ANNOUNCEMENT: Until I can find some "proper" scholars to help me write "proper" articles about this stuff (for wider, professional peer review) I'm just going to keep on blogging. Hopefully, eventually, someone will notice who can help! :)
And now, tonight's post!
--------------------------------------------------
In my intro to Year-by-Year, I said we actually DO know quite a lot about the history surrounding most NT events. To get more specific, this may have to become a series.
For tonight, I'll do Jesus' birth - Herod & Quirinius.
Facts & Opinions:
FACTS: Herod the Great died in March of 4 BC. Herod did not die in 3, 2 or 1 BC, no matter what it says on the internet. Quirinius was Governor of Syria years after Jesus had already been born. Quirinius was probably NOT Governor of Syria twice, even though many have said so. We may never know who was Governor from 3 to 1 BC, but it doesn't matter, because Herod was dead. Varus was Governor of Syria when Herod died. Varus was Governor for another year after Herod died, and Varus had been Governor of Syria for the two years before Herod died. Quirinius was NOT Governor of Syria WHEN Jesus was born, no matter what Luke's Gospel says, or seems to say.
MY OPINION: Therefore, Luke is either wrong or all that history is wrong, or else Luke has simply been misunderstood. I believe, in fact, Luke has simply been mistranslated. He meant to say "before Quirinius..." but his grammar was atypical. No big deal, really. We just need to see that historians did their work solidly. The facts are the facts. And defending Luke is another deal altogether.
MORE FACTS: The ancient writer Tertullian said Jesus was born during a census when Saturninus was Governor of Syria. Saturninus was Governor of Syria from 9 BC to 6 BC. Herod the Great invaded North Arabia (Nabatea) in 9 BC and lost Augustus Caesar's respect and friendship temporarily because of it. Augustus had already ordered a census in all the provinces ("all the world") and he had the power to order one in Herod's kingdom as well. This presents a tremendously appealing, extremely plausible situation that could explain the famous Judean census and set the birth of Jesus in 7 BC.
MY OPINION: The main reason scholars have avoided this scenario is because of some verses in the gospels that sound as if Jesus can't be born that early. "About 30", and "46 years" are two of the big ones. But the problem, imho, wasn't that the verses didn't seem to fit - the problem was that christian scholars strongly avoid conclusions that make verses SEEM to be inaccurate. But I say let the verses SEEM inaccurate and trust that we will somehow work it out eventually! Don't ignore perfectly good secular historical scholarship because it doesn't fit with what you can ARGUE about some verses in the New Testament. I actually do think I have better arguments to explain those verses now... more on this later... but even if my arguments fail (or fail to persuade), I still say, "Let the verses SEEM inaccurate for as long as it takes God to make it okay...
But facts are FACTS!
FACT: Scholars continue to find and re-verify solid ground in secular history, while events of the New Testament remain stuck in the murky mud of vague, scholastic (deliberate? purposeful?) inconclusivity. Meanwhile, many preachers and theologians can make MORE hay from the NT in the parts where the sun does NOT shine. (To put that in big words: Vagueness of contextuality facilitates proof-texting and assists some in justification of their occasionally irresponsible, illogical and/or inconsistent interpretations of scripture.)
FACT: It is possible those last two trends may not actually be related. (Yeah, right!)
MY OPINION: Christian scholarship on NT Chronology seems to have suffered a bit from too much respect of certain dogmatic boundaries that were not to be crossed. If that's true, this has not served us well. If I'm right, it needs to end...
Not that I'll win any friends in the industry by posting this here! :)
Or will I? ;)
Get the NT/History Blog in your Inbox:
Recently Popular
-
The Roman registration of Herod's Kingdom is historically bizarre, and could not have been part of any "worldwide" registration. For Caesar ...
-
It's hard to face facts, but this stuff always takes longer than I wish it would. Then again, a wise woman once told me you can grow a squas...
-
(so called): Did it really exist before Acts 10:45? If it did, it was fully inclusive of all believers in Christ, at that time. Or, to put t...
-
My answer, in 2 paragraphs, an exercise suggested by Brian LePort: After nearly a decade of apostle-ing churches, having founded at leas...
-
My main interest in Lysanias, tetrarch of Abilene, began in hopes of finding a comparative case study (however minuscule) to make with Hero...
-
They're like BMW commercials, which are primarily on the air so that people who've already bought one can feel good about their expensive p...
-
If we did not have Luke's Gospel, christian tradition would probably hold that both Mary & Joseph were from Bethlehem. In such a parallel u...
-
Chronology on the Roman Empire is much easier to sort through than chronology on the New Testament for one simple reason – because ancient h...
-
Please enjoy this abridged excerpt from four wonderful pages I only wish I had written. May their tribe increase mightily. ----------------...
-
Please review my updated resume, and then give me a call. William J. Heroman, Teacher in Transition billheroman@gmail.com Transit...
3 comments:
Luke isn't wrong in his writing of "and this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria"
If you look at the word "tax" here in this passage it isn't the same word "tax" used in the verse before or the verse after. It's a derivative of that word "tax".
The "before" and "after" "tax" word is used in the context of actually collecting taxes. This word "taxing" in verse two is used in the context of logging (or compiling lists) of the tax records.
This verse isn't saying that the taxes were first collected when Cyrenius was governor - it's saying the compilation of the tax records begun when Cyrenius was governor.
This jives with history and the written gospel!
You're right about the word - do you study Greek? Yes, Luke 2:2 is only talking about a registration, or a census. There is no tax collection being referred to in that verse.
However, the rest is a bit more complex. Unfortunately! :)
There is actually a longstanding scholarly debate (in print) over whether that word "first" might mean "before". I stand with those who say that it must mean "before". It gets into irregular grammar and usage of Greek adverbs, which I couldn't sum up for you now if I tried!
But "before" makes Luke honest. Quirinius never set foot inside Israel until Jesus was already 12 years old. AND Quirinius DID instigate an actual tax. For both these reasons, there had to be another census "before Quirinius". And there was!
For more of my thoughts on all this, check in the sidebar Index for "Quirinius" and "9-8-7 BC". And of course, see the Year Books.
Here's a good example of - Let's use the brains God gave us! (Now Bill - I'm not talking about you - I'm talking about the "scholarly debaters")
For you though; here's your "acid test" of any info you come across on the internet concerning the translation of anything!
Look at your "translated verse" and ask yourself if it makes sense.
"and this tax log was before made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria".
If Cyrenius was governor of Syria 12 years after Jesus was born, how could he make the tax log before the taxes were collected (and still be the governor of Syria)?
If you go with that translation - this is what the verses say:
"And it came to pass in those days that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. And this tax record was before made when Cyrenius became governor of Syria (12 years later). And all went to be taxed, everyone into his own city."
It doesn't make sense in the context of the rest of the verses, especially if Cyrenius is governor of Syria after the taxes were collected.
Also of note in the Greek is that this word "first" is a "cardinal number". Yes, a cardinal number expresses quantity not order; but it also has a numeric value to it.
Now, how does this play out in this verse? The "numeric quantity" of the subject of the sentence being the Roman governors who tabulated tax rolls. What this is saying is that he's the first, the fore-most, the governor who first tabulated tax rolls from this particular decree.
Now the verse makes sense: it jives historically and jives gametically with the rest of the passage.
"And it came to pass in those days that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. And this tax record was first made (logged) when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. And all went to be taxed, everyone into his own city."
See this is what frustrates me about "scholarly debates". Half of translating is taking what ever it is you are working on and staying true to the context of what your translating. No translator can translate verbatim word for word from one language to another because no two languages are constructed the same.
If you translate something and your translation doesn't make sense than it's not right! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
Also, your translation has to fit the correct time frame of the document your working with or your information is going to have a whole lot of details that don't need to be there that skew the picture.
For instance - if you are a CIA agent and you are translating to get information on the current war in Iraq - it's not going to do you any good to translate a document from World War Two - just because England, France, Russia and Iraq are named in the document!
Obviously, your going to draw the wrong conclusion if you don't have the right time frame! (Your going to think England invaded Iraq with the help of France and Russia!)
Historically, when Cyrenius being the governor of Syria collected his own set of taxes - well good for him! - but the second verse of Luke 2 is not dealing with the taxes Cyrenius collected himself when Jesus was 12 years old! It's talking about the tax records that Cyrenius logged when this decree went out from Caesar that the empire was to be taxed!
Hope that clears some things up!!
Post a Comment