Friday, December 6, 2013
Today in Marine Corps History - 06 December 1928
A small detail of Marines under Captain Maurice G. Holmes defeated Nicaraguan bandits near Chuyelite. GySgt Charles Williams was mortally wounded in the during the fighting. Capt . Holmes was later awarded the Navy Cross for gallantry, and a posthumous award was given to GySgt. Williams.
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Luke's accuracy
During the first century, names of official government positions changed of ten. In spite of this fact, Luke has been found to precisely identify those he names with their correct titles. For example, when Cyprus switched from imperial province to senatorial province in 22 BC, the ruler's title changed as well. Still, Luke correctly identifies Sergios Paullus as "proconsul" of Cyprus rather than by his old title, "imperial legate." Luke also correctly designates the governors of Achaia and Asia as proconsuls since they were under the senate's jurisdiction rather than that of the emperor. Achaia was first under the senate from 27 BC to AD, then under the emperor until AD 44, and again under the senate from that time. In Philippi, Luke's term "praetors" fir the chief magistrates reflects a peculiar egoistical practice confirmed by Cicero: "Although they are called duumvirs in the other colonies, these men wished to be called praetors." Concerning Luke's accuracy in Acts
7:6, an Australian scholar, David Hayles, has published a comprehensive review of the
Quirinius issue. He asserts:
"It is relevant to note at this point that Luke is the only ancient author to have preserved the term 'politarches' (Acts 17:6). Any doubts of his reliability in this respect have been shattered by the discovery of nineteen different inscriptions attesting the title in Thessalonica and Macedonia generally. (HaDJ.RS11 30)
In Acts 28:7, Luke calls Publius "the first man of the island," a title confirmed by Greek and Latin inscriptions as the correct reference to the ruler of Malta at that time. Though Matthew and Mark record the popular designation for Herod Antipas, "king," Luke refers to him by his official title of "tetrarch." As much as Antipas desired it, the Romans granted royal status only to his father, Herod the Great, and not to him. Critics used to charge Luke with an error in Luke 3:1, where he speaks of Lysanias as tetrarch of Abilene. The only Lysanias of Abilene known to modern historians until recently was a "king" by that name, one who was executed by Mark Antony in 34 BC. But once again Luke prevailed over modern critics when an inscription dated between AD 14 and 29 referred to, you guessed it, "Lysanias the tetrarch," a ruler during that time. (RaW.BRD15 297ff).
Luke's accuracy has been confirmed by Luke's descriptions of local "color and atmosphere," Bruce relates:
"The accuracy which Luke shows in the details we have already examined extends also to the more general sphere of local color and atmosphere. He gets the atmosphere right every time. Jerusalem, with its excitable and intolerant crowds, is in marked contrast to the busy emporium of Syrian Antioch, where men of different creeds and nationalities rub shoulders and get their rough corners worn away, so that we are not supposed to find the first Gentile church established there, with Jews and non-Jews meeting in brotherly tolerance and fellowship. Then there is Philippi, the Roman colony with its self-important magistrates and bits citizens so very proud of being Romans; and Athens, with its endless disputations in the markwt-place and its unquenchable thirst for the latest news - a thirst for which its statesmen had chided it three and four hundred years earlier. Then there is Ephesus,with its temple of Artemis, one of the seven wonders of the world, and so many of its citizens depending for their living on the cult if the great goddess; with its reputation for superstition and magic - a reputation so wide-spread in the ancient world of a common name for written charms or spells Was Ephesia grammata (Ephesian Letters). It was no doubt scrolls containing spells that were publicly burnt as Paul powerfully proclaimed a faith which set men free from superstitious fears (Acts 19:19). (BrF.NTD 89)
I must conclude that it is far safer to trust the eyewitness accuracy of Luke than the modern critic, removed by almost two millennia from the events and who has scant archaeological or textual evidence at his disposal. Luke's record entitles him to be regarded as a writer if habitual accuracy.
7:6, an Australian scholar, David Hayles, has published a comprehensive review of the
Quirinius issue. He asserts:
"It is relevant to note at this point that Luke is the only ancient author to have preserved the term 'politarches' (Acts 17:6). Any doubts of his reliability in this respect have been shattered by the discovery of nineteen different inscriptions attesting the title in Thessalonica and Macedonia generally. (HaDJ.RS11 30)
In Acts 28:7, Luke calls Publius "the first man of the island," a title confirmed by Greek and Latin inscriptions as the correct reference to the ruler of Malta at that time. Though Matthew and Mark record the popular designation for Herod Antipas, "king," Luke refers to him by his official title of "tetrarch." As much as Antipas desired it, the Romans granted royal status only to his father, Herod the Great, and not to him. Critics used to charge Luke with an error in Luke 3:1, where he speaks of Lysanias as tetrarch of Abilene. The only Lysanias of Abilene known to modern historians until recently was a "king" by that name, one who was executed by Mark Antony in 34 BC. But once again Luke prevailed over modern critics when an inscription dated between AD 14 and 29 referred to, you guessed it, "Lysanias the tetrarch," a ruler during that time. (RaW.BRD15 297ff).
Luke's accuracy has been confirmed by Luke's descriptions of local "color and atmosphere," Bruce relates:
"The accuracy which Luke shows in the details we have already examined extends also to the more general sphere of local color and atmosphere. He gets the atmosphere right every time. Jerusalem, with its excitable and intolerant crowds, is in marked contrast to the busy emporium of Syrian Antioch, where men of different creeds and nationalities rub shoulders and get their rough corners worn away, so that we are not supposed to find the first Gentile church established there, with Jews and non-Jews meeting in brotherly tolerance and fellowship. Then there is Philippi, the Roman colony with its self-important magistrates and bits citizens so very proud of being Romans; and Athens, with its endless disputations in the markwt-place and its unquenchable thirst for the latest news - a thirst for which its statesmen had chided it three and four hundred years earlier. Then there is Ephesus,with its temple of Artemis, one of the seven wonders of the world, and so many of its citizens depending for their living on the cult if the great goddess; with its reputation for superstition and magic - a reputation so wide-spread in the ancient world of a common name for written charms or spells Was Ephesia grammata (Ephesian Letters). It was no doubt scrolls containing spells that were publicly burnt as Paul powerfully proclaimed a faith which set men free from superstitious fears (Acts 19:19). (BrF.NTD 89)
I must conclude that it is far safer to trust the eyewitness accuracy of Luke than the modern critic, removed by almost two millennia from the events and who has scant archaeological or textual evidence at his disposal. Luke's record entitles him to be regarded as a writer if habitual accuracy.
Quirinius' Rulership of Syria
The mystery of the whole problem, which Luke seems to know and archaeologist haven't yet discovered, is now Quirinius could have been ruling Syria in or about 5 BC. The governors of Syria are all known from 12 BC until 4 BC. We do know that Quirinius was an effective military leader and administrator and that he held several positions of highest rank in and around Syria from as early as 12 BC until AD 7. Sometime between 12 BC and AD 1, Quirinius was in charge of the Homqnadensian War, which was going on in a province neighboring Syria. Emily Schürer, the dominant scholar of the nineteenth century in this field, demonstrated that Syria was the most likely province from which Quirinius could have conducted the war and placed Quirinius as governor of Syria for a first term from 3 to 2 BC (ScE.HJP90 1:352) Ramsay, however, based on inscriptional evidence, believed that Quirinius was part of a cogovernorship about 8 to 6 BC. (RaW.BRD15 292-300) Finegan reasons:
"The resistance of the Homqnadensians must have been broken by the time the net of Roman roads was laid out in the province of Galatia in 6 B.C.; therefore, at least the major part of this war must have been over by the date... Quirinius could have been free to attend to other business in the East." (FiJ.BC 236-36)
English Canon E.C. Hudson has documented that Quirinius was highly successful in his mission against the Homqnadensians. More than 4,000 prisoners were taken, Quirinius was awarded the distinction of a triumph, and those of the colony of Pisidian Antioch elected him honorary duumvir, or chief magistrate, with a perfect, M. Servillius, designated to act for him. (HuH.PF 15;106)
Quirinius great ability contrasts vividly with the inexperience of Quinctilius Varus, official governor of Syria from 7 or 6 BC. Blaiklock, having investigated the evidence at length, shows that Varus "was a man for whom Augustus may justifiably have entertained no great regard. Augustus, above all, was an able judge of men, and it was Quinctilius Varus, who in AD 9, reprehensibly lost three legions in the Teutoburger forest in Germany, one of the most shocking disasters to Roman arms in the century. Assuming that Augustus had some misgivings over the ability of Varus to handle an explosive situation, it is easy to see a reason for special intrusion, under other direction, in the affairs of Varus' province. A reasonable reconstruction might assume that Varus came to Syria in 7 B.C., and untried man. The Census was due in Palestine in 8 or 7 B.C., and it could well be that Augustus ordered the man who had just successfully dealt with the problem of the Pisidian highlands, to undertake the delicate task. Herod I had recently lost favor of the emperor, and may have been temporizing about the taking of the census, a process which always enraged the difficult Jews. Quirinius' intervention, the requisite organization, and the preparation for the census, could easily have postponed the actual date of registration to the end of B.C., a reasonable date."
It is likely then that Quirinius held a ruling position over Syria by special commission. There is a key confirmation: Luke 2:2 allows for this leadership arrangement since the Greek term used does not specify that Quirinius was the official governor of Syria, only that he was in some was governing, ruling or leading Syria.
The dictum of Aristotle, commonly followed for all works of antiquity, is that the benefit of the doubt must be given to the author, not arrogated by three critic himself. The reason classical scholars follow this practice (and why New Testament critics ought to as well) is that the author of classical work, being much closer to the events in question, has a decided advantage in knowing details of the situation which the critic, removed from the event by centuries of time, has no way of knowing. Therefore it is one thing to claim a historical contradiction but quite another to prove it.
Since the historical documentation of ancient times in general and of Syria at this time in particular is scanty, can we trust Luke for his historical accuracy?
Monday, December 2, 2013
The Census
The most difficult apparent historical contradiction having to do with the gospels concerns Luke's report about a census taken while Quirinius governed Syria (Luke 2:2).
"Now at this time Ceasar Augustus issued a decree for a census of the whole to be taken. This census - the first - took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria, and everyone went to his home town to be registered" (Luke 2:1-3).
The census caused Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem just prior to Jesus' birth. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was born before the end of the reign of Herod the Great. It has been established with reasonable certainty that Herod's death took place in March or April of 4 BC.
(FiJ. BC 230ff.; and HoH.C 12-13) A census, not necessarily the first, was taken by Quirinius in AD 6. (FiJ.BC 234-36).
1) In Acts 5:37, Luke refers to the AD 6 census, indicating that he is conscious of where it fits in the chronology of the period. Luke calls this census 'the census', i.e., the well-known one of AD 6.
2) The Greek text of Luke 2:2 suggests a lesser known census prior to that if AD 6. The New American Standard Version translates Luke 2:2, "This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria." It is a faithful rendering of the sense of the Greek text which most literally reads: "This census, a first one, coming to pass when Quirinius is ruling, leading Syria." Since the Greek language often leaves out the word "is," it needs to be inserted and most naturally fits after the word "census." The sentence literally reads, "This census is a first one coming to pass when Quirinius is ruling Syria."
If there had been only the one very well-known census of AD 6 under Quirinius, Luke would have had said simply, "This is the census coming to pass when Quirinius..." We have no knowledge of any census taken after AD 6. Therefore, the grammar of Luke 2:3 seems most definitely to indicate Luke wants his readers to disregard the AD 6 census and think of an earlier, lesser known census of approximately 5 BC.
3) Josephus confirms that the rebellion of AD 6 was a response to an enrollment (census) probably carried out rather heavy-handedly. In contrast, the earlier Luke 2:2 census seems to have appealed to the custom of the Jews. At that time, about 5 BC, the Romans would have had two problems:
a) Herod ruled Judea, not Quirinius.
b) The people didn't like the Romans messing in their affairs.
From the standpoint of the Romans, the most diplomatic solution would be for Quirinius to negotiate a census carried out under Herod's auspices and according to the Jewish practice of registration by tribes. Thus Joseph and Mary traveled to Bethlehem, the city of Davis, and Joseph's "own city." The Romans' negotiating for this arrangement is indicated by the fact that they normally conducted censuses based on land ownership, not on hometowns. Occasionally, however, the Romans did make exceptions. An Egyptian papyrus of AD 104 indicates that the Egyptians were required to return to their home city for the Roman census in Egypt. (DeA. LAE 270-71)
But would Herod have been willing to acquiesce to such an arrangement? Most definitely, for Josephus records that he fell into disfavor with Ceasar Augustus, being demoted from "friend" to "subject." He would have needed to do whatever the Romans wanted him to do in order to regain Caesar's favor. Herod was close to death and having problems deciding on a successor. (He changed his will three times and killed three sons before deciding on Archelaus five days before his death.) The imminent death of Herod was further incentive for the Romans to have a census taken in preparation for a change of rulers.
4) In AD 6, Palestine was no longer under the rule of one king, but split up into several tetrarchies. Therefore, it would have been almost impossible for Joseph and Mary to be required to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem as Luke reports unless it was prior to the death of Herod the Great. In order to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem in AD 6, Joseph and Mary would have had to leave Galilee, governed by Herod Antipas and travel to Judea, now under direct control of the Roman government, which had just deposed Archelaus. But, as Wayne Brindle points out, the trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem "would have taken place only if there were one central authority over Palestine - such as only during the reign of Herod the Great." (BrW.CQ 27:51-52)
5) Luke 2:1 indicates that the census was in accordance with an empire-wide policy of registering all the people. This does not specify that all provinces were enrolled at the same time, only that Augustus was, as Hoehner states, "the first one in history to order a census or tax assessment of the whole provincial empire. This is further substantiated by the fact that Luke uses the present tense indicating that Augustus ordered census to be taken regularly rather than only one time." (HoH.C 15)
The renowned archaeologist, Sir William Ramsay, affirmed:
"The first enrollment in Syria was made in the year 8-7 B.C., but a consideration of the situation in Syria and Palestine about that time will show that the enrollment in Herod's kingdom was probably delayed for some time later. (RaW.WCB 174)
This would be the census of Luke 2:2 in about 6 or 5 BC, just before Herod's death.
6) Jesus was about thirty years old (Luke 3:23) when he began his ministry shortly after John the Baptist began his in "the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Ceasar" (Luke 3:1,2). Hoehner states: "Since the fifteenth year of Tiberius can be dated A.D. 27 to 29, it would mean that if Christ were born in A.D. 6, he would only have been twenty-one to twenty-three years old, not about thirty years old. (HoH.C 19)
Some argue that if a census had occurred in 6 or 5 BC, Josephus would have said something about it. But this is an argument from silence which is invalidated by the fact that probably the only reason Josephus mentions the AD 6 census is that it was highlighted by the tumultuous events of the disposition of Archelaus, the Romans takeover of all his material goods, and revolt of Judas of Galilee (also called "a Gualantine").
"Now at this time Ceasar Augustus issued a decree for a census of the whole to be taken. This census - the first - took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria, and everyone went to his home town to be registered" (Luke 2:1-3).
The census caused Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem just prior to Jesus' birth. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was born before the end of the reign of Herod the Great. It has been established with reasonable certainty that Herod's death took place in March or April of 4 BC.
(FiJ. BC 230ff.; and HoH.C 12-13) A census, not necessarily the first, was taken by Quirinius in AD 6. (FiJ.BC 234-36).
1) In Acts 5:37, Luke refers to the AD 6 census, indicating that he is conscious of where it fits in the chronology of the period. Luke calls this census 'the census', i.e., the well-known one of AD 6.
2) The Greek text of Luke 2:2 suggests a lesser known census prior to that if AD 6. The New American Standard Version translates Luke 2:2, "This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria." It is a faithful rendering of the sense of the Greek text which most literally reads: "This census, a first one, coming to pass when Quirinius is ruling, leading Syria." Since the Greek language often leaves out the word "is," it needs to be inserted and most naturally fits after the word "census." The sentence literally reads, "This census is a first one coming to pass when Quirinius is ruling Syria."
If there had been only the one very well-known census of AD 6 under Quirinius, Luke would have had said simply, "This is the census coming to pass when Quirinius..." We have no knowledge of any census taken after AD 6. Therefore, the grammar of Luke 2:3 seems most definitely to indicate Luke wants his readers to disregard the AD 6 census and think of an earlier, lesser known census of approximately 5 BC.
3) Josephus confirms that the rebellion of AD 6 was a response to an enrollment (census) probably carried out rather heavy-handedly. In contrast, the earlier Luke 2:2 census seems to have appealed to the custom of the Jews. At that time, about 5 BC, the Romans would have had two problems:
a) Herod ruled Judea, not Quirinius.
b) The people didn't like the Romans messing in their affairs.
From the standpoint of the Romans, the most diplomatic solution would be for Quirinius to negotiate a census carried out under Herod's auspices and according to the Jewish practice of registration by tribes. Thus Joseph and Mary traveled to Bethlehem, the city of Davis, and Joseph's "own city." The Romans' negotiating for this arrangement is indicated by the fact that they normally conducted censuses based on land ownership, not on hometowns. Occasionally, however, the Romans did make exceptions. An Egyptian papyrus of AD 104 indicates that the Egyptians were required to return to their home city for the Roman census in Egypt. (DeA. LAE 270-71)
But would Herod have been willing to acquiesce to such an arrangement? Most definitely, for Josephus records that he fell into disfavor with Ceasar Augustus, being demoted from "friend" to "subject." He would have needed to do whatever the Romans wanted him to do in order to regain Caesar's favor. Herod was close to death and having problems deciding on a successor. (He changed his will three times and killed three sons before deciding on Archelaus five days before his death.) The imminent death of Herod was further incentive for the Romans to have a census taken in preparation for a change of rulers.
4) In AD 6, Palestine was no longer under the rule of one king, but split up into several tetrarchies. Therefore, it would have been almost impossible for Joseph and Mary to be required to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem as Luke reports unless it was prior to the death of Herod the Great. In order to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem in AD 6, Joseph and Mary would have had to leave Galilee, governed by Herod Antipas and travel to Judea, now under direct control of the Roman government, which had just deposed Archelaus. But, as Wayne Brindle points out, the trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem "would have taken place only if there were one central authority over Palestine - such as only during the reign of Herod the Great." (BrW.CQ 27:51-52)
5) Luke 2:1 indicates that the census was in accordance with an empire-wide policy of registering all the people. This does not specify that all provinces were enrolled at the same time, only that Augustus was, as Hoehner states, "the first one in history to order a census or tax assessment of the whole provincial empire. This is further substantiated by the fact that Luke uses the present tense indicating that Augustus ordered census to be taken regularly rather than only one time." (HoH.C 15)
The renowned archaeologist, Sir William Ramsay, affirmed:
"The first enrollment in Syria was made in the year 8-7 B.C., but a consideration of the situation in Syria and Palestine about that time will show that the enrollment in Herod's kingdom was probably delayed for some time later. (RaW.WCB 174)
This would be the census of Luke 2:2 in about 6 or 5 BC, just before Herod's death.
6) Jesus was about thirty years old (Luke 3:23) when he began his ministry shortly after John the Baptist began his in "the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Ceasar" (Luke 3:1,2). Hoehner states: "Since the fifteenth year of Tiberius can be dated A.D. 27 to 29, it would mean that if Christ were born in A.D. 6, he would only have been twenty-one to twenty-three years old, not about thirty years old. (HoH.C 19)
Some argue that if a census had occurred in 6 or 5 BC, Josephus would have said something about it. But this is an argument from silence which is invalidated by the fact that probably the only reason Josephus mentions the AD 6 census is that it was highlighted by the tumultuous events of the disposition of Archelaus, the Romans takeover of all his material goods, and revolt of Judas of Galilee (also called "a Gualantine").
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)