Talk:Quirinius

Untitled

Samiam

Quirinius may rather be understood as a sacred name, or title, in regard of the sentiment we may imagine of the people at the time. Quirinius may so be reflecting the mysterious embodiment of the Divinity of the Tivoli, God of 3000 rivers, identical to Tiberinus, who handed the Roman Kain and Abel, Romulus and Remus to their wolf mother, Lupa. The same may be regarded in respect of the emperor himself: Tiberius Julius Ceasar Augustus. Not to be confused with... it says, yet it is an answer to confusion to relate the matters. If one checks with the mythographic aspects of the hierarchy of the Roman Empire one will figure that Quirinius was one of the three major Hierarchs - flamen majores. His office was that of timekeeping. The Man with the Magic hat, out of which black hole white rabbits jump. Quirinius, identified by some with Janus. The one with the double face, symbol of theatre. Quirinius is thus an penultimate facedancer of theatre and the plague. Well, I guess this office became what was called the [[|Apostolic Dataria|Datura]] in the Catholic church. But I'm not sure? No offence, Pope rules, even parousia seems to await this authority.... --Xact (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

There is some controversey with the entire Quirinius deal, mainly from Biblical Inerrants who are uncomfortable that the Bible contradicts the historical evidence. A have looked up this issue extensively on the web; I haven't seen anyone address an issue which is discussed somewhere on the following page:

A link to a page describing the Quirinius controversey in great detail

Naturally, this page is biased, but I can't find as well-written of a page on the other side of the debate.

Andrew

I have to say this article in Wikipedia and the piece at www.infidels.org are terribly bias. Luke’s account IS historical. It is not subordinate/inferior to Josephus. If there is an apparent contradiction, Josephus’ account does not automatically win out. There should be some academically honest attempt to reconcile.

If you look a little further you can find a discourse on this issue by a thoughtful Christian.

[http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html A link to a well-written page on the other side of the debateAGeorgeW (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a long tradition of Christian apologetic attempts to reconcile the account given in Luke with that of Matthew and the details provided by Josephus. Of course it is possible to create a plausible, if elaborate, construction of the facts in which Luke can be made to conform with the other sources, but of necessity it involves speculating about events which could have happened but for which no actual evidence exists. The piece you quote, by Glenn Miller, is typical of this. However Wikipedia is intended to be an unbiased source, and the best way to achieve this is to base the entry on well-established academic commentary. As it points out, modern scholarship overwhelmingly supports the view that the Luke account is neither reliable as history nor intended to be so. Most of the scholars who work in this area are believing Christians, who find no difficulty in reconciling their beliefs with the reality that the biblical account is a theological construct. Miller, on the other hand, is not a biblical scholar, and is non-notable by Wikipedia's standards (he has no Wikipedia entry) and therefore is not adequate as a source for this article. Nor can the other article on infidels.org. There are plenty of lively sources on this issue on the internet, but unless they are based on sound scholarship they do not belong here. --Rbreen (talk) 09:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There are no unbias sources. To claim so is--at best--philosophically naive. Let me say this again...Luke is an historian and is not subordinate to Josephus or any other historian. Luke does not have to "conform to other sources." Luke's account is evidence. Luke did intend his account to be reliable history, that is why he references Caesar Augustus as well as Quirinius. The "most scholars" argument is terrible. No poll has been done. And even if one were done, truth is not determined by majority vote. I have to say the requirement for sound scholarship is not enough. John MacArthur is an incredible scholar. But somebody, perhaps you, deleted my entry that references what he said on the matter.

This discourse has opened my eyes to the extent of blind bias in WikipediaAGeorgeW (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, please sign your talk page comments so it's easier for everyone to keep track of who is saying what (just type four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your comment). Next, wikipedia does have a bias. The bias is for reliable sources. Is it really too much to ask that sources be notable and published? I mean, in this day and age, anyone can get a webpage, and wikipedia should have some standard of discrimination to weed out what is notable. Finally, wikipedia is not about the truth. It is about what is notable and verifiable. If multiple, notable, published views exist on a topic, wikipedia must present all sides, giving due weight consideration. I'm not sure what you are referring to when you mention "John MacArthur". Perhaps you can discuss that source in more detail if you need help determining if it is up to basic wikipedia standards for citation. Hope this helps.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I signed my name "Andrew" at the top of this thread, just like Samiam did. Wikipedia and the "scholars" have a bias against Luke. "Notable and published" are good, but what are more important are truth, clear thinking, and rationality. What good are facts if they aren't true? False facts are worthless. If "wikipedia is not about the truth," it--and perhaps you--have given up on rationality in favor of irrationality. I sincerely hope this is helpful to you as well as readers of this threadAGeorgeW (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Jovan Payes What is interesting to me is that I edited an entry including the work of Dr. Randall Price (who has his wikipedia page placing his credentials), a professor and archaeologist, who cites the work of another archaeologist - Dr. Jerry Vardaman (2000) - and demonstrates that ancient ccoinage with micrographic characters (small letters) places Quirinius (the same or other with same name) as holding a governorship at an eearlier time than 6 AD. Here is the quote:

While, inscriptional evidence reveals that there was more than one ruler with this name, a Quirinius within the time frame of Jesus’ birth has been found on a coin placing him as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 BC until after 4 BC. (Randall Price, The Stones Cry Out (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1997), 299)

Dr. Vardaman's work is known, and even recited by Dr. John McRay - another well known and highly respected archaeologist - in Lee Strobel's interview with McRay in The Case for Christ (1998); so, why delete Vardaman's work? Especially, when the find was described as follows: "This evidence fits the time frame, and if it stands, it dispells long held comments that Luke’s census account 'should be discounted' as part of a spiritual fiction or a historical blunder". Isn't historical veracity the foundation for learning and knowing the truth of the past? This deletion smells of bias, not scholarship.

At the very least, a discussion should be generated in the entry of Vardaman's work. At any rate, it is not accurate to say no "scholar" has heard of Vardaman's work as well known and self-proclaimed secularist Richard Carrier affirms is just not accurate. After all, even he quotes McRay's use of Vardaman. There have been various solutions proposed for the Quirinius census case, and not a single one has been entered in this Wiki entry, and this again goes to show that some editorical/redactory influence is at work here to be one-sided.

Maybe Vardaman is wrong, maybe the solutions are strained, but this wiki entry is about Quirinius, his biography, and the complicated aspects of the chronology of his life. These issues should be entered in balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Payes-jovan (talk • contribs) 09:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggested cultural dichotomy

Luke explains that he has patched together other peoples' stories to make what he thinks to be a coherent whole: he is not an original source and needs careful handling as a result. It is to be noted that he is not even internally consistent: in the Gospel, he places the Road-to-Emmaus incident on the afternoon of Easter Sunday, followed by another appearance and the Ascension immediately after that: they were able to leave the city before the gates closed at dusk that evening. In Acts, it's forty days after!

According to Matthew (2:23), an original source, Joseph only moved to Nazareth after returning from Egypt on the death of Herod the Great: it was Archelaus' succession which dissuaded him from settling back into Bethlehem. Luke is therefore wrong in stating that they travelled from Nazareth before the birth: he was from a different culture and misunderstood Jewish idiom refering to his Official birth (the Queen suffers from the same problem!).

Examine the term coming-of-age: it is only after a child survived to the age of 12 that it was felt worth counting a child as an established member of the human race, formally counting his age.

Jesus was born in the reign of Herod the Great, which according to Josephus places his birth in the period 6-4 BCE. Augustus' decision on the succession took months, maybe as much as a year after Herod's death in 4 BC, and Archelaus was deposed 9 years later, in 6 AD: 10-12 years after Jesus' birth.

Luke states that Jesus was presented Bar-Mitzvah in the Temple aged 12. The Census is also 6-7 AD: it's clear that with the Herodian line broken, Joseph and his children, of the rival Davidic line, no longer risked execution and could go home.

NPOV extends to references

Please review undue weight for helpful guidelines about references and how that relates to a maintaining a neutral point of view in an article, the term "most historians" is problematical for any number of reasons which is why I changed it to "There are historians".Awotter (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, this is clearly the majority view among historians, a point which is supported by the formidable array of New Testament scholars cited. The phrase 'there are historians' is seriously misleading in this context. However, in the interests of clarifying this I will add a citation specifically indicating the majority view, by Raymond Brown: "There are formidable historical difficulties about every facet of Luke's description and dating of the Quirinius census, and most critical scholars acknowledge a confusion and misdating on Luke's part." --Rbreen (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You are still incorrect in using the subjective term "most", there is nothing you could cite that changes it from your debatable opinion to a fact. There are any number of scholarly works related to this passage in Luke that differ from your stated conclusion above that could be cited as counter references, therefore the language must remain neutral in this case. To do otherwise is violating the spirit of WP:NPOV as it should be applied. I did not remove the references, nor do I intend to, but the language in the lead needs to adhere to guidelines. I would be open to any substitution that achieves balance, but it has to avoid the pov problem. Awotter (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The phrasing 'some' is every bit as subjective as 'most' - and in this case 'most' is correct, and substantiated by a citation from one of the most notable experts in the field. In line with the official guidance on phrasing of such information, I have rewritten it with attribution to back it up.

requested review of NPOV language

Posted here. Awotter (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Herod the Great

Herod the Great was never mentioned in reference to Jesus' birth. Herod had a son named Herod, and the two are often mixed up. Colonel Marksman (talk) 04:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do you say that Herod the Great was not mentioned? Look at Matthew 2 and Luke 1:5. "Herod king of Judea" means Herod the Great, not one of his sons. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Census of Luke

I am putting back an edit I made a couple months ago, which I defend here: Rbreen partially reverted by edit with a comment about the birth of Herod which I don't understand. The census mentioned by Luke was not necessarily the one in 6 or 7 AD, so you cannot state "Luke links the birth of Jesus to the census". (Some people think he just made it up, in which case it's not "the census" of 6 or 7 AD!) Luke says it was a world-wide census ordered by Augustus, which doesn't fit with the census of Qirinius. He puts it in the time of Herod the Great (Luke 1:5), which also doesn't fit. So it's not justified to state as fact that Luke was talking about the census of 6 or 7 AD. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)