Comments |
 |
Comments
Got something to say?
Note: Comments are now threaded, click on “Reply to this comment” to respond to an earlier comment. Your reply will be placed following the referenced message.
Comments |
|
Got something to say?
Note: Comments are now threaded, click on “Reply to this comment” to respond to an earlier comment. Your reply will be placed following the referenced message.
I wonder if it would be possible to get the photographer Robert Vavra involved. He has taken many marvelous photos of horses as well as the alleged cousins unicorns. You can see some of his unicorn photos at http://www.robertvavra.com/stock_unicorns1.html. (No, I am not related to, do not work for and have never met Mr. Vavra. Just a fan of his work.)
Unicorn is used to translate the Hebrew word meaning some species of wild bull - a powerful, not easily tamed creature:
Whatever helps you sleep at night… But unicorn means unicorn!
Believe it or not, the Jewish scriptures were nto written in middle ages English:
“So what was the animal described in the Bible as the ‘unicorn’? The most important point to remember is that while the Bible writers were inspired and infallible, translations are another thing again. The word used in the Hebrew is ראם (re’em). This has been translated in various languages as monoceros, unicornis, unicorn, einhorn and eenhorn, all of which mean ‘one horn’. However, the word re’em is not known to have such a meaning. Many Jewish translations simply left it untranslated, because they were not sure which creature was being referred to.
Archaeology has in fact provided a powerful clue to the likely meaning of re’em. Mesopotamian reliefs have been excavated which show King Assurnasirpal hunting oxen with one horn. The associated texts show that this animal was called rimu. It is thus highly likely that this was the re’em of the Bible, a wild ox.
It appears that the reason it was shown in Assyrian (but not Egyptian) art as one-horned was as an artistic way of expressing the beauty of the fact that these horns on the rimu/re’em were very symmetrical, such that only one could be seen if the animal was viewed from one side. The first to translate the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek probably knew that the rimu/re’em was depicted as one-horned, so they translated it as monoceros (one horn).
The real re’em or wild ox was also known as the aurochs (Bos primigenius). This was the original wild bull depicted in, for example, the famous Lascaux (Cro-magnon) cave paintings. This powerful, formidable beast is now extinct, though its genetically impoverished descendants lived on as domestic cattle.”
That’s rich:
So this god figure decides to inspire a group of folks but figures there is no need to inspire translators and be accurate in other languages. Now that’s “intelligent design” for ya,
Can you tell me more about your explanation for the unicorn based in Assyrian art? On the face of it, it cofuses me. Whether the Assyrian’s depicted animals from one side or not, don’t most mammals with horns have pairs which are symetrical? Wouldn’t people who lived with many of these animals understand that the depicted animals have two horns? If the second horn was hidden by the profile angle of the Assysyrian drawings, wouldn’t these same people then assume that the animal had only one eye and ear? I think a cycloptic animal would be much more notable than one horned animal. Thanks.
Remember that the Hebrew word is re’em; the Assyrian word is rimu. This is the creature that the Greeks, translated into monokeros, which means “one horn”, as does the word, “unicorn”.
People often describe things, based on their appearance. As I said some time ago, the creatures we call “millipedes” don’t really have 1,000 feet; they just look as though they do.
If the only reference to the re’em/rimu, due to its extinction is a shot of it, with only one horn, then it’s not hard to see how the Greeks would translate that.
The point, that has been made time and time again, is that this creature is NOT the horsey-like critter we’ve come to know as a unicorn.
I (and a number of posters here) have repeatedly the folks here, who are yucking it up and claiming that Christians believe that unicorns exists, to actually show that the ancient Hebrews (Moses, David, Isaiah, etc.) were referring to the critter, depicted on this site.
To this day, no one has done so.
What are you saying, Rob? Are you really saying that God has made the text infallible in Hebrew that at times is very hard to decipher but yet has not made sure translator get it right as well? Where’s your belief and trust in God? Of course he makes sure translations are correct too. There would be no point making the original infallible is the translations are not. Besides, we do not have a sinlge original Biblical text so if He does not make sure translations are also correct we could never know the Bible.
OK, see you at the Unicorn Musuem next summer!
What Rob appears to be saying (as I have said) is that the re’em creature is NOT the horsey-looking critter that we’ve come to know as a “unicorn”.
Again, the whole purpose of this site is to mock AiG’s Creation Museum, in this particular case, by claiming that Christians believe that “unicorns” exists, simply because that word is used 9 times in the KJV translation of the Bible.
Month after month has passed by; but, we’ve yet to see anyone show that when David, Moses, Isaiah, and the other authors of the books, containing those nine verses that used the word, re’em, they (in fact) were making reference to the creature depicted on this site.
what do you mean by that?
The whole purpose of this site is to mock AiG’s Creation Museum, in this particular case, by claiming that Christians believe that “unicorns” exists, simply because that word is used 9 times in the KJV translation of the Bible.
On several occassions, the explanation has been given that the Hebrew word in those verses is re’em. Archaeological research has pointed to an extinct creature, a form of wild ox, as being the actual creature being reference.
The Assyrian word for this creature is rimu, similar to the Hebrew word, re’em. Add to that, the fact that this creature is described as having brute strength and is often compared with cattle in the Bible. The KJV Bible was translated from the Septuagint (in Greek), and apparently, their only reference to this creature was ancient artifacts, displaying (in profile) one horn. Hence the re’em got the name, “monokeros”, which means one horn.
Therefore, the challenge was made to our friendly neighborhood atheists, Bible skeptics, and agnostics to show that when the ancient Hebrews (King David, Moses, Isaiah, etc.) penned their verses and used the word, re’em, that they were, indeed, referring to the creature depicted on this site, that we’ve come to call a “unicorn”.
No one, I repeat, NO ONE has done to to this day.
And it turned out that the word always thought to mean “virgin” actually meant “young girl” but you don’t see Christian groups recalling their bibles and changing their dogma.
At that point in history young girls were virgins or they were shunned or stoned to death. I’m not an advocate of that just clearing up an incorrect assumption.
“At that point in history young girls were virgins or they were shunned or stoned to death. I’m not an advocate of that just clearing up an incorrect assumption.”
Or they were–gasp–sneaky and didn’t let on that they’d Done It because they knew they’d be shunned or stoned to death. Further, are we to believe that there was *no word* for “virgin” in ancient Hebrew that the writer couldn’t’ have used if he had really meant to say “virgin” instead of “young woman”? Please.
Actually “virgin” meant a woman who was and still is unmarried. Think along the idea of a maiden in rennaisance times. There was no real word for someone who was untouched. To be a virgin up until the middle of the dark ages, you could have sex, but if was frouned upon heavely. Alot of fathers and family would take advantage of young girls (BTW you were married long before 21 and most likely around 14-17) who were about of age. The first born in some cultrures was slain and thought to be the son of man fathers, as they thought that the male seed could last forever in a woman, as long as she has not given birth, and that multiple men could potentially father a single baby. The catholic church changed the meaning long ago to say that a “virgin” was an untouched woman to control the population of some peoples and to have definitive proof that the sons and daughters of a notable person was, indeed the son/daughter OF that person. The punishment that went with new law was stoning (no pot involved, unfortunately) if caught or showed signs (broken heimlen (sp?), bleeding, or bruseing) of having sex.
Actually “virgin” meant a woman who was and still is unmarried. Think along the idea of a maiden in rennaisance times. There was no real word for someone who was untouched.
That makes no sense. Women who were unmarried, yet sexually active, were/are called a lot of things. But, “virgin” ain’t one of them.
The mention of marital status implies that unmarried women were expected to be “untouched”.
To be a virgin up until the middle of the dark ages, you could have sex, but if was frouned upon heavely.
And what society was this? It wasn’t those in the Middle East, especially the Jewish or Arab ones.
As far as the Bible goes, did you happen to notice that many of the verses that use the word “virgin” state, in the surrounding context, that the woman hadn’t been sexually involved with anyone? A few examples:
Lev. 21:14, which describes the type of women the Levite priests could marry: A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, [or] an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.
Now, if they couldn’t take a widow, divorcee, harlot, or profane woman, that left only one type of woman: a virgin, one who has never had sex.
Gen 21:14 describes Isaac bride-to-be, Rebekah, And the damsel [was] very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up.
Young unmarried women were expected to be virgins and were deemed as such, unless there was evidence to the contrary. That title certainly DID NOT go to a unmarried woman, known to be sexually active.
You, like Whitecat, make the gross assumption that, in ancient Hebrew times, the terms were mutually exclusive. Again, check out Leviticus 21:13-14, which describes the type of women the Levite priests could and could not marry.
And he shall take a wife in her virginity.
A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.
A young unmarried woman was a virgin, a harlot, or profane (read “defiled”, aka slut).
A once-married woman (young or otherwise) was either a divorcee or a widow.
So, from the looks of things, there’s plenty of context to suggest that the word, translated as “virgin”, referred to a woman was known to be sexually pure. And, similarly, to get back on topic, there’s plenty of context in those 9 verses to suggest that the re’em creature, that the Greeks translated as “monokeros” is NOT the horsey-looking critter, we’ve come to know as a unicorn.
Don’t tell American Evangelicals this. The Bible was written in modern English two thousand years ago and has remained unchanged and unedited since then.
Ha! Ha! Yeah, but I bet the thumpers wish they could manipulate it at will to strike their current fancy. As when one of their number is caught diddling little boys they could zip in some quickie Jesus quote about boy diddling being okey-dokey so long as the diddler goes to rehab and apologizes.
Ooh, I get it. When it says “unicorn”, it doesn’t actually mean unicorn. It means something entirely different.
See, it might say unicorn right there in black and white. But it doesn’t actually mean what it says. It means something else. And you’d never think of it unless someone told you.
It’s good to know that when I read something that seems plain wrong, it doesn’t mean what it says. That certainly helps give me confidence!
( PS - can someone clarify what “lion” means? Just feel like I need to double-check. A picture would help. )
thanks for the translation!!……. :D :D
While you’re at it, you could also compile a list of possible “real” unicorns. For example, the one that is most likely is an extinct animal called the aurochs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs), which, as you can see, has two horns. However, its horns are symmetrical and thus could be viewed in profile as one. This is most likely what was meant by the Assyrian “rimu”, which is similar to the Hebrew “re’em” (which was translated into the Septuagint as “monokeros”, perhaps as the proper understanding of the Hebrew word, which has also been translated as “wild ox”). There has also been thought that it is really an oryx (also a symmetrically-horned animal that is translated into Modern Hebrew as “re’em” which is also similar to the Arabic “raim”, a lightly colored gazelle), but its goat size may be a problem. But yeah, if you’re gonna do this, first emphasize the medieval notion of the unicorn before delving into what was really meant prior to mistranslations from the Septuagint.
So last week I was at a bar hanging out with my friends when this guy in a cloak wouldn’t shut up about “re’em’s.” Wild ox this, rimu that, over and over with the auroch skit. . .give it a rest already!
Turns out his name was Joshura. That’s right Josh, you’re about as fun as a stick. A stick with a cloak and the voice of “comic book guy” from the Simpsons. Maybe we could make a list of “real” unicorns. . .or we could make a list of pet names for our toenails? Anyway, good luck and P.S. it’s not cool to drink lemonade mixed with sprite while sitting at the bar.
Just a few things:
1. Yes, I am a scientist, currently advancing to Ph.D candidacy in Molecular Genetics/Biochemistry.
2. Yes, I enjoy the TWIS podcast and enjoy it regularly.
3. However, I will not have my religion or, for the matter, the field of Biblical archeology disparaged in the way you just did, Andrew. I was just saying that this site needs a page on the origins of the unicorn/wild-ox/whatever, and you turn it into a form of bashing religion (you don’t think I can read between the words?). Shame on you.
Josh!
I’m sure that Kir and whatshisname will include lots of stuff on whatever the original unicorn might have been when they get the museum going. If you post info on the possible origins of the unicorn myth, I’m sure they’ll list your website. I think, right now, they are just interested in a billboard that makes a statement leading nowhere.
Leading nowhere? That’s your opinion. The statement seems pretty clear to me: “The Bible is full of fantastical stuff that no clear-minded adult would ever believe were it not encased in the pages of a mystical handbook.” Where does it lead? To logic, rational analysis, and skeptical inquiry, all things sadly missing in American life these days.
Ph.D. candidate? Where? Oral Roberts U?
Heh, no. Bob Jones University. ;)
Try the University of Pittsburgh. And no, I wouldn’t have anything to do with ORU, BJU, Regent, Liberty, Pepperdine, etc., for a few reasons:
1. I’m Jewish (that’s probably the biggest reason right there)
2. I’m a Democrat
3. I’m a scientist
Contrary to your belief, faith in G-d and faith in science are not mutually exclusive. That’s one of the bases behind Bibilcal archeology (oh, and that’s the American spelling, for some Brit out there who doesn’t understand how we spell things in the states). Additionally, science may give us the “how”, but not necessarily the “why”. And sometimes, we may never be able to understand the “how”. For example: the Big Bang. Where did all the matter come from, if nothing existed prior? Or if another universe did exist prior, but contracted into the dense ball, well all the matter still needed to come from somewhere in the first place, rather than in an infinite a priori loop. I’m not saying there will never be a scientific explanation for the first appearance of matter in the dense ball, but the general problem will always come down to the First Law of Thermodynamics, in which all the energy+mass that exists in the universe remains constant from Day One. That is where I take a leap of faith, because based on that, I don’t think there will ever be a good explanation that follows this first essential law.
Amen to that! Have you heard about the “artificial life” they are coming out with now. They will begin form “Scratch” just like it would have been with the big bang. The big bang apparantly began with nothing. How do they know what was there. And if evolution does not take place they will implant the things that it will need to take place. They say this will completely prove evolution. Load of crap.
As I said to another poster, all these guys are doing is validating a principle that Louis Pasteur demonstrated long ago, when he basically hacked down the “spontaneous generation” tenet of evolution nearly two centuries ago: Life comes only from life. It took LIVING scientists DECADES of time, BILLIONS of dollars, COUNTLESS man-hours of research, and REPEATED attempts to deliberately get a lowly virus.
This proves that “Goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo” evolution occured how?
It took God less than a week to create life, and He made far more complex creatures : )
Funny… you just kinda shot yourself in the foot MCWAY.
If “Life comes only from life.” that means god is ‘alive’ if god is alive… where did his life come from?
You must believe that ‘life’ can be spontaneously generated - otherwise who made your god?
Let me guess, the rules don’t apply to your god… you know because he told you so… he’s outside the bounds of reason…
Generally YE creationists spout a load of nonsense, claiming that they apply science and reason to their arguments - but wait! “How dare you apply logic to my beliefs… you can’t do that… ” blah blah.
You say that you can’t accept that a very simple life form could spontaneously appear - but then expect people to believe a hugely complex omnipotent omnipresent creator popped out of nowhere.
It’s idiotic.
First of all, I never claimed that a hugely complex omnipotent omnipresent creator popped out of nowhere.
To the contrary, the short answer would be that God is, as the Bible describes Him, “from everlasting to everlasting”; He has always existed. That concept isn’t hard to grasp.
Of course, “from everlasting to everlasting” isn’t a problem for followers of “Goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo” evolution either. They simply refer to it as “matter”; hence, we end up with the dogma known as materialism (or naturalism), the paradigm on which evolution is based (as Rob pointed out earlier).
You have no origin for matter and no explanation for it. So, your griping about my not being to do the same with God is downright silly.
You say that you can’t accept that a very simple life form could spontaneously appear.
That part of your statement is correct, for one simple reason, the one I mentioned in my earlier post: It took LIVING scientists DECADES of time, BILLIONS of dollars, COUNTLESS man-hours of research, and REPEATED attempts to deliberately get a lowly virus.
If that “simple” life took that much DELIBERATE effort and intent, there is no way that such “simple” life can randomly form with no guidance, no intent, and no design, whatsoever.
In short, the major difference between your beliefs and mine is what we hold to be “from everlasting to everlasting”. For me, it’s the living, sentient, supernatural God; for you, it’s non-living, non-sentient, inexplicable (for lack of a better term) “goo”.
You truly are a man of science McWay. ‘I believe God is “from everlasting to everlasting”, so there. Yep, end of. That’s the way it is. My highly scientific critical mind has decided my sky fairy is everlasting to everlasting, so no logic can reach him. Oh no, this isn’t base on faith - my beliefs are scientific.’
Then, I’m in good company, with guys like Pasteur, Newton, etc. Although I’m not a scientist, they were and they believed in the same God that I do.
No logic can reach your sacred 5-billion-year-old, inexplicably (but not supernaturally derived) blob of “goo”, either.
But, that hasn’t stopped you from adhering to the dogma that you are the product of series of “accidents” and random occurence with no sentient guidance.
How about I stick with my “sky daddy”; you stick with your “goo”; and we’ll call it even.
MCWAY you have no reasoned argument to offer… I’d leave it to Rob if I were you.
Newton was a well know religious philosopher, and was a theist. Pasteur’s views are not really understood today, some claim him as religious others as an agnostic (perhaps pantheist).
Newtons scientific works have been confirmed, studied, validated and improved. His religious philosophy hasn’t faired as well.
I’m glad you’re in the “good company” MCWAY - the 1700-1800 is probably where you’d fit in best. I’ll stick around here in the 21st century with Hawking and alike.
“No logic can reach…” etc… MCWAY - logic is exactly what arrived at this theory. Even if you disagree with the logic, only a fool would discount it as illogical.
I think we’ve covered that science is not dogmatic - otherwise it would not change. Religion is dogmatic, not science.
MCWAY I’m not sure what your “sky daddy” is exactly - probably an imaginary friend. I wouldn’t dream of calling it even, primarily because ‘eveolution’ theory has well documented scientific research backing it up - however your religious dogma does not.
How’s the evidence for demons coming along. I take it you still believe in them?
Newton was a well know religious philosopher, and was a theist. Pasteur’s views are not really understood today, some claim him as religious others as an agnostic (perhaps pantheist).
Newtons scientific works have been confirmed, studied, validated and improved. His religious philosophy hasn’t faired as well.
Either Newton believed in Creation or he didn’t. And from all appearances, he did. So squashed the atheists’ claims of believing in Creation being a hindrance to scientific progress.
I’m glad you’re in the “good company” MCWAY - the 1700-1800 is probably where you’d fit in best. I’ll stick around here in the 21st century with Hawking and alike.
“No logic can reach…” etc… MCWAY - logic is exactly what arrived at this theory. Even if you disagree with the logic, only a fool would discount it as illogical.
I think we’ve covered that science is not dogmatic - otherwise it would not change. Religion is dogmatic, not science.
I thought the latest “Goo-to-you…..” flavor of the month was named Dawkins. Whatever his name is, he won’t be the first and he certainly won’t be the last atheist to have his blustering, blown by the wayside, as Christianity is and will remain.
Logic had little to do with how the theory of evolution came to be. It’s the result of a naturalistic mindset, with a deliberate intent for a godless explanation for life on earth. Evolutionists, past and present (including Darwin himself) have admitted such.
Science isn’t dogmatic; materialism/naturalism, the philosophic engine that drives evolution, is. That point repeatedly escapes you.
MCWAY I’m not sure what your “sky daddy” is exactly - probably an imaginary friend. I wouldn’t dream of calling it even, primarily because ‘eveolution’ theory has well documented scientific research backing it up - however your religious dogma does not.
How’s the evidence for demons coming along. I take it you still believe in them?
I’m sorry!! You referred to God as a “sky fairy”. BTW, how’s the search for your standard or measuring stick for morality?
Was there a point to your last post? I think I missed it.
I was quite clear that Newton was a theist. Have you read any of his religious philosophy? I’m sure you’d disagree with much of it… I just disagree with a more of it.
Why should Christianity ‘blow’ atheists away any more than Islam? How is your faith better than Islam?
As for the point that “repeatedly escapes” me; the “engine” the drives evolution is the same “engine” that drives all science.
Again… social morality I thought we’d covered this MCWAY how long can you ignore the point? Try this [Robin Allott. 1991. Journal of Social and Biological Structures. 14(4) 455-471.] An online version which is publicly accessible is here… http://www.percepp.com/morality.htm
So to finish… How’s the evidence for demons coming along. I take it you still believe in them?
“My highly scientific critical mind has decided my sky fairy is everlasting to everlasting, so no logic can reach him.”
***it is precisely logic that leads to the need for an uncreated prime cause.
“I was quite clear that Newton was a theist. Have you read any of his religious philosophy? I’m sure you’d disagree with much of it… I just disagree with a more of it.”
***the point is belief in the need or existence of a prime creator, not any particular specific belief of this beings intent.
“Why should Christianity ‘blow’ atheists away any more than Islam? How is your faith better than Islam?”
***define “better”. i think the issue is truth, not “better”, but can you really not think of dozens of ways christianity is different in ways you approve of than islam? if not, you are either purposely evil (i don’t think that is the case0 or merely ignorant of the actual beliefs.
***it is precisely logic that leads to the need for an uncreated prime cause.
Rob, don’t be silly - why uncreated?
I was quite clear that Newton was a theist
***define “better”. i think the issue is truth, not “better”, but can you really not think of dozens of ways christianity is different in ways you approve of than islam? if not, you are either purposely evil (i don’t think that is the case0 or merely ignorant of the actual beliefs.
A good old fashioned false dichotomy.
why uncreated? simple logic - how can a first cause be created?
a dichotomy? what are you talking about????
So how does something that is “Uncreated” exist?
The false dichotomy is…
“you are either purposely evil .[snip]. or merely ignorant of the actual beliefs.”
interestingly enough the “scientist” shwunie must believe in both spontaneous generation and lamarckian evolution!
Biblical Archaeology? Are you kidding? No, come on, seriously, you are kidding, aren’t you? I mean, if you were serious you’d probably be able to spell “archaeology”, right?
please list for us the archaeological finds that refute any biblical history (then I will list the thousands that confirm it):
*cough
Evolutionary fossil record anyone?
and before you even think about telling everyone there are gaps, stick your head in a toilet. The thing is, every time a fossil fills a gap, you are delighted to say there are two gaps now: either side of it.
Here’s some news for you: one fossil in the wrong place or of the wrong age would completely decimate evolutionary theory.
Go fucking find one. There are millions out there
I don’t think Rob was talking about Creationism. Or if he was, I certainly didn’t read that into what he said. Biblical archeology is a different field, relating to the cultures and religious practices of the ancient Middle East. If you had taken the time to take your head out of your ass, you would have realized that.
please look up the words “archaeology” and “paleontology”, then get back to me……..
oh, by the way, there are thousands of “out of place” fossils - they are all dismissed as intrusions or something else since they do not fit the dominant paradigm. Though this has nothing to do with me beliefs about science or Christ….in my opinion, the language of the bible allows for yom to mean either a day or an era, and does not disallow death of animals befor eman. On purely scientific and historic evidence, I believe darwinian evolution to be very poorly supported, and only still extant because it is the best PURELY NATURALISTIC theory going, not the best theory that fits the evidence.
One thousand archaeological finds can not confirm any biblical history because examples can never prove something true. However, a single example to the contrary can DISPROVE something. Still, though, I’d be interested in seeing what you believe to be historical evidence supporting any of the fantastical claims in the bible.
Please define what you mean by “any of the fantastical claims in the bible.” There are thopusands if not hundreds of thousands of bits of archaeological, inscriptional and manuscriptual evidences for the accuracy of the histories and accounts of the Bible, so I am assuming you mean something else?
As with all great stories, the background story on which the primary narrative sits is generally factual. It’s true the bible has a good track record in some regards.
However, for example, just because I read a James Bond story that’s set in England, London, with Queen Elizabeth II ruling as queen, Brown as Prime Minister in 2007… doesn’t mean that I believe any of Bond’s exploits are true.
Although this isn’t strictly ‘archaeological’ example… we can find some rather dodgy chronology in the bible. The census called which required Joseph to return to Bethlehem is, well, a little premature.
This census event is clearly an invention by gospel writers to transplant Joseph into the city of David, ready for birth of Jesus. This would ensure that old testament teachings fit Jesus birth.
This is one example of bible errancy, there are of course many more.
Well, first, skeptics used to claim the romans conducted NO such censuses where people wer required to return to their ancestral city. they don’t any more.
there are a number of ways to reconcile the census in Luke (one of the best sources extant for roman history in this area and time) with other hisotrical acocunts (which you assume to be accurate on a far more flimsy basis than the account of Luke, I believe becaus it supports your skepticism).
—-Luke 2:2: Making Sense of the Date of Jesus’ Birth
John M. Rist
Cambridge
—-The suggestion made in this note is that in Luke 2:2 we should read ‘Quintilius’ instead of ‘Quirinius’. The evidence is primarily that of Tertullian, and the conclusion is that Luke 2:2 as emended confirms that the evangelist or his source held that Jesus was born not in AD 6, but in 7 or 6 BC, in line with other evidence in Luke himself and in Matthew. Further textual suggestions as to how we could make sense of the census are appended.
For those who believe that the Gospels are accurate historical records of Jesus’ life, one of the most difficult problems in the New Testament is the census mentioned in Luke 2:1-2:
Now it came about in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all were proceeding to register for the census, everyone to his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him and was with child.
So, Luke tells us Augustus took a census before Jesus was born and this was the reason Joseph took Mary to Bethlehem. However, critics say there are five reasons why Luke’s account is historically incorrect.
1. There is no known evidence of an Empire-wide census in the reign of Augustus. If it occurred, wouldn’t it be mentioned by one or another of the ancient historians who recorded this period?
2. Josephus records a lot about Herod but does not mention a Roman census in Palestine.
3. Quirinius was not appointed governor of Syria and Judea until A.D. 6, many years after Jesus was born.
4. In a Roman census, Joseph would not have been required to travel to Bethlehem and he would not have been required to take Mary with him.
5. A Roman census could not have been carried out in Herod’s kingdom while Herod was still alive.
In light of these facts, did Luke make vast historical errors in his chronology of events? All of this was stated or implied in the Peter Jennings in his ABC Special “The Search for Jesus,” and continues to be brought up by many critical scholars today. Historian Dr. Edwin Yamauchi told me:
Quirinius, we know, was governor leader in A.D. 6 when there was a census and there was a revolt led by a man called Judas of Galilee. And there are several proposed solutions to this well-known problem. One solution, of course, is that Luke was clearly in error here; that he didn’t have correct information. Yet Luke is the most careful of all the Gospel writers to try to correlate events in Judea with Roman events. He knows that Jesus was born in the reign of Augustus; that Jesus began His ministry in the reign of Tiberius and so forth.
An Empire-wide census?
Let’s answer some of these objections. When Luke states that a decree from Caesar Augustus went out that all the world should be taxed, was he talking about just one empire-wide census? No, according to Roman historian A. N. Sherwin White. The censuses were taken in different provinces over a period of time. But Caesar Augustus was the first one in history to order a census or tax assessment of the whole provincial empire. Luke uses the present tense to indicate that Augustus ordered censuses to be taken regularly throughout the empire rather than only one time.
Second, papyri collected in Egypt, have shown that the Romans undertook periodic censuses throughout their empire. In Roman Egypt, for example, from A.D. 33 until 257 A.D., 258 different censuses were taken at 14-year intervals. This evidence has been known for a number of years, and substantiates Luke’s reference to Augustus’ census, but it seems to work against the Lucan account in terms of the year when Jesus was born. Why? Because the 14-year intervals do not intersect with the year of Jesus’ birth in 4 B.C.
But concerning that problem, the Dictionary of New Testament Background [Craig Evans and Stanley Porter, eds., InterVarsity, 2000] states: “Evidence indicates that Egyptian censuses were taken at 7-year intervals during the reign of Augustus and can be established with indirect and direct evidence for the years of 11-10 B.C., 4-3 B.C., A.D. 4 and 5, and A.D. 11 and 12.” This information is based on documentation presented in The Demography of Roman Egypt by Bagnell and Friar, a book published by Cambridge University Press in 1994.
Third, there are other reasons to believe a census was taken by Caesar Augustus in 4 or 5 B.C. Augustus knew of Herod’s paranoia. Herod frequently changed his will and then would kill the family member he had put in charge if he were to die. Each time he changed his will and the one who would succeed him, he had to get permission from the Roman emperor to do so.
So, Emperor Augustus knew what was happening in Palestine. It is reasonable to assume that Augustus, anticipating the problems that would come about when Herod died, would want to take a census of Herod’s territory and might well have extended the Egyptian census of 4-3 B.C. or performed something like it in Judea.
The mentioning of the census in Luke 2:1 is the only historical reference of this census from antiquity, yet it rests on a plausible reconstruction of events. Edwin Yamauchi comments, “…this is a case where we do have something recorded in the New Testament which is not directly correlated by extra-biblical evidence. This doesn’t mean that it did not happen, however, because there are many things that occur only in a given text without corroborative evidence of other texts or inscriptions.”
But what about Luke’s reference, “this was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria?” When Luke says this was the “first” census that took place under Quirinius, the Greek word prote, usually translated “first,” according to some Greek scholars can also be translated “prior.” If that is Luke’s meaning, then, he would be referring to a census taken prior to the one taken when Quirinius was governor in 6 A.D. Is it possible that a prior census was taken, or even taken by Quirinius himself?
Well, historians know that Quirinius had a government assignment in Syria between 12 B.C. to 2 B.C. He was responsible for reducing the number of rebellious mountaineers in the highlands of Pisidia. As such, he was a highly placed military figure in the Near East and highly trusted by Emperor Caesar Augustus. Augustus, knowing of the turmoil in Herod the Great’s territory, may well have put his trusted friend Quirinius in charge of a census enrollment in the region of Syria just before the end of Herod’s life.
The time period from 7 to 6 B.C. also coincides with the transition period between the rule of the two legates of Syria: Saturninus from 9 to 6 B.C. and Varus from 7 to 4 B.C. The transition of power between these two men took place between 7 to 6 B.C., and Augustus again may have appointed his friend Quirinius to step in and conduct a census taxation when he could not trust anyone else.
Again, Luke’s statement has a plausible foundation in history.
—-Next, what about the criticism that in a Roman census Joseph would not have been required to travel to Bethlehem and he would not have been required to bring Mary with him? Well, now historians have found that in A.D. 104, Vivius Maximus issued an edict that states, “It is essential for all people to return to their homes for the census.” This indicates it was plausible for Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem as Luke indicates. In fact, it is just one of the many reasons scholars have found why Mary would have needed to go with Joseph on his trip to Bethlehem. Claire Pfann suggests another.
I think that we find a few basic presuppositions that are just our own modern skepticism and really don’t deal with the reality of the fact that, if Joseph and Mary had come to live together as a married couple at this point, why on earth would he leave her at home when he faced a prolonged absence, waiting for the census to be accomplished?
—–Next, what can be said to those who say a Roman census could not have been carried out in Herod’s kingdom while Herod was alive?
This is simply not true. Records have now been found that show the emperor did take censuses in vassal kingdoms like Herod’s. In fact, when Herod died, his domain was divided among his three sons, and Augustus ordered that taxes be reduced in the territory of one of his sons. It proves the Roman emperor was not afraid to intervene in one of his vassal kingdoms.
Further, it is now known that in 8-7 B.C., Herod came into disfavor with Augustus and was thereafter treated as a subject rather than a friend. It resulted in Herod’s autonomy being taken away from him.
Third, historians have also discovered that the people of Herod’s domain took an oath of allegiance not just to Herod, but to both Augustus and Herod, which proves there was a greater involvement of Augustus in Herod’s realm.
Finally, Luke’s account points to a census taken before Herod the Great’s death and the division of his kingdom. Why? It would have been highly implausible to think that after Herod’s kingdom had been divided between his three sons in 4 B.C. that people in Nazareth under Herod Antipas would have traveled to Bethlehem, the territory belonging to Archelaus for purposes of taxation. It makes more sense that such traveling would have been done when all the territories were under Herod’s rule himself and Augustus called for an overall census.
So, since it has been proved that Augustus had taken censuses in other vassal kingdoms, and since Herod had come into the emperor’s disfavor, and since Herod was having troubles in his own realm with his sons, it is more than probable that Augustus would have wanted to conduct his own census, assessing Herod’s kingdom, while Herod was still alive. And this is exactly what Luke recorded.
This is all conjecture… there’s no proof of the census… you take it on faith because it’s mentioned in the bible. Pure and simple.
well, now you change the argument. i was answering a challenge to provide any historicla evidence supporting th ebiblicla account. first, please define “proof” in a historical context. second, actually read the post. it mentions many non-biblical sources, and non-biblical reasons why something in luke makes sense.
it is also not proper to use standards that you do nto apply to toher historical documents. the likelihood of like being correct from a purely historical standards view is very high.
I didn’t bother really reading your post - as I’ve already read previously - as you stole it from Dr John Ankerberg. So please shut up!
‘You’ haven’t done anything.
Ankerberg’s work is not worthy of publishing anywhere… including this page.
then you ahve read it..so either refut eit factually or give your evidence for claiming “This census event is clearly an invention by gospel writers to transplant Joseph into the city of David, ready for birth of Jesus. This would ensure that old testament teachings fit Jesus birth. “
So you’re not ashamed that you attempted to pass off someone else’s work as your own?
Why would I waste my time? If Ankerberg can get it published then it would be proven as worthy of note. A previously unknown census would be big news.
You need to prove that it’s true, not me.
sorry, that snot the way history and textual criticism works. hundreds of details in luke’s accounts have been verified as accurate, none as verifiably false, and it IS up to the skeptic to demonstrate a claim of falsehood. simple lack of verifiability in other surviving documents is not reason to deny an event occured. there is a long oist of such claims that have gone by the wayside when new manuscriptural or inscriptional evidence has been found.
most casual critics such as you have no real concept of how few surviving documents there are from this era, and how reliable the biblical acocunts (minus the resurrection and such) are viewed by secular historians.
So I’m a “casual critic”. What are you Rob?
Are you saying as a “casual critic” I would have to prove that the following as presented in Luke didn’t happen?
Luke 1: 11-12 (also 28) ?Sky fairies appearing
The whole virgin birth thing?
Chapter 4:
The whole devil temptation thing?
Quote “What is this teaching? With authority and power he gives orders to evil spirits and they come out!”
Various healing stuff?
Chapter 5
Magic Fishing?
Curing leprosy?
Curing a paralytic?
And onwards… raising the dead?
Rob says “it IS up to the skeptic to demonstrate a claim of falsehood.” So come on casual skeptics unite, if Rob says it’s true - it must be true.
All that stuff about ‘extraordinary claims demand
extraordinary proof’ is rubbish.
Can you really be that foolish?
I’m sorry. I thought this little blurb was about the accuracy of Luke’s census.
Rob stated that hundreds of details in luke’s accounts have been verified as accurate, none as verifiably false, and it IS up to the skeptic to demonstrate a claim of falsehood.
So, instead of attempting to show that Luke’s census was false, to support your earlier claim of the census being a gospel invention, you start yapping about the supernatural accounts within Luke’s gospel.
And onwards… raising the dead?
Rob says “it IS up to the skeptic to demonstrate a claim of falsehood.” So come on casual skeptics unite, if Rob says it’s true - it must be true.
All that stuff about ‘extraordinary claims demand
extraordinary proof’ is rubbish.
Can you really be that foolish?
No more foolish than you are. The miracles were “hugely rare events”. Certainly, you don’t have a problem with “hugely rare events”. Oh the irony!!! Someone who believes that life came from non-life dismissing claims of resurrected dead (and other supernatural events).
shaunie
no, please try to follow a line of communication. i clearly stated what it is up to you - to prove falsehood concerning THE CENSUS. no it is not up to you when it comes to a miraculous event, but that is not what you made the claim o ffalsehood concerning - it was the census.
now how about getting back on track?
What are you talking about Rob?
I’m following the track perfectly… you said…
“hundreds of details in luke’s accounts have been verified as accurate”
I think you know Rob that it’s difficult to prove a negative. It is not the sceptics responsibility to prove the census didn’t happen, it’s yours to prove it did.
What I was doing was reacting to your statement (as quoted) which simply is not true. Luke is a not full of verified accurate statements as you’d like to lead people to believe. It’s full of magical claims and narrative - nothing more.
“Comment by Shaunie
2007-10-19 08:56:09
What are you talking about Rob?
I’m following the track perfectly… you said…
“hundreds of details in luke’s accounts have been verified as accurate”
I think you know Rob that it’s difficult to prove a negative. It is not the sceptics responsibility to prove the census didn’t happen, it’s yours to prove it did. ”
***no, it simply is not. over the past couple of hundred years, skeptics ahve sued this argument, simply changing the argument from silence from one subject to another as their previous arguments are shot down by new archaeologicall or manuscript evidence. it si never ending. when, in every instance where luke can be verified or falsified by such evidence, he is verified, it is correct to assume he is also correct in other areas unless shwon otherwise. the hdefault position when judging historicity of manuscripts is not that they are false.
“What I was doing was reacting to your statement (as quoted) which simply is not true. Luke is a not full of verified accurate statements as you’d like to lead people to believe. It’s full of magical claims and narrative - nothing more.”
***what utter nonsense. find an actual historian, especially one specializing in ancient roman or judean history. ask them. luke is considered a very important historical source, and very reliable. it appears you ahve not read it to make such claims. does he record the statements of eyewitnesses to miraculous events? of course….but the vast majority of luke - and i would include acts as well….is simple history. here is how it begins:
So many others have tried their hand at putting together a story of the wonderful harvest of Scripture and history that took place among us, using reports handed down by the original eyewitnesses who served this Word with their very lives. Since I have investigated all the reports in close detail, starting from the story’s beginning, I decided to write it all out for you, most honorable Theophilus, so you can know beyond the shadow of a doubt the reliability of what you were taught.
During the rule of Herod, King of Judea, there was a priest assigned service in the regiment of Abijah. His name was Zachariah. His wife was descended from the daughters of Aaron. Her name was Elizabeth. Together they lived honorably before God, careful in keeping to the ways of the commandments and enjoying a clear conscience before God. But they were childless because Elizabeth could never conceive, and now they were quite old.
Rob this is idiocy…. Luke is not considered by any historian - full of verifiable facts…. it’s a story.
That’s funny!!
“Now, all these evidences of accuracy are not accidental. A man whose accuracy can be demonstrated in matters where we are able to test it is likely to be accurate even where the means for testing him are not available. Accuracy is a habit of mind, and we know from happy (or unhappy) experience that some people are habitually accurate just as others can be depended upon to be inaccurate. Luke’s record entitles him to be regarded as a writer of habitual accuracy.” - F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?
“The present writer takes the view that Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness. At this point we are describing what reasons and arguments changed the mind of one who began under the impression that the history was written long after the events and that it was untrustworthy as a whole.” - Sir William Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament
And when Rob produces more sources, citing Luke’s accuracy, your excuse will be…….
Do you actually have anything that is more up-to-date and perhaps peer reviewed? Let’s see some scientific peer reviewed work MCWAY - if it’s out there!
It’s the old skeptic “He don’t count” game……I see!!!
You claimed that no historian claimed that Luke’s gospel account has verifiable facts.
I produced two. Rob, should he feel like doing so, will produce some more.
Plus, what makes you think the work of Ramsay or Bruce wasn’t “peer-reviewed”?
And, of course, you have YET to show that Luke’s census was fabricated, as you claimed.
“Comment by Shaunie
2007-10-22 06:58:49
Do you actually have anything that is more up-to-date and perhaps peer reviewed? Let’s see some scientific peer reviewed work MCWAY - if it’s out there!”
***you really gotta use that phrase more judiciously - why would experts commenting on luke’s accuracy be “peer-reviewed”??? you really are talking off the top of your head. your game is never ending - as skeptical each claim is shown by new discoveries to be false, a new one is made up.
tell me now how many confirmations of luke’s accuracy is enough, and i will provide them.
—Dr. William F. Albright:
“The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible [by certain schools of thought] has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of numerous details.”
—Sir Frederic Kenyon says:”… the evidence of archaeology has been to re-establish its authority, and likewise to augment its value by rendering it more intelligible through a fuller knowledge of its background and setting. Archaeology has not yet said its last word, but the results already achieved confirm what faith would suggest, that the Bible can do nothing but gain from an increase of knowledge.”
—He [Ramsay] was trained in the German historical school of the mid-Nineteenth Century. As a result he was taught that the Book of Acts was a product of the mid-Second Century A.D. He was firmly convinced of this belief and set out to prove its teaching. However, he was compelled to a complete reversal of his beliefs due to the overwhelming evidence uncovered in his research. He spoke of this when he said, “I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without prejudice in favor of the conclusion which I shall now seek to justify to the readers. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavorable to it, for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. It did not then lie in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth. In fact, beginning with a fixed idea that the work was essentially a Second Century composition, and never relying on its evidence as trustworthy for First Century condition, I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations.”
Ramsay also maintained nothing but the highest regard for Luke’s abilities as a historian: “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historical sense; he fixes his mind on the idea and plan that rules in the (progression) of history, and proportions the scale of his treatment to the importance of each incident. He seizes the important and critical events and shows their true nature at greater length, while he touches lightly or omits entirely much that was valueless for his purpose. In short, this author should be placed along with the very greatests of historians.”
—The classical historian A.N. Sherwin-White collaborates Ramsay’s work regarding the Book of Acts:
Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted
—Luke’s use of the word Meris to maintain that Philippi was a “district” of Macedonia was doubted until inscriptions were found which use this very word to describe divisions of a district.
— Luke’s usage of Politarchs to denote the civil authority of Thessalonica (Acts 17:6) was questioned, until some 19 inscriptions have been found that make use of this title, 5 of which are in reference to Thessalonica.
—Luke’s usage of Proconsul as the title for Gallio in Acts 18:12 has come under much criticism by secular historians, as the later traveller and writer Pliny never referred to Gallio as a Proconsul. This fact alone, they said, proved that the writer of Acts wrote his account much later as he was not aware of Gallio’s true position. It was only recently that the Delphi Inscription , dated to 52 A.D. was uncovered. This inscription states, “As Lusius Junius Gallio, my friend, and the proconsul of Achaia…” Here then was secular corroboration for the Acts 18:12 account. Yet Gallio only held this position for one year. Thus the writer of Acts had to have written this verse in or around 52 A.D., and not later, otherwise he would not have known Gallio was a proconsul. Suddenly this supposed error not only gives credibility to the historicity of the Acts account, but also dates the writings in and around 52 A.D. Had the writer written the book of Acts in the 2nd century as many liberal scholars suggest he would have agreed with Pliny and both would have been contradicted by the eyewitness account of the Delphi Inscription.
It is because of discoveries such as this that F.F.Bruce states, “Where Luke has been suspected of inaccuracy, and accuracy has been vindicated by some inscriptional evidence, it may be legitimate to say that archaeology has confirmed the New Testament record.”
—Luke was not only a reliable, objective historian, which is clear from his striking agreements with the historiography of Josephus, but Luke was also concerned with the infallibility of the facts. Luke wanted to describe the development of early Christianity. But he wanted above all to eliminate doubt as to the accuracy of the things that had been fulfilled, that is, the saving work of Christ, and desired to give assurance to Theophilus and his other readers regarding events in Christ’s life.[9]Nicholas M. van Ommeren, “Was Luke an Accurate Historian?” BSac 138:589 (January 1991), 70–71.
Well, Shaunie.
Start with the excuses. Or, if you prefer, you can actually show your support for your claim that no historian believes that Luke’s gospel is full of verifiable facts and that the whole thing was fabricated.
sherwin-white, ramsay, albright, kenyon…….how many more would you like shaunie? or will you finally admit this: “Luke is not considered by any historian - full of verifiable facts…. it’s a story.” was pulled from the same dark region as most of your other claims of fact?
Oh my you’ve busy nicking little bits of info from various websites.
Again, I can only go back to what I said earlier… the point of which you totally ignored.
Most fictional stories have elements of truth… the Da Vinci Code is full of ‘historically proven facts’. That does make the whole book true. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, the fact is you don’t have any.
I like this quote “as skeptical each claim is shown by new discoveries to be false, a new one is made up.”. Although this isn’t true, (most skeptics have issue with the supernatural parts of the bible… where are the discoveries to falsify this?) it is ironic… sounds a bit like ID!
Anyway…
Dr. William F. Albright - A brief look on wiki shows how his research has been surpassed. It’s not generally accepted.
Sir Frederic Kenyon - His research is over 100 years old! Is that quote about Luke, or Genesis perhaps?
Who’s Ramsay?
A.N. Sherwin-White. I think we missed a bit of his quote…
“For Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming.
Yet Acts is, in simple terms and judged externally, no less of a propaganda narrative than the Gospels, liable to similar distortions.” So as I said… there are elements of truth, but ultimately just ‘propaganda’.
Oh wow… ‘district’! Jesus must be God! I’m sure some other words and descriptions are accurate, some places, leaders etc…
All these things don’t make the extraordinary claims in Luke true. It’s this type of clever framing that makes stories believable… which is probably why people actually believe the nonsense in the Da Vinci Code.
Luke is a story… it does of course have verifiable facts in it (that I made clear) however it’s not ‘full’ of facts it’s a fictional story, based in the real world. I wouldn’t describe Luke as full of ‘facts’ anymore than the Da Vinci Code? Or would you describe that book as such, because Brown mentions historically accurate places, names etc…?
As I said… what Luke is full of is “magical claims and narrative - nothing more.” You’ve not answered my previous posts regarding this?