius, at the time of King Herod's death was doing military expeditions in the eastern provinces of the Roman empire (Tacitus , Annals 3:48; Florus, Roman History 2:31), with some evidence indicating that he either was a co-ruler with the governor of Syria (the somewhat inept Quintilius Varus) or at least placed in charge of the 14-year census in Palestine. Varus was famous for the later fiasco at the Teutoburger forest in Germany (9 ad) and at his appointment as Gov.. of Syria in 7 BC was largely 'untested'. The census was due in 8-7 BC, and Augustus could easily have ordered his trusted Quirinius (fresh from subduing the Pisidian highlanders) to assist in this volatile project. Herod I had recently lost favor of the emperor and was probably dragging his feet on taking the census--a process with always enraged the difficult Jews! This would have pushed the timeframe into the 5 BC mark, which fits the general data. <br />
<br />
<br />
Note that Richard Carrier does not come to the coclusion that Herod (the Great or possibly Archelaus) were "contemporaries in office", both Fox and Miller might be wrong here. Carrier's interpretation is that Mary was mot yet pregnant when she visited Elisabeth, actually as much as 12 years might separate the bith of John the Baptist and the birth of Jesus, see [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Luke Luke]. <br />
<br />
Also the "military expeditions in the eastern provinces of the Roman empire" refer to the campaign against the Homanadenses ("the Pisidian highlanders"), see [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#date The Date of Quirinius' Duumvirate in Pisidian Antioch], a campaign in Galatia, north of the Taurus mountains. As Carrier argues, it is unlikely that Quirinius should at the same time have been co-ruler of Syria south of that mountain range, and that he should have somehow been involved with a census in Palestine. <br />
<br />
Also there was no "14-year census in Palestine", this is a misunderstanding of an Egyptian census that was made in support of a special Egyptian capitation tax on all Egyptian citizens aged 14 or above, see [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#census How Often Was the Census Held?]. <br />
<br />
It is not known exactly when the campaign against the Homanadenses was, so it is not known, if it was finished just prior to 8-7 bce. Also the censuses that Miller refers to might have been the oaths of allegiance to Herod and Augustus, where we only know (from Flavius Josephus) that the Pharisees refused. In the paragraph just before his Conclusion [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Conclusion Conclusion], Richard Carriers writes this: <br />
<br />
'''Carrier:''' And we have no record of such an oath in Judaea in that year or any year near it, despite the fact that Josephus usually records them: the last such oaths commanded by Herod were in 20 B.C. and in 8 or 7 B.C. Worse, this thesis is inherently implausible: Luke does not use the vocabulary of oath-swearing, nor does he describe such a process. For example, Joseph would not travel to Bethlehem if all he had to do was swear an oath of allegiance--that had to be done where he lived. <br />
<br />
<br />
====Did someone serve twice as legate of Syria?.====<br />
'''Fox:''' Luke's Gospel, therefore, assumes that King Herod and the governor Quirinius were contemporaries, but they were separated by over ten years or more. The incoherent dating is only the start of the problem. <br />
<br />
Miller's response to this is covered on the "discussion" page in the section [[Talk:Luke_2:2#Did_someone_serve_twice_as_legate_of_Syria.3F|Did someone serve twice as legate of Syria?]].<br />
<br />
====Was it a census conducted by Herod the Great?====<br />
'''Fox:''' Luke's Nativity story hinges on its `decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.' `Caesar Augustus' was the Roman Emperor, but if the Nativity took place in the reign of the King Herod the Great, the Jews were still Herod's subjects, members of a client kingdom, not a province under direct Roman rule. <br />
<br />
'''Miller:''' You are somewhat mistaken here. It is true that Judea did not technically become a Roman province until 6 AD, but the facts prior to that indicate much tighter authority and control than your statement might lead one to believe. Rome did a military conquest before Herod the Great was even born. Pompey attacked Jerusalem and even invaded the Temple. was made a tributary (read: PAID TRIBUTE$) to Rome until Caesar defeated Pompey in Egypt around 48 BC. Herod the Great's dad had aided Caesar in that endeavor and so won the favor of Julius Caesar (and with it a procuratorship of, plus Roman citizenship and exemption from taxes.) Then in 47 BC, the daddy Herod appointed the son Herod to be governor of Galilee...still completely under Roman rule. He still had to be appointed tetrarch by Antony-- still a thrall, eh?!. He was also proclaimed 'king' by the Roman leaders (Octavius and Antony) in 40 bc--but he had to re-conquer the land from the Parthians, which he did in 37bc. As a 'client kingdom', they were still under the authority of Rome (all of the rulers, for example, were appointed--including ALL the Herods--and ratified by Rome.) <br />
<br />
'''Miller:''' Actually, when I keep reading your paragraph, it sounds like you are calling Luke mistaken in referring to Rome as 'driving the issue' of the census. He is INDEED making that point, but HE is correct in that...The client-kings WERE still subject to Roman enrollment decrees. [see Blaiklock, ''The Century of the New Testament'',(1962) and ''The Archeology of the New Testament'' (1970)] <br />
<br />
<br />
It is true that Judea became a Roman province in 63 bce - the king and the high priest, who were brothers, were quarreling, the king wanting to be high priest as well. Both of them sent a letter to Pompei who had conquered Syria in 64 bce, and Pompei sided with the high priest - had he sided with the king, Judea would have become a client kingdom instead. Now, the high priest had a supporter, the self-styled king of Idumaea (Edom), Antipatros, who was made Roman representative after the matter was settled, and he was the father of Herod the Great. Anyway, the tribute paid would be an agreed upon sum paid by Antipatros, who in return himself had to figure out how to raise it in the first round. No Roman censuses would be required for that, why should the Romans bother with something that wasn't their headache? But also see [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Herod Was it a Census Conducted by Herod the Great?]. <br />
<br />
<br />
====Does taxation imply registration?====<br />
'''Fox:''' The status of client-kings in the Roman Empire left them responsibility for their subjects' taxation. <br />
<br />
'''Miller:''' Not decision-making authority--they couldn't say 'no', but local execution of the enrollment process-"yes". <br />
<br />
<br />
Miller here continues in the assumption that taxation implies enrollment, that is registration, but it doesn't, see same link as above. <br />
<br />
<br />
====Taxation or oath-swearing?====<br />
'''Fox:''' In AD 6 we do know that Augustus was enacting a new tax on inheritance to help pay for his armies; <br />
<br />
'''Miller:''' BTW, the taxation to support his army, is the main reason it is believed that Quirinius assisted in the taxing of 8-5 BC...his extended military maneuvers on the Pisidian highlands (dating from around 12 BC) would have required additional financing... <br />
<br />
<br />
Which wasn't a taxing, but an oath-swearing, see above. <br />
<br />
<br />
====When was the census?====<br />
'''Fox:''' however, the tax affected only Roman citizens, not Jews of Nazareth, and there was no need for a worldwide census to register their names. <br />
<br />
'''Miller:''' Remember, the census in AD 6 is NOT the one of Luke 2.2 (of 8-6 BC.)...but the census of AD 6 DID hit the Jews pretty heavily...at least 600 talents as a nation acc. to Josephus (Antiq. 17.320; Jewish War 2.97--cited in Jeremias' Jerusalem in the Times of Jesus: An investigation into the economic and social conditions during the New Testament period,Fortress: 1969). As a national tax, it DID effect the Jewish folk--loads like this are ALWAYS 'distributed to the people'(!) in addition to the already oppressive tax structure of the Herods... <br />
<br />
'''Miller:''' And Luke does NOT place the 'worldwide census' at the time of the AD 6 tax...but rather puts it some time BEFORE the Syrian-based one in 7-5 BC... <br />
<br />
'''Miller:''' But more accurately, Luke was probably not referring to a taxation census at all--simply a "registration". Registrations were normally associated with (1) taxation (above discussion); (2) military service (Jews were exempt) and (3) special government "ballots". We have conclusive evidence that an empire-wide (in decree, not necessarily execution, of course) registration occurred in the time frame described by Luke! Martin [[http://www.christian-thinktank.com/bookabs.html#CKC CKC:89-90]] summarizes the literary, archeological, and iconographic evidence for this: <br />
<br />
'''Miller:''' " A sixth reason for placing the nativity of Jesus in 3 or 2 B.C. isthe coincidence of this date with the New Testament account that Jesus was born at the time when a Roman census was being conducted: "There went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the IRoman] world should be registered" (Luke 2:1). Historians have not been able to find any empire-wide census or registration in the years 7-5 B.C., but there is '''a reference to such a registration of all the Roman people not long before 5 February 2 B.C. written by Caesar Augustus himself''': "While I was administering my thirteenth consulship [2 B.C.] the senate and the equestrian order '''and the entire Roman people''' gave me the title Father of my Country" (Res Gestae 35, italics added). This award was given to Augustus on 5 February 2 B.C., therefore the registration of citizen approval must have taken place in 3 B.C. Orosius, in the fifth century, also said that Roman records of his time revealed that a census was indeed held when Augustus was made "the first of men"--an apt description of his award "Father of the Country"--at a time when all the great nations gave an oath of obedience to Augustus (6:22, 7:2). Orosius dated the census to 3 B.C. And besides that, Josephus substantiates that an oath of obedience to Augustus was required in Judea not long before the death of Herod (Antiquities I7:4I-45). This agrees nicely in a chronological sense with what Luke records. But more than that, an inscription found in Paphlagonia (eastern Turkey), also dated to 3 B.C., mentions an "oath sworn by all the people in the land at the altars of Augustus in the temples of Augustus in the various districts." And dovetailing precisely with this inscription, the early (fifth century) Armenian historian, Moses of Khoren, said the census that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem was conducted by Roman agents in Armenia where they set up "the image of Augustus Caesar in every temple.. ''The similarity of this language is strikingly akin to the wording on the Paphlagonian inscription describing the oath taken in 3 B.C. These indications can allow us to reasonably conclude that the oath (of Josephus, the Paphlagonian inscription, and Orosius) and the census (mentioned by Luke, Orosius, and Moses of Khoren) were one and the same. All of these things happened in 3 B.C.''" <br />
<br />
'''Miller:''' What this means is that we have very, very clear evidence of an empire-wide registration in the time frame required! (How much more data do you need?!) <br />
<br />
<br />
Now, there are two obvious problems here. Miller has previous to this operated with a census in 8-7 bce (where there happened to be an oath of allegiance), but now he wants us to have that be in 2 bce! Also Jews were not Roman citizens, obviously only Roman citizens could declare Augustus father of the (Roman) country! Being a citizen in a client kingdom does not make you a Roman citizen, not by itself at least. But see again Carrier's paragraph before his [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Conclusion Conclusion]. <br />
<br />
<br />
====First or before?====<br />
'''Fox:''' In Judea under Quirinius, we know from Josephus's histories of something more appropriate, not a worldwide decree but a local census in AD 6 to assess Judea when the province passed from rule by Herod's family to direct rule by Rome. Although this census was local, it caused a notorious outcry, not least because some of the Jews argued that the innovation was contrary to scripture and the will of God. According to the third Gospel, the census which took Joseph to Bethlehem was `the first while Quirinius was governor of Syria.' <br />
<br />
'''Miller:''' I have already pointed out that 'first while' is probably a mistranslation of the text -- 'before' is more in line with koine idiom (see the reference of N. Turner, above) <br />
<br />
<br />
Not complete agreement here. See [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Word Did Luke Mean "Before" Quirinius?]. <br />
<br />
<br />
--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 05:30, 7 Feb 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
See [http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html CTT]. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
This article seems to be fully rebuttet by what it states in the PRO section. See : [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html The Date of the Nativity in Luke] by Richard Carrier<br />
<br />
[[User:Opercularis|Opercularis]] 12:24, 31 Jan 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Luk&chapter=2&verse=2&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=luke%202:2;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke2.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Luke&chapter=2&verse=2 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Luke+2.2 Perseus]<br />
*[http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B42C002.htm HTML Bible]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Luke_Chapter_2,_Verse_2 BibleWiki]<br />
*[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html The Date of the Nativity in Luke] by Richard Carrier<br />
<br />
[[Category:Luke]]<br />
[[Category:History]]<br />
[[Category:Pro]]</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Malachi_3:1&diff=28596Malachi 3:12006-06-23T13:10:05Z<p>FreezBee: /* Neutral */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Malachi 2:17|Previous Verse]] < [[Malachi 3]] > [[Malachi 3:2|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant, whom ye desire, behold, he cometh, saith Jehovah of hosts. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
Edit this section if you suspect error.<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
Edit this section if you doubt error.<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Just a minor note: in Hebrew "my messenger" translates to "mala'ak-i", from whence the name of the book. --[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 08:10, 23 Jun 2006 (CDT)<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Mal&chapter=3&verse=1&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=malachi%203:1;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/malachi/malachi3.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Malachi&chapter=3&verse=1 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Malachi+3.1 Perseus]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Malachi_Chapter_3,_Verse_1 BibleWiki]</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=John_1:23&diff=8759John 1:232006-06-23T13:07:25Z<p>FreezBee: /* Con */ Wikifying</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[John 1:22|Previous Verse]] < [[John 1]] > [[John 1:24|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said Isaiah the prophet. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
Edit this section if you suspect error.<br />
<br />
This problem occurs in all four gospels, but is most acute here, because it has John the Baptist quoting [[Isaiah 40:3]] and applying it to himself, whereas in the three synoptics it is the narrator who applies it to John. The problem is that all four gospels follow the Greek LXX, "a voice crying in the wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord". But in the Hebrew, it is clear that this should read "a voice crying, in the wilderness make straight the way of the Lord" (check modern translations such as the NASB, NIV, NRSV of [[Isaiah 40:3]]). That it should read this way is unambiguous because of the parallelism with the next phrase, "make smooth in the desert a highway for our God". Note that "in the desert" (ba`aravah) in the second phrase parallels "in the wilderness" (bammidbar) in the first. However, for some reason, the crucial word ba`aravah was omitted from the LXX translation, which destroys the parallelism, and leads to the reading apparently found in the gospels.<br />
<br />
John the Baptist, and those he was speaking to, would have been native Aramaic/Hebrew speakers, and hence he would have quoted this verse from an Aramaic Targum or the Hebrew original, not from the Greek.<br />
<br />
One final note: The original Greek text of the NT did not have punctuation. Hence, it would be possible to argue that the gospel writers all intended this to be read as in the Hebrew, "a voice crying, in the wilderness make straight ...". Whether this is likely, I leave to readers to decide. Historically, Christian interpreters have read the gospels as "a voice crying in the wilderness, make straight ...".<br />
<br />
Editted by: Ichabod Crane.<br />
<br />
Response to Neutral comments:<br />
<br />
I agree that this is not a "slam dunk" error. But every example of a purported error will only be a matter of probability, since there will always be ways of explaining away an apparent error from an inerrantist point of view, even if they are highly contrived and implausible. Even if the Bible somewhere said in every existing manuscript, "thus says the Lord, verily, two plus two equals five", there would always be what Maxwell Smart would no doubt call "the old textual variant that has not been preserved trick", for instance. For those who are open to the evidence, however, the issue is whether the balance of probability favours this being an error or not. I think that it does. I haven't checked any Aramaic Targumim, but the Hebrew is absolutely clear here and there are no textual issues; the Dead Sea Scrolls fully support the MT. Furthermore, I have checked BHS and it doesn't list any variants in Targumim, or other translations for that matter (Syriac etc). The LXX stands completely alone with this reading as far as I am aware, and if anyone can prove otherwise, I will gladly recant and concede that this may not be an error.<br />
<br />
It is difficult to imagine an application to John the Baptist given the sense of the Hebrew, but it is all too easy to see how someone could apply it to him given the sense of the Greek. Keep in mind that John is supposed to be answering the question "who are you?"; the Hebrew reading doesn't seem much of an answer. The way the incident is presented in the gospels suggests the intention to provide a prophetic validation of John's ministry ("look, John the Baptist fulfills this scripture!"), but that surely depends on the Greek. In addition, isn't it just a bit too convenient that a verse which originally would have only had a loose application to John at best, becomes much stronger when the LXX is employed?<br />
<br />
Now it is possible, I suppose, that the LXX here preserves an authentic Hebrew textual tradition that John quoted from, and which has not been preserved in any Hebrew text or other translation. But that is very unlikely. Besides the intrinsic unlikelihood that the reading would not be found anywhere else, not even in texts like 1QIsa(a) which often support the LXX against the MT, the parallelism in the Hebrew strongly suggests that ba`aravah is authentic. But the possibility that the LXX reading, as found in the gospels, is an authentic textual variant cannot be excluded with 100% certainty. It's just an issue of what is more likely. <br />
<br />
In short, the most likely explanation, by quite a long way, is that the gospel writers applied this verse from the LXX without realizing that this reading diverged in a crucial respect from the Hebrew. Maybe they couldn't read Hebrew; maybe they didn't have access to an entire Hebrew Tanakh; maybe they just didn't think to check. Perhaps this was a popular application amongst early Christians which they uncritically reflected.<br />
<br />
The other point to make is that there are a number of instances in the gospels which suggest that the writers relied upon the LXX in ignorance of the Hebrew, and made mistakes as a result. So the explanation that this also happened here is strengthened by the cumulative case. See [[Matthew 1:23]], [[Matthew 21:16]].<br />
<br />
Response to Con comments:<br />
<br />
Um, sorry, but he's quoting from Isaiah 40:3 in the LXX. Here are the two verses in the Greek:<br />
<br />
Is. 40:3 (LXX): FWNH BOWNTOS EN THi ERHMWi hETOIMASATE THN hODON KURIOU ...<br />
<br />
Jn. 1:23: ... FWNH BOWNTOS EN THi ERHMWi EUQUNATE THN hODON KURIOU<br />
<br />
The verbal parallels between these two verses cannot be a fluke. The wording of Malachi 3:1 in the LXX is quite different and has no significant verbal parallel here. Whether Malachi or who knows what else was also present in the mind of the writer is irrelevant to the point; the author has mistakenly relied on the LXX of Is. 40:3 in ignorance of the Hebrew. Not only is the wording virtually identical to the LXX, but as noted above, the application to John is only possible because of the mistranslation found only in the Greek.<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
<br />
You are overlooking the fact that this probably references [[Malachi 3:1]] also. Consequently, he wasn't just quoting Isaiah 40, but noting that the subject of the Old Testament is the coming of the Messaiah. The message is clear. John the Baptist is the voice of the one crying in the wilderness with the message of the coming of the Lord. I see no contradiction just an effort to obscure the message and create some controversity.<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
I'm not sure if I could accept this as an actual "error," or as possible post-event editorializing (which was common in Judaic and early Christian writing). We can be fairly well assured that John the Baptist was a historical character (though the picture Josephus paints of him is quite different from that of the Gospels), and we know he did work in the wilderness. I really think this could be argued either way ... just not very conclusively.<br />
<br />
It's possible that John took this passage and applied it to himself ... after all, I could not think of a better place to declare "Make straight in the wilderness the way of the LORD: make smooth in the desert a road for our God!" But it's also possible that this was retroactively applied. <br />
<br />
One other thing to consider--have you seen any of the Talmud or Targumim of this passage? They may provide more clarification on how the passage was interpreted at this time.<br />
<br />
It's a well-presented argument ... I'm just not sure there's enough documentation to provide a good solid conclusion.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JustinEiler|JustinEiler]] 16:31, 26 Oct 2005 (CDT)<br />
<br />
I don't see any problem other than you don't like the way he paraphrased the original. The readers could examine the passages referenced and decided for themselves. The actual word for word quote would be lenghty and superfluous. Also, I don't see a problem with that one quotes him as saying this and others apply this to him. One is not exclusive of the other.<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&verse=23&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=john%201:23;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john1.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=John&chapter=1&verse=23 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=John+1.23 Perseus]<br />
*[http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B43C001.htm HTML Bible]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/John_Chapter_1,_Verse_23 BibleWiki]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Contradictions]]<br />
[[Category:Pro]]<br />
[[Category:Neutral]]</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Legends&diff=8692Legends2006-06-23T13:01:47Z<p>FreezBee: /* '''FOOTNOTES''' */</p>
<hr />
<div>JW: (This Article still needs to be Formatted)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== '''''Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth''''' '''By Richard Carrier (2006''') ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== '''INTRODUCTION''' ===<br />
<br />
It is widely acknowledged that Quirinius became "governor of Syria" in 6 C.E., only then conducting a census of Judaea, and that Herod the Great died in 4 B.C.E., ten years before. Since Matthew indisputably claims Jesus was born while Herod the Great was still alive, while Luke indisputably claims Jesus was born when Quirinius was governor of Syria during a census of Judaea, Luke and Matthew are clearly in contradiction regarding when Jesus was born. They disagree by at least ten years, which entails one of them has made a historical error (or both have).<br />
Because this contradiction is so clear and certain and strongly backed by evidence, inerrancy proponents have invented a dizzying array of attempts to remove this contradiction by reconciling the details in Matthew and Luke. I have examined and researched these efforts in thorough detail, perhaps more than anyone. I have found all of them unsuccessful, even ludicrously so. Consequently, the primary importance of this contradiction is that is one of the clearest and most irrefutable examples of historical error in the Bible, which is perhaps why it has generated so many desperate attempts to wiggle out of it. <br />
And that is the second reason this error is so important: short of the vast and diverse "Bethlehem Star" literature, there is probably no other biblical error for which so many false, groundless, or implausible arguments have been contrived to "invent" or "revise" the historical facts of the ancient Roman world. As a teacher and a scholar, I find all this disinformation and wanton invention about the period I study quite appalling. And because there are so many such contrivances, relating to technical details of the social and political history of Rome that are difficult if not impossible for the average layman to investigate, duty demands that some impassioned expert do all the necessary research and make it available to the common reader. Otherwise, all those false claims might simply be believed and eventually become common assumptions.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== AUTHOR QUALIFICATIONS ===<br />
<br />
About Richard Carrier:<br />
Richard Carrier is one of the most popular authors at the [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/ Secular Web], and author of the book [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1420802933/102-1435806-2580904?n=283155 Sense and Goodness without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism](2005), and contributing author for [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/159102286X/internetinfidels/102-1435806-2580904 The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave](2005), and he has written articles for several print publications. He has a B.A. in history and classical civilizations from UC Berkeley, and an M.A. and M.Phil. in ancient history from Columbia University, where he is currently working on his dissertation in ancient science. While acquiring his degrees Carrier formally studied ancient Greek for over seven years, including papyrology, linguistics, and paleography. To learn more about him see [http://www.columbia.edu/~rcc20/about.html About Richard Carrier].<br />
<br />
I am a published author with considerable qualifications in the study of ancient history and languages (see inset), which should give my findings some weight of authority. I thoroughly document all the arguments and evidence relating to this discrepancy in an extensive article at the Secular Web, [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html The Date of the Nativity in Luke] (2001). I will provide here only a summary of the major conclusions of that article, along with some of the most relevant evidence.<br />
Invariably people write to me proposing some "new" argument, without having bothered to read the complete article above, only to learn that their "new" argument is in fact "old" and already refuted there. I have received countless such emails to date, over several years, and have yet to hear of any fact or argument I haven't already addressed. I advise all challengers to read that original article in its entirety before proposing to challenge the fact that Luke contradicts Matthew on the year of Christ's birth.<br />
The present summary is no substitute for that, and is only provided here to conveniently summarize the current status of this biblical error for readers not intent on gainsaying what they don't like to hear.<br />
<br />
=== BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM ===<br />
<br />
The Gospel of Luke says ([[Luke 2|2:1-6]]) Jesus was born during a census, which the historian Josephus records took place after Herod the Great died, and after his successor, Archelaus, was deposed after a ten year reign (Antiquities of the Jews [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.342 17.342-55], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.1 18.1-2], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.26 18.26]). But the Gospel of Matthew says (2:1-3) Jesus was born when Herod the Great was still alive, possibly two years before he died (2:7-16), and before Archelaus even took office (2:19-22). On a plain reading of the Bible, this is a contradiction. Someone erred.<br />
<br />
Efforts to challenge this conclusion fall into three general categories: either Luke meant something other than his words actually say, or Josephus failed to mention some "other" time that Quirinius was governor and a census made of Judaea, or Josephus erred in dating relevant events. A fourth option, of arguing Matthew meant something other than what he said, is blocked by the absolute clarity with which he said it. There is no rational way to argue that Matthew was referring to the political situation anywhere near 6 C.E. Not only does Matthew's narrative make this clear, but the physical evidence from coins of the region leave little room for disputing that Herod ceased his reign in 4 B.C.E., Archelaus then succeeded him, then ceased his own reign ten years later in 5 C.E., and Roman control of Judaea began in the year 6 (the year the earliest Roman coins struck for Judaea begin).[1] These facts are also recorded by Josephus (who is generally quite reliable on matters of public chronology) and partly corroborated by another historian, Cassius Dio (e.g. Roman History [http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/55*.html#27.6 55.27.6]).<br />
<br />
Consequently, to this day no one has attempted to argue that Matthew was describing an event of 6 C.E. Instead, all efforts are directed to arguing that Luke was describing an event five to twelve years earlier than we think, either by trying to harmonize Luke with Josephus, or by attacking the accuracy or alleged omissions of Josephus. However, all such attempts have required inventing or distorting socio-political facts of the period, or twisting Greek grammar or vocabulary beyond anything that would be recognizable to an ancient reader. Allowing either tactic would permit us to prove that no text ever written in human history has ever been in error about anything. Such an irrational consequence convicts both tactics as unsound.<br />
<br />
=== ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #1 - Looking In Luke For A Different Date ===<br />
<br />
Some observe that Luke says John the Baptist was born during the reign of "Herod the King" ([[Luke 1:5|1:5]]) and appears to have Jesus born less than a year later (1:22-24, 1:31-36, 1:80, 2:1, 2:40-42), which appears to agree with Matthew. However, Matthew does not mention or date the birth of John, and despite the impression given by English translations, Luke is unclear how much time actually passed between his birth and that of Jesus. More importantly, Archelaus was also called Herod (even on his own coins) and even Josephus calls him a king (Antiquities of the Jews [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.93 18.93]). Unlike Matthew, Luke provides no detail indicating either he or his source meant anything other than Herod Archelaus when dating the birth of John. Therefore, unless we assume Luke is contradicting himself, we can't assume he dated either the birth of John or Jesus to the time of Herod the Great. So there is no case to be made from Luke 1:5 that Luke agreed with Matthew.<br />
<br />
Likewise, when Luke dates the start of John's ministry to 28 C.E. ([[Luke 3:11|3:1]]) and then over twenty verses later says Jesus began his own ministry at "about thirty" (3:23) some assume the two ministries began the same year, which would place the birth of Jesus at "about" 3 B.C.E. which for a "rough" estimate is close enough to fit Matthew. But Luke never says the two ministries began the same year, and for various reasons it's unlikely they did. Luke clearly didn't know the year Jesus started his ministry, since he didn't know how old he was, despite claiming to know exactly when he was born. Since "about" thirty can be off by at least four years (26-34), and since Luke allows some time to pass between the start of John's ministry and the baptism of Jesus, and since scholars agree Jesus could have begun and ended his ministry anytime between 28 and 33 C.E., we are left with a window between 7 B.C.E. to 7 C.E. for his birth, far too wide to pin down. So there is no good case to be made from Luke 3:1-23 that he agreed with Matthew.[2]<br />
<br />
==='''ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #2 - Inventing Another Governorship For Quirinius'''===<br />
<br />
Even fishing a different date out of Luke would leave a contradiction within Luke, since the only chronological detail about Jesus that Luke is absolutely clear on is that he was born during "the first census when Quirinius was governing Syria" (2:2). All evidence confirms that Quirinius first became governor of Syria in 6 C.E. and the first Roman census of Judaea occurred at that time, and Luke clearly says this was a Roman census (2:1-6). So Luke didn't leave much room to maneuver. To reconcile Luke with Matthew, one must invent two facts nowhere in evidence: some other Syrian governorship for Quirinius and some other census affecting Judaea, both before Herod the Great died.<br />
<br />
But trying to invent an earlier Syrian governorship for Quirinius is a lost cause. Not only is there no evidence of it, and not only does it go against a plain reading of all the evidence we do have, but it's essentially impossible. No one ever governed the same province twice in the whole of Roman history. So the claim that Quirinius was the sole known exception is so extraordinary it certainly can't be maintained without evidence. Such an astonishing and unique honor could not have been omitted by Josephus or Tacitus (Annals [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=3.48 3.48]), yet both describe his career without any mention of it. Historical evidence also confirms other men governed Syria between 12 and 3 B.C.E., so Quirinius could not have been governor then, and he was not qualified to hold that office before the year 12.[3]<br />
<br />
Stymied by all these facts, inerrantists have resorted to everything from fabricating evidence of dual governorships or other fictional offices Quirinius is supposed to have held, to changing the year of Herod's death. None of this is even remotely reasonable, and most of it is based on the fantasies of amateurs or the abandoned conjectures of long dead historians. First, the alleged physical evidence:<br />
<br />
==== The Lapis Tiburtinus ====<br />
<br />
This is a headless (and thus nameless) inscription that the Vatican has taken the liberty to "restore" with the name of Quirinius. It is then "interpreted" as saying he governed Syria twice. But the actual inscription does not say anyone governed Syria twice, nor does it belong to Quirinius. Scholars now believe it belongs to Lucius Calpurnius Piso, since it fits what we know of his career very well, while no basis exists for claiming it belongs to Quirinius. And even if it did, it doesn't say anything about governing Syria twice. It says the honoree "received the governorship of Asia and then again of Syria."[4] <br />
<br />
==== The Lapis Venetus ====<br />
<br />
This is an inscription that really does mention Quirinius. It is the epitaph of Aemilius Secundus and reports he helped Quirinius conduct a census when the latter was governing Syria. So this inscription confirms that a census was taken of Syria when Quirinius was governor. It does not give a date, either for the census or the inscription itself. But there is no reason to believe this is a reference to any other census under Quirinius except the only one we know of, that of 6 C.E. Several inerrantists have simply "invented" early dates for this inscription, and then used these fabricated dates to claim this inscription as proof there was an earlier census under Quirinius. It proves no such thing.[5]<br />
<br />
==== The Antioch Stones ====<br />
<br />
These are two stones commemorating the offices of Gaius Julius Caristanius Caesiano, both mentioning that he held the deputy management of a city duumvirate held by Quirinius. The date is unknown but probably before the year 1. Conjuring various fantasies, inerrantists finagle this city office into evidence of an earlier governorship of Syria, but no rational argument can produce that conclusion. First, a duumvirate is a city office and has nothing to do with a provincial governorship. Second, this duumvirate was held in Galatia, not Syria.[6] <br />
<br />
==== The Vardaman Coins ====<br />
<br />
Jerry Vardaman claimed to have discovered microscopic letters literally covering ancient coins and inscriptions conveying all sorts of strange new facts, which he used to completely rewrite history. One of these amazing new "discoveries" was evidence Jesus was born in 11 or 12 B.C.E. Needless to say, Vardaman's claim constitutes fringe quackery that has gained no respect in the academic community. I inspected one of these coins myself under a magnifying glass and a digital microscope at the British Museum and found none of these amazing microscopic letters. Case closed.[7] <br />
<br />
==== Sub-Commander Quirinius? ====<br />
<br />
Since none of this evidence supports an earlier governorship for Quirinius, and all other evidence makes such a thing virtually impossible, only two strategies remain for the inerrantists: either Quirinius held some other "special command" in Syria and wasn't governor per se, or Quirinius held an unrecorded "dual-governorship" with some other governor. Neither of these proposals makes any sense in the context of Roman politics or historiography.<br />
<br />
First, the "sub-command" thesis. Luke's choice of vocabulary is somewhat imprecise, using a word that can refer to many different positions of command. Seizing on this, inerrantists argue that Luke meant "when Quirinius was holding a command in Syria," and not "when Quirinius was governing Syria." But stretching the word like this requires ignoring the grammar. Luke says "of Syria," not "in Syria," and thus he could not have been referring to some command in Syria but only a command of Syria. Even if we ignore Luke's grammar, the only real "command" anyone can find for Quirinius is a war he fought in Galatia, probably between 6 and 1 B.C.E. But there is no logical way Luke would refer to a census in Syria by referencing a war in Galatia, and no one would ever write or read "governing Syria" as meaning "fighting a war in Galatia." Unless Luke was a profoundly stupid man, or erred in his historical facts, he would have named the actual governor of Syria who oversaw a census in Judaea, not some unrelated officer in a faraway province.[8] <br />
<br />
==== Co-Commander Quirinius? ====<br />
<br />
A completely different tactic, to get around the problem that all the governors of Syria between 12 and 3 B.C.E. are already known, is to claim Quirinius was holding a dual governorship with one of those other governors. Not only does this still require claiming Quirinius governed the same province twice, an oddity never before recorded in the history of Roman politics, but it also requires completely inventing the idea of a "dual governorship." Since there is no evidence in all of Roman history of any province assigned two governors at the same time, this is another extraordinary claim that requires evidence to be believed. Since there isn't any, inerrantists invent some.<br />
<br />
Josephus is cited as saying "Saturninus and Volumnius were in charge of Syria" (Antiquities of the Jews 16.280) which is said to "prove" Syria was special enough to be assigned two governors. But Volumnius was not a governor. He was a procurator (Josephus, Jewish War 1.538), an office held only by men of fundamentally inferior rank, who were not even qualified to hold the office of a provincial governor. Conversely, a Roman who had achieved senatorial, and even consular rank--like Quirinius--would never deign to accept such a humiliating office as procurator. Socially, this would be as unbelievable as a United States president taking a job as shift manager at a local McDonald's. In Roman society, this would be so remarkable and unprecedented that, again, Josephus and Tacitus would not have omitted it from their accounts of his career. The same error is made using an inscription reporting that two "deputies," Rutilius Gallicus and Sentius Caecilianus, were assigned to the province of Africa. But this inscription clearly states that one of them was a praetor, and thus not of consular rank. So again, what we have here are not two governors, but a governor and his subordinate. Neither example supports even the conjecture that Quirinius could have held a dual-governorship, much less that he ever did so--or that anyone ever did. It would also make no logical sense for Luke to name a governor's subordinate rather than the actual governor of Syria.[9]<br />
<br />
So there is no basis for that claim, either. Since Josephus records and thus confirms an actual census under Quirinius in 6 C.E. when Quirinius was, in fact, governor "of Syria," all exactly as Luke says, there is no plausible case to be made that Luke had any other event in mind. All the evidence we have corroborates this conclusion, and none supports any alternative or renders any even remotely plausible.<br />
<br />
==='''ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #3 - Inventing A New Date For Herod's Death'''===<br />
<br />
Since there is no reasonable way to get Quirinius to be governor of Syria anytime before 3 B.C.E., the natural last-ditch resort is to argue that Herod didn't really die in 4 B.C.E. Since there is no clear evidence who was governing Syria after 3 B.C.E., or where Quirinius was in those years, inerrantists fantasize that their imaginary "earlier governorship" of Quirinius fell around then and simply failed to be mentioned. This still doesn't avoid all the problems noted before--from a total lack of evidence to the extraordinary implausibility of a second governorship. It also requires rewriting history.<br />
<br />
Josephus already says Varus, not Quirinius, was governing Syria when Herod died (Jewish War [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=1.9 1.9-10]), and despite attempts to argue otherwise, Josephus is very clear and precise in his chronology for these events and cites several first-hand sources for them, while the manuscript tradition for the relevant details is completely sound, so there is no plausible case to made that he is mistaken.[10] Likewise, as mentioned earlier, evidence from coins corroborates all of this, including the reigns of Herod's successors, Philip, Antipas and Archelaus. The reign of Archelaus is further corroborated by Cassius Dio ([http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/55*.html#27.6 55.27.6]).<br />
<br />
Josephus also mentions a lunar eclipse soon before Herod's death, and astronomers note there was such an eclipse in 5 B.C.E. and 1 B.C.E. Inerrantists therefore want Herod to have died in or shortly after 1 B.C.E. However, not only is all evidence against such a notion, but the Jewish Scroll of Fasting records the calendar day of Herod's death, and it preceded that of the eclipse of 1 B.C.E, but not that of 5 B.C.E. Since Josephus says his death followed (not preceeded) an eclipse, the eclipse Josephus mentions was probably that of the year 5. In the end, there is simply no evidence Herod died later than the year 4, and no plausible case to be made that he did.<br />
<br />
==='''ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #4 - Inventing Another Census'''===<br />
<br />
There is no reasonable case to be made that Quirinius ever "governed Syria" before 6 C.E. Yet inventing such a fantasy contrary to all evidence and precedent is not even enough to eliminate the contradiction between Matthew and Luke. A census of Judaea before 6 C.E. must also be invented contrary to all evidence and precedent. This is because Luke's description establishes three facts: the census affected Judaea (2:4-5), it was conducted under the administration of Syria (2:2), and it was specifically a Roman census (2:1). These three facts rule out every attempt to argue that Luke meant some other census or event than the one recorded for 6 C.E.<br />
<br />
Before 6 C.E. Judaea was a nominally free kingdom, not a Roman province. Having sided with Augustus in the civil war that established him as emperor, Judaea was granted a favorable treaty assuring relative independence. This is proven by the coin evidence that Judaea continued to be governed by its own kings and rulers, not Roman officials, until 6 C.E., and extensively confirmed by Josephus and Cassius Dio. Though such "allied kingdoms" were kept under a tight leash and informally controlled and meddled with, all evidence regarding the legal and political practices of Roman emperors in the first century and before confirms that these states were not subject to direct Roman administration, taxation or levies. That was, in fact, the very point of not annexing them as provinces: not only to reward friendly states (and thus encourage other states to be friendly), but to avoid the headache and expense of taking over a region that was already pacified, subservient, and paying sufficient dues.<br />
<br />
Therefore, it is historically impossible that a Roman census was conducted under a Roman provincial governor when Judaea was still an allied kingdom. But it was typical and logical that immediately upon annexing a new territory a census would be taken of it. This was necessary to begin direct taxation and levies. So when Josephus describes Archelaus being removed from office, then Judaea being annexed to Syria and placed under the Roman command of Quirinius and his prefect Coponius, and then a census being conducted for the specific purpose of taking account of what Archelaus had left them, this description makes complete historical sense. In contrast, no other hypothesized "census" scenario makes any historical sense at all. <br />
<br />
As Josephus reports, and as all logic and precedent entail, Judaea was not being directly taxed by Rome nor administered by Romans before the year 6, and therefore there would be no purpose for Augustus to order a census there (Luke 2:1). Since forcing such a census on an allied kingdom in violation of its honor and its treaties would be such an astonishing and devastating insult contrary to all known precedent, there is no way it wouldn't have been noticed by historians like Josephus, nor any reason the Romans would undertake such a pointless and dangerous task. They would have nothing to gain by it, and plenty to lose, and Augustus was not so reckless as to think otherwise.[11]<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, inerrantists must have the impossible in order to save their bible from error. So these are the arguments they have attempted:<br />
<br />
==== Luke Meant "Before Quirinius"? ====<br />
<br />
The word translated "first" in Luke 2:2 can in certain contexts mean "before." But for various reasons such a meaning would not be grammatically correct in this case. Luke can only have meant, and all his readers would only have understood his sentence to mean, the first Augustan census that happened under Quirinius. And that is how all translators correctly interpret it.[12]<br />
<br />
==== Romans Subjected Allied Kingdoms to a Census? ====<br />
<br />
Since the very idea of Romans conducting a census of an allied kingdom is wholly implausible and unprecedented, inerrantists have tried to invent evidence of it. The same Lapis Venetus discussed above is cited as "evidence" that the free state of Apamea was subject to an official Roman census. However, neither that census nor the inscription itself is dated, and as noted above there is no reason to believe the inscription refers to any other census than that of 6 C.E. Regardless, since no city named "Apamea" was free after 12 B.C.E. and Quirinius was not of consular rank before that year, it is impossible that the Apamea referred to in this inscription was an independent kingdom at the time. The only other "evidence" offered is a census revolt put down by legions in Cappadocia in 36 C.E. (Tacitus, Annals [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=6.41 6.41]). Since Cappadocia was annexed as a Roman province in 17 C.E. (Annals [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=2.42 2.42], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=2.56 2.56]) this census was clearly not of an allied kingdom.[13]<br />
<br />
==== Jesus Born During Census of 8 B.C.E.? ====<br />
<br />
There is a modern myth that the Romans regularly conducted a census of their empire every 14 years. This is not true. There was little coordination between censuses of Roman citizens and censuses of provincial inhabitants, and rarely any fixed period of years between censuses, not even for citizens. Though Egypt continued to maintain a 14-year census cycle that the Romans inherited from the previous Ptolemaic government, this was not extended to or consistently coordinated with any other province. Other provinces were assessed when they could be, often at various different times from each other.[14]<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, this myth of a 14-year cycle is often used to support a claim that it would have been the census of 8 B.C.E. when Jesus was born, during the governorship of Saturninus rather than Quirinius. Why? Because some claim Tertullian said Jesus was born during the census of Saturninus (Against Marcion 4.19). But Tertullian doesn't say that. He says "censuses were conducted in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus" that confirm Jesus had brothers. Since these brothers had to have been born after Jesus, Tertullian cannot be referring to any census during which Jesus was born. There was in fact another Sentius Saturninus who was governor of Syria from 19 to 21 C.E. (the son of the former Sentius Saturninus) and it's almost certain this is whom Tertullian means.[15]<br />
<br />
So there is no support for linking Luke's census with any census of 8 B.C.E. Though we know there was a universal census conducted in that year, it was only of Roman citizens, not the provinces. It therefore could not have been the census Luke describes, which clearly affected non-citizen inhabitants of Judaea. Indeed, Judaea was not even a Roman territory in the year 8, nor was Quintilian governing Syria then.<br />
<br />
==== Herod's Census? ====<br />
<br />
Since all those arguments fail, the last resort is to claim that it wasn't really a Roman census but a census conducted by Herod the Great. The immediate problem with this is that Luke does not say any such thing. He is quite clear that he means a census ordered by Augustus, not Herod, and carried out under Quirinius, specifically in connection with Syria, not under Herod independently. Judaea was annexed to Syria under Quirinius in 6 C.E. and immediately subject to a census. Obviously that's the census Luke means. <br />
<br />
Nevertheless, the desperate plea is made that Luke "really meant" an unknown Herodian census. Apart from resting on no evidence at all, this claim is implausible for a number of reasons. Herod had no need of conducting a census, for the tribute owed him and that he owed Rome was a fixed annual sum. It didn't matter how many people were paying. Yet a census entails a vast outlay of expenses to cover administration and recordkeeping, and ties up a considerable amount of manpower. It also entails a significant inconvenience to the population, as even Luke's description makes clear. The Jews also had a tradition of cultural and moral hostility to a peacetime census. For example, 2 Samuel 24:1-17 and 1 Chronicles 21:1-17 depict the very idea of a peacetime census as sinful and Satanic, and when the Romans finally started subjecting Judaeans to a census in 6 C.E., many violently rebelled (Acts 5:37 and Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.1 18.1-8] & [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=20.102 20.102] and Jewish War [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=2.433 2.433-34] & [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=7.252 7.252-54]). For all these reasons, Herod had nothing to gain and plenty to lose by conducting his own census. To go ahead and do it anyway would have been so remarkable and unprecedented it could not have been omitted by historians like Josephus. Yet somehow no one noticed this remarkable census. And since Herod's involvement would be the most remarkable thing about it, it's inexplicable why Luke never mentions this, but only links the census to Roman decrees, Roman magistrates, and Roman provinces.[16]<br />
<br />
==== Herod's Oath? ====<br />
<br />
Stymied again, inerrantists resort to the last ditch effort of claiming Luke didn't really mean a "census" but an "oath-taking." And since according to Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=16.136 16.136], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.30 17.34-43], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.89 17.89]) Herod commanded his subjects in Judaea to swear an oath of loyalty to Rome in or around 8 B.C.E., "obviously" that's what Luke meant. This is an indefensible thesis. Luke says "census" not "oath." Nor does he describe a situation where Herod is commanding people to take oaths, but of Augustus commanding people to be assessed. Moreover, the only possible rationale for Joseph's travel (Luke 2:3-5) is a tribal census register or the possession of taxable property in Bethlehem subject to a census. In contrast, an oath could be sworn anywhere and did not require traveling, nor is there evidence mass oaths involved precise counting. And, again, Quirinius was still not governing Syria in 8 B.C.E.<br />
<br />
Some claim Luke meant an oath Augustus had made to him every five years, but this oath was only made "by the consuls and priests" of Rome, not even all citizens much less any provincials (Res Gestae 9). So this would never have involved Herod or Judaea. Some claim an annual oath was sworn by all the people subject to Rome on the anniversary of the emperor's accession, but even if that were the case, Judaea was not subject to Rome until 6 C.E., and an annual oath could not have involved constantly returning to one's ancestral city every year, or surely such an amazing inconvenience would be mentioned in the histories of the period. Others claim the event during which Jesus was born was when "the people of Rome" proclaimed Augustus "Father of the Nation" in 2 B.C.E., though that again requires reinventing the date of Herod's birth, inventing an impossible second governorship for Quirinius, and ignoring what Luke actually says. And after all that, this event was only a vote made by Roman citizens anyway. So this would never have involved Judaeans.[17]<br />
<br />
When everything above is considered, there is simply no way Luke 2:1-6 could have meant or ever been read as referring to any national oath.<br />
<br />
=== CONCLUSION ===<br />
<br />
There is no reasonable way to get Matthew and Luke to agree with each other on the year Jesus was born. Luke clearly dates his birth in 6 C.E. and Matthew clearly dates it before 4 B.C.E. (possibly as early as 8 or 6 B.C.E.). Everyone concedes Matthew 's narrative cannot be fudged to fit 6 C.E. And all attempts to force Luke to fit Matthew require groundless assertions contrary to all evidence and precedent, and always require declaring that in one way or another Luke didn't mean what he said. Not one of these proposed "solutions" rests on any evidence other than complete fabrications or distortions.<br />
<br />
Ample evidence supports the conclusion that Luke meant no other year than 6 C.E., and no clear case can be made that Luke had any other year in mind. There is no way Quirinius could have governed Syria in any earlier year, nor could he have co-ruled Syria or been holding any other office there that Luke would refer to. There is no evidence that Augustus ever did or even would order a census of a Judaean kingdom before its annexation to Syria in 6 C.E. And Luke can neither have meant nor been describing a national "oath." Neither the Lapis Tiburtinus, nor the Lapis Venetus, nor the Antioch Stones even remotely imply any other conclusion. The Vardaman coins are definitively bogus. No reasonable case can be made that Herod the Great was still alive after 4 B.C.E. It's grammatically impossible to read Luke 2:2 as saying "before Quirinius governed Syria." And there is no rationale for assuming a census of Roman citizens in 8 B.C.E. would ever have affected the lives of any Judaean, and no evidence that Herod ever did or even would order a census of his own people, nor is it at all reasonable to interpret Luke as referring to such a thing.<br />
<br />
There is no escaping the conclusion. Matthew contradicts Luke on a question of historical fact, and this entails either Matthew or Luke reports something historically false. The Bible is in error.<br />
<br />
=== FOOTNOTES ===<br />
<br />
[1] See Burnett's ''Roman Provincial Coinage'' (1992), including the supplemental volume with corrections.<br />
<br />
[2] For more on the basic problem and these date-fishing efforts see [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#I The Basic Problem] in my full Secular Web article. <br />
<br />
[3] Marcus Titius from 12 to 9 B.C.E., Sentius Saturninus from 9 to 6 B.C.E., and Quintilius <br />
Varus from 6 to 3 B.C.E., each serving a typical three year term, and both historians and <br />
inscriptions confirm Quirinius did not achieve consular rank until 12 B.C.E.. Under Roman law <br />
and principle, such a rank was a political prerequisite for holding a provincial <br />
proconsulship. For previous governors: Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=16.229 16.270-81], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=16.344 16.344], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.6 17.6-7], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.24 17.24], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.57 17.57], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.89 17.89-133], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.221 17.221-23], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.250 17.250-98]; Josephus, Jewish War [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=1.577 1.577], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=1.617 1.617-39], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=2.66 2.66-80]; Strabo 16.1.28; Velleius 2.117.2; Tacitus, Histories 5.9.2. Coin evidence also exists for their terms, though without precise dates. The consulship of Quirinius is reported in surviving consular lists etched in stone (see the entry for him in Pauly, Wissowa, and Kroll, Realencyclopâdie der klassischen Altertumwissenschaft) and by Cassius Dio 54.28.2. <br />
<br />
For more on the problems of inventing a new governorship for Quirinius see [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#II Was Quirinius Twice Governor?] in my full Secular Web article. <br />
<br />
[4] For more see [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Tiburtinus The Lapis Tiburtinus] in my full Secular Web article. <br />
<br />
[5] For more see [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Tiburtinus The Lapis Venetus] in my full Secular Web article. <br />
<br />
[6] For more see [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Antioch The Antioch Stones] in my full Secular Web article. <br />
<br />
[7] For my published reports on the Vardaman debacle, see Richard Carrier, "Pseudohistory in Jerry Vardaman's Magic Coins: The Nonsense of Micrographic Letters," Skeptical Inquirer 26.2 (March-April 2002): pp. 39-41, 61; and Richard Carrier, "More on Vardaman's Microletters," Skeptical Inquirer 26.4 (July-August 2002): pp. 60-61. For summary details, see [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Vardaman Vardaman's Magic 'Coin'] in my full Secular Web article.<br />
<br />
[8] For more see [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#legate Was Quirinius a Special Legate in B.C. Syria?] in my full Secular Web article. <br />
<br />
[9] For more see [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#dual Was Quirinius Sharing Command with a Previous Governor?] in my full Secular Web article. <br />
<br />
[10] Several wholly implausible arguments for rewriting the chronology in Josephus have been offered by Jack Finegan in his Handbook of Biblical Chronology (1998, revised edition). <br />
Finegan's errors consist of faulty math, implausible and unsupported conjectures, and relying on incompetent manuscript analysis. These gaffes are barely worthy of attention. Nevertheless, I address them in detail under [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#alive Was Herod Alive in 2 B.C.?] in my full Secular Web article.<br />
<br />
[11] For more on the basic problems of inventing an earlier census see [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#III Was There a Roman Census in Judaea Before Quirinius?] in my full Secular Web article. <br />
<br />
[12] For full discussion of the grammatical problem, see [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Word Did Luke Mean 'Before' Quirinius?] in my full Secular Web article. <br />
<br />
[13] For more see [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Apamea Was Apamea a Free City?] in my full Secular Web article.<br />
<br />
[14] For more on the nature of Roman census-taking see [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#census How Often Was the Census Held?] in my full Secular Web article.<br />
<br />
[15] For this and several other attempts to argue that Luke "only" got the governor wrong see [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Tertullian Was 'Quirinius' a Mistake for Someone Else?] in my full Secular Web article.<br />
<br />
[16] For more detail on all these points see [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Herod Was it a Census Conducted by Herod the Great?] in my full Secular Web article.<br />
<br />
[17] For more see [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#lastditch Two Last Ditch Attempts] in my full Secular Web article.</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Legends&diff=8636Legends2006-06-23T12:43:07Z<p>FreezBee: /* '''CONCLUSION''' */</p>
<hr />
<div>JW: (This Article still needs to be Formatted)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== '''''Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth''''' '''By Richard Carrier (2006''') ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== '''INTRODUCTION''' ===<br />
<br />
It is widely acknowledged that Quirinius became "governor of Syria" in 6 C.E., only then conducting a census of Judaea, and that Herod the Great died in 4 B.C.E., ten years before. Since Matthew indisputably claims Jesus was born while Herod the Great was still alive, while Luke indisputably claims Jesus was born when Quirinius was governor of Syria during a census of Judaea, Luke and Matthew are clearly in contradiction regarding when Jesus was born. They disagree by at least ten years, which entails one of them has made a historical error (or both have).<br />
Because this contradiction is so clear and certain and strongly backed by evidence, inerrancy proponents have invented a dizzying array of attempts to remove this contradiction by reconciling the details in Matthew and Luke. I have examined and researched these efforts in thorough detail, perhaps more than anyone. I have found all of them unsuccessful, even ludicrously so. Consequently, the primary importance of this contradiction is that is one of the clearest and most irrefutable examples of historical error in the Bible, which is perhaps why it has generated so many desperate attempts to wiggle out of it. <br />
And that is the second reason this error is so important: short of the vast and diverse "Bethlehem Star" literature, there is probably no other biblical error for which so many false, groundless, or implausible arguments have been contrived to "invent" or "revise" the historical facts of the ancient Roman world. As a teacher and a scholar, I find all this disinformation and wanton invention about the period I study quite appalling. And because there are so many such contrivances, relating to technical details of the social and political history of Rome that are difficult if not impossible for the average layman to investigate, duty demands that some impassioned expert do all the necessary research and make it available to the common reader. Otherwise, all those false claims might simply be believed and eventually become common assumptions.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== AUTHOR QUALIFICATIONS ===<br />
<br />
About Richard Carrier:<br />
Richard Carrier is one of the most popular authors at the [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/ Secular Web], and author of the book [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1420802933/102-1435806-2580904?n=283155 Sense and Goodness without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism](2005), and contributing author for [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/159102286X/internetinfidels/102-1435806-2580904 The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave](2005), and he has written articles for several print publications. He has a B.A. in history and classical civilizations from UC Berkeley, and an M.A. and M.Phil. in ancient history from Columbia University, where he is currently working on his dissertation in ancient science. While acquiring his degrees Carrier formally studied ancient Greek for over seven years, including papyrology, linguistics, and paleography. To learn more about him see [http://www.columbia.edu/~rcc20/about.html About Richard Carrier].<br />
<br />
I am a published author with considerable qualifications in the study of ancient history and languages (see inset), which should give my findings some weight of authority. I thoroughly document all the arguments and evidence relating to this discrepancy in an extensive article at the Secular Web, [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html The Date of the Nativity in Luke] (2001). I will provide here only a summary of the major conclusions of that article, along with some of the most relevant evidence.<br />
Invariably people write to me proposing some "new" argument, without having bothered to read the complete article above, only to learn that their "new" argument is in fact "old" and already refuted there. I have received countless such emails to date, over several years, and have yet to hear of any fact or argument I haven't already addressed. I advise all challengers to read that original article in its entirety before proposing to challenge the fact that Luke contradicts Matthew on the year of Christ's birth.<br />
The present summary is no substitute for that, and is only provided here to conveniently summarize the current status of this biblical error for readers not intent on gainsaying what they don't like to hear.<br />
<br />
=== BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM ===<br />
<br />
The Gospel of Luke says ([[Luke 2|2:1-6]]) Jesus was born during a census, which the historian Josephus records took place after Herod the Great died, and after his successor, Archelaus, was deposed after a ten year reign (Antiquities of the Jews [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.342 17.342-55], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.1 18.1-2], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.26 18.26]). But the Gospel of Matthew says (2:1-3) Jesus was born when Herod the Great was still alive, possibly two years before he died (2:7-16), and before Archelaus even took office (2:19-22). On a plain reading of the Bible, this is a contradiction. Someone erred.<br />
<br />
Efforts to challenge this conclusion fall into three general categories: either Luke meant something other than his words actually say, or Josephus failed to mention some "other" time that Quirinius was governor and a census made of Judaea, or Josephus erred in dating relevant events. A fourth option, of arguing Matthew meant something other than what he said, is blocked by the absolute clarity with which he said it. There is no rational way to argue that Matthew was referring to the political situation anywhere near 6 C.E. Not only does Matthew's narrative make this clear, but the physical evidence from coins of the region leave little room for disputing that Herod ceased his reign in 4 B.C.E., Archelaus then succeeded him, then ceased his own reign ten years later in 5 C.E., and Roman control of Judaea began in the year 6 (the year the earliest Roman coins struck for Judaea begin).[1] These facts are also recorded by Josephus (who is generally quite reliable on matters of public chronology) and partly corroborated by another historian, Cassius Dio (e.g. Roman History [http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/55*.html#27.6 55.27.6]).<br />
<br />
Consequently, to this day no one has attempted to argue that Matthew was describing an event of 6 C.E. Instead, all efforts are directed to arguing that Luke was describing an event five to twelve years earlier than we think, either by trying to harmonize Luke with Josephus, or by attacking the accuracy or alleged omissions of Josephus. However, all such attempts have required inventing or distorting socio-political facts of the period, or twisting Greek grammar or vocabulary beyond anything that would be recognizable to an ancient reader. Allowing either tactic would permit us to prove that no text ever written in human history has ever been in error about anything. Such an irrational consequence convicts both tactics as unsound.<br />
<br />
=== ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #1 - Looking In Luke For A Different Date ===<br />
<br />
Some observe that Luke says John the Baptist was born during the reign of "Herod the King" ([[Luke 1:5|1:5]]) and appears to have Jesus born less than a year later (1:22-24, 1:31-36, 1:80, 2:1, 2:40-42), which appears to agree with Matthew. However, Matthew does not mention or date the birth of John, and despite the impression given by English translations, Luke is unclear how much time actually passed between his birth and that of Jesus. More importantly, Archelaus was also called Herod (even on his own coins) and even Josephus calls him a king (Antiquities of the Jews [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.93 18.93]). Unlike Matthew, Luke provides no detail indicating either he or his source meant anything other than Herod Archelaus when dating the birth of John. Therefore, unless we assume Luke is contradicting himself, we can't assume he dated either the birth of John or Jesus to the time of Herod the Great. So there is no case to be made from Luke 1:5 that Luke agreed with Matthew.<br />
<br />
Likewise, when Luke dates the start of John's ministry to 28 C.E. ([[Luke 3:11|3:1]]) and then over twenty verses later says Jesus began his own ministry at "about thirty" (3:23) some assume the two ministries began the same year, which would place the birth of Jesus at "about" 3 B.C.E. which for a "rough" estimate is close enough to fit Matthew. But Luke never says the two ministries began the same year, and for various reasons it's unlikely they did. Luke clearly didn't know the year Jesus started his ministry, since he didn't know how old he was, despite claiming to know exactly when he was born. Since "about" thirty can be off by at least four years (26-34), and since Luke allows some time to pass between the start of John's ministry and the baptism of Jesus, and since scholars agree Jesus could have begun and ended his ministry anytime between 28 and 33 C.E., we are left with a window between 7 B.C.E. to 7 C.E. for his birth, far too wide to pin down. So there is no good case to be made from Luke 3:1-23 that he agreed with Matthew.[2]<br />
<br />
==='''ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #2 - Inventing Another Governorship For Quirinius'''===<br />
<br />
Even fishing a different date out of Luke would leave a contradiction within Luke, since the only chronological detail about Jesus that Luke is absolutely clear on is that he was born during "the first census when Quirinius was governing Syria" (2:2). All evidence confirms that Quirinius first became governor of Syria in 6 C.E. and the first Roman census of Judaea occurred at that time, and Luke clearly says this was a Roman census (2:1-6). So Luke didn't leave much room to maneuver. To reconcile Luke with Matthew, one must invent two facts nowhere in evidence: some other Syrian governorship for Quirinius and some other census affecting Judaea, both before Herod the Great died.<br />
<br />
But trying to invent an earlier Syrian governorship for Quirinius is a lost cause. Not only is there no evidence of it, and not only does it go against a plain reading of all the evidence we do have, but it's essentially impossible. No one ever governed the same province twice in the whole of Roman history. So the claim that Quirinius was the sole known exception is so extraordinary it certainly can't be maintained without evidence. Such an astonishing and unique honor could not have been omitted by Josephus or Tacitus (Annals [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=3.48 3.48]), yet both describe his career without any mention of it. Historical evidence also confirms other men governed Syria between 12 and 3 B.C.E., so Quirinius could not have been governor then, and he was not qualified to hold that office before the year 12.[3]<br />
<br />
Stymied by all these facts, inerrantists have resorted to everything from fabricating evidence of dual governorships or other fictional offices Quirinius is supposed to have held, to changing the year of Herod's death. None of this is even remotely reasonable, and most of it is based on the fantasies of amateurs or the abandoned conjectures of long dead historians. First, the alleged physical evidence:<br />
<br />
==== The Lapis Tiburtinus ====<br />
<br />
This is a headless (and thus nameless) inscription that the Vatican has taken the liberty to "restore" with the name of Quirinius. It is then "interpreted" as saying he governed Syria twice. But the actual inscription does not say anyone governed Syria twice, nor does it belong to Quirinius. Scholars now believe it belongs to Lucius Calpurnius Piso, since it fits what we know of his career very well, while no basis exists for claiming it belongs to Quirinius. And even if it did, it doesn't say anything about governing Syria twice. It says the honoree "received the governorship of Asia and then again of Syria."[4] <br />
<br />
==== The Lapis Venetus ====<br />
<br />
This is an inscription that really does mention Quirinius. It is the epitaph of Aemilius Secundus and reports he helped Quirinius conduct a census when the latter was governing Syria. So this inscription confirms that a census was taken of Syria when Quirinius was governor. It does not give a date, either for the census or the inscription itself. But there is no reason to believe this is a reference to any other census under Quirinius except the only one we know of, that of 6 C.E. Several inerrantists have simply "invented" early dates for this inscription, and then used these fabricated dates to claim this inscription as proof there was an earlier census under Quirinius. It proves no such thing.[5]<br />
<br />
==== The Antioch Stones ====<br />
<br />
These are two stones commemorating the offices of Gaius Julius Caristanius Caesiano, both mentioning that he held the deputy management of a city duumvirate held by Quirinius. The date is unknown but probably before the year 1. Conjuring various fantasies, inerrantists finagle this city office into evidence of an earlier governorship of Syria, but no rational argument can produce that conclusion. First, a duumvirate is a city office and has nothing to do with a provincial governorship. Second, this duumvirate was held in Galatia, not Syria.[6] <br />
<br />
==== The Vardaman Coins ====<br />
<br />
Jerry Vardaman claimed to have discovered microscopic letters literally covering ancient coins and inscriptions conveying all sorts of strange new facts, which he used to completely rewrite history. One of these amazing new "discoveries" was evidence Jesus was born in 11 or 12 B.C.E. Needless to say, Vardaman's claim constitutes fringe quackery that has gained no respect in the academic community. I inspected one of these coins myself under a magnifying glass and a digital microscope at the British Museum and found none of these amazing microscopic letters. Case closed.[7] <br />
<br />
==== Sub-Commander Quirinius? ====<br />
<br />
Since none of this evidence supports an earlier governorship for Quirinius, and all other evidence makes such a thing virtually impossible, only two strategies remain for the inerrantists: either Quirinius held some other "special command" in Syria and wasn't governor per se, or Quirinius held an unrecorded "dual-governorship" with some other governor. Neither of these proposals makes any sense in the context of Roman politics or historiography.<br />
<br />
First, the "sub-command" thesis. Luke's choice of vocabulary is somewhat imprecise, using a word that can refer to many different positions of command. Seizing on this, inerrantists argue that Luke meant "when Quirinius was holding a command in Syria," and not "when Quirinius was governing Syria." But stretching the word like this requires ignoring the grammar. Luke says "of Syria," not "in Syria," and thus he could not have been referring to some command in Syria but only a command of Syria. Even if we ignore Luke's grammar, the only real "command" anyone can find for Quirinius is a war he fought in Galatia, probably between 6 and 1 B.C.E. But there is no logical way Luke would refer to a census in Syria by referencing a war in Galatia, and no one would ever write or read "governing Syria" as meaning "fighting a war in Galatia." Unless Luke was a profoundly stupid man, or erred in his historical facts, he would have named the actual governor of Syria who oversaw a census in Judaea, not some unrelated officer in a faraway province.[8] <br />
<br />
==== Co-Commander Quirinius? ====<br />
<br />
A completely different tactic, to get around the problem that all the governors of Syria between 12 and 3 B.C.E. are already known, is to claim Quirinius was holding a dual governorship with one of those other governors. Not only does this still require claiming Quirinius governed the same province twice, an oddity never before recorded in the history of Roman politics, but it also requires completely inventing the idea of a "dual governorship." Since there is no evidence in all of Roman history of any province assigned two governors at the same time, this is another extraordinary claim that requires evidence to be believed. Since there isn't any, inerrantists invent some.<br />
<br />
Josephus is cited as saying "Saturninus and Volumnius were in charge of Syria" (Antiquities of the Jews 16.280) which is said to "prove" Syria was special enough to be assigned two governors. But Volumnius was not a governor. He was a procurator (Josephus, Jewish War 1.538), an office held only by men of fundamentally inferior rank, who were not even qualified to hold the office of a provincial governor. Conversely, a Roman who had achieved senatorial, and even consular rank--like Quirinius--would never deign to accept such a humiliating office as procurator. Socially, this would be as unbelievable as a United States president taking a job as shift manager at a local McDonald's. In Roman society, this would be so remarkable and unprecedented that, again, Josephus and Tacitus would not have omitted it from their accounts of his career. The same error is made using an inscription reporting that two "deputies," Rutilius Gallicus and Sentius Caecilianus, were assigned to the province of Africa. But this inscription clearly states that one of them was a praetor, and thus not of consular rank. So again, what we have here are not two governors, but a governor and his subordinate. Neither example supports even the conjecture that Quirinius could have held a dual-governorship, much less that he ever did so--or that anyone ever did. It would also make no logical sense for Luke to name a governor's subordinate rather than the actual governor of Syria.[9]<br />
<br />
So there is no basis for that claim, either. Since Josephus records and thus confirms an actual census under Quirinius in 6 C.E. when Quirinius was, in fact, governor "of Syria," all exactly as Luke says, there is no plausible case to be made that Luke had any other event in mind. All the evidence we have corroborates this conclusion, and none supports any alternative or renders any even remotely plausible.<br />
<br />
==='''ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #3 - Inventing A New Date For Herod's Death'''===<br />
<br />
Since there is no reasonable way to get Quirinius to be governor of Syria anytime before 3 B.C.E., the natural last-ditch resort is to argue that Herod didn't really die in 4 B.C.E. Since there is no clear evidence who was governing Syria after 3 B.C.E., or where Quirinius was in those years, inerrantists fantasize that their imaginary "earlier governorship" of Quirinius fell around then and simply failed to be mentioned. This still doesn't avoid all the problems noted before--from a total lack of evidence to the extraordinary implausibility of a second governorship. It also requires rewriting history.<br />
<br />
Josephus already says Varus, not Quirinius, was governing Syria when Herod died (Jewish War [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=1.9 1.9-10]), and despite attempts to argue otherwise, Josephus is very clear and precise in his chronology for these events and cites several first-hand sources for them, while the manuscript tradition for the relevant details is completely sound, so there is no plausible case to made that he is mistaken.[10] Likewise, as mentioned earlier, evidence from coins corroborates all of this, including the reigns of Herod's successors, Philip, Antipas and Archelaus. The reign of Archelaus is further corroborated by Cassius Dio ([http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/55*.html#27.6 55.27.6]).<br />
<br />
Josephus also mentions a lunar eclipse soon before Herod's death, and astronomers note there was such an eclipse in 5 B.C.E. and 1 B.C.E. Inerrantists therefore want Herod to have died in or shortly after 1 B.C.E. However, not only is all evidence against such a notion, but the Jewish Scroll of Fasting records the calendar day of Herod's death, and it preceded that of the eclipse of 1 B.C.E, but not that of 5 B.C.E. Since Josephus says his death followed (not preceeded) an eclipse, the eclipse Josephus mentions was probably that of the year 5. In the end, there is simply no evidence Herod died later than the year 4, and no plausible case to be made that he did.<br />
<br />
==='''ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #4 - Inventing Another Census'''===<br />
<br />
There is no reasonable case to be made that Quirinius ever "governed Syria" before 6 C.E. Yet inventing such a fantasy contrary to all evidence and precedent is not even enough to eliminate the contradiction between Matthew and Luke. A census of Judaea before 6 C.E. must also be invented contrary to all evidence and precedent. This is because Luke's description establishes three facts: the census affected Judaea (2:4-5), it was conducted under the administration of Syria (2:2), and it was specifically a Roman census (2:1). These three facts rule out every attempt to argue that Luke meant some other census or event than the one recorded for 6 C.E.<br />
<br />
Before 6 C.E. Judaea was a nominally free kingdom, not a Roman province. Having sided with Augustus in the civil war that established him as emperor, Judaea was granted a favorable treaty assuring relative independence. This is proven by the coin evidence that Judaea continued to be governed by its own kings and rulers, not Roman officials, until 6 C.E., and extensively confirmed by Josephus and Cassius Dio. Though such "allied kingdoms" were kept under a tight leash and informally controlled and meddled with, all evidence regarding the legal and political practices of Roman emperors in the first century and before confirms that these states were not subject to direct Roman administration, taxation or levies. That was, in fact, the very point of not annexing them as provinces: not only to reward friendly states (and thus encourage other states to be friendly), but to avoid the headache and expense of taking over a region that was already pacified, subservient, and paying sufficient dues.<br />
<br />
Therefore, it is historically impossible that a Roman census was conducted under a Roman provincial governor when Judaea was still an allied kingdom. But it was typical and logical that immediately upon annexing a new territory a census would be taken of it. This was necessary to begin direct taxation and levies. So when Josephus describes Archelaus being removed from office, then Judaea being annexed to Syria and placed under the Roman command of Quirinius and his prefect Coponius, and then a census being conducted for the specific purpose of taking account of what Archelaus had left them, this description makes complete historical sense. In contrast, no other hypothesized "census" scenario makes any historical sense at all. <br />
<br />
As Josephus reports, and as all logic and precedent entail, Judaea was not being directly taxed by Rome nor administered by Romans before the year 6, and therefore there would be no purpose for Augustus to order a census there (Luke 2:1). Since forcing such a census on an allied kingdom in violation of its honor and its treaties would be such an astonishing and devastating insult contrary to all known precedent, there is no way it wouldn't have been noticed by historians like Josephus, nor any reason the Romans would undertake such a pointless and dangerous task. They would have nothing to gain by it, and plenty to lose, and Augustus was not so reckless as to think otherwise.[11]<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, inerrantists must have the impossible in order to save their bible from error. So these are the arguments they have attempted:<br />
<br />
==== Luke Meant "Before Quirinius"? ====<br />
<br />
The word translated "first" in Luke 2:2 can in certain contexts mean "before." But for various reasons such a meaning would not be grammatically correct in this case. Luke can only have meant, and all his readers would only have understood his sentence to mean, the first Augustan census that happened under Quirinius. And that is how all translators correctly interpret it.[12]<br />
<br />
==== Romans Subjected Allied Kingdoms to a Census? ====<br />
<br />
Since the very idea of Romans conducting a census of an allied kingdom is wholly implausible and unprecedented, inerrantists have tried to invent evidence of it. The same Lapis Venetus discussed above is cited as "evidence" that the free state of Apamea was subject to an official Roman census. However, neither that census nor the inscription itself is dated, and as noted above there is no reason to believe the inscription refers to any other census than that of 6 C.E. Regardless, since no city named "Apamea" was free after 12 B.C.E. and Quirinius was not of consular rank before that year, it is impossible that the Apamea referred to in this inscription was an independent kingdom at the time. The only other "evidence" offered is a census revolt put down by legions in Cappadocia in 36 C.E. (Tacitus, Annals [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=6.41 6.41]). Since Cappadocia was annexed as a Roman province in 17 C.E. (Annals [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=2.42 2.42], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=2.56 2.56]) this census was clearly not of an allied kingdom.[13]<br />
<br />
==== Jesus Born During Census of 8 B.C.E.? ====<br />
<br />
There is a modern myth that the Romans regularly conducted a census of their empire every 14 years. This is not true. There was little coordination between censuses of Roman citizens and censuses of provincial inhabitants, and rarely any fixed period of years between censuses, not even for citizens. Though Egypt continued to maintain a 14-year census cycle that the Romans inherited from the previous Ptolemaic government, this was not extended to or consistently coordinated with any other province. Other provinces were assessed when they could be, often at various different times from each other.[14]<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, this myth of a 14-year cycle is often used to support a claim that it would have been the census of 8 B.C.E. when Jesus was born, during the governorship of Saturninus rather than Quirinius. Why? Because some claim Tertullian said Jesus was born during the census of Saturninus (Against Marcion 4.19). But Tertullian doesn't say that. He says "censuses were conducted in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus" that confirm Jesus had brothers. Since these brothers had to have been born after Jesus, Tertullian cannot be referring to any census during which Jesus was born. There was in fact another Sentius Saturninus who was governor of Syria from 19 to 21 C.E. (the son of the former Sentius Saturninus) and it's almost certain this is whom Tertullian means.[15]<br />
<br />
So there is no support for linking Luke's census with any census of 8 B.C.E. Though we know there was a universal census conducted in that year, it was only of Roman citizens, not the provinces. It therefore could not have been the census Luke describes, which clearly affected non-citizen inhabitants of Judaea. Indeed, Judaea was not even a Roman territory in the year 8, nor was Quintilian governing Syria then.<br />
<br />
==== Herod's Census? ====<br />
<br />
Since all those arguments fail, the last resort is to claim that it wasn't really a Roman census but a census conducted by Herod the Great. The immediate problem with this is that Luke does not say any such thing. He is quite clear that he means a census ordered by Augustus, not Herod, and carried out under Quirinius, specifically in connection with Syria, not under Herod independently. Judaea was annexed to Syria under Quirinius in 6 C.E. and immediately subject to a census. Obviously that's the census Luke means. <br />
<br />
Nevertheless, the desperate plea is made that Luke "really meant" an unknown Herodian census. Apart from resting on no evidence at all, this claim is implausible for a number of reasons. Herod had no need of conducting a census, for the tribute owed him and that he owed Rome was a fixed annual sum. It didn't matter how many people were paying. Yet a census entails a vast outlay of expenses to cover administration and recordkeeping, and ties up a considerable amount of manpower. It also entails a significant inconvenience to the population, as even Luke's description makes clear. The Jews also had a tradition of cultural and moral hostility to a peacetime census. For example, 2 Samuel 24:1-17 and 1 Chronicles 21:1-17 depict the very idea of a peacetime census as sinful and Satanic, and when the Romans finally started subjecting Judaeans to a census in 6 C.E., many violently rebelled (Acts 5:37 and Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.1 18.1-8] & [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=20.102 20.102] and Jewish War [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=2.433 2.433-34] & [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=7.252 7.252-54]). For all these reasons, Herod had nothing to gain and plenty to lose by conducting his own census. To go ahead and do it anyway would have been so remarkable and unprecedented it could not have been omitted by historians like Josephus. Yet somehow no one noticed this remarkable census. And since Herod's involvement would be the most remarkable thing about it, it's inexplicable why Luke never mentions this, but only links the census to Roman decrees, Roman magistrates, and Roman provinces.[16]<br />
<br />
==== Herod's Oath? ====<br />
<br />
Stymied again, inerrantists resort to the last ditch effort of claiming Luke didn't really mean a "census" but an "oath-taking." And since according to Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=16.136 16.136], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.30 17.34-43], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.89 17.89]) Herod commanded his subjects in Judaea to swear an oath of loyalty to Rome in or around 8 B.C.E., "obviously" that's what Luke meant. This is an indefensible thesis. Luke says "census" not "oath." Nor does he describe a situation where Herod is commanding people to take oaths, but of Augustus commanding people to be assessed. Moreover, the only possible rationale for Joseph's travel (Luke 2:3-5) is a tribal census register or the possession of taxable property in Bethlehem subject to a census. In contrast, an oath could be sworn anywhere and did not require traveling, nor is there evidence mass oaths involved precise counting. And, again, Quirinius was still not governing Syria in 8 B.C.E.<br />
<br />
Some claim Luke meant an oath Augustus had made to him every five years, but this oath was only made "by the consuls and priests" of Rome, not even all citizens much less any provincials (Res Gestae 9). So this would never have involved Herod or Judaea. Some claim an annual oath was sworn by all the people subject to Rome on the anniversary of the emperor's accession, but even if that were the case, Judaea was not subject to Rome until 6 C.E., and an annual oath could not have involved constantly returning to one's ancestral city every year, or surely such an amazing inconvenience would be mentioned in the histories of the period. Others claim the event during which Jesus was born was when "the people of Rome" proclaimed Augustus "Father of the Nation" in 2 B.C.E., though that again requires reinventing the date of Herod's birth, inventing an impossible second governorship for Quirinius, and ignoring what Luke actually says. And after all that, this event was only a vote made by Roman citizens anyway. So this would never have involved Judaeans.[17]<br />
<br />
When everything above is considered, there is simply no way Luke 2:1-6 could have meant or ever been read as referring to any national oath.<br />
<br />
=== CONCLUSION ===<br />
<br />
There is no reasonable way to get Matthew and Luke to agree with each other on the year Jesus was born. Luke clearly dates his birth in 6 C.E. and Matthew clearly dates it before 4 B.C.E. (possibly as early as 8 or 6 B.C.E.). Everyone concedes Matthew 's narrative cannot be fudged to fit 6 C.E. And all attempts to force Luke to fit Matthew require groundless assertions contrary to all evidence and precedent, and always require declaring that in one way or another Luke didn't mean what he said. Not one of these proposed "solutions" rests on any evidence other than complete fabrications or distortions.<br />
<br />
Ample evidence supports the conclusion that Luke meant no other year than 6 C.E., and no clear case can be made that Luke had any other year in mind. There is no way Quirinius could have governed Syria in any earlier year, nor could he have co-ruled Syria or been holding any other office there that Luke would refer to. There is no evidence that Augustus ever did or even would order a census of a Judaean kingdom before its annexation to Syria in 6 C.E. And Luke can neither have meant nor been describing a national "oath." Neither the Lapis Tiburtinus, nor the Lapis Venetus, nor the Antioch Stones even remotely imply any other conclusion. The Vardaman coins are definitively bogus. No reasonable case can be made that Herod the Great was still alive after 4 B.C.E. It's grammatically impossible to read Luke 2:2 as saying "before Quirinius governed Syria." And there is no rationale for assuming a census of Roman citizens in 8 B.C.E. would ever have affected the lives of any Judaean, and no evidence that Herod ever did or even would order a census of his own people, nor is it at all reasonable to interpret Luke as referring to such a thing.<br />
<br />
There is no escaping the conclusion. Matthew contradicts Luke on a question of historical fact, and this entails either Matthew or Luke reports something historically false. The Bible is in error.<br />
<br />
==='''FOOTNOTES'''===<br />
<br />
[1] See Burnett's ''Roman Provincial Coinage'' (1992), including the supplemental volume with corrections.<br />
<br />
[2] For more on the basic problem and these date-fishing efforts see "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#I The Basic Problem]" in my<br />
full Secular Web article. <br />
<br />
[3] Marcus Titius from 12 to 9 B.C.E., Sentius Saturninus from 9 to 6 B.C.E., and Quintilius <br />
Varus from 6 to 3 B.C.E., each serving a typical three year term, and both historians and <br />
inscriptions confirm Quirinius did not achieve consular rank until 12 B.C.E.. Under Roman law <br />
and principle, such a rank was a political prerequisite for holding a provincial <br />
proconsulship. For previous governors: Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=16.229 16.270-81], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=16.344 16.344], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.6 17.6-7], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.24 17.24], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.57 17.57], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.89 17.89-133], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.221 17.221-23], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.250 17.250-98]; Josephus, Jewish War [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=1.577 1.577], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=1.617 1.617-39], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=2.66 2.66-80]; Strabo 16.1.28; Velleius 2.117.2; Tacitus, Histories 5.9.2. Coin evidence also <br />
exists for their terms, though without precise dates. The consulship of Quirinius is <br />
reported in surviving consular lists etched in stone (see the entry for him in Pauly, Wissowa,<br />
and Kroll, Realencyclopâdie der klassischen Altertumwissenschaft) and by Cassius Dio 54.28.2. <br />
For more on the problems of inventing a new governorship for Quirinius see "Was Quirinius <br />
Twice Governor?" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
[4] For more see "The Lapis Tiburtinus" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
[5] For more see "The Lapis Venetus" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
[6] For more see "The Antioch Stones" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
[7] For my published reports on the Vardaman debacle, see Richard Carrier, "Pseudohistory in<br />
Jerry Vardaman's Magic Coins: The Nonsense of Micrographic Letters," Skeptical Inquirer 26.2 <br />
(March-April 2002): pp. 39-41, 61; and Richard Carrier, "More on Vardaman's Microletters," <br />
Skeptical Inquirer 26.4 (July-August 2002): pp. 60-61. For summary details, see "Vardaman's <br />
Magic 'Coin'" in my full Secular Web article.<br />
[8] For more see "Was Quirinius a Special Legate in B.C. Syria?" in my full Secular Web <br />
article. <br />
[9] For more see "Was Quirinius Sharing Command with a Previous Governor?" in my full Secular <br />
Web article. <br />
[10] Several wholly implausible arguments for rewriting the chronology in Josephus have been <br />
offered by Jack Finegan in his Handbook of Biblical Chronology (1998, revised edition). <br />
Finegan's errors consist of faulty math, implausible and unsupported conjectures, and relying <br />
on incompetent manuscript analysis. These gaffes are barely worthy of attention. Nevertheless, <br />
I address them in detail under "Was Herod Alive in 2 B.C.?" in my full Secular Web article.<br />
[11] For more on the basic problems of inventing an earlier census see "Was There a Roman <br />
Census in Judaea Before Quirinius?" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
[12] For full discussion of the grammatical problem, see "Did Luke Mean 'Before' Quirinius?" <br />
in my full Secular Web article. <br />
[13] For more see "Was Apamea a Free City?" in my full Secular Web article.<br />
[14] For more on the nature of Roman census-taking see "How Often Was the Census Held?" in my <br />
full Secular Web article.<br />
[15] For this and several other attempts to argue that Luke "only" got the governor wrong <br />
see "Was 'Quirinius' a Mistake for Someone Else?" in my full Secular Web article.<br />
[16] For more detail on all these points see "Was it a Census Conducted by Herod the Great?" <br />
in my full Secular Web article.<br />
[17] For more see "Two Last Ditch Attempts" in my full Secular Web article.</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Legends&diff=8635Legends2006-06-23T12:42:24Z<p>FreezBee: /* '''ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #4 - Inventing Another Census''' */</p>
<hr />
<div>JW: (This Article still needs to be Formatted)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== '''''Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth''''' '''By Richard Carrier (2006''') ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== '''INTRODUCTION''' ===<br />
<br />
It is widely acknowledged that Quirinius became "governor of Syria" in 6 C.E., only then conducting a census of Judaea, and that Herod the Great died in 4 B.C.E., ten years before. Since Matthew indisputably claims Jesus was born while Herod the Great was still alive, while Luke indisputably claims Jesus was born when Quirinius was governor of Syria during a census of Judaea, Luke and Matthew are clearly in contradiction regarding when Jesus was born. They disagree by at least ten years, which entails one of them has made a historical error (or both have).<br />
Because this contradiction is so clear and certain and strongly backed by evidence, inerrancy proponents have invented a dizzying array of attempts to remove this contradiction by reconciling the details in Matthew and Luke. I have examined and researched these efforts in thorough detail, perhaps more than anyone. I have found all of them unsuccessful, even ludicrously so. Consequently, the primary importance of this contradiction is that is one of the clearest and most irrefutable examples of historical error in the Bible, which is perhaps why it has generated so many desperate attempts to wiggle out of it. <br />
And that is the second reason this error is so important: short of the vast and diverse "Bethlehem Star" literature, there is probably no other biblical error for which so many false, groundless, or implausible arguments have been contrived to "invent" or "revise" the historical facts of the ancient Roman world. As a teacher and a scholar, I find all this disinformation and wanton invention about the period I study quite appalling. And because there are so many such contrivances, relating to technical details of the social and political history of Rome that are difficult if not impossible for the average layman to investigate, duty demands that some impassioned expert do all the necessary research and make it available to the common reader. Otherwise, all those false claims might simply be believed and eventually become common assumptions.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== AUTHOR QUALIFICATIONS ===<br />
<br />
About Richard Carrier:<br />
Richard Carrier is one of the most popular authors at the [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/ Secular Web], and author of the book [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1420802933/102-1435806-2580904?n=283155 Sense and Goodness without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism](2005), and contributing author for [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/159102286X/internetinfidels/102-1435806-2580904 The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave](2005), and he has written articles for several print publications. He has a B.A. in history and classical civilizations from UC Berkeley, and an M.A. and M.Phil. in ancient history from Columbia University, where he is currently working on his dissertation in ancient science. While acquiring his degrees Carrier formally studied ancient Greek for over seven years, including papyrology, linguistics, and paleography. To learn more about him see [http://www.columbia.edu/~rcc20/about.html About Richard Carrier].<br />
<br />
I am a published author with considerable qualifications in the study of ancient history and languages (see inset), which should give my findings some weight of authority. I thoroughly document all the arguments and evidence relating to this discrepancy in an extensive article at the Secular Web, [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html The Date of the Nativity in Luke] (2001). I will provide here only a summary of the major conclusions of that article, along with some of the most relevant evidence.<br />
Invariably people write to me proposing some "new" argument, without having bothered to read the complete article above, only to learn that their "new" argument is in fact "old" and already refuted there. I have received countless such emails to date, over several years, and have yet to hear of any fact or argument I haven't already addressed. I advise all challengers to read that original article in its entirety before proposing to challenge the fact that Luke contradicts Matthew on the year of Christ's birth.<br />
The present summary is no substitute for that, and is only provided here to conveniently summarize the current status of this biblical error for readers not intent on gainsaying what they don't like to hear.<br />
<br />
=== BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM ===<br />
<br />
The Gospel of Luke says ([[Luke 2|2:1-6]]) Jesus was born during a census, which the historian Josephus records took place after Herod the Great died, and after his successor, Archelaus, was deposed after a ten year reign (Antiquities of the Jews [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.342 17.342-55], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.1 18.1-2], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.26 18.26]). But the Gospel of Matthew says (2:1-3) Jesus was born when Herod the Great was still alive, possibly two years before he died (2:7-16), and before Archelaus even took office (2:19-22). On a plain reading of the Bible, this is a contradiction. Someone erred.<br />
<br />
Efforts to challenge this conclusion fall into three general categories: either Luke meant something other than his words actually say, or Josephus failed to mention some "other" time that Quirinius was governor and a census made of Judaea, or Josephus erred in dating relevant events. A fourth option, of arguing Matthew meant something other than what he said, is blocked by the absolute clarity with which he said it. There is no rational way to argue that Matthew was referring to the political situation anywhere near 6 C.E. Not only does Matthew's narrative make this clear, but the physical evidence from coins of the region leave little room for disputing that Herod ceased his reign in 4 B.C.E., Archelaus then succeeded him, then ceased his own reign ten years later in 5 C.E., and Roman control of Judaea began in the year 6 (the year the earliest Roman coins struck for Judaea begin).[1] These facts are also recorded by Josephus (who is generally quite reliable on matters of public chronology) and partly corroborated by another historian, Cassius Dio (e.g. Roman History [http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/55*.html#27.6 55.27.6]).<br />
<br />
Consequently, to this day no one has attempted to argue that Matthew was describing an event of 6 C.E. Instead, all efforts are directed to arguing that Luke was describing an event five to twelve years earlier than we think, either by trying to harmonize Luke with Josephus, or by attacking the accuracy or alleged omissions of Josephus. However, all such attempts have required inventing or distorting socio-political facts of the period, or twisting Greek grammar or vocabulary beyond anything that would be recognizable to an ancient reader. Allowing either tactic would permit us to prove that no text ever written in human history has ever been in error about anything. Such an irrational consequence convicts both tactics as unsound.<br />
<br />
=== ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #1 - Looking In Luke For A Different Date ===<br />
<br />
Some observe that Luke says John the Baptist was born during the reign of "Herod the King" ([[Luke 1:5|1:5]]) and appears to have Jesus born less than a year later (1:22-24, 1:31-36, 1:80, 2:1, 2:40-42), which appears to agree with Matthew. However, Matthew does not mention or date the birth of John, and despite the impression given by English translations, Luke is unclear how much time actually passed between his birth and that of Jesus. More importantly, Archelaus was also called Herod (even on his own coins) and even Josephus calls him a king (Antiquities of the Jews [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.93 18.93]). Unlike Matthew, Luke provides no detail indicating either he or his source meant anything other than Herod Archelaus when dating the birth of John. Therefore, unless we assume Luke is contradicting himself, we can't assume he dated either the birth of John or Jesus to the time of Herod the Great. So there is no case to be made from Luke 1:5 that Luke agreed with Matthew.<br />
<br />
Likewise, when Luke dates the start of John's ministry to 28 C.E. ([[Luke 3:11|3:1]]) and then over twenty verses later says Jesus began his own ministry at "about thirty" (3:23) some assume the two ministries began the same year, which would place the birth of Jesus at "about" 3 B.C.E. which for a "rough" estimate is close enough to fit Matthew. But Luke never says the two ministries began the same year, and for various reasons it's unlikely they did. Luke clearly didn't know the year Jesus started his ministry, since he didn't know how old he was, despite claiming to know exactly when he was born. Since "about" thirty can be off by at least four years (26-34), and since Luke allows some time to pass between the start of John's ministry and the baptism of Jesus, and since scholars agree Jesus could have begun and ended his ministry anytime between 28 and 33 C.E., we are left with a window between 7 B.C.E. to 7 C.E. for his birth, far too wide to pin down. So there is no good case to be made from Luke 3:1-23 that he agreed with Matthew.[2]<br />
<br />
==='''ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #2 - Inventing Another Governorship For Quirinius'''===<br />
<br />
Even fishing a different date out of Luke would leave a contradiction within Luke, since the only chronological detail about Jesus that Luke is absolutely clear on is that he was born during "the first census when Quirinius was governing Syria" (2:2). All evidence confirms that Quirinius first became governor of Syria in 6 C.E. and the first Roman census of Judaea occurred at that time, and Luke clearly says this was a Roman census (2:1-6). So Luke didn't leave much room to maneuver. To reconcile Luke with Matthew, one must invent two facts nowhere in evidence: some other Syrian governorship for Quirinius and some other census affecting Judaea, both before Herod the Great died.<br />
<br />
But trying to invent an earlier Syrian governorship for Quirinius is a lost cause. Not only is there no evidence of it, and not only does it go against a plain reading of all the evidence we do have, but it's essentially impossible. No one ever governed the same province twice in the whole of Roman history. So the claim that Quirinius was the sole known exception is so extraordinary it certainly can't be maintained without evidence. Such an astonishing and unique honor could not have been omitted by Josephus or Tacitus (Annals [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=3.48 3.48]), yet both describe his career without any mention of it. Historical evidence also confirms other men governed Syria between 12 and 3 B.C.E., so Quirinius could not have been governor then, and he was not qualified to hold that office before the year 12.[3]<br />
<br />
Stymied by all these facts, inerrantists have resorted to everything from fabricating evidence of dual governorships or other fictional offices Quirinius is supposed to have held, to changing the year of Herod's death. None of this is even remotely reasonable, and most of it is based on the fantasies of amateurs or the abandoned conjectures of long dead historians. First, the alleged physical evidence:<br />
<br />
==== The Lapis Tiburtinus ====<br />
<br />
This is a headless (and thus nameless) inscription that the Vatican has taken the liberty to "restore" with the name of Quirinius. It is then "interpreted" as saying he governed Syria twice. But the actual inscription does not say anyone governed Syria twice, nor does it belong to Quirinius. Scholars now believe it belongs to Lucius Calpurnius Piso, since it fits what we know of his career very well, while no basis exists for claiming it belongs to Quirinius. And even if it did, it doesn't say anything about governing Syria twice. It says the honoree "received the governorship of Asia and then again of Syria."[4] <br />
<br />
==== The Lapis Venetus ====<br />
<br />
This is an inscription that really does mention Quirinius. It is the epitaph of Aemilius Secundus and reports he helped Quirinius conduct a census when the latter was governing Syria. So this inscription confirms that a census was taken of Syria when Quirinius was governor. It does not give a date, either for the census or the inscription itself. But there is no reason to believe this is a reference to any other census under Quirinius except the only one we know of, that of 6 C.E. Several inerrantists have simply "invented" early dates for this inscription, and then used these fabricated dates to claim this inscription as proof there was an earlier census under Quirinius. It proves no such thing.[5]<br />
<br />
==== The Antioch Stones ====<br />
<br />
These are two stones commemorating the offices of Gaius Julius Caristanius Caesiano, both mentioning that he held the deputy management of a city duumvirate held by Quirinius. The date is unknown but probably before the year 1. Conjuring various fantasies, inerrantists finagle this city office into evidence of an earlier governorship of Syria, but no rational argument can produce that conclusion. First, a duumvirate is a city office and has nothing to do with a provincial governorship. Second, this duumvirate was held in Galatia, not Syria.[6] <br />
<br />
==== The Vardaman Coins ====<br />
<br />
Jerry Vardaman claimed to have discovered microscopic letters literally covering ancient coins and inscriptions conveying all sorts of strange new facts, which he used to completely rewrite history. One of these amazing new "discoveries" was evidence Jesus was born in 11 or 12 B.C.E. Needless to say, Vardaman's claim constitutes fringe quackery that has gained no respect in the academic community. I inspected one of these coins myself under a magnifying glass and a digital microscope at the British Museum and found none of these amazing microscopic letters. Case closed.[7] <br />
<br />
==== Sub-Commander Quirinius? ====<br />
<br />
Since none of this evidence supports an earlier governorship for Quirinius, and all other evidence makes such a thing virtually impossible, only two strategies remain for the inerrantists: either Quirinius held some other "special command" in Syria and wasn't governor per se, or Quirinius held an unrecorded "dual-governorship" with some other governor. Neither of these proposals makes any sense in the context of Roman politics or historiography.<br />
<br />
First, the "sub-command" thesis. Luke's choice of vocabulary is somewhat imprecise, using a word that can refer to many different positions of command. Seizing on this, inerrantists argue that Luke meant "when Quirinius was holding a command in Syria," and not "when Quirinius was governing Syria." But stretching the word like this requires ignoring the grammar. Luke says "of Syria," not "in Syria," and thus he could not have been referring to some command in Syria but only a command of Syria. Even if we ignore Luke's grammar, the only real "command" anyone can find for Quirinius is a war he fought in Galatia, probably between 6 and 1 B.C.E. But there is no logical way Luke would refer to a census in Syria by referencing a war in Galatia, and no one would ever write or read "governing Syria" as meaning "fighting a war in Galatia." Unless Luke was a profoundly stupid man, or erred in his historical facts, he would have named the actual governor of Syria who oversaw a census in Judaea, not some unrelated officer in a faraway province.[8] <br />
<br />
==== Co-Commander Quirinius? ====<br />
<br />
A completely different tactic, to get around the problem that all the governors of Syria between 12 and 3 B.C.E. are already known, is to claim Quirinius was holding a dual governorship with one of those other governors. Not only does this still require claiming Quirinius governed the same province twice, an oddity never before recorded in the history of Roman politics, but it also requires completely inventing the idea of a "dual governorship." Since there is no evidence in all of Roman history of any province assigned two governors at the same time, this is another extraordinary claim that requires evidence to be believed. Since there isn't any, inerrantists invent some.<br />
<br />
Josephus is cited as saying "Saturninus and Volumnius were in charge of Syria" (Antiquities of the Jews 16.280) which is said to "prove" Syria was special enough to be assigned two governors. But Volumnius was not a governor. He was a procurator (Josephus, Jewish War 1.538), an office held only by men of fundamentally inferior rank, who were not even qualified to hold the office of a provincial governor. Conversely, a Roman who had achieved senatorial, and even consular rank--like Quirinius--would never deign to accept such a humiliating office as procurator. Socially, this would be as unbelievable as a United States president taking a job as shift manager at a local McDonald's. In Roman society, this would be so remarkable and unprecedented that, again, Josephus and Tacitus would not have omitted it from their accounts of his career. The same error is made using an inscription reporting that two "deputies," Rutilius Gallicus and Sentius Caecilianus, were assigned to the province of Africa. But this inscription clearly states that one of them was a praetor, and thus not of consular rank. So again, what we have here are not two governors, but a governor and his subordinate. Neither example supports even the conjecture that Quirinius could have held a dual-governorship, much less that he ever did so--or that anyone ever did. It would also make no logical sense for Luke to name a governor's subordinate rather than the actual governor of Syria.[9]<br />
<br />
So there is no basis for that claim, either. Since Josephus records and thus confirms an actual census under Quirinius in 6 C.E. when Quirinius was, in fact, governor "of Syria," all exactly as Luke says, there is no plausible case to be made that Luke had any other event in mind. All the evidence we have corroborates this conclusion, and none supports any alternative or renders any even remotely plausible.<br />
<br />
==='''ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #3 - Inventing A New Date For Herod's Death'''===<br />
<br />
Since there is no reasonable way to get Quirinius to be governor of Syria anytime before 3 B.C.E., the natural last-ditch resort is to argue that Herod didn't really die in 4 B.C.E. Since there is no clear evidence who was governing Syria after 3 B.C.E., or where Quirinius was in those years, inerrantists fantasize that their imaginary "earlier governorship" of Quirinius fell around then and simply failed to be mentioned. This still doesn't avoid all the problems noted before--from a total lack of evidence to the extraordinary implausibility of a second governorship. It also requires rewriting history.<br />
<br />
Josephus already says Varus, not Quirinius, was governing Syria when Herod died (Jewish War [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=1.9 1.9-10]), and despite attempts to argue otherwise, Josephus is very clear and precise in his chronology for these events and cites several first-hand sources for them, while the manuscript tradition for the relevant details is completely sound, so there is no plausible case to made that he is mistaken.[10] Likewise, as mentioned earlier, evidence from coins corroborates all of this, including the reigns of Herod's successors, Philip, Antipas and Archelaus. The reign of Archelaus is further corroborated by Cassius Dio ([http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/55*.html#27.6 55.27.6]).<br />
<br />
Josephus also mentions a lunar eclipse soon before Herod's death, and astronomers note there was such an eclipse in 5 B.C.E. and 1 B.C.E. Inerrantists therefore want Herod to have died in or shortly after 1 B.C.E. However, not only is all evidence against such a notion, but the Jewish Scroll of Fasting records the calendar day of Herod's death, and it preceded that of the eclipse of 1 B.C.E, but not that of 5 B.C.E. Since Josephus says his death followed (not preceeded) an eclipse, the eclipse Josephus mentions was probably that of the year 5. In the end, there is simply no evidence Herod died later than the year 4, and no plausible case to be made that he did.<br />
<br />
==='''ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #4 - Inventing Another Census'''===<br />
<br />
There is no reasonable case to be made that Quirinius ever "governed Syria" before 6 C.E. Yet inventing such a fantasy contrary to all evidence and precedent is not even enough to eliminate the contradiction between Matthew and Luke. A census of Judaea before 6 C.E. must also be invented contrary to all evidence and precedent. This is because Luke's description establishes three facts: the census affected Judaea (2:4-5), it was conducted under the administration of Syria (2:2), and it was specifically a Roman census (2:1). These three facts rule out every attempt to argue that Luke meant some other census or event than the one recorded for 6 C.E.<br />
<br />
Before 6 C.E. Judaea was a nominally free kingdom, not a Roman province. Having sided with Augustus in the civil war that established him as emperor, Judaea was granted a favorable treaty assuring relative independence. This is proven by the coin evidence that Judaea continued to be governed by its own kings and rulers, not Roman officials, until 6 C.E., and extensively confirmed by Josephus and Cassius Dio. Though such "allied kingdoms" were kept under a tight leash and informally controlled and meddled with, all evidence regarding the legal and political practices of Roman emperors in the first century and before confirms that these states were not subject to direct Roman administration, taxation or levies. That was, in fact, the very point of not annexing them as provinces: not only to reward friendly states (and thus encourage other states to be friendly), but to avoid the headache and expense of taking over a region that was already pacified, subservient, and paying sufficient dues.<br />
<br />
Therefore, it is historically impossible that a Roman census was conducted under a Roman provincial governor when Judaea was still an allied kingdom. But it was typical and logical that immediately upon annexing a new territory a census would be taken of it. This was necessary to begin direct taxation and levies. So when Josephus describes Archelaus being removed from office, then Judaea being annexed to Syria and placed under the Roman command of Quirinius and his prefect Coponius, and then a census being conducted for the specific purpose of taking account of what Archelaus had left them, this description makes complete historical sense. In contrast, no other hypothesized "census" scenario makes any historical sense at all. <br />
<br />
As Josephus reports, and as all logic and precedent entail, Judaea was not being directly taxed by Rome nor administered by Romans before the year 6, and therefore there would be no purpose for Augustus to order a census there (Luke 2:1). Since forcing such a census on an allied kingdom in violation of its honor and its treaties would be such an astonishing and devastating insult contrary to all known precedent, there is no way it wouldn't have been noticed by historians like Josephus, nor any reason the Romans would undertake such a pointless and dangerous task. They would have nothing to gain by it, and plenty to lose, and Augustus was not so reckless as to think otherwise.[11]<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, inerrantists must have the impossible in order to save their bible from error. So these are the arguments they have attempted:<br />
<br />
==== Luke Meant "Before Quirinius"? ====<br />
<br />
The word translated "first" in Luke 2:2 can in certain contexts mean "before." But for various reasons such a meaning would not be grammatically correct in this case. Luke can only have meant, and all his readers would only have understood his sentence to mean, the first Augustan census that happened under Quirinius. And that is how all translators correctly interpret it.[12]<br />
<br />
==== Romans Subjected Allied Kingdoms to a Census? ====<br />
<br />
Since the very idea of Romans conducting a census of an allied kingdom is wholly implausible and unprecedented, inerrantists have tried to invent evidence of it. The same Lapis Venetus discussed above is cited as "evidence" that the free state of Apamea was subject to an official Roman census. However, neither that census nor the inscription itself is dated, and as noted above there is no reason to believe the inscription refers to any other census than that of 6 C.E. Regardless, since no city named "Apamea" was free after 12 B.C.E. and Quirinius was not of consular rank before that year, it is impossible that the Apamea referred to in this inscription was an independent kingdom at the time. The only other "evidence" offered is a census revolt put down by legions in Cappadocia in 36 C.E. (Tacitus, Annals [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=6.41 6.41]). Since Cappadocia was annexed as a Roman province in 17 C.E. (Annals [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=2.42 2.42], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=2.56 2.56]) this census was clearly not of an allied kingdom.[13]<br />
<br />
==== Jesus Born During Census of 8 B.C.E.? ====<br />
<br />
There is a modern myth that the Romans regularly conducted a census of their empire every 14 years. This is not true. There was little coordination between censuses of Roman citizens and censuses of provincial inhabitants, and rarely any fixed period of years between censuses, not even for citizens. Though Egypt continued to maintain a 14-year census cycle that the Romans inherited from the previous Ptolemaic government, this was not extended to or consistently coordinated with any other province. Other provinces were assessed when they could be, often at various different times from each other.[14]<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, this myth of a 14-year cycle is often used to support a claim that it would have been the census of 8 B.C.E. when Jesus was born, during the governorship of Saturninus rather than Quirinius. Why? Because some claim Tertullian said Jesus was born during the census of Saturninus (Against Marcion 4.19). But Tertullian doesn't say that. He says "censuses were conducted in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus" that confirm Jesus had brothers. Since these brothers had to have been born after Jesus, Tertullian cannot be referring to any census during which Jesus was born. There was in fact another Sentius Saturninus who was governor of Syria from 19 to 21 C.E. (the son of the former Sentius Saturninus) and it's almost certain this is whom Tertullian means.[15]<br />
<br />
So there is no support for linking Luke's census with any census of 8 B.C.E. Though we know there was a universal census conducted in that year, it was only of Roman citizens, not the provinces. It therefore could not have been the census Luke describes, which clearly affected non-citizen inhabitants of Judaea. Indeed, Judaea was not even a Roman territory in the year 8, nor was Quintilian governing Syria then.<br />
<br />
==== Herod's Census? ====<br />
<br />
Since all those arguments fail, the last resort is to claim that it wasn't really a Roman census but a census conducted by Herod the Great. The immediate problem with this is that Luke does not say any such thing. He is quite clear that he means a census ordered by Augustus, not Herod, and carried out under Quirinius, specifically in connection with Syria, not under Herod independently. Judaea was annexed to Syria under Quirinius in 6 C.E. and immediately subject to a census. Obviously that's the census Luke means. <br />
<br />
Nevertheless, the desperate plea is made that Luke "really meant" an unknown Herodian census. Apart from resting on no evidence at all, this claim is implausible for a number of reasons. Herod had no need of conducting a census, for the tribute owed him and that he owed Rome was a fixed annual sum. It didn't matter how many people were paying. Yet a census entails a vast outlay of expenses to cover administration and recordkeeping, and ties up a considerable amount of manpower. It also entails a significant inconvenience to the population, as even Luke's description makes clear. The Jews also had a tradition of cultural and moral hostility to a peacetime census. For example, 2 Samuel 24:1-17 and 1 Chronicles 21:1-17 depict the very idea of a peacetime census as sinful and Satanic, and when the Romans finally started subjecting Judaeans to a census in 6 C.E., many violently rebelled (Acts 5:37 and Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.1 18.1-8] & [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=20.102 20.102] and Jewish War [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=2.433 2.433-34] & [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=7.252 7.252-54]). For all these reasons, Herod had nothing to gain and plenty to lose by conducting his own census. To go ahead and do it anyway would have been so remarkable and unprecedented it could not have been omitted by historians like Josephus. Yet somehow no one noticed this remarkable census. And since Herod's involvement would be the most remarkable thing about it, it's inexplicable why Luke never mentions this, but only links the census to Roman decrees, Roman magistrates, and Roman provinces.[16]<br />
<br />
==== Herod's Oath? ====<br />
<br />
Stymied again, inerrantists resort to the last ditch effort of claiming Luke didn't really mean a "census" but an "oath-taking." And since according to Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=16.136 16.136], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.30 17.34-43], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.89 17.89]) Herod commanded his subjects in Judaea to swear an oath of loyalty to Rome in or around 8 B.C.E., "obviously" that's what Luke meant. This is an indefensible thesis. Luke says "census" not "oath." Nor does he describe a situation where Herod is commanding people to take oaths, but of Augustus commanding people to be assessed. Moreover, the only possible rationale for Joseph's travel (Luke 2:3-5) is a tribal census register or the possession of taxable property in Bethlehem subject to a census. In contrast, an oath could be sworn anywhere and did not require traveling, nor is there evidence mass oaths involved precise counting. And, again, Quirinius was still not governing Syria in 8 B.C.E.<br />
<br />
Some claim Luke meant an oath Augustus had made to him every five years, but this oath was only made "by the consuls and priests" of Rome, not even all citizens much less any provincials (Res Gestae 9). So this would never have involved Herod or Judaea. Some claim an annual oath was sworn by all the people subject to Rome on the anniversary of the emperor's accession, but even if that were the case, Judaea was not subject to Rome until 6 C.E., and an annual oath could not have involved constantly returning to one's ancestral city every year, or surely such an amazing inconvenience would be mentioned in the histories of the period. Others claim the event during which Jesus was born was when "the people of Rome" proclaimed Augustus "Father of the Nation" in 2 B.C.E., though that again requires reinventing the date of Herod's birth, inventing an impossible second governorship for Quirinius, and ignoring what Luke actually says. And after all that, this event was only a vote made by Roman citizens anyway. So this would never have involved Judaeans.[17]<br />
<br />
When everything above is considered, there is simply no way Luke 2:1-6 could have meant or ever been read as referring to any national oath.<br />
<br />
==='''CONCLUSION'''===<br />
<br />
'''1.6 Conclusion'''<br />
<br />
There is no reasonable way to get Matthew and Luke to agree with each other on the year Jesus was born. Luke clearly dates his birth in 6 C.E. and Matthew clearly dates it before 4 B.C.E. (possibly as early as 8 or 6 B.C.E.). Everyone concedes Matthew 's narrative cannot be fudged to fit 6 C.E. And all attempts to force Luke to fit Matthew require groundless assertions contrary to all evidence and precedent, and always require declaring that in one way or another Luke didn't mean what he said. Not one of these proposed "solutions" rests on any evidence other than complete fabrications or distortions.<br />
<br />
Ample evidence supports the conclusion that Luke meant no other year than 6 C.E., and no clear case can be made that Luke had any other year in mind. There is no way Quirinius could have governed Syria in any earlier year, nor could he have co-ruled Syria or been holding any other office there that Luke would refer to. There is no evidence that Augustus ever did or even would order a census of a Judaean kingdom before its annexation to Syria in 6 C.E. And Luke can neither have meant nor been describing a national "oath." Neither the Lapis Tiburtinus, nor the Lapis Venetus, nor the Antioch Stones even remotely imply any other conclusion. The Vardaman coins are definitively bogus. No reasonable case can be made that Herod the Great was still alive after 4 B.C.E. It's grammatically impossible to read Luke 2:2 as saying "before Quirinius governed Syria." And there is no rationale for assuming a census of Roman citizens in 8 B.C.E. would ever have affected the lives of any Judaean, and no evidence that Herod ever did or even would order a census of his own people, nor is it at all reasonable to interpret Luke as referring to such a thing.<br />
<br />
There is no escaping the conclusion. Matthew contradicts Luke on a question of historical fact, and this entails either Matthew or Luke reports something historically false. The Bible is in error.<br />
<br />
==='''FOOTNOTES'''===<br />
<br />
[1] See Burnett's ''Roman Provincial Coinage'' (1992), including the supplemental volume with corrections.<br />
<br />
[2] For more on the basic problem and these date-fishing efforts see "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#I The Basic Problem]" in my<br />
full Secular Web article. <br />
<br />
[3] Marcus Titius from 12 to 9 B.C.E., Sentius Saturninus from 9 to 6 B.C.E., and Quintilius <br />
Varus from 6 to 3 B.C.E., each serving a typical three year term, and both historians and <br />
inscriptions confirm Quirinius did not achieve consular rank until 12 B.C.E.. Under Roman law <br />
and principle, such a rank was a political prerequisite for holding a provincial <br />
proconsulship. For previous governors: Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=16.229 16.270-81], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=16.344 16.344], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.6 17.6-7], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.24 17.24], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.57 17.57], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.89 17.89-133], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.221 17.221-23], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.250 17.250-98]; Josephus, Jewish War [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=1.577 1.577], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=1.617 1.617-39], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=2.66 2.66-80]; Strabo 16.1.28; Velleius 2.117.2; Tacitus, Histories 5.9.2. Coin evidence also <br />
exists for their terms, though without precise dates. The consulship of Quirinius is <br />
reported in surviving consular lists etched in stone (see the entry for him in Pauly, Wissowa,<br />
and Kroll, Realencyclopâdie der klassischen Altertumwissenschaft) and by Cassius Dio 54.28.2. <br />
For more on the problems of inventing a new governorship for Quirinius see "Was Quirinius <br />
Twice Governor?" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
[4] For more see "The Lapis Tiburtinus" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
[5] For more see "The Lapis Venetus" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
[6] For more see "The Antioch Stones" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
[7] For my published reports on the Vardaman debacle, see Richard Carrier, "Pseudohistory in<br />
Jerry Vardaman's Magic Coins: The Nonsense of Micrographic Letters," Skeptical Inquirer 26.2 <br />
(March-April 2002): pp. 39-41, 61; and Richard Carrier, "More on Vardaman's Microletters," <br />
Skeptical Inquirer 26.4 (July-August 2002): pp. 60-61. For summary details, see "Vardaman's <br />
Magic 'Coin'" in my full Secular Web article.<br />
[8] For more see "Was Quirinius a Special Legate in B.C. Syria?" in my full Secular Web <br />
article. <br />
[9] For more see "Was Quirinius Sharing Command with a Previous Governor?" in my full Secular <br />
Web article. <br />
[10] Several wholly implausible arguments for rewriting the chronology in Josephus have been <br />
offered by Jack Finegan in his Handbook of Biblical Chronology (1998, revised edition). <br />
Finegan's errors consist of faulty math, implausible and unsupported conjectures, and relying <br />
on incompetent manuscript analysis. These gaffes are barely worthy of attention. Nevertheless, <br />
I address them in detail under "Was Herod Alive in 2 B.C.?" in my full Secular Web article.<br />
[11] For more on the basic problems of inventing an earlier census see "Was There a Roman <br />
Census in Judaea Before Quirinius?" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
[12] For full discussion of the grammatical problem, see "Did Luke Mean 'Before' Quirinius?" <br />
in my full Secular Web article. <br />
[13] For more see "Was Apamea a Free City?" in my full Secular Web article.<br />
[14] For more on the nature of Roman census-taking see "How Often Was the Census Held?" in my <br />
full Secular Web article.<br />
[15] For this and several other attempts to argue that Luke "only" got the governor wrong <br />
see "Was 'Quirinius' a Mistake for Someone Else?" in my full Secular Web article.<br />
[16] For more detail on all these points see "Was it a Census Conducted by Herod the Great?" <br />
in my full Secular Web article.<br />
[17] For more see "Two Last Ditch Attempts" in my full Secular Web article.</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Legends&diff=8634Legends2006-06-23T12:40:27Z<p>FreezBee: /* '''ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #3 - Inventing A New Date For Herod's Death''' */</p>
<hr />
<div>JW: (This Article still needs to be Formatted)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== '''''Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth''''' '''By Richard Carrier (2006''') ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== '''INTRODUCTION''' ===<br />
<br />
It is widely acknowledged that Quirinius became "governor of Syria" in 6 C.E., only then conducting a census of Judaea, and that Herod the Great died in 4 B.C.E., ten years before. Since Matthew indisputably claims Jesus was born while Herod the Great was still alive, while Luke indisputably claims Jesus was born when Quirinius was governor of Syria during a census of Judaea, Luke and Matthew are clearly in contradiction regarding when Jesus was born. They disagree by at least ten years, which entails one of them has made a historical error (or both have).<br />
Because this contradiction is so clear and certain and strongly backed by evidence, inerrancy proponents have invented a dizzying array of attempts to remove this contradiction by reconciling the details in Matthew and Luke. I have examined and researched these efforts in thorough detail, perhaps more than anyone. I have found all of them unsuccessful, even ludicrously so. Consequently, the primary importance of this contradiction is that is one of the clearest and most irrefutable examples of historical error in the Bible, which is perhaps why it has generated so many desperate attempts to wiggle out of it. <br />
And that is the second reason this error is so important: short of the vast and diverse "Bethlehem Star" literature, there is probably no other biblical error for which so many false, groundless, or implausible arguments have been contrived to "invent" or "revise" the historical facts of the ancient Roman world. As a teacher and a scholar, I find all this disinformation and wanton invention about the period I study quite appalling. And because there are so many such contrivances, relating to technical details of the social and political history of Rome that are difficult if not impossible for the average layman to investigate, duty demands that some impassioned expert do all the necessary research and make it available to the common reader. Otherwise, all those false claims might simply be believed and eventually become common assumptions.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== AUTHOR QUALIFICATIONS ===<br />
<br />
About Richard Carrier:<br />
Richard Carrier is one of the most popular authors at the [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/ Secular Web], and author of the book [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1420802933/102-1435806-2580904?n=283155 Sense and Goodness without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism](2005), and contributing author for [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/159102286X/internetinfidels/102-1435806-2580904 The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave](2005), and he has written articles for several print publications. He has a B.A. in history and classical civilizations from UC Berkeley, and an M.A. and M.Phil. in ancient history from Columbia University, where he is currently working on his dissertation in ancient science. While acquiring his degrees Carrier formally studied ancient Greek for over seven years, including papyrology, linguistics, and paleography. To learn more about him see [http://www.columbia.edu/~rcc20/about.html About Richard Carrier].<br />
<br />
I am a published author with considerable qualifications in the study of ancient history and languages (see inset), which should give my findings some weight of authority. I thoroughly document all the arguments and evidence relating to this discrepancy in an extensive article at the Secular Web, [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html The Date of the Nativity in Luke] (2001). I will provide here only a summary of the major conclusions of that article, along with some of the most relevant evidence.<br />
Invariably people write to me proposing some "new" argument, without having bothered to read the complete article above, only to learn that their "new" argument is in fact "old" and already refuted there. I have received countless such emails to date, over several years, and have yet to hear of any fact or argument I haven't already addressed. I advise all challengers to read that original article in its entirety before proposing to challenge the fact that Luke contradicts Matthew on the year of Christ's birth.<br />
The present summary is no substitute for that, and is only provided here to conveniently summarize the current status of this biblical error for readers not intent on gainsaying what they don't like to hear.<br />
<br />
=== BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM ===<br />
<br />
The Gospel of Luke says ([[Luke 2|2:1-6]]) Jesus was born during a census, which the historian Josephus records took place after Herod the Great died, and after his successor, Archelaus, was deposed after a ten year reign (Antiquities of the Jews [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.342 17.342-55], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.1 18.1-2], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.26 18.26]). But the Gospel of Matthew says (2:1-3) Jesus was born when Herod the Great was still alive, possibly two years before he died (2:7-16), and before Archelaus even took office (2:19-22). On a plain reading of the Bible, this is a contradiction. Someone erred.<br />
<br />
Efforts to challenge this conclusion fall into three general categories: either Luke meant something other than his words actually say, or Josephus failed to mention some "other" time that Quirinius was governor and a census made of Judaea, or Josephus erred in dating relevant events. A fourth option, of arguing Matthew meant something other than what he said, is blocked by the absolute clarity with which he said it. There is no rational way to argue that Matthew was referring to the political situation anywhere near 6 C.E. Not only does Matthew's narrative make this clear, but the physical evidence from coins of the region leave little room for disputing that Herod ceased his reign in 4 B.C.E., Archelaus then succeeded him, then ceased his own reign ten years later in 5 C.E., and Roman control of Judaea began in the year 6 (the year the earliest Roman coins struck for Judaea begin).[1] These facts are also recorded by Josephus (who is generally quite reliable on matters of public chronology) and partly corroborated by another historian, Cassius Dio (e.g. Roman History [http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/55*.html#27.6 55.27.6]).<br />
<br />
Consequently, to this day no one has attempted to argue that Matthew was describing an event of 6 C.E. Instead, all efforts are directed to arguing that Luke was describing an event five to twelve years earlier than we think, either by trying to harmonize Luke with Josephus, or by attacking the accuracy or alleged omissions of Josephus. However, all such attempts have required inventing or distorting socio-political facts of the period, or twisting Greek grammar or vocabulary beyond anything that would be recognizable to an ancient reader. Allowing either tactic would permit us to prove that no text ever written in human history has ever been in error about anything. Such an irrational consequence convicts both tactics as unsound.<br />
<br />
=== ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #1 - Looking In Luke For A Different Date ===<br />
<br />
Some observe that Luke says John the Baptist was born during the reign of "Herod the King" ([[Luke 1:5|1:5]]) and appears to have Jesus born less than a year later (1:22-24, 1:31-36, 1:80, 2:1, 2:40-42), which appears to agree with Matthew. However, Matthew does not mention or date the birth of John, and despite the impression given by English translations, Luke is unclear how much time actually passed between his birth and that of Jesus. More importantly, Archelaus was also called Herod (even on his own coins) and even Josephus calls him a king (Antiquities of the Jews [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.93 18.93]). Unlike Matthew, Luke provides no detail indicating either he or his source meant anything other than Herod Archelaus when dating the birth of John. Therefore, unless we assume Luke is contradicting himself, we can't assume he dated either the birth of John or Jesus to the time of Herod the Great. So there is no case to be made from Luke 1:5 that Luke agreed with Matthew.<br />
<br />
Likewise, when Luke dates the start of John's ministry to 28 C.E. ([[Luke 3:11|3:1]]) and then over twenty verses later says Jesus began his own ministry at "about thirty" (3:23) some assume the two ministries began the same year, which would place the birth of Jesus at "about" 3 B.C.E. which for a "rough" estimate is close enough to fit Matthew. But Luke never says the two ministries began the same year, and for various reasons it's unlikely they did. Luke clearly didn't know the year Jesus started his ministry, since he didn't know how old he was, despite claiming to know exactly when he was born. Since "about" thirty can be off by at least four years (26-34), and since Luke allows some time to pass between the start of John's ministry and the baptism of Jesus, and since scholars agree Jesus could have begun and ended his ministry anytime between 28 and 33 C.E., we are left with a window between 7 B.C.E. to 7 C.E. for his birth, far too wide to pin down. So there is no good case to be made from Luke 3:1-23 that he agreed with Matthew.[2]<br />
<br />
==='''ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #2 - Inventing Another Governorship For Quirinius'''===<br />
<br />
Even fishing a different date out of Luke would leave a contradiction within Luke, since the only chronological detail about Jesus that Luke is absolutely clear on is that he was born during "the first census when Quirinius was governing Syria" (2:2). All evidence confirms that Quirinius first became governor of Syria in 6 C.E. and the first Roman census of Judaea occurred at that time, and Luke clearly says this was a Roman census (2:1-6). So Luke didn't leave much room to maneuver. To reconcile Luke with Matthew, one must invent two facts nowhere in evidence: some other Syrian governorship for Quirinius and some other census affecting Judaea, both before Herod the Great died.<br />
<br />
But trying to invent an earlier Syrian governorship for Quirinius is a lost cause. Not only is there no evidence of it, and not only does it go against a plain reading of all the evidence we do have, but it's essentially impossible. No one ever governed the same province twice in the whole of Roman history. So the claim that Quirinius was the sole known exception is so extraordinary it certainly can't be maintained without evidence. Such an astonishing and unique honor could not have been omitted by Josephus or Tacitus (Annals [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=3.48 3.48]), yet both describe his career without any mention of it. Historical evidence also confirms other men governed Syria between 12 and 3 B.C.E., so Quirinius could not have been governor then, and he was not qualified to hold that office before the year 12.[3]<br />
<br />
Stymied by all these facts, inerrantists have resorted to everything from fabricating evidence of dual governorships or other fictional offices Quirinius is supposed to have held, to changing the year of Herod's death. None of this is even remotely reasonable, and most of it is based on the fantasies of amateurs or the abandoned conjectures of long dead historians. First, the alleged physical evidence:<br />
<br />
==== The Lapis Tiburtinus ====<br />
<br />
This is a headless (and thus nameless) inscription that the Vatican has taken the liberty to "restore" with the name of Quirinius. It is then "interpreted" as saying he governed Syria twice. But the actual inscription does not say anyone governed Syria twice, nor does it belong to Quirinius. Scholars now believe it belongs to Lucius Calpurnius Piso, since it fits what we know of his career very well, while no basis exists for claiming it belongs to Quirinius. And even if it did, it doesn't say anything about governing Syria twice. It says the honoree "received the governorship of Asia and then again of Syria."[4] <br />
<br />
==== The Lapis Venetus ====<br />
<br />
This is an inscription that really does mention Quirinius. It is the epitaph of Aemilius Secundus and reports he helped Quirinius conduct a census when the latter was governing Syria. So this inscription confirms that a census was taken of Syria when Quirinius was governor. It does not give a date, either for the census or the inscription itself. But there is no reason to believe this is a reference to any other census under Quirinius except the only one we know of, that of 6 C.E. Several inerrantists have simply "invented" early dates for this inscription, and then used these fabricated dates to claim this inscription as proof there was an earlier census under Quirinius. It proves no such thing.[5]<br />
<br />
==== The Antioch Stones ====<br />
<br />
These are two stones commemorating the offices of Gaius Julius Caristanius Caesiano, both mentioning that he held the deputy management of a city duumvirate held by Quirinius. The date is unknown but probably before the year 1. Conjuring various fantasies, inerrantists finagle this city office into evidence of an earlier governorship of Syria, but no rational argument can produce that conclusion. First, a duumvirate is a city office and has nothing to do with a provincial governorship. Second, this duumvirate was held in Galatia, not Syria.[6] <br />
<br />
==== The Vardaman Coins ====<br />
<br />
Jerry Vardaman claimed to have discovered microscopic letters literally covering ancient coins and inscriptions conveying all sorts of strange new facts, which he used to completely rewrite history. One of these amazing new "discoveries" was evidence Jesus was born in 11 or 12 B.C.E. Needless to say, Vardaman's claim constitutes fringe quackery that has gained no respect in the academic community. I inspected one of these coins myself under a magnifying glass and a digital microscope at the British Museum and found none of these amazing microscopic letters. Case closed.[7] <br />
<br />
==== Sub-Commander Quirinius? ====<br />
<br />
Since none of this evidence supports an earlier governorship for Quirinius, and all other evidence makes such a thing virtually impossible, only two strategies remain for the inerrantists: either Quirinius held some other "special command" in Syria and wasn't governor per se, or Quirinius held an unrecorded "dual-governorship" with some other governor. Neither of these proposals makes any sense in the context of Roman politics or historiography.<br />
<br />
First, the "sub-command" thesis. Luke's choice of vocabulary is somewhat imprecise, using a word that can refer to many different positions of command. Seizing on this, inerrantists argue that Luke meant "when Quirinius was holding a command in Syria," and not "when Quirinius was governing Syria." But stretching the word like this requires ignoring the grammar. Luke says "of Syria," not "in Syria," and thus he could not have been referring to some command in Syria but only a command of Syria. Even if we ignore Luke's grammar, the only real "command" anyone can find for Quirinius is a war he fought in Galatia, probably between 6 and 1 B.C.E. But there is no logical way Luke would refer to a census in Syria by referencing a war in Galatia, and no one would ever write or read "governing Syria" as meaning "fighting a war in Galatia." Unless Luke was a profoundly stupid man, or erred in his historical facts, he would have named the actual governor of Syria who oversaw a census in Judaea, not some unrelated officer in a faraway province.[8] <br />
<br />
==== Co-Commander Quirinius? ====<br />
<br />
A completely different tactic, to get around the problem that all the governors of Syria between 12 and 3 B.C.E. are already known, is to claim Quirinius was holding a dual governorship with one of those other governors. Not only does this still require claiming Quirinius governed the same province twice, an oddity never before recorded in the history of Roman politics, but it also requires completely inventing the idea of a "dual governorship." Since there is no evidence in all of Roman history of any province assigned two governors at the same time, this is another extraordinary claim that requires evidence to be believed. Since there isn't any, inerrantists invent some.<br />
<br />
Josephus is cited as saying "Saturninus and Volumnius were in charge of Syria" (Antiquities of the Jews 16.280) which is said to "prove" Syria was special enough to be assigned two governors. But Volumnius was not a governor. He was a procurator (Josephus, Jewish War 1.538), an office held only by men of fundamentally inferior rank, who were not even qualified to hold the office of a provincial governor. Conversely, a Roman who had achieved senatorial, and even consular rank--like Quirinius--would never deign to accept such a humiliating office as procurator. Socially, this would be as unbelievable as a United States president taking a job as shift manager at a local McDonald's. In Roman society, this would be so remarkable and unprecedented that, again, Josephus and Tacitus would not have omitted it from their accounts of his career. The same error is made using an inscription reporting that two "deputies," Rutilius Gallicus and Sentius Caecilianus, were assigned to the province of Africa. But this inscription clearly states that one of them was a praetor, and thus not of consular rank. So again, what we have here are not two governors, but a governor and his subordinate. Neither example supports even the conjecture that Quirinius could have held a dual-governorship, much less that he ever did so--or that anyone ever did. It would also make no logical sense for Luke to name a governor's subordinate rather than the actual governor of Syria.[9]<br />
<br />
So there is no basis for that claim, either. Since Josephus records and thus confirms an actual census under Quirinius in 6 C.E. when Quirinius was, in fact, governor "of Syria," all exactly as Luke says, there is no plausible case to be made that Luke had any other event in mind. All the evidence we have corroborates this conclusion, and none supports any alternative or renders any even remotely plausible.<br />
<br />
==='''ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #3 - Inventing A New Date For Herod's Death'''===<br />
<br />
Since there is no reasonable way to get Quirinius to be governor of Syria anytime before 3 B.C.E., the natural last-ditch resort is to argue that Herod didn't really die in 4 B.C.E. Since there is no clear evidence who was governing Syria after 3 B.C.E., or where Quirinius was in those years, inerrantists fantasize that their imaginary "earlier governorship" of Quirinius fell around then and simply failed to be mentioned. This still doesn't avoid all the problems noted before--from a total lack of evidence to the extraordinary implausibility of a second governorship. It also requires rewriting history.<br />
<br />
Josephus already says Varus, not Quirinius, was governing Syria when Herod died (Jewish War [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=1.9 1.9-10]), and despite attempts to argue otherwise, Josephus is very clear and precise in his chronology for these events and cites several first-hand sources for them, while the manuscript tradition for the relevant details is completely sound, so there is no plausible case to made that he is mistaken.[10] Likewise, as mentioned earlier, evidence from coins corroborates all of this, including the reigns of Herod's successors, Philip, Antipas and Archelaus. The reign of Archelaus is further corroborated by Cassius Dio ([http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/55*.html#27.6 55.27.6]).<br />
<br />
Josephus also mentions a lunar eclipse soon before Herod's death, and astronomers note there was such an eclipse in 5 B.C.E. and 1 B.C.E. Inerrantists therefore want Herod to have died in or shortly after 1 B.C.E. However, not only is all evidence against such a notion, but the Jewish Scroll of Fasting records the calendar day of Herod's death, and it preceded that of the eclipse of 1 B.C.E, but not that of 5 B.C.E. Since Josephus says his death followed (not preceeded) an eclipse, the eclipse Josephus mentions was probably that of the year 5. In the end, there is simply no evidence Herod died later than the year 4, and no plausible case to be made that he did.<br />
<br />
==='''ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #4 - Inventing Another Census'''===<br />
<br />
1.5 Inventing Another Census<br />
There is no reasonable case to be made that Quirinius ever "governed Syria" before 6 C.E. Yet inventing such a fantasy contrary to all evidence and precedent is not even enough to eliminate the contradiction between Matthew and Luke. A census of Judaea before 6 C.E. must also be invented contrary to all evidence and precedent. This is because Luke's description establishes three facts: the census affected Judaea (2:4-5), it was conducted under the administration of Syria (2:2), and it was specifically a Roman census (2:1). These three facts rule out every attempt to argue that Luke meant some other census or event than the one recorded for 6 C.E.<br />
<br />
Before 6 C.E. Judaea was a nominally free kingdom, not a Roman province. Having sided with Augustus in the civil war that established him as emperor, Judaea was granted a favorable treaty assuring relative independence. This is proven by the coin evidence that Judaea continued to be governed by its own kings and rulers, not Roman officials, until 6 C.E., and extensively confirmed by Josephus and Cassius Dio. Though such "allied kingdoms" were kept under a tight leash and informally controlled and meddled with, all evidence regarding the legal and political practices of Roman emperors in the first century and before confirms that these states were not subject to direct Roman administration, taxation or levies. That was, in fact, the very point of not annexing them as provinces: not only to reward friendly states (and thus encourage other states to be friendly), but to avoid the headache and expense of taking over a region that was already pacified, subservient, and paying sufficient dues.<br />
<br />
Therefore, it is historically impossible that a Roman census was conducted under a Roman provincial governor when Judaea was still an allied kingdom. But it was typical and logical that immediately upon annexing a new territory a census would be taken of it. This was necessary to begin direct taxation and levies. So when Josephus describes Archelaus being removed from office, then Judaea being annexed to Syria and placed under the Roman command of Quirinius and his prefect Coponius, and then a census being conducted for the specific purpose of taking account of what Archelaus had left them, this description makes complete historical sense. In contrast, no other hypothesized "census" scenario makes any historical sense at all. <br />
<br />
As Josephus reports, and as all logic and precedent entail, Judaea was not being directly taxed by Rome nor administered by Romans before the year 6, and therefore there would be no purpose for Augustus to order a census there (Luke 2:1). Since forcing such a census on an allied kingdom in violation of its honor and its treaties would be such an astonishing and devastating insult contrary to all known precedent, there is no way it wouldn't have been noticed by historians like Josephus, nor any reason the Romans would undertake such a pointless and dangerous task. They would have nothing to gain by it, and plenty to lose, and Augustus was not so reckless as to think otherwise.[11]<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, inerrantists must have the impossible in order to save their bible from error. So these are the arguments they have attempted:<br />
<br />
'''1.5.1 Luke Meant "Before Quirinius"?'''<br />
<br />
The word translated "first" in Luke 2:2 can in certain contexts mean "before." But for various reasons such a meaning would not be grammatically correct in this case. Luke can only have meant, and all his readers would only have understood his sentence to mean, the first Augustan census that happened under Quirinius. And that is how all translators correctly interpret it.[12]<br />
<br />
'''1.5.2 Romans Subjected Allied Kingdoms to a Census?'''<br />
<br />
Since the very idea of Romans conducting a census of an allied kingdom is wholly implausible and unprecedented, inerrantists have tried to invent evidence of it. The same Lapis Venetus discussed above is cited as "evidence" that the free state of Apamea was subject to an official Roman census. However, neither that census nor the inscription itself is dated, and as noted above there is no reason to believe the inscription refers to any other census than that of 6 C.E. Regardless, since no city named "Apamea" was free after 12 B.C.E. and Quirinius was not of consular rank before that year, it is impossible that the Apamea referred to in this inscription was an independent kingdom at the time. The only other "evidence" offered is a census revolt put down by legions in Cappadocia in 36 C.E. (Tacitus, Annals [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=6.41 6.41]). Since Cappadocia was annexed as a Roman province in 17 C.E. (Annals [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=2.42 2.42], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=2.56 2.56]) this census was clearly not of an allied kingdom.[13]<br />
<br />
'''1.5.3 Jesus Born During Census of 8 B.C.E.?'''<br />
<br />
There is a modern myth that the Romans regularly conducted a census of their empire every 14 years. This is not true. There was little coordination between censuses of Roman citizens and censuses of provincial inhabitants, and rarely any fixed period of years between censuses, not even for citizens. Though Egypt continued to maintain a 14-year census cycle that the Romans inherited from the previous Ptolemaic government, this was not extended to or consistently coordinated with any other province. Other provinces were assessed when they could be, often at various different times from each other.[14]<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, this myth of a 14-year cycle is often used to support a claim that it would have been the census of 8 B.C.E. when Jesus was born, during the governorship of Saturninus rather than Quirinius. Why? Because some claim Tertullian said Jesus was born during the census of Saturninus (Against Marcion 4.19). But Tertullian doesn't say that. He says "censuses were conducted in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus" that confirm Jesus had brothers. Since these brothers had to have been born after Jesus, Tertullian cannot be referring to any census during which Jesus was born. There was in fact another Sentius Saturninus who was governor of Syria from 19 to 21 C.E. (the son of the former Sentius Saturninus) and it's almost certain this is whom Tertullian means.[15]<br />
<br />
So there is no support for linking Luke's census with any census of 8 B.C.E. Though we know there was a universal census conducted in that year, it was only of Roman citizens, not the provinces. It therefore could not have been the census Luke describes, which clearly affected non-citizen inhabitants of Judaea. Indeed, Judaea was not even a Roman territory in the year 8, nor was Quintilian governing Syria then.<br />
<br />
'''1.5.4 Herod's Census?'''<br />
<br />
Since all those arguments fail, the last resort is to claim that it wasn't really a Roman census but a census conducted by Herod the Great. The immediate problem with this is that Luke does not say any such thing. He is quite clear that he means a census ordered by Augustus, not Herod, and carried out under Quirinius, specifically in connection with Syria, not under Herod independently. Judaea was annexed to Syria under Quirinius in 6 C.E. and immediately subject to a census. Obviously that's the census Luke means. <br />
<br />
Nevertheless, the desperate plea is made that Luke "really meant" an unknown Herodian census. Apart from resting on no evidence at all, this claim is implausible for a number of reasons. Herod had no need of conducting a census, for the tribute owed him and that he owed Rome was a fixed annual sum. It didn't matter how many people were paying. Yet a census entails a vast outlay of expenses to cover administration and recordkeeping, and ties up a considerable amount of manpower. It also entails a significant inconvenience to the population, as even Luke's description makes clear. The Jews also had a tradition of cultural and moral hostility to a peacetime census. For example, 2 Samuel 24:1-17 and 1 Chronicles 21:1-17 depict the very idea of a peacetime census as sinful and Satanic, and when the Romans finally started subjecting Judaeans to a census in 6 C.E., many violently rebelled (Acts 5:37 and Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.1 18.1-8] & [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=20.102 20.102] and Jewish War [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=2.433 2.433-34] & [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=7.252 7.252-54]). For all these reasons, Herod had nothing to gain and plenty to lose by conducting his own census. To go ahead and do it anyway would have been so remarkable and unprecedented it could not have been omitted by historians like Josephus. Yet somehow no one noticed this remarkable census. And since Herod's involvement would be the most remarkable thing about it, it's inexplicable why Luke never mentions this, but only links the census to Roman decrees, Roman magistrates, and Roman provinces.[16]<br />
<br />
'''1.5.5 Herod's Oath?'''<br />
<br />
Stymied again, inerrantists resort to the last ditch effort of claiming Luke didn't really mean a "census" but an "oath-taking." And since according to Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=16.136 16.136], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.30 17.34-43], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.89 17.89]) Herod commanded his subjects in Judaea to swear an oath of loyalty to Rome in or around 8 B.C.E., "obviously" that's what Luke meant. This is an indefensible thesis. Luke says "census" not "oath." Nor does he describe a situation where Herod is commanding people to take oaths, but of Augustus commanding people to be assessed. Moreover, the only possible rationale for Joseph's travel (Luke 2:3-5) is a tribal census register or the possession of taxable property in Bethlehem subject to a census. In contrast, an oath could be sworn anywhere and did not require traveling, nor is there evidence mass oaths involved precise counting. And, again, Quirinius was still not governing Syria in 8 B.C.E.<br />
<br />
Some claim Luke meant an oath Augustus had made to him every five years, but this oath was only made "by the consuls and priests" of Rome, not even all citizens much less any provincials (Res Gestae 9). So this would never have involved Herod or Judaea. Some claim an annual oath was sworn by all the people subject to Rome on the anniversary of the emperor's accession, but even if that were the case, Judaea was not subject to Rome until 6 C.E., and an annual oath could not have involved constantly returning to one's ancestral city every year, or surely such an amazing inconvenience would be mentioned in the histories of the period. Others claim the event during which Jesus was born was when "the people of Rome" proclaimed Augustus "Father of the Nation" in 2 B.C.E., though that again requires reinventing the date of Herod's birth, inventing an impossible second governorship for Quirinius, and ignoring what Luke actually says. And after all that, this event was only a vote made by Roman citizens anyway. So this would never have involved Judaeans.[17]<br />
<br />
When everything above is considered, there is simply no way Luke 2:1-6 could have meant or ever been read as referring to any national oath.<br />
<br />
==='''CONCLUSION'''===<br />
<br />
'''1.6 Conclusion'''<br />
<br />
There is no reasonable way to get Matthew and Luke to agree with each other on the year Jesus was born. Luke clearly dates his birth in 6 C.E. and Matthew clearly dates it before 4 B.C.E. (possibly as early as 8 or 6 B.C.E.). Everyone concedes Matthew 's narrative cannot be fudged to fit 6 C.E. And all attempts to force Luke to fit Matthew require groundless assertions contrary to all evidence and precedent, and always require declaring that in one way or another Luke didn't mean what he said. Not one of these proposed "solutions" rests on any evidence other than complete fabrications or distortions.<br />
<br />
Ample evidence supports the conclusion that Luke meant no other year than 6 C.E., and no clear case can be made that Luke had any other year in mind. There is no way Quirinius could have governed Syria in any earlier year, nor could he have co-ruled Syria or been holding any other office there that Luke would refer to. There is no evidence that Augustus ever did or even would order a census of a Judaean kingdom before its annexation to Syria in 6 C.E. And Luke can neither have meant nor been describing a national "oath." Neither the Lapis Tiburtinus, nor the Lapis Venetus, nor the Antioch Stones even remotely imply any other conclusion. The Vardaman coins are definitively bogus. No reasonable case can be made that Herod the Great was still alive after 4 B.C.E. It's grammatically impossible to read Luke 2:2 as saying "before Quirinius governed Syria." And there is no rationale for assuming a census of Roman citizens in 8 B.C.E. would ever have affected the lives of any Judaean, and no evidence that Herod ever did or even would order a census of his own people, nor is it at all reasonable to interpret Luke as referring to such a thing.<br />
<br />
There is no escaping the conclusion. Matthew contradicts Luke on a question of historical fact, and this entails either Matthew or Luke reports something historically false. The Bible is in error.<br />
<br />
==='''FOOTNOTES'''===<br />
<br />
[1] See Burnett's ''Roman Provincial Coinage'' (1992), including the supplemental volume with corrections.<br />
<br />
[2] For more on the basic problem and these date-fishing efforts see "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#I The Basic Problem]" in my<br />
full Secular Web article. <br />
<br />
[3] Marcus Titius from 12 to 9 B.C.E., Sentius Saturninus from 9 to 6 B.C.E., and Quintilius <br />
Varus from 6 to 3 B.C.E., each serving a typical three year term, and both historians and <br />
inscriptions confirm Quirinius did not achieve consular rank until 12 B.C.E.. Under Roman law <br />
and principle, such a rank was a political prerequisite for holding a provincial <br />
proconsulship. For previous governors: Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=16.229 16.270-81], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=16.344 16.344], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.6 17.6-7], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.24 17.24], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.57 17.57], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.89 17.89-133], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.221 17.221-23], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.250 17.250-98]; Josephus, Jewish War [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=1.577 1.577], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=1.617 1.617-39], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=2.66 2.66-80]; Strabo 16.1.28; Velleius 2.117.2; Tacitus, Histories 5.9.2. Coin evidence also <br />
exists for their terms, though without precise dates. The consulship of Quirinius is <br />
reported in surviving consular lists etched in stone (see the entry for him in Pauly, Wissowa,<br />
and Kroll, Realencyclopâdie der klassischen Altertumwissenschaft) and by Cassius Dio 54.28.2. <br />
For more on the problems of inventing a new governorship for Quirinius see "Was Quirinius <br />
Twice Governor?" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
[4] For more see "The Lapis Tiburtinus" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
[5] For more see "The Lapis Venetus" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
[6] For more see "The Antioch Stones" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
[7] For my published reports on the Vardaman debacle, see Richard Carrier, "Pseudohistory in<br />
Jerry Vardaman's Magic Coins: The Nonsense of Micrographic Letters," Skeptical Inquirer 26.2 <br />
(March-April 2002): pp. 39-41, 61; and Richard Carrier, "More on Vardaman's Microletters," <br />
Skeptical Inquirer 26.4 (July-August 2002): pp. 60-61. For summary details, see "Vardaman's <br />
Magic 'Coin'" in my full Secular Web article.<br />
[8] For more see "Was Quirinius a Special Legate in B.C. Syria?" in my full Secular Web <br />
article. <br />
[9] For more see "Was Quirinius Sharing Command with a Previous Governor?" in my full Secular <br />
Web article. <br />
[10] Several wholly implausible arguments for rewriting the chronology in Josephus have been <br />
offered by Jack Finegan in his Handbook of Biblical Chronology (1998, revised edition). <br />
Finegan's errors consist of faulty math, implausible and unsupported conjectures, and relying <br />
on incompetent manuscript analysis. These gaffes are barely worthy of attention. Nevertheless, <br />
I address them in detail under "Was Herod Alive in 2 B.C.?" in my full Secular Web article.<br />
[11] For more on the basic problems of inventing an earlier census see "Was There a Roman <br />
Census in Judaea Before Quirinius?" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
[12] For full discussion of the grammatical problem, see "Did Luke Mean 'Before' Quirinius?" <br />
in my full Secular Web article. <br />
[13] For more see "Was Apamea a Free City?" in my full Secular Web article.<br />
[14] For more on the nature of Roman census-taking see "How Often Was the Census Held?" in my <br />
full Secular Web article.<br />
[15] For this and several other attempts to argue that Luke "only" got the governor wrong <br />
see "Was 'Quirinius' a Mistake for Someone Else?" in my full Secular Web article.<br />
[16] For more detail on all these points see "Was it a Census Conducted by Herod the Great?" <br />
in my full Secular Web article.<br />
[17] For more see "Two Last Ditch Attempts" in my full Secular Web article.</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Legends&diff=8633Legends2006-06-23T12:39:27Z<p>FreezBee: /* '''ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #2 - Inventing Another Governorship For Quirinius''' */</p>
<hr />
<div>JW: (This Article still needs to be Formatted)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== '''''Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth''''' '''By Richard Carrier (2006''') ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== '''INTRODUCTION''' ===<br />
<br />
It is widely acknowledged that Quirinius became "governor of Syria" in 6 C.E., only then conducting a census of Judaea, and that Herod the Great died in 4 B.C.E., ten years before. Since Matthew indisputably claims Jesus was born while Herod the Great was still alive, while Luke indisputably claims Jesus was born when Quirinius was governor of Syria during a census of Judaea, Luke and Matthew are clearly in contradiction regarding when Jesus was born. They disagree by at least ten years, which entails one of them has made a historical error (or both have).<br />
Because this contradiction is so clear and certain and strongly backed by evidence, inerrancy proponents have invented a dizzying array of attempts to remove this contradiction by reconciling the details in Matthew and Luke. I have examined and researched these efforts in thorough detail, perhaps more than anyone. I have found all of them unsuccessful, even ludicrously so. Consequently, the primary importance of this contradiction is that is one of the clearest and most irrefutable examples of historical error in the Bible, which is perhaps why it has generated so many desperate attempts to wiggle out of it. <br />
And that is the second reason this error is so important: short of the vast and diverse "Bethlehem Star" literature, there is probably no other biblical error for which so many false, groundless, or implausible arguments have been contrived to "invent" or "revise" the historical facts of the ancient Roman world. As a teacher and a scholar, I find all this disinformation and wanton invention about the period I study quite appalling. And because there are so many such contrivances, relating to technical details of the social and political history of Rome that are difficult if not impossible for the average layman to investigate, duty demands that some impassioned expert do all the necessary research and make it available to the common reader. Otherwise, all those false claims might simply be believed and eventually become common assumptions.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== AUTHOR QUALIFICATIONS ===<br />
<br />
About Richard Carrier:<br />
Richard Carrier is one of the most popular authors at the [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/ Secular Web], and author of the book [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1420802933/102-1435806-2580904?n=283155 Sense and Goodness without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism](2005), and contributing author for [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/159102286X/internetinfidels/102-1435806-2580904 The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave](2005), and he has written articles for several print publications. He has a B.A. in history and classical civilizations from UC Berkeley, and an M.A. and M.Phil. in ancient history from Columbia University, where he is currently working on his dissertation in ancient science. While acquiring his degrees Carrier formally studied ancient Greek for over seven years, including papyrology, linguistics, and paleography. To learn more about him see [http://www.columbia.edu/~rcc20/about.html About Richard Carrier].<br />
<br />
I am a published author with considerable qualifications in the study of ancient history and languages (see inset), which should give my findings some weight of authority. I thoroughly document all the arguments and evidence relating to this discrepancy in an extensive article at the Secular Web, [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html The Date of the Nativity in Luke] (2001). I will provide here only a summary of the major conclusions of that article, along with some of the most relevant evidence.<br />
Invariably people write to me proposing some "new" argument, without having bothered to read the complete article above, only to learn that their "new" argument is in fact "old" and already refuted there. I have received countless such emails to date, over several years, and have yet to hear of any fact or argument I haven't already addressed. I advise all challengers to read that original article in its entirety before proposing to challenge the fact that Luke contradicts Matthew on the year of Christ's birth.<br />
The present summary is no substitute for that, and is only provided here to conveniently summarize the current status of this biblical error for readers not intent on gainsaying what they don't like to hear.<br />
<br />
=== BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM ===<br />
<br />
The Gospel of Luke says ([[Luke 2|2:1-6]]) Jesus was born during a census, which the historian Josephus records took place after Herod the Great died, and after his successor, Archelaus, was deposed after a ten year reign (Antiquities of the Jews [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.342 17.342-55], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.1 18.1-2], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.26 18.26]). But the Gospel of Matthew says (2:1-3) Jesus was born when Herod the Great was still alive, possibly two years before he died (2:7-16), and before Archelaus even took office (2:19-22). On a plain reading of the Bible, this is a contradiction. Someone erred.<br />
<br />
Efforts to challenge this conclusion fall into three general categories: either Luke meant something other than his words actually say, or Josephus failed to mention some "other" time that Quirinius was governor and a census made of Judaea, or Josephus erred in dating relevant events. A fourth option, of arguing Matthew meant something other than what he said, is blocked by the absolute clarity with which he said it. There is no rational way to argue that Matthew was referring to the political situation anywhere near 6 C.E. Not only does Matthew's narrative make this clear, but the physical evidence from coins of the region leave little room for disputing that Herod ceased his reign in 4 B.C.E., Archelaus then succeeded him, then ceased his own reign ten years later in 5 C.E., and Roman control of Judaea began in the year 6 (the year the earliest Roman coins struck for Judaea begin).[1] These facts are also recorded by Josephus (who is generally quite reliable on matters of public chronology) and partly corroborated by another historian, Cassius Dio (e.g. Roman History [http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/55*.html#27.6 55.27.6]).<br />
<br />
Consequently, to this day no one has attempted to argue that Matthew was describing an event of 6 C.E. Instead, all efforts are directed to arguing that Luke was describing an event five to twelve years earlier than we think, either by trying to harmonize Luke with Josephus, or by attacking the accuracy or alleged omissions of Josephus. However, all such attempts have required inventing or distorting socio-political facts of the period, or twisting Greek grammar or vocabulary beyond anything that would be recognizable to an ancient reader. Allowing either tactic would permit us to prove that no text ever written in human history has ever been in error about anything. Such an irrational consequence convicts both tactics as unsound.<br />
<br />
=== ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #1 - Looking In Luke For A Different Date ===<br />
<br />
Some observe that Luke says John the Baptist was born during the reign of "Herod the King" ([[Luke 1:5|1:5]]) and appears to have Jesus born less than a year later (1:22-24, 1:31-36, 1:80, 2:1, 2:40-42), which appears to agree with Matthew. However, Matthew does not mention or date the birth of John, and despite the impression given by English translations, Luke is unclear how much time actually passed between his birth and that of Jesus. More importantly, Archelaus was also called Herod (even on his own coins) and even Josephus calls him a king (Antiquities of the Jews [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.93 18.93]). Unlike Matthew, Luke provides no detail indicating either he or his source meant anything other than Herod Archelaus when dating the birth of John. Therefore, unless we assume Luke is contradicting himself, we can't assume he dated either the birth of John or Jesus to the time of Herod the Great. So there is no case to be made from Luke 1:5 that Luke agreed with Matthew.<br />
<br />
Likewise, when Luke dates the start of John's ministry to 28 C.E. ([[Luke 3:11|3:1]]) and then over twenty verses later says Jesus began his own ministry at "about thirty" (3:23) some assume the two ministries began the same year, which would place the birth of Jesus at "about" 3 B.C.E. which for a "rough" estimate is close enough to fit Matthew. But Luke never says the two ministries began the same year, and for various reasons it's unlikely they did. Luke clearly didn't know the year Jesus started his ministry, since he didn't know how old he was, despite claiming to know exactly when he was born. Since "about" thirty can be off by at least four years (26-34), and since Luke allows some time to pass between the start of John's ministry and the baptism of Jesus, and since scholars agree Jesus could have begun and ended his ministry anytime between 28 and 33 C.E., we are left with a window between 7 B.C.E. to 7 C.E. for his birth, far too wide to pin down. So there is no good case to be made from Luke 3:1-23 that he agreed with Matthew.[2]<br />
<br />
==='''ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #2 - Inventing Another Governorship For Quirinius'''===<br />
<br />
Even fishing a different date out of Luke would leave a contradiction within Luke, since the only chronological detail about Jesus that Luke is absolutely clear on is that he was born during "the first census when Quirinius was governing Syria" (2:2). All evidence confirms that Quirinius first became governor of Syria in 6 C.E. and the first Roman census of Judaea occurred at that time, and Luke clearly says this was a Roman census (2:1-6). So Luke didn't leave much room to maneuver. To reconcile Luke with Matthew, one must invent two facts nowhere in evidence: some other Syrian governorship for Quirinius and some other census affecting Judaea, both before Herod the Great died.<br />
<br />
But trying to invent an earlier Syrian governorship for Quirinius is a lost cause. Not only is there no evidence of it, and not only does it go against a plain reading of all the evidence we do have, but it's essentially impossible. No one ever governed the same province twice in the whole of Roman history. So the claim that Quirinius was the sole known exception is so extraordinary it certainly can't be maintained without evidence. Such an astonishing and unique honor could not have been omitted by Josephus or Tacitus (Annals [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=3.48 3.48]), yet both describe his career without any mention of it. Historical evidence also confirms other men governed Syria between 12 and 3 B.C.E., so Quirinius could not have been governor then, and he was not qualified to hold that office before the year 12.[3]<br />
<br />
Stymied by all these facts, inerrantists have resorted to everything from fabricating evidence of dual governorships or other fictional offices Quirinius is supposed to have held, to changing the year of Herod's death. None of this is even remotely reasonable, and most of it is based on the fantasies of amateurs or the abandoned conjectures of long dead historians. First, the alleged physical evidence:<br />
<br />
==== The Lapis Tiburtinus ====<br />
<br />
This is a headless (and thus nameless) inscription that the Vatican has taken the liberty to "restore" with the name of Quirinius. It is then "interpreted" as saying he governed Syria twice. But the actual inscription does not say anyone governed Syria twice, nor does it belong to Quirinius. Scholars now believe it belongs to Lucius Calpurnius Piso, since it fits what we know of his career very well, while no basis exists for claiming it belongs to Quirinius. And even if it did, it doesn't say anything about governing Syria twice. It says the honoree "received the governorship of Asia and then again of Syria."[4] <br />
<br />
==== The Lapis Venetus ====<br />
<br />
This is an inscription that really does mention Quirinius. It is the epitaph of Aemilius Secundus and reports he helped Quirinius conduct a census when the latter was governing Syria. So this inscription confirms that a census was taken of Syria when Quirinius was governor. It does not give a date, either for the census or the inscription itself. But there is no reason to believe this is a reference to any other census under Quirinius except the only one we know of, that of 6 C.E. Several inerrantists have simply "invented" early dates for this inscription, and then used these fabricated dates to claim this inscription as proof there was an earlier census under Quirinius. It proves no such thing.[5]<br />
<br />
==== The Antioch Stones ====<br />
<br />
These are two stones commemorating the offices of Gaius Julius Caristanius Caesiano, both mentioning that he held the deputy management of a city duumvirate held by Quirinius. The date is unknown but probably before the year 1. Conjuring various fantasies, inerrantists finagle this city office into evidence of an earlier governorship of Syria, but no rational argument can produce that conclusion. First, a duumvirate is a city office and has nothing to do with a provincial governorship. Second, this duumvirate was held in Galatia, not Syria.[6] <br />
<br />
==== The Vardaman Coins ====<br />
<br />
Jerry Vardaman claimed to have discovered microscopic letters literally covering ancient coins and inscriptions conveying all sorts of strange new facts, which he used to completely rewrite history. One of these amazing new "discoveries" was evidence Jesus was born in 11 or 12 B.C.E. Needless to say, Vardaman's claim constitutes fringe quackery that has gained no respect in the academic community. I inspected one of these coins myself under a magnifying glass and a digital microscope at the British Museum and found none of these amazing microscopic letters. Case closed.[7] <br />
<br />
==== Sub-Commander Quirinius? ====<br />
<br />
Since none of this evidence supports an earlier governorship for Quirinius, and all other evidence makes such a thing virtually impossible, only two strategies remain for the inerrantists: either Quirinius held some other "special command" in Syria and wasn't governor per se, or Quirinius held an unrecorded "dual-governorship" with some other governor. Neither of these proposals makes any sense in the context of Roman politics or historiography.<br />
<br />
First, the "sub-command" thesis. Luke's choice of vocabulary is somewhat imprecise, using a word that can refer to many different positions of command. Seizing on this, inerrantists argue that Luke meant "when Quirinius was holding a command in Syria," and not "when Quirinius was governing Syria." But stretching the word like this requires ignoring the grammar. Luke says "of Syria," not "in Syria," and thus he could not have been referring to some command in Syria but only a command of Syria. Even if we ignore Luke's grammar, the only real "command" anyone can find for Quirinius is a war he fought in Galatia, probably between 6 and 1 B.C.E. But there is no logical way Luke would refer to a census in Syria by referencing a war in Galatia, and no one would ever write or read "governing Syria" as meaning "fighting a war in Galatia." Unless Luke was a profoundly stupid man, or erred in his historical facts, he would have named the actual governor of Syria who oversaw a census in Judaea, not some unrelated officer in a faraway province.[8] <br />
<br />
==== Co-Commander Quirinius? ====<br />
<br />
A completely different tactic, to get around the problem that all the governors of Syria between 12 and 3 B.C.E. are already known, is to claim Quirinius was holding a dual governorship with one of those other governors. Not only does this still require claiming Quirinius governed the same province twice, an oddity never before recorded in the history of Roman politics, but it also requires completely inventing the idea of a "dual governorship." Since there is no evidence in all of Roman history of any province assigned two governors at the same time, this is another extraordinary claim that requires evidence to be believed. Since there isn't any, inerrantists invent some.<br />
<br />
Josephus is cited as saying "Saturninus and Volumnius were in charge of Syria" (Antiquities of the Jews 16.280) which is said to "prove" Syria was special enough to be assigned two governors. But Volumnius was not a governor. He was a procurator (Josephus, Jewish War 1.538), an office held only by men of fundamentally inferior rank, who were not even qualified to hold the office of a provincial governor. Conversely, a Roman who had achieved senatorial, and even consular rank--like Quirinius--would never deign to accept such a humiliating office as procurator. Socially, this would be as unbelievable as a United States president taking a job as shift manager at a local McDonald's. In Roman society, this would be so remarkable and unprecedented that, again, Josephus and Tacitus would not have omitted it from their accounts of his career. The same error is made using an inscription reporting that two "deputies," Rutilius Gallicus and Sentius Caecilianus, were assigned to the province of Africa. But this inscription clearly states that one of them was a praetor, and thus not of consular rank. So again, what we have here are not two governors, but a governor and his subordinate. Neither example supports even the conjecture that Quirinius could have held a dual-governorship, much less that he ever did so--or that anyone ever did. It would also make no logical sense for Luke to name a governor's subordinate rather than the actual governor of Syria.[9]<br />
<br />
So there is no basis for that claim, either. Since Josephus records and thus confirms an actual census under Quirinius in 6 C.E. when Quirinius was, in fact, governor "of Syria," all exactly as Luke says, there is no plausible case to be made that Luke had any other event in mind. All the evidence we have corroborates this conclusion, and none supports any alternative or renders any even remotely plausible.<br />
<br />
==='''ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #3 - Inventing A New Date For Herod's Death'''===<br />
<br />
1.4 Inventing a New Date for Herod's Death<br />
Since there is no reasonable way to get Quirinius to be governor of Syria anytime before 3 B.C.E., the natural last-ditch resort is to argue that Herod didn't really die in 4 B.C.E. Since there is no clear evidence who was governing Syria after 3 B.C.E., or where Quirinius was in those years, inerrantists fantasize that their imaginary "earlier governorship" of Quirinius fell around then and simply failed to be mentioned. This still doesn't avoid all the problems noted before--from a total lack of evidence to the extraordinary implausibility of a second governorship. It also requires rewriting history.<br />
<br />
Josephus already says Varus, not Quirinius, was governing Syria when Herod died (Jewish War [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=1.9 1.9-10]), and despite attempts to argue otherwise, Josephus is very clear and precise in his chronology for these events and cites several first-hand sources for them, while the manuscript tradition for the relevant details is completely sound, so there is no plausible case to made that he is mistaken.[10] Likewise, as mentioned earlier, evidence from coins corroborates all of this, including the reigns of Herod's successors, Philip, Antipas and Archelaus. The reign of Archelaus is further corroborated by Cassius Dio ([http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/55*.html#27.6 55.27.6]).<br />
<br />
Josephus also mentions a lunar eclipse soon before Herod's death, and astronomers note there was such an eclipse in 5 B.C.E. and 1 B.C.E. Inerrantists therefore want Herod to have died in or shortly after 1 B.C.E. However, not only is all evidence against such a notion, but the Jewish Scroll of Fasting records the calendar day of Herod's death, and it preceded that of the eclipse of 1 B.C.E, but not that of 5 B.C.E. Since Josephus says his death followed (not preceeded) an eclipse, the eclipse Josephus mentions was probably that of the year 5. In the end, there is simply no evidence Herod died later than the year 4, and no plausible case to be made that he did.<br />
<br />
==='''ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #4 - Inventing Another Census'''===<br />
<br />
1.5 Inventing Another Census<br />
There is no reasonable case to be made that Quirinius ever "governed Syria" before 6 C.E. Yet inventing such a fantasy contrary to all evidence and precedent is not even enough to eliminate the contradiction between Matthew and Luke. A census of Judaea before 6 C.E. must also be invented contrary to all evidence and precedent. This is because Luke's description establishes three facts: the census affected Judaea (2:4-5), it was conducted under the administration of Syria (2:2), and it was specifically a Roman census (2:1). These three facts rule out every attempt to argue that Luke meant some other census or event than the one recorded for 6 C.E.<br />
<br />
Before 6 C.E. Judaea was a nominally free kingdom, not a Roman province. Having sided with Augustus in the civil war that established him as emperor, Judaea was granted a favorable treaty assuring relative independence. This is proven by the coin evidence that Judaea continued to be governed by its own kings and rulers, not Roman officials, until 6 C.E., and extensively confirmed by Josephus and Cassius Dio. Though such "allied kingdoms" were kept under a tight leash and informally controlled and meddled with, all evidence regarding the legal and political practices of Roman emperors in the first century and before confirms that these states were not subject to direct Roman administration, taxation or levies. That was, in fact, the very point of not annexing them as provinces: not only to reward friendly states (and thus encourage other states to be friendly), but to avoid the headache and expense of taking over a region that was already pacified, subservient, and paying sufficient dues.<br />
<br />
Therefore, it is historically impossible that a Roman census was conducted under a Roman provincial governor when Judaea was still an allied kingdom. But it was typical and logical that immediately upon annexing a new territory a census would be taken of it. This was necessary to begin direct taxation and levies. So when Josephus describes Archelaus being removed from office, then Judaea being annexed to Syria and placed under the Roman command of Quirinius and his prefect Coponius, and then a census being conducted for the specific purpose of taking account of what Archelaus had left them, this description makes complete historical sense. In contrast, no other hypothesized "census" scenario makes any historical sense at all. <br />
<br />
As Josephus reports, and as all logic and precedent entail, Judaea was not being directly taxed by Rome nor administered by Romans before the year 6, and therefore there would be no purpose for Augustus to order a census there (Luke 2:1). Since forcing such a census on an allied kingdom in violation of its honor and its treaties would be such an astonishing and devastating insult contrary to all known precedent, there is no way it wouldn't have been noticed by historians like Josephus, nor any reason the Romans would undertake such a pointless and dangerous task. They would have nothing to gain by it, and plenty to lose, and Augustus was not so reckless as to think otherwise.[11]<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, inerrantists must have the impossible in order to save their bible from error. So these are the arguments they have attempted:<br />
<br />
'''1.5.1 Luke Meant "Before Quirinius"?'''<br />
<br />
The word translated "first" in Luke 2:2 can in certain contexts mean "before." But for various reasons such a meaning would not be grammatically correct in this case. Luke can only have meant, and all his readers would only have understood his sentence to mean, the first Augustan census that happened under Quirinius. And that is how all translators correctly interpret it.[12]<br />
<br />
'''1.5.2 Romans Subjected Allied Kingdoms to a Census?'''<br />
<br />
Since the very idea of Romans conducting a census of an allied kingdom is wholly implausible and unprecedented, inerrantists have tried to invent evidence of it. The same Lapis Venetus discussed above is cited as "evidence" that the free state of Apamea was subject to an official Roman census. However, neither that census nor the inscription itself is dated, and as noted above there is no reason to believe the inscription refers to any other census than that of 6 C.E. Regardless, since no city named "Apamea" was free after 12 B.C.E. and Quirinius was not of consular rank before that year, it is impossible that the Apamea referred to in this inscription was an independent kingdom at the time. The only other "evidence" offered is a census revolt put down by legions in Cappadocia in 36 C.E. (Tacitus, Annals [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=6.41 6.41]). Since Cappadocia was annexed as a Roman province in 17 C.E. (Annals [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=2.42 2.42], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=2.56 2.56]) this census was clearly not of an allied kingdom.[13]<br />
<br />
'''1.5.3 Jesus Born During Census of 8 B.C.E.?'''<br />
<br />
There is a modern myth that the Romans regularly conducted a census of their empire every 14 years. This is not true. There was little coordination between censuses of Roman citizens and censuses of provincial inhabitants, and rarely any fixed period of years between censuses, not even for citizens. Though Egypt continued to maintain a 14-year census cycle that the Romans inherited from the previous Ptolemaic government, this was not extended to or consistently coordinated with any other province. Other provinces were assessed when they could be, often at various different times from each other.[14]<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, this myth of a 14-year cycle is often used to support a claim that it would have been the census of 8 B.C.E. when Jesus was born, during the governorship of Saturninus rather than Quirinius. Why? Because some claim Tertullian said Jesus was born during the census of Saturninus (Against Marcion 4.19). But Tertullian doesn't say that. He says "censuses were conducted in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus" that confirm Jesus had brothers. Since these brothers had to have been born after Jesus, Tertullian cannot be referring to any census during which Jesus was born. There was in fact another Sentius Saturninus who was governor of Syria from 19 to 21 C.E. (the son of the former Sentius Saturninus) and it's almost certain this is whom Tertullian means.[15]<br />
<br />
So there is no support for linking Luke's census with any census of 8 B.C.E. Though we know there was a universal census conducted in that year, it was only of Roman citizens, not the provinces. It therefore could not have been the census Luke describes, which clearly affected non-citizen inhabitants of Judaea. Indeed, Judaea was not even a Roman territory in the year 8, nor was Quintilian governing Syria then.<br />
<br />
'''1.5.4 Herod's Census?'''<br />
<br />
Since all those arguments fail, the last resort is to claim that it wasn't really a Roman census but a census conducted by Herod the Great. The immediate problem with this is that Luke does not say any such thing. He is quite clear that he means a census ordered by Augustus, not Herod, and carried out under Quirinius, specifically in connection with Syria, not under Herod independently. Judaea was annexed to Syria under Quirinius in 6 C.E. and immediately subject to a census. Obviously that's the census Luke means. <br />
<br />
Nevertheless, the desperate plea is made that Luke "really meant" an unknown Herodian census. Apart from resting on no evidence at all, this claim is implausible for a number of reasons. Herod had no need of conducting a census, for the tribute owed him and that he owed Rome was a fixed annual sum. It didn't matter how many people were paying. Yet a census entails a vast outlay of expenses to cover administration and recordkeeping, and ties up a considerable amount of manpower. It also entails a significant inconvenience to the population, as even Luke's description makes clear. The Jews also had a tradition of cultural and moral hostility to a peacetime census. For example, 2 Samuel 24:1-17 and 1 Chronicles 21:1-17 depict the very idea of a peacetime census as sinful and Satanic, and when the Romans finally started subjecting Judaeans to a census in 6 C.E., many violently rebelled (Acts 5:37 and Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.1 18.1-8] & [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=20.102 20.102] and Jewish War [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=2.433 2.433-34] & [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=7.252 7.252-54]). For all these reasons, Herod had nothing to gain and plenty to lose by conducting his own census. To go ahead and do it anyway would have been so remarkable and unprecedented it could not have been omitted by historians like Josephus. Yet somehow no one noticed this remarkable census. And since Herod's involvement would be the most remarkable thing about it, it's inexplicable why Luke never mentions this, but only links the census to Roman decrees, Roman magistrates, and Roman provinces.[16]<br />
<br />
'''1.5.5 Herod's Oath?'''<br />
<br />
Stymied again, inerrantists resort to the last ditch effort of claiming Luke didn't really mean a "census" but an "oath-taking." And since according to Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=16.136 16.136], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.30 17.34-43], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.89 17.89]) Herod commanded his subjects in Judaea to swear an oath of loyalty to Rome in or around 8 B.C.E., "obviously" that's what Luke meant. This is an indefensible thesis. Luke says "census" not "oath." Nor does he describe a situation where Herod is commanding people to take oaths, but of Augustus commanding people to be assessed. Moreover, the only possible rationale for Joseph's travel (Luke 2:3-5) is a tribal census register or the possession of taxable property in Bethlehem subject to a census. In contrast, an oath could be sworn anywhere and did not require traveling, nor is there evidence mass oaths involved precise counting. And, again, Quirinius was still not governing Syria in 8 B.C.E.<br />
<br />
Some claim Luke meant an oath Augustus had made to him every five years, but this oath was only made "by the consuls and priests" of Rome, not even all citizens much less any provincials (Res Gestae 9). So this would never have involved Herod or Judaea. Some claim an annual oath was sworn by all the people subject to Rome on the anniversary of the emperor's accession, but even if that were the case, Judaea was not subject to Rome until 6 C.E., and an annual oath could not have involved constantly returning to one's ancestral city every year, or surely such an amazing inconvenience would be mentioned in the histories of the period. Others claim the event during which Jesus was born was when "the people of Rome" proclaimed Augustus "Father of the Nation" in 2 B.C.E., though that again requires reinventing the date of Herod's birth, inventing an impossible second governorship for Quirinius, and ignoring what Luke actually says. And after all that, this event was only a vote made by Roman citizens anyway. So this would never have involved Judaeans.[17]<br />
<br />
When everything above is considered, there is simply no way Luke 2:1-6 could have meant or ever been read as referring to any national oath.<br />
<br />
==='''CONCLUSION'''===<br />
<br />
'''1.6 Conclusion'''<br />
<br />
There is no reasonable way to get Matthew and Luke to agree with each other on the year Jesus was born. Luke clearly dates his birth in 6 C.E. and Matthew clearly dates it before 4 B.C.E. (possibly as early as 8 or 6 B.C.E.). Everyone concedes Matthew 's narrative cannot be fudged to fit 6 C.E. And all attempts to force Luke to fit Matthew require groundless assertions contrary to all evidence and precedent, and always require declaring that in one way or another Luke didn't mean what he said. Not one of these proposed "solutions" rests on any evidence other than complete fabrications or distortions.<br />
<br />
Ample evidence supports the conclusion that Luke meant no other year than 6 C.E., and no clear case can be made that Luke had any other year in mind. There is no way Quirinius could have governed Syria in any earlier year, nor could he have co-ruled Syria or been holding any other office there that Luke would refer to. There is no evidence that Augustus ever did or even would order a census of a Judaean kingdom before its annexation to Syria in 6 C.E. And Luke can neither have meant nor been describing a national "oath." Neither the Lapis Tiburtinus, nor the Lapis Venetus, nor the Antioch Stones even remotely imply any other conclusion. The Vardaman coins are definitively bogus. No reasonable case can be made that Herod the Great was still alive after 4 B.C.E. It's grammatically impossible to read Luke 2:2 as saying "before Quirinius governed Syria." And there is no rationale for assuming a census of Roman citizens in 8 B.C.E. would ever have affected the lives of any Judaean, and no evidence that Herod ever did or even would order a census of his own people, nor is it at all reasonable to interpret Luke as referring to such a thing.<br />
<br />
There is no escaping the conclusion. Matthew contradicts Luke on a question of historical fact, and this entails either Matthew or Luke reports something historically false. The Bible is in error.<br />
<br />
==='''FOOTNOTES'''===<br />
<br />
[1] See Burnett's ''Roman Provincial Coinage'' (1992), including the supplemental volume with corrections.<br />
<br />
[2] For more on the basic problem and these date-fishing efforts see "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#I The Basic Problem]" in my<br />
full Secular Web article. <br />
<br />
[3] Marcus Titius from 12 to 9 B.C.E., Sentius Saturninus from 9 to 6 B.C.E., and Quintilius <br />
Varus from 6 to 3 B.C.E., each serving a typical three year term, and both historians and <br />
inscriptions confirm Quirinius did not achieve consular rank until 12 B.C.E.. Under Roman law <br />
and principle, such a rank was a political prerequisite for holding a provincial <br />
proconsulship. For previous governors: Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=16.229 16.270-81], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=16.344 16.344], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.6 17.6-7], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.24 17.24], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.57 17.57], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.89 17.89-133], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.221 17.221-23], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.250 17.250-98]; Josephus, Jewish War [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=1.577 1.577], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=1.617 1.617-39], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=2.66 2.66-80]; Strabo 16.1.28; Velleius 2.117.2; Tacitus, Histories 5.9.2. Coin evidence also <br />
exists for their terms, though without precise dates. The consulship of Quirinius is <br />
reported in surviving consular lists etched in stone (see the entry for him in Pauly, Wissowa,<br />
and Kroll, Realencyclopâdie der klassischen Altertumwissenschaft) and by Cassius Dio 54.28.2. <br />
For more on the problems of inventing a new governorship for Quirinius see "Was Quirinius <br />
Twice Governor?" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
[4] For more see "The Lapis Tiburtinus" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
[5] For more see "The Lapis Venetus" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
[6] For more see "The Antioch Stones" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
[7] For my published reports on the Vardaman debacle, see Richard Carrier, "Pseudohistory in<br />
Jerry Vardaman's Magic Coins: The Nonsense of Micrographic Letters," Skeptical Inquirer 26.2 <br />
(March-April 2002): pp. 39-41, 61; and Richard Carrier, "More on Vardaman's Microletters," <br />
Skeptical Inquirer 26.4 (July-August 2002): pp. 60-61. For summary details, see "Vardaman's <br />
Magic 'Coin'" in my full Secular Web article.<br />
[8] For more see "Was Quirinius a Special Legate in B.C. Syria?" in my full Secular Web <br />
article. <br />
[9] For more see "Was Quirinius Sharing Command with a Previous Governor?" in my full Secular <br />
Web article. <br />
[10] Several wholly implausible arguments for rewriting the chronology in Josephus have been <br />
offered by Jack Finegan in his Handbook of Biblical Chronology (1998, revised edition). <br />
Finegan's errors consist of faulty math, implausible and unsupported conjectures, and relying <br />
on incompetent manuscript analysis. These gaffes are barely worthy of attention. Nevertheless, <br />
I address them in detail under "Was Herod Alive in 2 B.C.?" in my full Secular Web article.<br />
[11] For more on the basic problems of inventing an earlier census see "Was There a Roman <br />
Census in Judaea Before Quirinius?" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
[12] For full discussion of the grammatical problem, see "Did Luke Mean 'Before' Quirinius?" <br />
in my full Secular Web article. <br />
[13] For more see "Was Apamea a Free City?" in my full Secular Web article.<br />
[14] For more on the nature of Roman census-taking see "How Often Was the Census Held?" in my <br />
full Secular Web article.<br />
[15] For this and several other attempts to argue that Luke "only" got the governor wrong <br />
see "Was 'Quirinius' a Mistake for Someone Else?" in my full Secular Web article.<br />
[16] For more detail on all these points see "Was it a Census Conducted by Herod the Great?" <br />
in my full Secular Web article.<br />
[17] For more see "Two Last Ditch Attempts" in my full Secular Web article.</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Legends&diff=8632Legends2006-06-23T12:35:34Z<p>FreezBee: /* ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #1 - Looking In Luke For A Different Date */</p>
<hr />
<div>JW: (This Article still needs to be Formatted)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== '''''Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth''''' '''By Richard Carrier (2006''') ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== '''INTRODUCTION''' ===<br />
<br />
It is widely acknowledged that Quirinius became "governor of Syria" in 6 C.E., only then conducting a census of Judaea, and that Herod the Great died in 4 B.C.E., ten years before. Since Matthew indisputably claims Jesus was born while Herod the Great was still alive, while Luke indisputably claims Jesus was born when Quirinius was governor of Syria during a census of Judaea, Luke and Matthew are clearly in contradiction regarding when Jesus was born. They disagree by at least ten years, which entails one of them has made a historical error (or both have).<br />
Because this contradiction is so clear and certain and strongly backed by evidence, inerrancy proponents have invented a dizzying array of attempts to remove this contradiction by reconciling the details in Matthew and Luke. I have examined and researched these efforts in thorough detail, perhaps more than anyone. I have found all of them unsuccessful, even ludicrously so. Consequently, the primary importance of this contradiction is that is one of the clearest and most irrefutable examples of historical error in the Bible, which is perhaps why it has generated so many desperate attempts to wiggle out of it. <br />
And that is the second reason this error is so important: short of the vast and diverse "Bethlehem Star" literature, there is probably no other biblical error for which so many false, groundless, or implausible arguments have been contrived to "invent" or "revise" the historical facts of the ancient Roman world. As a teacher and a scholar, I find all this disinformation and wanton invention about the period I study quite appalling. And because there are so many such contrivances, relating to technical details of the social and political history of Rome that are difficult if not impossible for the average layman to investigate, duty demands that some impassioned expert do all the necessary research and make it available to the common reader. Otherwise, all those false claims might simply be believed and eventually become common assumptions.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== AUTHOR QUALIFICATIONS ===<br />
<br />
About Richard Carrier:<br />
Richard Carrier is one of the most popular authors at the [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/ Secular Web], and author of the book [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1420802933/102-1435806-2580904?n=283155 Sense and Goodness without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism](2005), and contributing author for [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/159102286X/internetinfidels/102-1435806-2580904 The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave](2005), and he has written articles for several print publications. He has a B.A. in history and classical civilizations from UC Berkeley, and an M.A. and M.Phil. in ancient history from Columbia University, where he is currently working on his dissertation in ancient science. While acquiring his degrees Carrier formally studied ancient Greek for over seven years, including papyrology, linguistics, and paleography. To learn more about him see [http://www.columbia.edu/~rcc20/about.html About Richard Carrier].<br />
<br />
I am a published author with considerable qualifications in the study of ancient history and languages (see inset), which should give my findings some weight of authority. I thoroughly document all the arguments and evidence relating to this discrepancy in an extensive article at the Secular Web, [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html The Date of the Nativity in Luke] (2001). I will provide here only a summary of the major conclusions of that article, along with some of the most relevant evidence.<br />
Invariably people write to me proposing some "new" argument, without having bothered to read the complete article above, only to learn that their "new" argument is in fact "old" and already refuted there. I have received countless such emails to date, over several years, and have yet to hear of any fact or argument I haven't already addressed. I advise all challengers to read that original article in its entirety before proposing to challenge the fact that Luke contradicts Matthew on the year of Christ's birth.<br />
The present summary is no substitute for that, and is only provided here to conveniently summarize the current status of this biblical error for readers not intent on gainsaying what they don't like to hear.<br />
<br />
=== BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM ===<br />
<br />
The Gospel of Luke says ([[Luke 2|2:1-6]]) Jesus was born during a census, which the historian Josephus records took place after Herod the Great died, and after his successor, Archelaus, was deposed after a ten year reign (Antiquities of the Jews [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.342 17.342-55], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.1 18.1-2], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.26 18.26]). But the Gospel of Matthew says (2:1-3) Jesus was born when Herod the Great was still alive, possibly two years before he died (2:7-16), and before Archelaus even took office (2:19-22). On a plain reading of the Bible, this is a contradiction. Someone erred.<br />
<br />
Efforts to challenge this conclusion fall into three general categories: either Luke meant something other than his words actually say, or Josephus failed to mention some "other" time that Quirinius was governor and a census made of Judaea, or Josephus erred in dating relevant events. A fourth option, of arguing Matthew meant something other than what he said, is blocked by the absolute clarity with which he said it. There is no rational way to argue that Matthew was referring to the political situation anywhere near 6 C.E. Not only does Matthew's narrative make this clear, but the physical evidence from coins of the region leave little room for disputing that Herod ceased his reign in 4 B.C.E., Archelaus then succeeded him, then ceased his own reign ten years later in 5 C.E., and Roman control of Judaea began in the year 6 (the year the earliest Roman coins struck for Judaea begin).[1] These facts are also recorded by Josephus (who is generally quite reliable on matters of public chronology) and partly corroborated by another historian, Cassius Dio (e.g. Roman History [http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/55*.html#27.6 55.27.6]).<br />
<br />
Consequently, to this day no one has attempted to argue that Matthew was describing an event of 6 C.E. Instead, all efforts are directed to arguing that Luke was describing an event five to twelve years earlier than we think, either by trying to harmonize Luke with Josephus, or by attacking the accuracy or alleged omissions of Josephus. However, all such attempts have required inventing or distorting socio-political facts of the period, or twisting Greek grammar or vocabulary beyond anything that would be recognizable to an ancient reader. Allowing either tactic would permit us to prove that no text ever written in human history has ever been in error about anything. Such an irrational consequence convicts both tactics as unsound.<br />
<br />
=== ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #1 - Looking In Luke For A Different Date ===<br />
<br />
Some observe that Luke says John the Baptist was born during the reign of "Herod the King" ([[Luke 1:5|1:5]]) and appears to have Jesus born less than a year later (1:22-24, 1:31-36, 1:80, 2:1, 2:40-42), which appears to agree with Matthew. However, Matthew does not mention or date the birth of John, and despite the impression given by English translations, Luke is unclear how much time actually passed between his birth and that of Jesus. More importantly, Archelaus was also called Herod (even on his own coins) and even Josephus calls him a king (Antiquities of the Jews [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.93 18.93]). Unlike Matthew, Luke provides no detail indicating either he or his source meant anything other than Herod Archelaus when dating the birth of John. Therefore, unless we assume Luke is contradicting himself, we can't assume he dated either the birth of John or Jesus to the time of Herod the Great. So there is no case to be made from Luke 1:5 that Luke agreed with Matthew.<br />
<br />
Likewise, when Luke dates the start of John's ministry to 28 C.E. ([[Luke 3:11|3:1]]) and then over twenty verses later says Jesus began his own ministry at "about thirty" (3:23) some assume the two ministries began the same year, which would place the birth of Jesus at "about" 3 B.C.E. which for a "rough" estimate is close enough to fit Matthew. But Luke never says the two ministries began the same year, and for various reasons it's unlikely they did. Luke clearly didn't know the year Jesus started his ministry, since he didn't know how old he was, despite claiming to know exactly when he was born. Since "about" thirty can be off by at least four years (26-34), and since Luke allows some time to pass between the start of John's ministry and the baptism of Jesus, and since scholars agree Jesus could have begun and ended his ministry anytime between 28 and 33 C.E., we are left with a window between 7 B.C.E. to 7 C.E. for his birth, far too wide to pin down. So there is no good case to be made from Luke 3:1-23 that he agreed with Matthew.[2]<br />
<br />
==='''ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #2 - Inventing Another Governorship For Quirinius'''===<br />
<br />
'''1.3 Inventing Another Governorship for Quirinius'''<br />
<br />
Even fishing a different date out of Luke would leave a contradiction within Luke, since the only chronological detail about Jesus that Luke is absolutely clear on is that he was born during "the first census when Quirinius was governing Syria" (2:2). All evidence confirms that Quirinius first became governor of Syria in 6 C.E. and the first Roman census of Judaea occurred at that time, and Luke clearly says this was a Roman census (2:1-6). So Luke didn't leave much room to maneuver. To reconcile Luke with Matthew, one must invent two facts nowhere in evidence: some other Syrian governorship for Quirinius and some other census affecting Judaea, both before Herod the Great died.<br />
<br />
But trying to invent an earlier Syrian governorship for Quirinius is a lost cause. Not only is there no evidence of it, and not only does it go against a plain reading of all the evidence we do have, but it's essentially impossible. No one ever governed the same province twice in the whole of Roman history. So the claim that Quirinius was the sole known exception is so extraordinary it certainly can't be maintained without evidence. Such an astonishing and unique honor could not have been omitted by Josephus or Tacitus (Annals [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=3.48 3.48]), yet both describe his career without any mention of it. Historical evidence also confirms other men governed Syria between 12 and 3 B.C.E., so Quirinius could not have been governor then, and he was not qualified to hold that office before the year 12.[3]<br />
<br />
Stymied by all these facts, inerrantists have resorted to everything from fabricating evidence of dual governorships or other fictional offices Quirinius is supposed to have held, to changing the year of Herod's death. None of this is even remotely reasonable, and most of it is based on the fantasies of amateurs or the abandoned conjectures of long dead historians. First, the alleged physical evidence:<br />
<br />
'''1.3.1 The Lapis Tiburtinus'''<br />
<br />
This is a headless (and thus nameless) inscription that the Vatican has taken the liberty to "restore" with the name of Quirinius. It is then "interpreted" as saying he governed Syria twice. But the actual inscription does not say anyone governed Syria twice, nor does it belong to Quirinius. Scholars now believe it belongs to Lucius Calpurnius Piso, since it fits what we know of his career very well, while no basis exists for claiming it belongs to Quirinius. And even if it did, it doesn't say anything about governing Syria twice. It says the honoree "received the governorship of Asia and then again of Syria."[4] <br />
<br />
'''1.3.2 The Lapis Venetus'''<br />
<br />
This is an inscription that really does mention Quirinius. It is the epitaph of Aemilius Secundus and reports he helped Quirinius conduct a census when the latter was governing Syria. So this inscription confirms that a census was taken of Syria when Quirinius was governor. It does not give a date, either for the census or the inscription itself. But there is no reason to believe this is a reference to any other census under Quirinius except the only one we know of, that of 6 C.E. Several inerrantists have simply "invented" early dates for this inscription, and then used these fabricated dates to claim this inscription as proof there was an earlier census under Quirinius. It proves no such thing.[5]<br />
<br />
'''1.3.3 The Antioch Stones'''<br />
<br />
These are two stones commemorating the offices of Gaius Julius Caristanius Caesiano, both mentioning that he held the deputy management of a city duumvirate held by Quirinius. The date is unknown but probably before the year 1. Conjuring various fantasies, inerrantists finagle this city office into evidence of an earlier governorship of Syria, but no rational argument can produce that conclusion. First, a duumvirate is a city office and has nothing to do with a provincial governorship. Second, this duumvirate was held in Galatia, not Syria.[6] <br />
<br />
'''1.3.4 The Vardaman Coins'''<br />
<br />
Jerry Vardaman claimed to have discovered microscopic letters literally covering ancient coins and inscriptions conveying all sorts of strange new facts, which he used to completely rewrite history. One of these amazing new "discoveries" was evidence Jesus was born in 11 or 12 B.C.E. Needless to say, Vardaman's claim constitutes fringe quackery that has gained no respect in the academic community. I inspected one of these coins myself under a magnifying glass and a digital microscope at the British Museum and found none of these amazing microscopic letters. Case closed.[7] <br />
<br />
'''1.3.5 Sub-Commander Quirinius?'''<br />
<br />
Since none of this evidence supports an earlier governorship for Quirinius, and all other evidence makes such a thing virtually impossible, only two strategies remain for the inerrantists: either Quirinius held some other "special command" in Syria and wasn't governor per se, or Quirinius held an unrecorded "dual-governorship" with some other governor. Neither of these proposals makes any sense in the context of Roman politics or historiography.<br />
<br />
First, the "sub-command" thesis. Luke's choice of vocabulary is somewhat imprecise, using a word that can refer to many different positions of command. Seizing on this, inerrantists argue that Luke meant "when Quirinius was holding a command in Syria," and not "when Quirinius was governing Syria." But stretching the word like this requires ignoring the grammar. Luke says "of Syria," not "in Syria," and thus he could not have been referring to some command in Syria but only a command of Syria. Even if we ignore Luke's grammar, the only real "command" anyone can find for Quirinius is a war he fought in Galatia, probably between 6 and 1 B.C.E. But there is no logical way Luke would refer to a census in Syria by referencing a war in Galatia, and no one would ever write or read "governing Syria" as meaning "fighting a war in Galatia." Unless Luke was a profoundly stupid man, or erred in his historical facts, he would have named the actual governor of Syria who oversaw a census in Judaea, not some unrelated officer in a faraway province.[8] <br />
<br />
'''1.3.6 Co-Commander Quirinius?'''<br />
<br />
A completely different tactic, to get around the problem that all the governors of Syria between 12 and 3 B.C.E. are already known, is to claim Quirinius was holding a dual governorship with one of those other governors. Not only does this still require claiming Quirinius governed the same province twice, an oddity never before recorded in the history of Roman politics, but it also requires completely inventing the idea of a "dual governorship." Since there is no evidence in all of Roman history of any province assigned two governors at the same time, this is another extraordinary claim that requires evidence to be believed. Since there isn't any, inerrantists invent some.<br />
<br />
Josephus is cited as saying "Saturninus and Volumnius were in charge of Syria" (Antiquities of the Jews 16.280) which is said to "prove" Syria was special enough to be assigned two governors. But Volumnius was not a governor. He was a procurator (Josephus, Jewish War 1.538), an office held only by men of fundamentally inferior rank, who were not even qualified to hold the office of a provincial governor. Conversely, a Roman who had achieved senatorial, and even consular rank--like Quirinius--would never deign to accept such a humiliating office as procurator. Socially, this would be as unbelievable as a United States president taking a job as shift manager at a local McDonald's. In Roman society, this would be so remarkable and unprecedented that, again, Josephus and Tacitus would not have omitted it from their accounts of his career. The same error is made using an inscription reporting that two "deputies," Rutilius Gallicus and Sentius Caecilianus, were assigned to the province of Africa. But this inscription clearly states that one of them was a praetor, and thus not of consular rank. So again, what we have here are not two governors, but a governor and his subordinate. Neither example supports even the conjecture that Quirinius could have held a dual-governorship, much less that he ever did so--or that anyone ever did. It would also make no logical sense for Luke to name a governor's subordinate rather than the actual governor of Syria.[9]<br />
<br />
So there is no basis for that claim, either. Since Josephus records and thus confirms an actual census under Quirinius in 6 C.E. when Quirinius was, in fact, governor "of Syria," all exactly as Luke says, there is no plausible case to be made that Luke had any other event in mind. All the evidence we have corroborates this conclusion, and none supports any alternative or renders any even remotely plausible.<br />
<br />
==='''ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #3 - Inventing A New Date For Herod's Death'''===<br />
<br />
1.4 Inventing a New Date for Herod's Death<br />
Since there is no reasonable way to get Quirinius to be governor of Syria anytime before 3 B.C.E., the natural last-ditch resort is to argue that Herod didn't really die in 4 B.C.E. Since there is no clear evidence who was governing Syria after 3 B.C.E., or where Quirinius was in those years, inerrantists fantasize that their imaginary "earlier governorship" of Quirinius fell around then and simply failed to be mentioned. This still doesn't avoid all the problems noted before--from a total lack of evidence to the extraordinary implausibility of a second governorship. It also requires rewriting history.<br />
<br />
Josephus already says Varus, not Quirinius, was governing Syria when Herod died (Jewish War [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=1.9 1.9-10]), and despite attempts to argue otherwise, Josephus is very clear and precise in his chronology for these events and cites several first-hand sources for them, while the manuscript tradition for the relevant details is completely sound, so there is no plausible case to made that he is mistaken.[10] Likewise, as mentioned earlier, evidence from coins corroborates all of this, including the reigns of Herod's successors, Philip, Antipas and Archelaus. The reign of Archelaus is further corroborated by Cassius Dio ([http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/55*.html#27.6 55.27.6]).<br />
<br />
Josephus also mentions a lunar eclipse soon before Herod's death, and astronomers note there was such an eclipse in 5 B.C.E. and 1 B.C.E. Inerrantists therefore want Herod to have died in or shortly after 1 B.C.E. However, not only is all evidence against such a notion, but the Jewish Scroll of Fasting records the calendar day of Herod's death, and it preceded that of the eclipse of 1 B.C.E, but not that of 5 B.C.E. Since Josephus says his death followed (not preceeded) an eclipse, the eclipse Josephus mentions was probably that of the year 5. In the end, there is simply no evidence Herod died later than the year 4, and no plausible case to be made that he did.<br />
<br />
==='''ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #4 - Inventing Another Census'''===<br />
<br />
1.5 Inventing Another Census<br />
There is no reasonable case to be made that Quirinius ever "governed Syria" before 6 C.E. Yet inventing such a fantasy contrary to all evidence and precedent is not even enough to eliminate the contradiction between Matthew and Luke. A census of Judaea before 6 C.E. must also be invented contrary to all evidence and precedent. This is because Luke's description establishes three facts: the census affected Judaea (2:4-5), it was conducted under the administration of Syria (2:2), and it was specifically a Roman census (2:1). These three facts rule out every attempt to argue that Luke meant some other census or event than the one recorded for 6 C.E.<br />
<br />
Before 6 C.E. Judaea was a nominally free kingdom, not a Roman province. Having sided with Augustus in the civil war that established him as emperor, Judaea was granted a favorable treaty assuring relative independence. This is proven by the coin evidence that Judaea continued to be governed by its own kings and rulers, not Roman officials, until 6 C.E., and extensively confirmed by Josephus and Cassius Dio. Though such "allied kingdoms" were kept under a tight leash and informally controlled and meddled with, all evidence regarding the legal and political practices of Roman emperors in the first century and before confirms that these states were not subject to direct Roman administration, taxation or levies. That was, in fact, the very point of not annexing them as provinces: not only to reward friendly states (and thus encourage other states to be friendly), but to avoid the headache and expense of taking over a region that was already pacified, subservient, and paying sufficient dues.<br />
<br />
Therefore, it is historically impossible that a Roman census was conducted under a Roman provincial governor when Judaea was still an allied kingdom. But it was typical and logical that immediately upon annexing a new territory a census would be taken of it. This was necessary to begin direct taxation and levies. So when Josephus describes Archelaus being removed from office, then Judaea being annexed to Syria and placed under the Roman command of Quirinius and his prefect Coponius, and then a census being conducted for the specific purpose of taking account of what Archelaus had left them, this description makes complete historical sense. In contrast, no other hypothesized "census" scenario makes any historical sense at all. <br />
<br />
As Josephus reports, and as all logic and precedent entail, Judaea was not being directly taxed by Rome nor administered by Romans before the year 6, and therefore there would be no purpose for Augustus to order a census there (Luke 2:1). Since forcing such a census on an allied kingdom in violation of its honor and its treaties would be such an astonishing and devastating insult contrary to all known precedent, there is no way it wouldn't have been noticed by historians like Josephus, nor any reason the Romans would undertake such a pointless and dangerous task. They would have nothing to gain by it, and plenty to lose, and Augustus was not so reckless as to think otherwise.[11]<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, inerrantists must have the impossible in order to save their bible from error. So these are the arguments they have attempted:<br />
<br />
'''1.5.1 Luke Meant "Before Quirinius"?'''<br />
<br />
The word translated "first" in Luke 2:2 can in certain contexts mean "before." But for various reasons such a meaning would not be grammatically correct in this case. Luke can only have meant, and all his readers would only have understood his sentence to mean, the first Augustan census that happened under Quirinius. And that is how all translators correctly interpret it.[12]<br />
<br />
'''1.5.2 Romans Subjected Allied Kingdoms to a Census?'''<br />
<br />
Since the very idea of Romans conducting a census of an allied kingdom is wholly implausible and unprecedented, inerrantists have tried to invent evidence of it. The same Lapis Venetus discussed above is cited as "evidence" that the free state of Apamea was subject to an official Roman census. However, neither that census nor the inscription itself is dated, and as noted above there is no reason to believe the inscription refers to any other census than that of 6 C.E. Regardless, since no city named "Apamea" was free after 12 B.C.E. and Quirinius was not of consular rank before that year, it is impossible that the Apamea referred to in this inscription was an independent kingdom at the time. The only other "evidence" offered is a census revolt put down by legions in Cappadocia in 36 C.E. (Tacitus, Annals [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=6.41 6.41]). Since Cappadocia was annexed as a Roman province in 17 C.E. (Annals [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=2.42 2.42], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=2.56 2.56]) this census was clearly not of an allied kingdom.[13]<br />
<br />
'''1.5.3 Jesus Born During Census of 8 B.C.E.?'''<br />
<br />
There is a modern myth that the Romans regularly conducted a census of their empire every 14 years. This is not true. There was little coordination between censuses of Roman citizens and censuses of provincial inhabitants, and rarely any fixed period of years between censuses, not even for citizens. Though Egypt continued to maintain a 14-year census cycle that the Romans inherited from the previous Ptolemaic government, this was not extended to or consistently coordinated with any other province. Other provinces were assessed when they could be, often at various different times from each other.[14]<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, this myth of a 14-year cycle is often used to support a claim that it would have been the census of 8 B.C.E. when Jesus was born, during the governorship of Saturninus rather than Quirinius. Why? Because some claim Tertullian said Jesus was born during the census of Saturninus (Against Marcion 4.19). But Tertullian doesn't say that. He says "censuses were conducted in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus" that confirm Jesus had brothers. Since these brothers had to have been born after Jesus, Tertullian cannot be referring to any census during which Jesus was born. There was in fact another Sentius Saturninus who was governor of Syria from 19 to 21 C.E. (the son of the former Sentius Saturninus) and it's almost certain this is whom Tertullian means.[15]<br />
<br />
So there is no support for linking Luke's census with any census of 8 B.C.E. Though we know there was a universal census conducted in that year, it was only of Roman citizens, not the provinces. It therefore could not have been the census Luke describes, which clearly affected non-citizen inhabitants of Judaea. Indeed, Judaea was not even a Roman territory in the year 8, nor was Quintilian governing Syria then.<br />
<br />
'''1.5.4 Herod's Census?'''<br />
<br />
Since all those arguments fail, the last resort is to claim that it wasn't really a Roman census but a census conducted by Herod the Great. The immediate problem with this is that Luke does not say any such thing. He is quite clear that he means a census ordered by Augustus, not Herod, and carried out under Quirinius, specifically in connection with Syria, not under Herod independently. Judaea was annexed to Syria under Quirinius in 6 C.E. and immediately subject to a census. Obviously that's the census Luke means. <br />
<br />
Nevertheless, the desperate plea is made that Luke "really meant" an unknown Herodian census. Apart from resting on no evidence at all, this claim is implausible for a number of reasons. Herod had no need of conducting a census, for the tribute owed him and that he owed Rome was a fixed annual sum. It didn't matter how many people were paying. Yet a census entails a vast outlay of expenses to cover administration and recordkeeping, and ties up a considerable amount of manpower. It also entails a significant inconvenience to the population, as even Luke's description makes clear. The Jews also had a tradition of cultural and moral hostility to a peacetime census. For example, 2 Samuel 24:1-17 and 1 Chronicles 21:1-17 depict the very idea of a peacetime census as sinful and Satanic, and when the Romans finally started subjecting Judaeans to a census in 6 C.E., many violently rebelled (Acts 5:37 and Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.1 18.1-8] & [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=20.102 20.102] and Jewish War [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=2.433 2.433-34] & [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=7.252 7.252-54]). For all these reasons, Herod had nothing to gain and plenty to lose by conducting his own census. To go ahead and do it anyway would have been so remarkable and unprecedented it could not have been omitted by historians like Josephus. Yet somehow no one noticed this remarkable census. And since Herod's involvement would be the most remarkable thing about it, it's inexplicable why Luke never mentions this, but only links the census to Roman decrees, Roman magistrates, and Roman provinces.[16]<br />
<br />
'''1.5.5 Herod's Oath?'''<br />
<br />
Stymied again, inerrantists resort to the last ditch effort of claiming Luke didn't really mean a "census" but an "oath-taking." And since according to Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=16.136 16.136], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.30 17.34-43], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.89 17.89]) Herod commanded his subjects in Judaea to swear an oath of loyalty to Rome in or around 8 B.C.E., "obviously" that's what Luke meant. This is an indefensible thesis. Luke says "census" not "oath." Nor does he describe a situation where Herod is commanding people to take oaths, but of Augustus commanding people to be assessed. Moreover, the only possible rationale for Joseph's travel (Luke 2:3-5) is a tribal census register or the possession of taxable property in Bethlehem subject to a census. In contrast, an oath could be sworn anywhere and did not require traveling, nor is there evidence mass oaths involved precise counting. And, again, Quirinius was still not governing Syria in 8 B.C.E.<br />
<br />
Some claim Luke meant an oath Augustus had made to him every five years, but this oath was only made "by the consuls and priests" of Rome, not even all citizens much less any provincials (Res Gestae 9). So this would never have involved Herod or Judaea. Some claim an annual oath was sworn by all the people subject to Rome on the anniversary of the emperor's accession, but even if that were the case, Judaea was not subject to Rome until 6 C.E., and an annual oath could not have involved constantly returning to one's ancestral city every year, or surely such an amazing inconvenience would be mentioned in the histories of the period. Others claim the event during which Jesus was born was when "the people of Rome" proclaimed Augustus "Father of the Nation" in 2 B.C.E., though that again requires reinventing the date of Herod's birth, inventing an impossible second governorship for Quirinius, and ignoring what Luke actually says. And after all that, this event was only a vote made by Roman citizens anyway. So this would never have involved Judaeans.[17]<br />
<br />
When everything above is considered, there is simply no way Luke 2:1-6 could have meant or ever been read as referring to any national oath.<br />
<br />
==='''CONCLUSION'''===<br />
<br />
'''1.6 Conclusion'''<br />
<br />
There is no reasonable way to get Matthew and Luke to agree with each other on the year Jesus was born. Luke clearly dates his birth in 6 C.E. and Matthew clearly dates it before 4 B.C.E. (possibly as early as 8 or 6 B.C.E.). Everyone concedes Matthew 's narrative cannot be fudged to fit 6 C.E. And all attempts to force Luke to fit Matthew require groundless assertions contrary to all evidence and precedent, and always require declaring that in one way or another Luke didn't mean what he said. Not one of these proposed "solutions" rests on any evidence other than complete fabrications or distortions.<br />
<br />
Ample evidence supports the conclusion that Luke meant no other year than 6 C.E., and no clear case can be made that Luke had any other year in mind. There is no way Quirinius could have governed Syria in any earlier year, nor could he have co-ruled Syria or been holding any other office there that Luke would refer to. There is no evidence that Augustus ever did or even would order a census of a Judaean kingdom before its annexation to Syria in 6 C.E. And Luke can neither have meant nor been describing a national "oath." Neither the Lapis Tiburtinus, nor the Lapis Venetus, nor the Antioch Stones even remotely imply any other conclusion. The Vardaman coins are definitively bogus. No reasonable case can be made that Herod the Great was still alive after 4 B.C.E. It's grammatically impossible to read Luke 2:2 as saying "before Quirinius governed Syria." And there is no rationale for assuming a census of Roman citizens in 8 B.C.E. would ever have affected the lives of any Judaean, and no evidence that Herod ever did or even would order a census of his own people, nor is it at all reasonable to interpret Luke as referring to such a thing.<br />
<br />
There is no escaping the conclusion. Matthew contradicts Luke on a question of historical fact, and this entails either Matthew or Luke reports something historically false. The Bible is in error.<br />
<br />
==='''FOOTNOTES'''===<br />
<br />
[1] See Burnett's ''Roman Provincial Coinage'' (1992), including the supplemental volume with corrections.<br />
<br />
[2] For more on the basic problem and these date-fishing efforts see "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#I The Basic Problem]" in my<br />
full Secular Web article. <br />
<br />
[3] Marcus Titius from 12 to 9 B.C.E., Sentius Saturninus from 9 to 6 B.C.E., and Quintilius <br />
Varus from 6 to 3 B.C.E., each serving a typical three year term, and both historians and <br />
inscriptions confirm Quirinius did not achieve consular rank until 12 B.C.E.. Under Roman law <br />
and principle, such a rank was a political prerequisite for holding a provincial <br />
proconsulship. For previous governors: Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=16.229 16.270-81], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=16.344 16.344], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.6 17.6-7], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.24 17.24], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.57 17.57], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.89 17.89-133], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.221 17.221-23], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.250 17.250-98]; Josephus, Jewish War [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=1.577 1.577], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=1.617 1.617-39], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=2.66 2.66-80]; Strabo 16.1.28; Velleius 2.117.2; Tacitus, Histories 5.9.2. Coin evidence also <br />
exists for their terms, though without precise dates. The consulship of Quirinius is <br />
reported in surviving consular lists etched in stone (see the entry for him in Pauly, Wissowa,<br />
and Kroll, Realencyclopâdie der klassischen Altertumwissenschaft) and by Cassius Dio 54.28.2. <br />
For more on the problems of inventing a new governorship for Quirinius see "Was Quirinius <br />
Twice Governor?" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
[4] For more see "The Lapis Tiburtinus" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
[5] For more see "The Lapis Venetus" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
[6] For more see "The Antioch Stones" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
[7] For my published reports on the Vardaman debacle, see Richard Carrier, "Pseudohistory in<br />
Jerry Vardaman's Magic Coins: The Nonsense of Micrographic Letters," Skeptical Inquirer 26.2 <br />
(March-April 2002): pp. 39-41, 61; and Richard Carrier, "More on Vardaman's Microletters," <br />
Skeptical Inquirer 26.4 (July-August 2002): pp. 60-61. For summary details, see "Vardaman's <br />
Magic 'Coin'" in my full Secular Web article.<br />
[8] For more see "Was Quirinius a Special Legate in B.C. Syria?" in my full Secular Web <br />
article. <br />
[9] For more see "Was Quirinius Sharing Command with a Previous Governor?" in my full Secular <br />
Web article. <br />
[10] Several wholly implausible arguments for rewriting the chronology in Josephus have been <br />
offered by Jack Finegan in his Handbook of Biblical Chronology (1998, revised edition). <br />
Finegan's errors consist of faulty math, implausible and unsupported conjectures, and relying <br />
on incompetent manuscript analysis. These gaffes are barely worthy of attention. Nevertheless, <br />
I address them in detail under "Was Herod Alive in 2 B.C.?" in my full Secular Web article.<br />
[11] For more on the basic problems of inventing an earlier census see "Was There a Roman <br />
Census in Judaea Before Quirinius?" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
[12] For full discussion of the grammatical problem, see "Did Luke Mean 'Before' Quirinius?" <br />
in my full Secular Web article. <br />
[13] For more see "Was Apamea a Free City?" in my full Secular Web article.<br />
[14] For more on the nature of Roman census-taking see "How Often Was the Census Held?" in my <br />
full Secular Web article.<br />
[15] For this and several other attempts to argue that Luke "only" got the governor wrong <br />
see "Was 'Quirinius' a Mistake for Someone Else?" in my full Secular Web article.<br />
[16] For more detail on all these points see "Was it a Census Conducted by Herod the Great?" <br />
in my full Secular Web article.<br />
[17] For more see "Two Last Ditch Attempts" in my full Secular Web article.</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Legends&diff=8631Legends2006-06-23T12:33:36Z<p>FreezBee: /* BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM */</p>
<hr />
<div>JW: (This Article still needs to be Formatted)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== '''''Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth''''' '''By Richard Carrier (2006''') ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== '''INTRODUCTION''' ===<br />
<br />
It is widely acknowledged that Quirinius became "governor of Syria" in 6 C.E., only then conducting a census of Judaea, and that Herod the Great died in 4 B.C.E., ten years before. Since Matthew indisputably claims Jesus was born while Herod the Great was still alive, while Luke indisputably claims Jesus was born when Quirinius was governor of Syria during a census of Judaea, Luke and Matthew are clearly in contradiction regarding when Jesus was born. They disagree by at least ten years, which entails one of them has made a historical error (or both have).<br />
Because this contradiction is so clear and certain and strongly backed by evidence, inerrancy proponents have invented a dizzying array of attempts to remove this contradiction by reconciling the details in Matthew and Luke. I have examined and researched these efforts in thorough detail, perhaps more than anyone. I have found all of them unsuccessful, even ludicrously so. Consequently, the primary importance of this contradiction is that is one of the clearest and most irrefutable examples of historical error in the Bible, which is perhaps why it has generated so many desperate attempts to wiggle out of it. <br />
And that is the second reason this error is so important: short of the vast and diverse "Bethlehem Star" literature, there is probably no other biblical error for which so many false, groundless, or implausible arguments have been contrived to "invent" or "revise" the historical facts of the ancient Roman world. As a teacher and a scholar, I find all this disinformation and wanton invention about the period I study quite appalling. And because there are so many such contrivances, relating to technical details of the social and political history of Rome that are difficult if not impossible for the average layman to investigate, duty demands that some impassioned expert do all the necessary research and make it available to the common reader. Otherwise, all those false claims might simply be believed and eventually become common assumptions.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== AUTHOR QUALIFICATIONS ===<br />
<br />
About Richard Carrier:<br />
Richard Carrier is one of the most popular authors at the [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/ Secular Web], and author of the book [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1420802933/102-1435806-2580904?n=283155 Sense and Goodness without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism](2005), and contributing author for [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/159102286X/internetinfidels/102-1435806-2580904 The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave](2005), and he has written articles for several print publications. He has a B.A. in history and classical civilizations from UC Berkeley, and an M.A. and M.Phil. in ancient history from Columbia University, where he is currently working on his dissertation in ancient science. While acquiring his degrees Carrier formally studied ancient Greek for over seven years, including papyrology, linguistics, and paleography. To learn more about him see [http://www.columbia.edu/~rcc20/about.html About Richard Carrier].<br />
<br />
I am a published author with considerable qualifications in the study of ancient history and languages (see inset), which should give my findings some weight of authority. I thoroughly document all the arguments and evidence relating to this discrepancy in an extensive article at the Secular Web, [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html The Date of the Nativity in Luke] (2001). I will provide here only a summary of the major conclusions of that article, along with some of the most relevant evidence.<br />
Invariably people write to me proposing some "new" argument, without having bothered to read the complete article above, only to learn that their "new" argument is in fact "old" and already refuted there. I have received countless such emails to date, over several years, and have yet to hear of any fact or argument I haven't already addressed. I advise all challengers to read that original article in its entirety before proposing to challenge the fact that Luke contradicts Matthew on the year of Christ's birth.<br />
The present summary is no substitute for that, and is only provided here to conveniently summarize the current status of this biblical error for readers not intent on gainsaying what they don't like to hear.<br />
<br />
=== BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM ===<br />
<br />
The Gospel of Luke says ([[Luke 2|2:1-6]]) Jesus was born during a census, which the historian Josephus records took place after Herod the Great died, and after his successor, Archelaus, was deposed after a ten year reign (Antiquities of the Jews [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.342 17.342-55], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.1 18.1-2], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.26 18.26]). But the Gospel of Matthew says (2:1-3) Jesus was born when Herod the Great was still alive, possibly two years before he died (2:7-16), and before Archelaus even took office (2:19-22). On a plain reading of the Bible, this is a contradiction. Someone erred.<br />
<br />
Efforts to challenge this conclusion fall into three general categories: either Luke meant something other than his words actually say, or Josephus failed to mention some "other" time that Quirinius was governor and a census made of Judaea, or Josephus erred in dating relevant events. A fourth option, of arguing Matthew meant something other than what he said, is blocked by the absolute clarity with which he said it. There is no rational way to argue that Matthew was referring to the political situation anywhere near 6 C.E. Not only does Matthew's narrative make this clear, but the physical evidence from coins of the region leave little room for disputing that Herod ceased his reign in 4 B.C.E., Archelaus then succeeded him, then ceased his own reign ten years later in 5 C.E., and Roman control of Judaea began in the year 6 (the year the earliest Roman coins struck for Judaea begin).[1] These facts are also recorded by Josephus (who is generally quite reliable on matters of public chronology) and partly corroborated by another historian, Cassius Dio (e.g. Roman History [http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/55*.html#27.6 55.27.6]).<br />
<br />
Consequently, to this day no one has attempted to argue that Matthew was describing an event of 6 C.E. Instead, all efforts are directed to arguing that Luke was describing an event five to twelve years earlier than we think, either by trying to harmonize Luke with Josephus, or by attacking the accuracy or alleged omissions of Josephus. However, all such attempts have required inventing or distorting socio-political facts of the period, or twisting Greek grammar or vocabulary beyond anything that would be recognizable to an ancient reader. Allowing either tactic would permit us to prove that no text ever written in human history has ever been in error about anything. Such an irrational consequence convicts both tactics as unsound.<br />
<br />
=== ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #1 - Looking In Luke For A Different Date ===<br />
<br />
1.2 Fishing in Luke for a Different Date<br />
Some observe that Luke says John the Baptist was born during the reign of "Herod the King" (1:5) and appears to have Jesus born less than a year later (1:22-24, 1:31-36, 1:80, 2:1, 2:40-42), which appears to agree with Matthew. However, Matthew does not mention or date the birth of John, and despite the impression given by English translations, Luke is unclear how much time actually passed between his birth and that of Jesus. More importantly, Archelaus was also called Herod (even on his own coins) and even Josephus calls him a king (Antiquities of the Jews [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.93 18.93]). Unlike Matthew, Luke provides no detail indicating either he or his source meant anything other than Herod Archelaus when dating the birth of John. Therefore, unless we assume Luke is contradicting himself, we can't assume he dated either the birth of John or Jesus to the time of Herod the Great. So there is no case to be made from Luke 1:5 that Luke agreed with Matthew.<br />
<br />
Likewise, when Luke dates the start of John's ministry to 28 C.E. (3:1) and then over twenty verses later says Jesus began his own ministry at "about thirty" (3:23) some assume the two ministries began the same year, which would place the birth of Jesus at "about" 3 B.C.E. which for a "rough" estimate is close enough to fit Matthew. But Luke never says the two ministries began the same year, and for various reasons it's unlikely they did. Luke clearly didn't know the year Jesus started his ministry, since he didn't know how old he was, despite claiming to know exactly when he was born. Since "about" thirty can be off by at least four years (26-34), and since Luke allows some time to pass between the start of John's ministry and the baptism of Jesus, and since scholars agree Jesus could have begun and ended his ministry anytime between 28 and 33 C.E., we are left with a window between 7 B.C.E. to 7 C.E. for his birth, far too wide to pin down. So there is no good case to be made from Luke 3:1-23 that he agreed with Matthew.[2]<br />
<br />
==='''ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #2 - Inventing Another Governorship For Quirinius'''===<br />
<br />
'''1.3 Inventing Another Governorship for Quirinius'''<br />
<br />
Even fishing a different date out of Luke would leave a contradiction within Luke, since the only chronological detail about Jesus that Luke is absolutely clear on is that he was born during "the first census when Quirinius was governing Syria" (2:2). All evidence confirms that Quirinius first became governor of Syria in 6 C.E. and the first Roman census of Judaea occurred at that time, and Luke clearly says this was a Roman census (2:1-6). So Luke didn't leave much room to maneuver. To reconcile Luke with Matthew, one must invent two facts nowhere in evidence: some other Syrian governorship for Quirinius and some other census affecting Judaea, both before Herod the Great died.<br />
<br />
But trying to invent an earlier Syrian governorship for Quirinius is a lost cause. Not only is there no evidence of it, and not only does it go against a plain reading of all the evidence we do have, but it's essentially impossible. No one ever governed the same province twice in the whole of Roman history. So the claim that Quirinius was the sole known exception is so extraordinary it certainly can't be maintained without evidence. Such an astonishing and unique honor could not have been omitted by Josephus or Tacitus (Annals [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=3.48 3.48]), yet both describe his career without any mention of it. Historical evidence also confirms other men governed Syria between 12 and 3 B.C.E., so Quirinius could not have been governor then, and he was not qualified to hold that office before the year 12.[3]<br />
<br />
Stymied by all these facts, inerrantists have resorted to everything from fabricating evidence of dual governorships or other fictional offices Quirinius is supposed to have held, to changing the year of Herod's death. None of this is even remotely reasonable, and most of it is based on the fantasies of amateurs or the abandoned conjectures of long dead historians. First, the alleged physical evidence:<br />
<br />
'''1.3.1 The Lapis Tiburtinus'''<br />
<br />
This is a headless (and thus nameless) inscription that the Vatican has taken the liberty to "restore" with the name of Quirinius. It is then "interpreted" as saying he governed Syria twice. But the actual inscription does not say anyone governed Syria twice, nor does it belong to Quirinius. Scholars now believe it belongs to Lucius Calpurnius Piso, since it fits what we know of his career very well, while no basis exists for claiming it belongs to Quirinius. And even if it did, it doesn't say anything about governing Syria twice. It says the honoree "received the governorship of Asia and then again of Syria."[4] <br />
<br />
'''1.3.2 The Lapis Venetus'''<br />
<br />
This is an inscription that really does mention Quirinius. It is the epitaph of Aemilius Secundus and reports he helped Quirinius conduct a census when the latter was governing Syria. So this inscription confirms that a census was taken of Syria when Quirinius was governor. It does not give a date, either for the census or the inscription itself. But there is no reason to believe this is a reference to any other census under Quirinius except the only one we know of, that of 6 C.E. Several inerrantists have simply "invented" early dates for this inscription, and then used these fabricated dates to claim this inscription as proof there was an earlier census under Quirinius. It proves no such thing.[5]<br />
<br />
'''1.3.3 The Antioch Stones'''<br />
<br />
These are two stones commemorating the offices of Gaius Julius Caristanius Caesiano, both mentioning that he held the deputy management of a city duumvirate held by Quirinius. The date is unknown but probably before the year 1. Conjuring various fantasies, inerrantists finagle this city office into evidence of an earlier governorship of Syria, but no rational argument can produce that conclusion. First, a duumvirate is a city office and has nothing to do with a provincial governorship. Second, this duumvirate was held in Galatia, not Syria.[6] <br />
<br />
'''1.3.4 The Vardaman Coins'''<br />
<br />
Jerry Vardaman claimed to have discovered microscopic letters literally covering ancient coins and inscriptions conveying all sorts of strange new facts, which he used to completely rewrite history. One of these amazing new "discoveries" was evidence Jesus was born in 11 or 12 B.C.E. Needless to say, Vardaman's claim constitutes fringe quackery that has gained no respect in the academic community. I inspected one of these coins myself under a magnifying glass and a digital microscope at the British Museum and found none of these amazing microscopic letters. Case closed.[7] <br />
<br />
'''1.3.5 Sub-Commander Quirinius?'''<br />
<br />
Since none of this evidence supports an earlier governorship for Quirinius, and all other evidence makes such a thing virtually impossible, only two strategies remain for the inerrantists: either Quirinius held some other "special command" in Syria and wasn't governor per se, or Quirinius held an unrecorded "dual-governorship" with some other governor. Neither of these proposals makes any sense in the context of Roman politics or historiography.<br />
<br />
First, the "sub-command" thesis. Luke's choice of vocabulary is somewhat imprecise, using a word that can refer to many different positions of command. Seizing on this, inerrantists argue that Luke meant "when Quirinius was holding a command in Syria," and not "when Quirinius was governing Syria." But stretching the word like this requires ignoring the grammar. Luke says "of Syria," not "in Syria," and thus he could not have been referring to some command in Syria but only a command of Syria. Even if we ignore Luke's grammar, the only real "command" anyone can find for Quirinius is a war he fought in Galatia, probably between 6 and 1 B.C.E. But there is no logical way Luke would refer to a census in Syria by referencing a war in Galatia, and no one would ever write or read "governing Syria" as meaning "fighting a war in Galatia." Unless Luke was a profoundly stupid man, or erred in his historical facts, he would have named the actual governor of Syria who oversaw a census in Judaea, not some unrelated officer in a faraway province.[8] <br />
<br />
'''1.3.6 Co-Commander Quirinius?'''<br />
<br />
A completely different tactic, to get around the problem that all the governors of Syria between 12 and 3 B.C.E. are already known, is to claim Quirinius was holding a dual governorship with one of those other governors. Not only does this still require claiming Quirinius governed the same province twice, an oddity never before recorded in the history of Roman politics, but it also requires completely inventing the idea of a "dual governorship." Since there is no evidence in all of Roman history of any province assigned two governors at the same time, this is another extraordinary claim that requires evidence to be believed. Since there isn't any, inerrantists invent some.<br />
<br />
Josephus is cited as saying "Saturninus and Volumnius were in charge of Syria" (Antiquities of the Jews 16.280) which is said to "prove" Syria was special enough to be assigned two governors. But Volumnius was not a governor. He was a procurator (Josephus, Jewish War 1.538), an office held only by men of fundamentally inferior rank, who were not even qualified to hold the office of a provincial governor. Conversely, a Roman who had achieved senatorial, and even consular rank--like Quirinius--would never deign to accept such a humiliating office as procurator. Socially, this would be as unbelievable as a United States president taking a job as shift manager at a local McDonald's. In Roman society, this would be so remarkable and unprecedented that, again, Josephus and Tacitus would not have omitted it from their accounts of his career. The same error is made using an inscription reporting that two "deputies," Rutilius Gallicus and Sentius Caecilianus, were assigned to the province of Africa. But this inscription clearly states that one of them was a praetor, and thus not of consular rank. So again, what we have here are not two governors, but a governor and his subordinate. Neither example supports even the conjecture that Quirinius could have held a dual-governorship, much less that he ever did so--or that anyone ever did. It would also make no logical sense for Luke to name a governor's subordinate rather than the actual governor of Syria.[9]<br />
<br />
So there is no basis for that claim, either. Since Josephus records and thus confirms an actual census under Quirinius in 6 C.E. when Quirinius was, in fact, governor "of Syria," all exactly as Luke says, there is no plausible case to be made that Luke had any other event in mind. All the evidence we have corroborates this conclusion, and none supports any alternative or renders any even remotely plausible.<br />
<br />
==='''ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #3 - Inventing A New Date For Herod's Death'''===<br />
<br />
1.4 Inventing a New Date for Herod's Death<br />
Since there is no reasonable way to get Quirinius to be governor of Syria anytime before 3 B.C.E., the natural last-ditch resort is to argue that Herod didn't really die in 4 B.C.E. Since there is no clear evidence who was governing Syria after 3 B.C.E., or where Quirinius was in those years, inerrantists fantasize that their imaginary "earlier governorship" of Quirinius fell around then and simply failed to be mentioned. This still doesn't avoid all the problems noted before--from a total lack of evidence to the extraordinary implausibility of a second governorship. It also requires rewriting history.<br />
<br />
Josephus already says Varus, not Quirinius, was governing Syria when Herod died (Jewish War [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=1.9 1.9-10]), and despite attempts to argue otherwise, Josephus is very clear and precise in his chronology for these events and cites several first-hand sources for them, while the manuscript tradition for the relevant details is completely sound, so there is no plausible case to made that he is mistaken.[10] Likewise, as mentioned earlier, evidence from coins corroborates all of this, including the reigns of Herod's successors, Philip, Antipas and Archelaus. The reign of Archelaus is further corroborated by Cassius Dio ([http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/55*.html#27.6 55.27.6]).<br />
<br />
Josephus also mentions a lunar eclipse soon before Herod's death, and astronomers note there was such an eclipse in 5 B.C.E. and 1 B.C.E. Inerrantists therefore want Herod to have died in or shortly after 1 B.C.E. However, not only is all evidence against such a notion, but the Jewish Scroll of Fasting records the calendar day of Herod's death, and it preceded that of the eclipse of 1 B.C.E, but not that of 5 B.C.E. Since Josephus says his death followed (not preceeded) an eclipse, the eclipse Josephus mentions was probably that of the year 5. In the end, there is simply no evidence Herod died later than the year 4, and no plausible case to be made that he did.<br />
<br />
==='''ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #4 - Inventing Another Census'''===<br />
<br />
1.5 Inventing Another Census<br />
There is no reasonable case to be made that Quirinius ever "governed Syria" before 6 C.E. Yet inventing such a fantasy contrary to all evidence and precedent is not even enough to eliminate the contradiction between Matthew and Luke. A census of Judaea before 6 C.E. must also be invented contrary to all evidence and precedent. This is because Luke's description establishes three facts: the census affected Judaea (2:4-5), it was conducted under the administration of Syria (2:2), and it was specifically a Roman census (2:1). These three facts rule out every attempt to argue that Luke meant some other census or event than the one recorded for 6 C.E.<br />
<br />
Before 6 C.E. Judaea was a nominally free kingdom, not a Roman province. Having sided with Augustus in the civil war that established him as emperor, Judaea was granted a favorable treaty assuring relative independence. This is proven by the coin evidence that Judaea continued to be governed by its own kings and rulers, not Roman officials, until 6 C.E., and extensively confirmed by Josephus and Cassius Dio. Though such "allied kingdoms" were kept under a tight leash and informally controlled and meddled with, all evidence regarding the legal and political practices of Roman emperors in the first century and before confirms that these states were not subject to direct Roman administration, taxation or levies. That was, in fact, the very point of not annexing them as provinces: not only to reward friendly states (and thus encourage other states to be friendly), but to avoid the headache and expense of taking over a region that was already pacified, subservient, and paying sufficient dues.<br />
<br />
Therefore, it is historically impossible that a Roman census was conducted under a Roman provincial governor when Judaea was still an allied kingdom. But it was typical and logical that immediately upon annexing a new territory a census would be taken of it. This was necessary to begin direct taxation and levies. So when Josephus describes Archelaus being removed from office, then Judaea being annexed to Syria and placed under the Roman command of Quirinius and his prefect Coponius, and then a census being conducted for the specific purpose of taking account of what Archelaus had left them, this description makes complete historical sense. In contrast, no other hypothesized "census" scenario makes any historical sense at all. <br />
<br />
As Josephus reports, and as all logic and precedent entail, Judaea was not being directly taxed by Rome nor administered by Romans before the year 6, and therefore there would be no purpose for Augustus to order a census there (Luke 2:1). Since forcing such a census on an allied kingdom in violation of its honor and its treaties would be such an astonishing and devastating insult contrary to all known precedent, there is no way it wouldn't have been noticed by historians like Josephus, nor any reason the Romans would undertake such a pointless and dangerous task. They would have nothing to gain by it, and plenty to lose, and Augustus was not so reckless as to think otherwise.[11]<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, inerrantists must have the impossible in order to save their bible from error. So these are the arguments they have attempted:<br />
<br />
'''1.5.1 Luke Meant "Before Quirinius"?'''<br />
<br />
The word translated "first" in Luke 2:2 can in certain contexts mean "before." But for various reasons such a meaning would not be grammatically correct in this case. Luke can only have meant, and all his readers would only have understood his sentence to mean, the first Augustan census that happened under Quirinius. And that is how all translators correctly interpret it.[12]<br />
<br />
'''1.5.2 Romans Subjected Allied Kingdoms to a Census?'''<br />
<br />
Since the very idea of Romans conducting a census of an allied kingdom is wholly implausible and unprecedented, inerrantists have tried to invent evidence of it. The same Lapis Venetus discussed above is cited as "evidence" that the free state of Apamea was subject to an official Roman census. However, neither that census nor the inscription itself is dated, and as noted above there is no reason to believe the inscription refers to any other census than that of 6 C.E. Regardless, since no city named "Apamea" was free after 12 B.C.E. and Quirinius was not of consular rank before that year, it is impossible that the Apamea referred to in this inscription was an independent kingdom at the time. The only other "evidence" offered is a census revolt put down by legions in Cappadocia in 36 C.E. (Tacitus, Annals [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=6.41 6.41]). Since Cappadocia was annexed as a Roman province in 17 C.E. (Annals [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=2.42 2.42], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=2.56 2.56]) this census was clearly not of an allied kingdom.[13]<br />
<br />
'''1.5.3 Jesus Born During Census of 8 B.C.E.?'''<br />
<br />
There is a modern myth that the Romans regularly conducted a census of their empire every 14 years. This is not true. There was little coordination between censuses of Roman citizens and censuses of provincial inhabitants, and rarely any fixed period of years between censuses, not even for citizens. Though Egypt continued to maintain a 14-year census cycle that the Romans inherited from the previous Ptolemaic government, this was not extended to or consistently coordinated with any other province. Other provinces were assessed when they could be, often at various different times from each other.[14]<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, this myth of a 14-year cycle is often used to support a claim that it would have been the census of 8 B.C.E. when Jesus was born, during the governorship of Saturninus rather than Quirinius. Why? Because some claim Tertullian said Jesus was born during the census of Saturninus (Against Marcion 4.19). But Tertullian doesn't say that. He says "censuses were conducted in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus" that confirm Jesus had brothers. Since these brothers had to have been born after Jesus, Tertullian cannot be referring to any census during which Jesus was born. There was in fact another Sentius Saturninus who was governor of Syria from 19 to 21 C.E. (the son of the former Sentius Saturninus) and it's almost certain this is whom Tertullian means.[15]<br />
<br />
So there is no support for linking Luke's census with any census of 8 B.C.E. Though we know there was a universal census conducted in that year, it was only of Roman citizens, not the provinces. It therefore could not have been the census Luke describes, which clearly affected non-citizen inhabitants of Judaea. Indeed, Judaea was not even a Roman territory in the year 8, nor was Quintilian governing Syria then.<br />
<br />
'''1.5.4 Herod's Census?'''<br />
<br />
Since all those arguments fail, the last resort is to claim that it wasn't really a Roman census but a census conducted by Herod the Great. The immediate problem with this is that Luke does not say any such thing. He is quite clear that he means a census ordered by Augustus, not Herod, and carried out under Quirinius, specifically in connection with Syria, not under Herod independently. Judaea was annexed to Syria under Quirinius in 6 C.E. and immediately subject to a census. Obviously that's the census Luke means. <br />
<br />
Nevertheless, the desperate plea is made that Luke "really meant" an unknown Herodian census. Apart from resting on no evidence at all, this claim is implausible for a number of reasons. Herod had no need of conducting a census, for the tribute owed him and that he owed Rome was a fixed annual sum. It didn't matter how many people were paying. Yet a census entails a vast outlay of expenses to cover administration and recordkeeping, and ties up a considerable amount of manpower. It also entails a significant inconvenience to the population, as even Luke's description makes clear. The Jews also had a tradition of cultural and moral hostility to a peacetime census. For example, 2 Samuel 24:1-17 and 1 Chronicles 21:1-17 depict the very idea of a peacetime census as sinful and Satanic, and when the Romans finally started subjecting Judaeans to a census in 6 C.E., many violently rebelled (Acts 5:37 and Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.1 18.1-8] & [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=20.102 20.102] and Jewish War [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=2.433 2.433-34] & [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=7.252 7.252-54]). For all these reasons, Herod had nothing to gain and plenty to lose by conducting his own census. To go ahead and do it anyway would have been so remarkable and unprecedented it could not have been omitted by historians like Josephus. Yet somehow no one noticed this remarkable census. And since Herod's involvement would be the most remarkable thing about it, it's inexplicable why Luke never mentions this, but only links the census to Roman decrees, Roman magistrates, and Roman provinces.[16]<br />
<br />
'''1.5.5 Herod's Oath?'''<br />
<br />
Stymied again, inerrantists resort to the last ditch effort of claiming Luke didn't really mean a "census" but an "oath-taking." And since according to Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=16.136 16.136], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.30 17.34-43], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.89 17.89]) Herod commanded his subjects in Judaea to swear an oath of loyalty to Rome in or around 8 B.C.E., "obviously" that's what Luke meant. This is an indefensible thesis. Luke says "census" not "oath." Nor does he describe a situation where Herod is commanding people to take oaths, but of Augustus commanding people to be assessed. Moreover, the only possible rationale for Joseph's travel (Luke 2:3-5) is a tribal census register or the possession of taxable property in Bethlehem subject to a census. In contrast, an oath could be sworn anywhere and did not require traveling, nor is there evidence mass oaths involved precise counting. And, again, Quirinius was still not governing Syria in 8 B.C.E.<br />
<br />
Some claim Luke meant an oath Augustus had made to him every five years, but this oath was only made "by the consuls and priests" of Rome, not even all citizens much less any provincials (Res Gestae 9). So this would never have involved Herod or Judaea. Some claim an annual oath was sworn by all the people subject to Rome on the anniversary of the emperor's accession, but even if that were the case, Judaea was not subject to Rome until 6 C.E., and an annual oath could not have involved constantly returning to one's ancestral city every year, or surely such an amazing inconvenience would be mentioned in the histories of the period. Others claim the event during which Jesus was born was when "the people of Rome" proclaimed Augustus "Father of the Nation" in 2 B.C.E., though that again requires reinventing the date of Herod's birth, inventing an impossible second governorship for Quirinius, and ignoring what Luke actually says. And after all that, this event was only a vote made by Roman citizens anyway. So this would never have involved Judaeans.[17]<br />
<br />
When everything above is considered, there is simply no way Luke 2:1-6 could have meant or ever been read as referring to any national oath.<br />
<br />
==='''CONCLUSION'''===<br />
<br />
'''1.6 Conclusion'''<br />
<br />
There is no reasonable way to get Matthew and Luke to agree with each other on the year Jesus was born. Luke clearly dates his birth in 6 C.E. and Matthew clearly dates it before 4 B.C.E. (possibly as early as 8 or 6 B.C.E.). Everyone concedes Matthew 's narrative cannot be fudged to fit 6 C.E. And all attempts to force Luke to fit Matthew require groundless assertions contrary to all evidence and precedent, and always require declaring that in one way or another Luke didn't mean what he said. Not one of these proposed "solutions" rests on any evidence other than complete fabrications or distortions.<br />
<br />
Ample evidence supports the conclusion that Luke meant no other year than 6 C.E., and no clear case can be made that Luke had any other year in mind. There is no way Quirinius could have governed Syria in any earlier year, nor could he have co-ruled Syria or been holding any other office there that Luke would refer to. There is no evidence that Augustus ever did or even would order a census of a Judaean kingdom before its annexation to Syria in 6 C.E. And Luke can neither have meant nor been describing a national "oath." Neither the Lapis Tiburtinus, nor the Lapis Venetus, nor the Antioch Stones even remotely imply any other conclusion. The Vardaman coins are definitively bogus. No reasonable case can be made that Herod the Great was still alive after 4 B.C.E. It's grammatically impossible to read Luke 2:2 as saying "before Quirinius governed Syria." And there is no rationale for assuming a census of Roman citizens in 8 B.C.E. would ever have affected the lives of any Judaean, and no evidence that Herod ever did or even would order a census of his own people, nor is it at all reasonable to interpret Luke as referring to such a thing.<br />
<br />
There is no escaping the conclusion. Matthew contradicts Luke on a question of historical fact, and this entails either Matthew or Luke reports something historically false. The Bible is in error.<br />
<br />
==='''FOOTNOTES'''===<br />
<br />
[1] See Burnett's ''Roman Provincial Coinage'' (1992), including the supplemental volume with corrections.<br />
<br />
[2] For more on the basic problem and these date-fishing efforts see "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#I The Basic Problem]" in my<br />
full Secular Web article. <br />
<br />
[3] Marcus Titius from 12 to 9 B.C.E., Sentius Saturninus from 9 to 6 B.C.E., and Quintilius <br />
Varus from 6 to 3 B.C.E., each serving a typical three year term, and both historians and <br />
inscriptions confirm Quirinius did not achieve consular rank until 12 B.C.E.. Under Roman law <br />
and principle, such a rank was a political prerequisite for holding a provincial <br />
proconsulship. For previous governors: Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=16.229 16.270-81], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=16.344 16.344], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.6 17.6-7], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.24 17.24], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.57 17.57], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.89 17.89-133], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.221 17.221-23], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.250 17.250-98]; Josephus, Jewish War [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=1.577 1.577], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=1.617 1.617-39], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=2.66 2.66-80]; Strabo 16.1.28; Velleius 2.117.2; Tacitus, Histories 5.9.2. Coin evidence also <br />
exists for their terms, though without precise dates. The consulship of Quirinius is <br />
reported in surviving consular lists etched in stone (see the entry for him in Pauly, Wissowa,<br />
and Kroll, Realencyclopâdie der klassischen Altertumwissenschaft) and by Cassius Dio 54.28.2. <br />
For more on the problems of inventing a new governorship for Quirinius see "Was Quirinius <br />
Twice Governor?" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
[4] For more see "The Lapis Tiburtinus" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
[5] For more see "The Lapis Venetus" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
[6] For more see "The Antioch Stones" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
[7] For my published reports on the Vardaman debacle, see Richard Carrier, "Pseudohistory in<br />
Jerry Vardaman's Magic Coins: The Nonsense of Micrographic Letters," Skeptical Inquirer 26.2 <br />
(March-April 2002): pp. 39-41, 61; and Richard Carrier, "More on Vardaman's Microletters," <br />
Skeptical Inquirer 26.4 (July-August 2002): pp. 60-61. For summary details, see "Vardaman's <br />
Magic 'Coin'" in my full Secular Web article.<br />
[8] For more see "Was Quirinius a Special Legate in B.C. Syria?" in my full Secular Web <br />
article. <br />
[9] For more see "Was Quirinius Sharing Command with a Previous Governor?" in my full Secular <br />
Web article. <br />
[10] Several wholly implausible arguments for rewriting the chronology in Josephus have been <br />
offered by Jack Finegan in his Handbook of Biblical Chronology (1998, revised edition). <br />
Finegan's errors consist of faulty math, implausible and unsupported conjectures, and relying <br />
on incompetent manuscript analysis. These gaffes are barely worthy of attention. Nevertheless, <br />
I address them in detail under "Was Herod Alive in 2 B.C.?" in my full Secular Web article.<br />
[11] For more on the basic problems of inventing an earlier census see "Was There a Roman <br />
Census in Judaea Before Quirinius?" in my full Secular Web article. <br />
[12] For full discussion of the grammatical problem, see "Did Luke Mean 'Before' Quirinius?" <br />
in my full Secular Web article. <br />
[13] For more see "Was Apamea a Free City?" in my full Secular Web article.<br />
[14] For more on the nature of Roman census-taking see "How Often Was the Census Held?" in my <br />
full Secular Web article.<br />
[15] For this and several other attempts to argue that Luke "only" got the governor wrong <br />
see "Was 'Quirinius' a Mistake for Someone Else?" in my full Secular Web article.<br />
[16] For more detail on all these points see "Was it a Census Conducted by Herod the Great?" <br />
in my full Secular Web article.<br />
[17] For more see "Two Last Ditch Attempts" in my full Secular Web article.</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Talk:Legends&diff=8869Talk:Legends2006-06-23T12:30:45Z<p>FreezBee: </p>
<hr />
<div>Concerning the formatting of the article, is there any particular reason that standard formatiing (using sections and subsections) isn't used? Using standard formatting would (1) give a TOC, and (2) make navigation easier. And, in particular, it would make linking from [[Luke 2:2]] easier.<br />
--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 06:46, 20 Jun 2006 (CDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Laziness. You are welcome to do it. Why do you think they call you FreeBee?<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 08:06, 20 Jun 2006 (CDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
FreezBee, I give up on trying to figure out how to create a TOC:<br />
<br />
1) There appear to be no relevant instructions.<br />
<br />
2) The only heading choice above is level two headline.<br />
<br />
3) When I imitate the text for Pages with TOC no TOC is created.<br />
<br />
Can you list instructions here on how to create a TOC step by step? Thanks.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 10:02, 20 Jun 2006 (CDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:Appears as if you have solved the problem yourself :-) Anyway, a TOC is automatically added, if there are at least three sections in the article. --[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 07:30, 23 Jun 2006 (CDT)</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Talk:Legends&diff=8606Talk:Legends2006-06-20T11:50:26Z<p>FreezBee: </p>
<hr />
<div>Concerning the formatting of the article, is there any particular reason that standard formatiing (using sections and subsections) isn't used? Using standard formatting would (1) give a TOC, and (2) make navigation easier. And, in particular, it would make linking from [[Luke 2:2]] easier.<br />
--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 06:46, 20 Jun 2006 (CDT)</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Luke_2:2&diff=8645Luke 2:22006-06-20T11:49:13Z<p>FreezBee: /* Pro */ Adding link</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Luke 2:1|Previous Verse]] < [[Luke 2]] > [[Luke 2:3|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
This was the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
See also [[Legends|Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth]].<br />
<br />
Quirinius did not become governor until 6 CE. His census occurred ten years after the death of Herod the Great, who died in 4BCE. This contradicts [[Matthew 2:1|Matthew's]] claim that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod.<br />
<br />
<br />
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html<br />
<br />
'''Conclusion'''<br />
"There is no way to rescue the Gospels of Matthew and Luke from contradicting each other on this one point of historical fact. The contradiction is plain and irrefutable, and stands as proof of the fallibility of the Bible, as well as the falsehood of one of the two New Testament accounts of the Nativity."<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[User:Opercularis|Opercularis]] 16:32, 26 Jan 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
===The CTT article in closer look===<br />
The [http://www.christian-thinktank.com CTT] web-site is owned by [http://www.christian-thinktank.com/webbio.html Glenn M. Miller ], a "committed evangelical disciple of Jesus Christ", which certainly is no crime, but does of course give us some info on his stance. <br />
<br />
The article in question is (as of this writing) latest updated September 1 1999, and is formed as quotations from the book ''The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible'' by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Lane_Fox Robin Lane Fox], an Oxford New College teacher of classical literature and history. Two other books of his, ''The Search for Alexander'' and ''Alexander the Great: A Biography'', formed the background history of Oliver Stone's film [http://www.archaeology.org/online/interviews/fox.html Alexander]. <br />
<br />
The quotations are followed by Glenn Miller's comments/rebuttals, and I won't go into all of it here, but limit myself to a few highlights. <br />
<br />
<br />
====Were king Herod and Quirinius contemporaries?====<br />
'''Fox:''' The Gospel, therefore, assumes that Quirinius and King Herod were contemporaries, when they were separated by ten years or more. <br />
<br />
'''Miller:''' I assume you mean contemporaries in office--they were certainly contemporaries in life...Quirinius, at the time of King Herod's death was doing military expeditions in the eastern provinces of the Roman empire (Tacitus , Annals 3:48; Florus, Roman History 2:31), with some evidence indicating that he either was a co-ruler with the governor of Syria (the somewhat inept Quintilius Varus) or at least placed in charge of the 14-year census in Palestine. Varus was famous for the later fiasco at the Teutoburger forest in Germany (9 ad) and at his appointment as Gov.. of Syria in 7 BC was largely 'untested'. The census was due in 8-7 BC, and Augustus could easily have ordered his trusted Quirinius (fresh from subduing the Pisidian highlanders) to assist in this volatile project. Herod I had recently lost favor of the emperor and was probably dragging his feet on taking the census--a process with always enraged the difficult Jews! This would have pushed the timeframe into the 5 BC mark, which fits the general data. <br />
<br />
<br />
Note that Richard Carrier does not come to the coclusion that Herod (the Great or possibly Archelaus) were "contemporaries in office", both Fox and Miller might be wrong here. Carrier's interpretation is that Mary was mot yet pregnant when she visited Elisabeth, actually as much as 12 years might separate the bith of John the Baptist and the birth of Jesus, see [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Luke Luke]. <br />
<br />
Also the "military expeditions in the eastern provinces of the Roman empire" refer to the campaign against the Homanadenses ("the Pisidian highlanders"), see [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#date The Date of Quirinius' Duumvirate in Pisidian Antioch], a campaign in Galatia, north of the Taurus mountains. As Carrier argues, it is unlikely that Quirinius should at the same time have been co-ruler of Syria south of that mountain range, and that he should have somehow been involved with a census in Palestine. <br />
<br />
Also there was no "14-year census in Palestine", this is a misunderstanding of an Egyptian census that was made in support of a special Egyptian capitation tax on all Egyptian citizens aged 14 or above, see [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#census How Often Was the Census Held?]. <br />
<br />
It is not known exactly when the campaign against the Homanadenses was, so it is not known, if it was finished just prior to 8-7 bce. Also the censuses that Miller refers to might have been the oaths of allegiance to Herod and Augustus, where we only know (from Flavius Josephus) that the Pharisees refused. In the paragraph just before his Conclusion [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Conclusion Conclusion], Richard Carriers writes this: <br />
<br />
'''Carrier:''' And we have no record of such an oath in Judaea in that year or any year near it, despite the fact that Josephus usually records them: the last such oaths commanded by Herod were in 20 B.C. and in 8 or 7 B.C. Worse, this thesis is inherently implausible: Luke does not use the vocabulary of oath-swearing, nor does he describe such a process. For example, Joseph would not travel to Bethlehem if all he had to do was swear an oath of allegiance--that had to be done where he lived. <br />
<br />
<br />
====Did someone serve twice as legate of Syria?.====<br />
'''Fox:''' Luke's Gospel, therefore, assumes that King Herod and the governor Quirinius were contemporaries, but they were separated by over ten years or more. The incoherent dating is only the start of the problem. <br />
<br />
Miller's response to this is covered on the "discussion" page in the section [[Talk:Luke_2:2#Did_someone_serve_twice_as_legate_of_Syria.3F|Did someone serve twice as legate of Syria?]].<br />
<br />
====Was it a census conducted by Herod the Great?====<br />
'''Fox:''' Luke's Nativity story hinges on its `decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.' `Caesar Augustus' was the Roman Emperor, but if the Nativity took place in the reign of the King Herod the Great, the Jews were still Herod's subjects, members of a client kingdom, not a province under direct Roman rule. <br />
<br />
'''Miller:''' You are somewhat mistaken here. It is true that Judea did not technically become a Roman province until 6 AD, but the facts prior to that indicate much tighter authority and control than your statement might lead one to believe. Rome did a military conquest before Herod the Great was even born. Pompey attacked Jerusalem and even invaded the Temple. was made a tributary (read: PAID TRIBUTE$) to Rome until Caesar defeated Pompey in Egypt around 48 BC. Herod the Great's dad had aided Caesar in that endeavor and so won the favor of Julius Caesar (and with it a procuratorship of, plus Roman citizenship and exemption from taxes.) Then in 47 BC, the daddy Herod appointed the son Herod to be governor of Galilee...still completely under Roman rule. He still had to be appointed tetrarch by Antony-- still a thrall, eh?!. He was also proclaimed 'king' by the Roman leaders (Octavius and Antony) in 40 bc--but he had to re-conquer the land from the Parthians, which he did in 37bc. As a 'client kingdom', they were still under the authority of Rome (all of the rulers, for example, were appointed--including ALL the Herods--and ratified by Rome.) <br />
<br />
'''Miller:''' Actually, when I keep reading your paragraph, it sounds like you are calling Luke mistaken in referring to Rome as 'driving the issue' of the census. He is INDEED making that point, but HE is correct in that...The client-kings WERE still subject to Roman enrollment decrees. [see Blaiklock, ''The Century of the New Testament'',(1962) and ''The Archeology of the New Testament'' (1970)] <br />
<br />
<br />
It is true that Judea became a Roman province in 63 bce - the king and the high priest, who were brothers, were quarreling, the king wanting to be high priest as well. Both of them sent a letter to Pompei who had conquered Syria in 64 bce, and Pompei sided with the high priest - had he sided with the king, Judea would have become a client kingdom instead. Now, the high priest had a supporter, the self-styled king of Idumaea (Edom), Antipatros, who was made Roman representative after the matter was settled, and he was the father of Herod the Great. Anyway, the tribute paid would be an agreed upon sum paid by Antipatros, who in return himself had to figure out how to raise it in the first round. No Roman censuses would be required for that, why should the Romans bother with something that wasn't their headache? But also see [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Herod Was it a Census Conducted by Herod the Great?]. <br />
<br />
<br />
====Does taxation imply registration?====<br />
'''Fox:''' The status of client-kings in the Roman Empire left them responsibility for their subjects' taxation. <br />
<br />
'''Miller:''' Not decision-making authority--they couldn't say 'no', but local execution of the enrollment process-"yes". <br />
<br />
<br />
Miller here continues in the assumption that taxation implies enrollment, that is registration, but it doesn't, see same link as above. <br />
<br />
<br />
====Taxation or oath-swearing?====<br />
'''Fox:''' In AD 6 we do know that Augustus was enacting a new tax on inheritance to help pay for his armies; <br />
<br />
'''Miller:''' BTW, the taxation to support his army, is the main reason it is believed that Quirinius assisted in the taxing of 8-5 BC...his extended military maneuvers on the Pisidian highlands (dating from around 12 BC) would have required additional financing... <br />
<br />
<br />
Which wasn't a taxing, but an oath-swearing, see above. <br />
<br />
<br />
====When was the census?====<br />
'''Fox:''' however, the tax affected only Roman citizens, not Jews of Nazareth, and there was no need for a worldwide census to register their names. <br />
<br />
'''Miller:''' Remember, the census in AD 6 is NOT the one of Luke 2.2 (of 8-6 BC.)...but the census of AD 6 DID hit the Jews pretty heavily...at least 600 talents as a nation acc. to Josephus (Antiq. 17.320; Jewish War 2.97--cited in Jeremias' Jerusalem in the Times of Jesus: An investigation into the economic and social conditions during the New Testament period,Fortress: 1969). As a national tax, it DID effect the Jewish folk--loads like this are ALWAYS 'distributed to the people'(!) in addition to the already oppressive tax structure of the Herods... <br />
<br />
'''Miller:''' And Luke does NOT place the 'worldwide census' at the time of the AD 6 tax...but rather puts it some time BEFORE the Syrian-based one in 7-5 BC... <br />
<br />
'''Miller:''' But more accurately, Luke was probably not referring to a taxation census at all--simply a "registration". Registrations were normally associated with (1) taxation (above discussion); (2) military service (Jews were exempt) and (3) special government "ballots". We have conclusive evidence that an empire-wide (in decree, not necessarily execution, of course) registration occurred in the time frame described by Luke! Martin [[http://www.christian-thinktank.com/bookabs.html#CKC CKC:89-90]] summarizes the literary, archeological, and iconographic evidence for this: <br />
<br />
'''Miller:''' " A sixth reason for placing the nativity of Jesus in 3 or 2 B.C. isthe coincidence of this date with the New Testament account that Jesus was born at the time when a Roman census was being conducted: "There went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the IRoman] world should be registered" (Luke 2:1). Historians have not been able to find any empire-wide census or registration in the years 7-5 B.C., but there is '''a reference to such a registration of all the Roman people not long before 5 February 2 B.C. written by Caesar Augustus himself''': "While I was administering my thirteenth consulship [2 B.C.] the senate and the equestrian order '''and the entire Roman people''' gave me the title Father of my Country" (Res Gestae 35, italics added). This award was given to Augustus on 5 February 2 B.C., therefore the registration of citizen approval must have taken place in 3 B.C. Orosius, in the fifth century, also said that Roman records of his time revealed that a census was indeed held when Augustus was made "the first of men"--an apt description of his award "Father of the Country"--at a time when all the great nations gave an oath of obedience to Augustus (6:22, 7:2). Orosius dated the census to 3 B.C. And besides that, Josephus substantiates that an oath of obedience to Augustus was required in Judea not long before the death of Herod (Antiquities I7:4I-45). This agrees nicely in a chronological sense with what Luke records. But more than that, an inscription found in Paphlagonia (eastern Turkey), also dated to 3 B.C., mentions an "oath sworn by all the people in the land at the altars of Augustus in the temples of Augustus in the various districts." And dovetailing precisely with this inscription, the early (fifth century) Armenian historian, Moses of Khoren, said the census that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem was conducted by Roman agents in Armenia where they set up "the image of Augustus Caesar in every temple.. ''The similarity of this language is strikingly akin to the wording on the Paphlagonian inscription describing the oath taken in 3 B.C. These indications can allow us to reasonably conclude that the oath (of Josephus, the Paphlagonian inscription, and Orosius) and the census (mentioned by Luke, Orosius, and Moses of Khoren) were one and the same. All of these things happened in 3 B.C.''" <br />
<br />
'''Miller:''' What this means is that we have very, very clear evidence of an empire-wide registration in the time frame required! (How much more data do you need?!) <br />
<br />
<br />
Now, there are two obvious problems here. Miller has previous to this operated with a census in 8-7 bce (where there happened to be an oath of allegiance), but now he wants us to have that be in 2 bce! Also Jews were not Roman citizens, obviously only Roman citizens could declare Augustus father of the (Roman) country! Being a citizen in a client kingdom does not make you a Roman citizen, not by itself at least. But see again Carrier's paragraph before his [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Conclusion Conclusion]. <br />
<br />
<br />
====First or before?====<br />
'''Fox:''' In Judea under Quirinius, we know from Josephus's histories of something more appropriate, not a worldwide decree but a local census in AD 6 to assess Judea when the province passed from rule by Herod's family to direct rule by Rome. Although this census was local, it caused a notorious outcry, not least because some of the Jews argued that the innovation was contrary to scripture and the will of God. According to the third Gospel, the census which took Joseph to Bethlehem was `the first while Quirinius was governor of Syria.' <br />
<br />
'''Miller:''' I have already pointed out that 'first while' is probably a mistranslation of the text -- 'before' is more in line with koine idiom (see the reference of N. Turner, above) <br />
<br />
<br />
Not complete agreement here. See [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Word Did Luke Mean "Before" Quirinius?]. <br />
<br />
<br />
--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 05:30, 7 Feb 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
See [http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html CTT]. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
This article seems to be fully rebuttet by what it states in the PRO section. See : [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html The Date of the Nativity in Luke] by Richard Carrier<br />
<br />
[[User:Opercularis|Opercularis]] 12:24, 31 Jan 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Luk&chapter=2&verse=2&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=luke%202:2;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke2.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Luke&chapter=2&verse=2 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Luke+2.2 Perseus]<br />
*[http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B42C002.htm HTML Bible]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Luke_Chapter_2,_Verse_2 BibleWiki]<br />
*[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html The Date of the Nativity in Luke] by Richard Carrier<br />
<br />
[[Category:Luke]]<br />
[[Category:History]]<br />
[[Category:Pro]]</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Talk:Legends&diff=8605Talk:Legends2006-06-20T11:46:37Z<p>FreezBee: </p>
<hr />
<div>Concerning the formatting of the article, is there any particular reason that standard formatiing (using sections and subsections) isn't used? Using standard formatting would (1) give a TOC, and (2) make navigation easier. <br />
--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 06:46, 20 Jun 2006 (CDT)</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Talk:Isaiah_7:14&diff=46114Talk:Isaiah 7:142006-06-19T16:39:51Z<p>FreezBee: Question</p>
<hr />
<div>It's obvious that the Christian Scriptures used the Hebrew Scriptures to "prove" their prophecy. But the Virgin Birth story was written decades AFTER Jesus, so its "Prophecy Fulfilled" angle is highly suspect. <br />
<br />
To Wit:<br />
A Russin cavalry officer in the Czar's army stops at an inn for the night. He gives his horse to the stable boy, who leads it to the shed. The officer notices on the shed there are a series of targets drawn, and in the exact center of each target is a single bullet hole. <br />
<br />
When he checks into the inn, he asks the innkeeper, "Who was the marksman who had perfect aim?" The innkeeper replies, "The stable boy." The officer is flabbergasted. "How did he learn to shoot so well?" The innkeeper explains, "It's really very simple. First he shoots the gun at the shed. Then he draws the circles."<br />
<br />
==<br />
<br />
It's easy to hit your target when you're the one who draws the circles, or writes the "history" after the fact.<br />
<br />
AdamHaHaretz<br />
<br />
<br />
:* Ehh, are you trying to say that Mary was a virgin, when she conceived Jesus, and that Matthew somehow was privy to this and therefore could select an appropriate quote from Isaiah?<br />
:--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 11:39, 19 Jun 2006 (CDT)</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Leviticus_11:6&diff=8574Leviticus 11:62006-06-08T16:31:20Z<p>FreezBee: /* Neutral */ Adding link</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Leviticus 11:5|Previous Verse]] < [[Leviticus 11]] > [[Leviticus 11:7|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
And the hare, because she cheweth the cud but parteth not the hoof, she is unclean unto you. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
Hares, more usually called rabbits nowadays, do not chew the cud.<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
Actually, they do - it's a process called "cecotrophy", and while it's not the exact same as the way a cow does it, it's essentially rumination (in fact, another word for cecotrophy is "pseudo-rumination").<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
What the "Con" section tries to say is that hares/rabbits occasionally eat their own faeces, which happens to also be called "refection".<br />
<br />
Structurally this can be considered to be equivalent to rumination, though the food has to leave the body before being chewed again.<br />
<br />
The web-page [http://www.carm.org/diff/Lev_11_5-6.htm Do the badger and rabbit chew cud?] suggests that the badger ([[Leviticus 11:5]]) and the rabbit were classified with more true ruminants (according to modern taxonomy), because they move their jaws in the same manner as the ruminants listed.<br />
<br />
There are some claims that we are dealing with a case of mistranslation (though I can't find any pages stating that right now :-)).<br />
<br />
<br />
For some discussion of the issue, see e.g. [http://www.skepticfiles.org/sr/4chew94.htm Chew on This... Again!].<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Lev&chapter=11&verse=6&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=leviticus%2011:6;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/leviticus/leviticus11.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Leviticus&chapter=11&verse=6 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Leviticus+11.6 Perseus]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Leviticus_Chapter_11,_Verse_6 BibleWiki]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Science]]<br />
[[Category:Leviticus]]<br />
[[Category:Pro]]</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Leviticus_11:6&diff=8573Leviticus 11:62006-06-08T16:29:34Z<p>FreezBee: /* Neutral */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Leviticus 11:5|Previous Verse]] < [[Leviticus 11]] > [[Leviticus 11:7|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
And the hare, because she cheweth the cud but parteth not the hoof, she is unclean unto you. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
Hares, more usually called rabbits nowadays, do not chew the cud.<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
Actually, they do - it's a process called "cecotrophy", and while it's not the exact same as the way a cow does it, it's essentially rumination (in fact, another word for cecotrophy is "pseudo-rumination").<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
What the "Con" section tries to say is that hares/rabbits occasionally eat their own faeces, which happens to also be called "refection".<br />
<br />
Structurally this can be considered to be equivalent to rumination, though the food has to leave the body before being chewed again.<br />
<br />
The web-page [http://www.carm.org/diff/Lev_11_5-6.htm Do the badger and rabbit chew cud?] suggests that the badger ([[Leviticus 11:5]]) and the rabbit were classified with more true ruminants (according to modern taxonomy), because they move their jaws in the same manner as the ruminants listed.<br />
<br />
There are some claims that we are dealing with a case of mistranslation (though I can't find any pages stating that right now :-)).<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Lev&chapter=11&verse=6&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=leviticus%2011:6;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/leviticus/leviticus11.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Leviticus&chapter=11&verse=6 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Leviticus+11.6 Perseus]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Leviticus_Chapter_11,_Verse_6 BibleWiki]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Science]]<br />
[[Category:Leviticus]]<br />
[[Category:Pro]]</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Revelation_7:4&diff=36247Revelation 7:42006-06-08T16:16:16Z<p>FreezBee: Adding to "Category:Con"</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Revelation 7:3|Previous Verse]] < [[Revelation 7]] > [[Revelation 7:5|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
And I heard the number of them that were sealed, a hundred and forty and four thousand, sealed out of every tribe of the children of Israel: (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
The next four verses go on to list the 12 tribes of Israel as:<br />
<br />
Judah,<br />
Ruben,<br />
Gad,<br />
Asher,<br />
Naphtali,<br />
Manasseh,<br />
Simeon,<br />
Levi,<br />
Issachar,<br />
Zebulon,<br />
Joseph,<br />
Benjamen.<br />
<br />
If one choses the twelve tribes are to be descendants of the sons of Jacob, then the above list leaves out Dan. Mannasseh was a son of Joseph.<br />
<br />
If one choses the twelve tribes to be those granted a parcel of land by God, then the above list leaves out Dan and Ephraim. Ephraim was another son of Joseph. Levi's descendants were preists and could live anywhere. Joseph's descendants were given a double share, one for Ephraim and another for Manasseh, since Joseph saved the family for starvation by providing for them in Egypt.<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
The tribe of Dan had become idolators and were therefore left out of the list of tribes to be replaced by the tribe of Ephraim that is frequently in the OT referred to as the tribe of Joseph.<br />
<br />
See [[Judges 18]] and [http://www.wordoftruthradio.com/questions/48.html What happened to Dan?].<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Rev&chapter=7&verse=4&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=revelation%207:4;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/revelation/revelation7.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Revelation&chapter=7&verse=4 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Revelation+7.4 Perseus]<br />
*[http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B66C007.htm HTML Bible]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Revelation_Chapter_7,_Verse_4 BibleWiki]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Contradictions]]<br />
[[Category:Revelation]]<br />
[[Category:Pro]]<br />
[[Category:Con]]</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Revelation_7:4&diff=8571Revelation 7:42006-06-08T16:15:26Z<p>FreezBee: /* Con */ Just to make more "con" sections :-)</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Revelation 7:3|Previous Verse]] < [[Revelation 7]] > [[Revelation 7:5|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
And I heard the number of them that were sealed, a hundred and forty and four thousand, sealed out of every tribe of the children of Israel: (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
The next four verses go on to list the 12 tribes of Israel as:<br />
<br />
Judah,<br />
Ruben,<br />
Gad,<br />
Asher,<br />
Naphtali,<br />
Manasseh,<br />
Simeon,<br />
Levi,<br />
Issachar,<br />
Zebulon,<br />
Joseph,<br />
Benjamen.<br />
<br />
If one choses the twelve tribes are to be descendants of the sons of Jacob, then the above list leaves out Dan. Mannasseh was a son of Joseph.<br />
<br />
If one choses the twelve tribes to be those granted a parcel of land by God, then the above list leaves out Dan and Ephraim. Ephraim was another son of Joseph. Levi's descendants were preists and could live anywhere. Joseph's descendants were given a double share, one for Ephraim and another for Manasseh, since Joseph saved the family for starvation by providing for them in Egypt.<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
The tribe of Dan had become idolators and were therefore left out of the list of tribes to be replaced by the tribe of Ephraim that is frequently in the OT referred to as the tribe of Joseph.<br />
<br />
See [[Judges 18]] and [http://www.wordoftruthradio.com/questions/48.html What happened to Dan?].<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Rev&chapter=7&verse=4&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=revelation%207:4;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/revelation/revelation7.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Revelation&chapter=7&verse=4 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Revelation+7.4 Perseus]<br />
*[http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B66C007.htm HTML Bible]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Revelation_Chapter_7,_Verse_4 BibleWiki]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Contradictions]]<br />
[[Category:Revelation]]<br />
[[Category:Pro]]</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Errancy_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal&diff=8579Errancy Wiki talk:Community Portal2006-06-08T15:54:17Z<p>FreezBee: Question</p>
<hr />
<div>Assuming that to be ok, I deleted spam from [[Revelation 7:4]] and [[1 Chronicles 4:18]]. I just want to know, if such action from a non-admin is ok<br />
<br />
--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 10:54, 8 Jun 2006 (CDT)<br />
.</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=1_Chronicles_4:18&diff=217691 Chronicles 4:182006-06-08T15:51:04Z<p>FreezBee: Spam removal</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[1 Chronicles 4:17|Previous Verse]] < [[1 Chronicles 4]] > [[1 Chronicles 4:19|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
And his wife the Jewess bare Jered the father of Gedor, and Heber the father of Soco, and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah. And these are the sons of Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered took. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
Edit this section if you suspect error.<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
Edit this section if you doubt error.<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=1Ch&chapter=4&verse=18&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=1%20chronicles%204:18;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1chronicles/1chronicles4.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=1%20Chronicles&chapter=4&verse=18 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=1%20Chronicles+4.18 Perseus]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/1%20Chronicles_Chapter_4,_Verse_18 BibleWiki]</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Revelation_7:4&diff=8570Revelation 7:42006-06-08T15:44:08Z<p>FreezBee: Spam removal</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Revelation 7:3|Previous Verse]] < [[Revelation 7]] > [[Revelation 7:5|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
And I heard the number of them that were sealed, a hundred and forty and four thousand, sealed out of every tribe of the children of Israel: (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
The next four verses go on to list the 12 tribes of Israel as:<br />
<br />
Judah,<br />
Ruben,<br />
Gad,<br />
Asher,<br />
Naphtali,<br />
Manasseh,<br />
Simeon,<br />
Levi,<br />
Issachar,<br />
Zebulon,<br />
Joseph,<br />
Benjamen.<br />
<br />
If one choses the twelve tribes are to be descendants of the sons of Jacob, then the above list leaves out Dan. Mannasseh was a son of Joseph.<br />
<br />
If one choses the twelve tribes to be those granted a parcel of land by God, then the above list leaves out Dan and Ephraim. Ephraim was another son of Joseph. Levi's descendants were preists and could live anywhere. Joseph's descendants were given a double share, one for Ephraim and another for Manasseh, since Joseph saved the family for starvation by providing for them in Egypt.<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
Edit this section if you doubt error.<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Rev&chapter=7&verse=4&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=revelation%207:4;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/revelation/revelation7.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Revelation&chapter=7&verse=4 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Revelation+7.4 Perseus]<br />
*[http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B66C007.htm HTML Bible]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Revelation_Chapter_7,_Verse_4 BibleWiki]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Contradictions]]<br />
[[Category:Revelation]]<br />
[[Category:Pro]]</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Job_1:6&diff=40710Job 1:62006-05-29T16:21:37Z<p>FreezBee: /* Neutral */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Job 1:5|Previous Verse]] < [[Job 1]] > [[Job 1:7|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
Now it came to pass on the day when the sons of God came to present themselves before Jehovah, that Satan also came among them. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
Edit this section if you suspect error.<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
Edit this section if you doubt error.<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Note that it's unclear here, whether Satan is one of the sons of God. --[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 11:21, 29 May 2006 (CDT)<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Job&chapter=1&verse=6&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=job%201:6;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/job/job1.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Job&chapter=1&verse=6 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Job+1.6 Perseus]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Job_Chapter_1,_Verse_6 BibleWiki]</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Genesis_2:9&diff=15067Genesis 2:92006-05-29T16:18:33Z<p>FreezBee: /* Neutral */ Minor correcttion</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Genesis 2:8|Previous Verse]] < [[Genesis 2]] > [[Genesis 2:10|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
And out of the ground made Jehovah God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
Edit this section if you suspect error.<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
Edit this section if you doubt error.<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Just for the fun of it: compare with [[Genesis 3:3]]. Which tree is Eve talking about?<br />
--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 11:15, 29 May 2006 (CDT)<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Gen&chapter=2&verse=9&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=genesis%202:9;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis2.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Genesis&chapter=2&verse=9 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Genesis+2.9 Perseus]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Genesis_Chapter_2,_Verse_9 BibleWiki]</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Genesis_3:3&diff=9021Genesis 3:32006-05-29T16:17:59Z<p>FreezBee: /* Neutral */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Genesis 3:2|Previous Verse]] < [[Genesis 3]] > [[Genesis 3:4|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
Edit this section if you suspect error.<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
Edit this section if you doubt error.<br />
<br />
Just for the fun of it, compare with [[Genesis 2:9]]. Which tree is Eve talking about?<br />
--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 11:17, 29 May 2006 (CDT)<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Gen&chapter=3&verse=3&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=genesis%203:3;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis3.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Genesis&chapter=3&verse=3 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Genesis+3.3 Perseus]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Genesis_Chapter_3,_Verse_3 BibleWiki]</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Genesis_2:9&diff=8514Genesis 2:92006-05-29T16:15:53Z<p>FreezBee: /* Neutral */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Genesis 2:8|Previous Verse]] < [[Genesis 2]] > [[Genesis 2:10|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
And out of the ground made Jehovah God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
Edit this section if you suspect error.<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
Edit this section if you doubt error.<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Just for the fun of it: compare with [[Genesis 3:4]]. Which tree is Eve talking about?<br />
--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 11:15, 29 May 2006 (CDT)<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Gen&chapter=2&verse=9&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=genesis%202:9;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis2.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Genesis&chapter=2&verse=9 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Genesis+2.9 Perseus]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Genesis_Chapter_2,_Verse_9 BibleWiki]</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_1:9&diff=46292Talk:Mark 1:92006-05-29T15:45:27Z<p>FreezBee: Correction</p>
<hr />
<div>JW:<br />
<br />
'''The Baptism''' story creates Doubt as to the Christian Conception (pun intended) of the trinity. If you are Christian than you have heard that Jesus = God. But you have read that Jesus and God talked to each other.<br />
<br />
In the Gospels "you have heard" is generally used for the illiterate Masses (pun intended) and refers to their hearing the Law being read. "You have read" is generally used for "The Pharisees" who being better educated presumably would have read for themselves.<br />
<br />
Read the following out loud so you can hear it:<br />
<br />
Mark 1: (KJV)<br />
11 "And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."<br />
<br />
If Jesus is god/gods and the son is the father/fathers then who the Hell is this voice coming from? I humbly offer three possibilities:<br />
<br />
1) Due to the water sounds Jesus was misquoted and actually said:<br />
<br />
"This is my beloved Sunscreen. Who cut the cheese?"<br />
<br />
2) In addition to his many other talents, Jesus was the all-time greatest ventriloquist.<br />
<br />
3) The voice was actually that of George Burns who was rehearsing for his upcoming role in Oh God, Part Jew!<br />
<br />
While we're on the subject of multiple personalities I have a related question for Christians that I've never received a satisfactory answer to:<br />
<br />
If someone has multiple personalities and only one of the personalities is Christian, what is the long term implication for the person/s soul/s? For instance:<br />
<br />
Does the one Christian personality save the entire person?<br />
<br />
Does the non Christian personality damn the entire person?<br />
<br />
Is only the Christian personality saved and if so what is the implication for the entire body?<br />
<br />
<br />
Joseph<br />
<br />
TRINITY, n.<br />
In the multiplex theism of certain Christian churches, three entirely distinct deities consistent with only one. Subordinate deities of the polytheistic faith, such as devils and angels, are not dowered with the power of combination, and must urge individually their clames to adoration and propitiation. The Trinity is one of the most sublime mysteries of our holy religion. In rejecting it because it is incomprehensible, Unitarians betray their inadequate sense of theological fundamentals. In religion we believe only what we do not understand, except in the instance of an intelligible doctrine that contradicts an incomprehensible one. In that case we believe the former as a part of the latter.<br />
<br />
<br />
TRINITY, n.<br />
(1) Name of a character played by Terence Hill co-starring with Bud Spencer in the movies "They Call Me Trinity" (1970) and "Trinity is STILL My Name!" (1972).<br />
(2) The Trinity or The Triunity, in trinitarian Christian theism, based on the Nicene Creed (325 ce), the ONE god that exists in three different persona: the father, the son, and the holy spirit. Although all Christian denominations that acknowledge the Nicene Creed count as trinitarian, the name itself was, however, first used in the later Athanasian Creed (c. 500 ce), which contains this passage:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
Now this is the catholic faith: We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being. <br><br />
For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Spirit is still another. <br><br />
But the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, equal in glory, coeternal in majesty. <br><br />
What the Father is, the Son is, and so is the Holy Spirit. <br><br />
Uncreated is the Father; uncreated is the Son; uncreated is the Spirit. <br><br />
The Father is infinite; the Son is infinite; the Holy Spirit is infinite. <br><br />
Eternal is the Father; eternal is the Son; eternal is the Spirit: <br><br />
And yet there are not three eternal beings, but one who is eternal; <br><br />
as there are not three uncreated and unlimited beings, but one who is uncreated and unlimited. <br><br />
Almighty is the Father; almighty is the Son; almighty is the Spirit: <br><br />
And yet there are not three almighty beings, but one who is almighty. <br><br />
Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: <br><br />
And yet there are not three gods, but one God. <br><br />
Thus the Father is Lord; the Son is Lord; the Holy Spirit is Lord: <br><br />
And yet there are not three lords, but one Lord. <br><br />
As Christian truth compels us to acknowledge each distinct person as God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords. <br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
So, now you know ;-)<br />
<br />
--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 10:45, 29 May 2006 (CDT)</div>FreezBeehttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Jeremiah_4:23&diff=25336Jeremiah 4:232006-05-23T10:50:48Z<p>FreezBee: /* Neutral */ Adding some irrelevant info</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Jeremiah 4:22|Previous Verse]] < [[Jeremiah 4]] > [[Jeremiah 4:24|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was waste and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
Edit this section if you suspect error.<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
Edit this section if you doubt error.<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Besides [[Genesis 1:2]], this is the only place where "tohu-wa-bohu" is used in the Tanakh. The situation is just prior to the Babylonian siege, and Jeremiah's vision is of the end result of the siege and the following destruction. --[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 05:50, 23 May 2006 (CDT)<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Jer&chapter=4&verse=23&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=jeremiah%204:23;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/jeremiah/jeremiah4.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Jeremiah&chapter=4&verse=23 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Jeremiah+4.23 Perseus]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Jeremiah_Chapter_4,_Verse_23 BibleWiki]</div>FreezBee