Talk:Luke 2:2

From Errancy Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Treatment Of Defense Arguments

What we're going to do here is create A New Page for each separate Defense article. These articles will be referenced in the Neutral section. The Defense articles will be ranked as to quality compared to each other. The Con section will be reserved for a Complete Defense written specifically for ErrancyWiki.

--JoeWallack 10:35, 12 Aug 2006 (CDT)

Moved from neutral:

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?

Opercularis 10:36, 28 Jan 2006 (CST)

: 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. ' Opercularis 07:01, 29 Jan 2006 (CST)

Done! --FreezBee 07:56, 29 Jan 2006 (CST)

The Intterne Infidels have a feedback thread on Richard Carrier's article here:Nativity in Luke, discussion. --FreezBee 07:55, 29 Jan 2006 (CST)

My bad, no doubt about that

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.

Did someone serve twice as legate of Syria?

In the page linked in the "Con" section we find this:

Also, it is worth noting that we have a MS that describes a soldier who was 'legate of Syria' TWICE during this timeframe.

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.

The first option is defended by Ernest Martin in CKC:90:

" 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."

The second option is favored by William Ramsey (NBD, s.v. "Quirinius"):

"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.

Under either of these scenarios, SOMEONE served twice, and under either of these scenarios, Quirinius could EASILY have been responsible for the census.

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: How Often Was the Census Held?

And, yes, Richard Carrier does address the issues.

--FreezBee 03:35, 31 Jan 2006 (CST)

Then what?

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.

I just dont know for sure what to do.

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 :-).
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.
--FreezBee 10:58, 31 Jan 2006 (CST)

I agree to it, I will fix it soon

Opercularis 12:23, 31 Jan 2006 (CST)

The CTT article in closer look

Moved to Frontpage

--FreezBee 06:07, 7 Feb 2006 (CST)

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...

Opercularis 13:07, 5 Feb 2006 (CST)

--FreezBee 06:07, 7 Feb 2006 (CST)

I just found out that James Patrick Holding has a Miller vs. Carrier page as well: Common Census.

--FreezBee 05:23, 9 Feb 2006 (CST)

Re. Offensive Pro Argument

JW, you write that

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:
as a Source to first create an Outline of an Offensive argument.

Why not use the article Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth By Richard Carrier (2006) in stead of the article?

--FreezBee 06:46, 1 Jul 2006 (CDT)

Because the article here is just a Summary of the detailed article at II.

--JoeWallack 11:49, 1 Jul 2006 (CDT)