Who was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?

There have been some attempts to identify the pharaohs of the book of Exodus. Most, if not all, seem unlikely if not impossible. Though not unwarranted, I would be suspicious of most of the assumptions that are made about the identity of the Egyptian Kings that enslaved the Isrealites while they were in Egypt. The Bible is not much help because it doesn’t not name the ones that were responsible.

I’ve looked into a few suggestions and find some more plausible than others.

One of the basis for one of the most famous theories of the identity of the pharaoh that enslaved the Hebrews is found very early in the Book of Exodus. It names cities that the Isrealites were forced to build for the king of Egypt:

So they [the Egyptians] put slave masters over them [the Hebrews] to oppress them with forced labor, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh. (Exodus 1: 11)

Obviously, the name “Rameses” is familiar. After all, it  has been associated with the story of the story of Moses and the Exodus, especially with the movie “The Ten Commandments” with Charlton Heston and Yul Brynner.

The Encyclopedia Britannica says that Ramses II ruled from 1279 B.C. to 1213. His reign lasted for 67 years making him the second longest reigning Pharaoh. — He is famous for a military campaign he lead against the Hittites at Kadesh though he failed to capture it. His failed attempt to win the war had its ramifications however the two nations signed a peace treaty and ended up on good terms. He then married the eldest daughter of the Hittite King.

Anyway, the reference to a city the pharaoh had built called “Rameses” seems identical to the ancient capital city of Ramses II which was called “Pi-Ramesse” or “Per-Ramesses.” Historians of Egypt point out that this city’s actual location “in antiquity” is unknown but that it was founded by King Seti and built on top of older buildings built by the Hyksos. It was then abandoned in the 21st Egyptian dynasty.  

As for the Semetic Hyksos, even though I do not agree with certain speculation that they are necessarily interchangeable with the Isrealites, I am sure that they are related and possible intermarried from the time Joseph and Jacob had arrived in Egypt. In my post entitled ”Israel’s 430 years in Egypt in perspective“ I pointed out that the most reliable Biblical dating placed Jacob’s arrival in 1652 B.C. during the times of the Hyksos rule over Egypt and that these were the kings that “knew Joseph” (Exodus 1:8 ).

The dating of the arrival of the Hebrews in Egypt is relevant to the dating of which Pharaohs of the Exodus. — I have already pointed out that Exodus 12: 40 gives the impression that the Hebrews had remained in Egypt for 430 years. So if this is to be taken at face value then the year of the Exodus should be 1222 B.C., during the last years of Ramses II. — It would seem that the dating of the Exodus to Ramses’ reign is vindicated, however there is a major problem with simply assuming this date.

The problem is that there is ample evidence that Exodus 12: 8 originally said that the 430 before the Exodus weren’t only spent in Egypt since Joseph and Jacob, but also in Canaan from the time of Abraham’s call from Haran. — Such Biblical manuscripts are the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, Galatians 3: 16-17, and even Josephus’ account of the Exodus confirms this:

They left Egypt in the month Xanthicus, on the fifteenth day of the lunar month; four hundred and thirty years after our forefather Abraham came into Canaan, but two hundred and fifteen years only after Jacob removed into Egypt. (Antiquities of the Jews 2, 15, 2)

In my earlier post, I show that even the simple math in the Biblical time-line confirms this alternative reading:

Genesis 12: 4-5 says that Abram (later called Abraham) migrated from Haran to Canaan when he was seventy-five years old. He was one-hundred years old when his son Issac was born (Genesis 21: 1). — Then when Issac was sixty when Jacob was born (Genesis 25: 24-26). Abraham would have been 160 at the time. And when Jacob arrived in Egypt on Joseph’s invitation and was presented to the King he was 130 years old (Genesis 47: 9).

So this means that there was a gap of 215 years from the time Abraham first went to Canaan to when Jacob arrived in Egypt.So, by subtracting that number from 1867 we find that Jacob arrived in Egypt in 1652 B.C., during the rule of the Hyksos kings, and another 215 years before the Exodus of Moses in 1437 B.C. Add it up and it comes to 430 years.

1 Kings 6: 1 helps even more by establishing the Exodus 480 years before the fourth year of King Solomon’s rule (i.e., 957 B.C.) placing the Exodus in 1437 B.C. So this understanding seems to be inescapable. — Therefore, this would render the theory that Ramses II was the Pharaoh that confronted Moses as irrelevant because this shows that Moses lead the Hebrews out of Egypt 158 years before he began to rule Egypt.  

Also, some scholars apparently think the name “Rameses” in the Book of Exodus is only a deliberate anachronism which was supposed to help later Jewish readers identify certain locations.

The question is, if it wasn’t Ramses II then who was it? The answer should be simple: Simply search for a Pharaoh that ruled Egypt in 1437 B.C. –  But it is not all that simple because of uncertainties in the precise dating of Egyptian dynasties. But it is still possible to narrow the list down. Also it is possible to conclude that Moses dealt with the Pharaohs of the 18th dynasty.

The list is narrowed down to only two Egyptian Pharaohs:

Thutmose III: 1504 B.C. – 1450, or possibly 1479 – 1425

Amenhotep II: 1427 B.C. – 1392

Note: for the first set of dating of Thutmose’s reign as well as Amenhotep’s I sourced Tour Egypt.net and for the second set for the former I used the Encyclopaedia of the Orient. — Get my point? There isn’t full certainty about Egyptian dates so we have to make do with what we have and accept both dating options for the Pharaoh of the Exodus as relevant.

Mostly because of the uncertainty of the Egyptian dating, we cannot just say which one of these two pharaoh’s confronted Moses and his God, but still, narrowing down the list of possible suspects wasn’t so hard. But there may be a way of figuring out which one it is.

InAgainst Apion 1, Josephus wrote a defence of his former historical works because several critics didn’t believe his accounts. He then claimed to cite an Egyptian historian named Manetho word for word on the Exodus. — It should be mentioned that many scholars don’t believe Josephus’ citation, but not all of it has been shown to be irrelevant.

It is true that Manetho’s account has questionable elements in it, but some of it (at least to me) seems to have a ring of truth. — Manetho associates the Hebrews with the Hyksos. I’ve already said I don’t believe the Hyksos and Hebrews are 100% interchangeable, but that I believe close relations after Jacob and Joseph are likely. If that’s true then such an association would be understandable, at least. Josephus accepts the connection as he cites him:

I shall quote Manetho again, and what he writes as to the order of the times in this case. He says “After this people or shepherds had left Egypt to go to Jerusalem, Tethmosis, who drove them [the Hyksos] out, was king of Egypt and reigned for twenty five years and four months, and then died; …” (Brackets, emphasis mine)

Once read, I think this citation Josephus makes is revealing because he names “Thetmosis” which is obviously “Thutmosis” or Thutmose. And it so happens, there was a Pharoah named Thutmose at the right time (more or less) in Egypt.

What I also find interesting is that most historians credit Ahmose I with the Hyksos expulsion instead of Thutmose. – Ahmose was a predecessor of Thutmose III. The best conclusion I can make is that both accounts have truth in them, but that Manetho’s is somewhat more questionable. But still, I don’t think we should doubt everything Manetho said. After all, if he can rightfully name a Pharaoh that “expelled” the Hebrews which lived at the correct time frame, then there may indeed be something to his “historical” account. – But again, the Israelites and the Hyksos cannot be equated, at least not 100%, though the Hyksos seem to be the Pharaohs that “knew Joseph.”

It should be realized that the “Hyksos Expulsion” is not the same as the Exodus of Moses because one has to remember that Pharaoh Ahmose, the one that expelled the Hyksos, was long dead in 1437 B.C. when the Exodus seems to have occured. — The association of King Thutmose III by Manetho may be out of knowing that the two peoples were related. — And finally, I am going to add that the other suspect for the Exodus, Amenhotep II, should by no means be ruled out. As a matter of fact, Professor William Shea (from Andrews University) wrote a paper on the subject which provides evidence of the possibility entitled “Amenhotep II as Pharaoh of the Exodus.”

Go to Part 2 of this blog post

Israel’s 430 years in Egypt in perspective

The history in the Bible is very interesting although many misunderstand it, even Christians and Jews.

A very popular belief is that the Isrealites were slaves in Egypt for 430 years which is based on Exodus 12: 40. Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt was 430 years.

To better understand this detail, we need to know when Moses lead the Jews out of Egypt. 1 Kings 6:1 gives an important detail:

In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites had come out of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, the second month, he began to build the temple of the LORD.

The Bible says that Solomon began to construct the Temple in Jerusalem 480 years after the Exodus and in the forth year of Solomon’s reign. — Several Christian historians put the year of the Temple’s construction in 965 B.C. However my independent source, the Encyclopaedia of the Orient, puts the first year of his reign in 961 B.C. That would make the year of the temple’s contruction 957 B.C. So all that has to be done is add 480 to the year. The year that results as the Exodus out of Egypt is 1437 B.C.

Now here is where the problem comes in. If we add 430 years to 1431, then we get 1867 B.C. for when the Iseralites first come to Egypt. If the Isrealites were in Egypt in 1867, then Genesis 41: 41-43 poses a problem:

So Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I hereby put you in charge of the whole land of Egypt.” Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it on Joseph’s finger. He dressed him in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck. He had him ride in a chariot as his second-in-command, and men shouted before him, “Make way!” Thus he put him in charge of the whole land of Egypt.

This may not look like a big deal. But the fact that the Bible says that Joseph was placed in a chariot in Egypt would actually be a historical error in the Bible, if this indeed happend around 1867 B.C.

The horse and chariot were introduced many years later by the Hyksos who ruled Egypt from 1674 to 1567 B.C. So it would appear that the writter of Genesis made a historical mistake. However, there are some ancient sources that say that Exodus 12: 40 may actually have originally said that for 430 years, the Isrealites were “in Canaan and Egypt,” including the time Abraham first migrated to Canaan.

So now we have an alternate wording, but which one was intended by the writter of Genesis? It may be possible to find that out by looking at the timelines given in the Bible.

Genesis 12: 4-5 says that Abram (later called Abraham) migrated from Haran to Canaan when he was seventy-five years old. He was one-hundred years old when his son Issac was born (Genesis 21: 1). — Then when Issac was sixty when Jacob was born (Genesis 25: 24-26). Abraham would have been 160 at the time. And when Jacob arrived in Egypt on Joseph’s invitation and was presented to the King he was 130 years old (Genesis 47: 9).

So this means that there was a gap of 215 years from the time Abraham first went to Canaan to when Jacob arrived in Egypt. So, by subtracting that number from 1867 we find that Jacob arrived in Egypt in 1652 B.C., durring the rule of the Hyksos kings, and another 215 years before the Exodus of Moses in 1437 B.C. Add it up and it comes to 430 years. So, it appears that the writter of the Exodus intended the reading to be “in Canaan and Egypt.”

– Moses was eighty years old at the time of the Exodus (Exodus 7:7) So he was likely born in 1517 B.C., after the Hyksos lost power, which is probably what is meant when it is said that he was born in the time of a Pharoah who didn’t know Joseph (Exodus 1:8). It appears as if the Pharoahs who “knew” Joseph were the Hyksos.

There’s a another fact to back that idea up. The Hyksos were Semites from Canaan, like Joseph and the Hebrews. This could explain why the Pharoah was willing to give Joseph a position of trust and favor his family because they were ethnically similar and came from the same general area.

Dating the Book of Daniel

In several of my posts such as “Defending the Book of Daniel” I defend the historical accuracy of the book. Now I’m going to try to defend the traditional 6th century B.C. date of the book by talking about it’s linguistic style and other details.

But before I start, I want to mention that the second half of the book of Daniel is supposed to be prophetic. It seems that many of the prophesies are the main basis that skeptics have to place the writingof the book with in the second century B.C. because that is the time that many of his prophesies came to pass. — As a matter of fact Rolf Furuli a professor at the University of Oslo, in an e-mail conversation he had admitted:

I do not criticize scholars who stick to the scientific principle of rejecting any metaphysical explanation. But an honest course would be to admit this, and as far as Daniel is concerned, to admit that the basic argument for a second century dating is the view that the future cannot be predicted.

Okay, so this is just to know what you’re dealing with if you ever talk with anyone that uses this as his basis for rejecting the authenticity of the book of Daniel

Language use of Daniel
It was once argued that Daniel had to be written after the conquest of Alexander the Great because there were three Greek loan-words in chapter 3 in verses 5, 7, and 10. — Actually, these loan-words are musical instruments: The Harp, the Psaltery, and the Dulcimer. These words were used to show that Daniel could not possibly have been written in the 6th century B.C.

However, Greek loan words need not disprove the traditional date of the Book because there was Greek penetration in the Middle East before Alexander the Great. — King Nebuchadnezzar II, for example, had Greek mercenaries in his armies already in the 6th century B.C. –Also, the brother of Alcaeus of Lesbos (a Greek poet) also served under King Nebuchadnezzar as well. Then there was the 6th century B.C. ancient and Greek philosopher named Pythagoras who lived from 569 to 475 B.C. who was taken prisoner to Babylonby Cambyses II.

Also, there was a Mycenaean Greek colony in the Middle East known as Anatolia. Very important to this point, the Encyclopedia Britannica in it’s article “Anatolia: Greek colonies on the Anatolian coasts“  mentions that:

Greek place-names such as Anchiale and Pityoussa occur repeatedly in Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian texts of the 7th and 6th centuries BC relating to the south coast of Anatolia.

The 6th Century B.C., of course, was the time the Book of Daniel is traditionally believed to have been written. So the appearance and knowledge of Greek names and words in Assyrian and Babylonian tablets that early shows that the appearance of only three Greek loan words in Daniel isn’t a necessary indicator that it had to have been written after the conquest of Alexander the Great.

The question may now become, did these certain three Greek words exist in the Greek language at the right time or before? — A logical way to answer this question would be to examine ancient Greek literature to see if these words that are used in the Book of Daniel were in use before the second century B.C. If it can be proved that they were not in use several centuries before the Maccabean revolt then Daniel is indeed a document from around 165 B.C.

Even though the comparison of Greek manuscripts seems like a plausible method to find out whether a certain word was in use in a certain period, there is a major flaw to the method. The Encyclopædia Britannica says that the most well preserved writings of the ancient Greeks are from the fourth and third centuries B.C. But that, however, “there are virtually no documentary papyri before the time of Alexander.” — It also says that most Greek writings from the fifth century B.C. scarcely survived at all. The same is true of those from the third century B.C, although there is an abundance of inscriptions from the fourth century.

Moving on, a comprehensive linguistic study of the Aramaic of Daniel shows that:

If proper allowance be made for attested scribal usage in the Biblical Near East (including orthographical and morphological change, both official and unofficial), then there is nothing to decide the date of composition of the Aramnaic of Daniel on the grounds of Aramaic anywhere between the late sixth and the second century BC. Some points hint at an early (especially pre-300), not late, date—but in large part could be argued to be survivals till the second century BC, just as third—second century spellings or grammatical forms must be proved to be original to the composition of the work before a sixth—fifth century date could be excluded. The date of the book of Daniel, in short, cannot be decided upon linguistic grounds alone.

However, the study mentions that there are 19 Persian words in the book of Daniel. If the Maccabean date were correct, then it would be odd to have so few Greek words in the text and so many Persian words. I see this as evidence that it was indeed written during the Persian empire. — Also, Another study on the Hebrew of Daniel shows that:

There is nothing about the Hebrew of Daniel that could be considered extraordinary for a bilingual or, perhaps in this case, a trilingual speaker of the language in the sixth century BC.

So, there is no evidence on linguistic grounds that Daniel couldn’t have been written in the 6th century B.C. whether it be Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic.

Josephus, Daniel, and Belshazzar
There is some historical evidence that the book of Daniel actually did exist before the Maccabean revolt. The Ancient historian Josephus (in Antiquities of the Jews 11, 8, 5) says that when Alexander the Great arrived in Jerusalem in the 4th century B.C. during his war against Persia that he was shown a copy of Daniel:

And when the Book of Daniel was showed him [Alexander the Great] wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was the person intended. And as he was then glad, he dismissed the multitude for the present; but the next day he called them to him, and bid them ask what favors they pleased of him; whereupon the high priest desired that they might enjoy the laws of their forefathers, and might pay no tribute on the seventh year. He granted all they desired.

Interesting passage. However, this is apparently not good enough for obstinately skeptical scholars. These historians say that,

Most scholars agree that the [...] story, told by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus in his Jewish antiquities 11.317-345, is not true. One argument is that Alexander is shown a book that was not yet written.

The “Book that was not yet written” of course is the Book of Daniel. It is true that Josephus had a Jewish bias. But since accusations that Daniel was a fraud weren’t made yet for centuries when Josephus wrote this he had no motive to lie (or make up) his account. So I see no legitimate reason to reject what he says. –Another rejection of Josephus’ account that the same historians make “is that the story is a bit too good to be true.” — But this is just pure speculation and proves nothing. However, they do make some concessions to the story by mentioning certain details that a Jew of the time wouldn’t have made up. –So, there really doesn’t seem to be all historically inplausable, even for historians in several areas. But apparently, since Josephus had no reason to make up the story of a copy of Daniel being showed to Alexander, I suspect that the objection that historians have to his account is from their own pre-conceived notions and biases about the book.

Another important point is about Belshazzar, the son of King Nabonidus. The MSN Encarta Encyclopedia explains that although there are several inscription with his name, he is not mentioned by name by any ancient historian. (The only exception I personally can think of is Josephus who used Daniel as a source.) — The Bible Dictionary of the Commentary Reference Series (volume 8 ) points out that Belshazzar was identified only in the 19th century by the mentioned inscriptions, but until then historians were puzzled about him. (Pages 127-255)

My point from this is: If Daniel were indeed written in the second century, then how could the writer have known Belshazzar’s name when he was already forgotten and already unknown to history? Either Daniel was written in the sixth century B.C. (as it claims) or a Maccabean author in 165 B.C. made up a name out of thin air and got extremely lucky. Personally, I find the latter very unlikely.

Evidence at Qumran
About the Daniel scrolls found at Qumran (which is important to the dating of Daniel): It has been suggested by some that the Essenes didn’t regard the book as canonical. This is because of certain peculiarities in certain copies of the book found:

These variations include the fact that two copies of Daniel from 4Q are “in unorthodox format” (apparently a reference to the column arrangement); one is in cursive script; and another Daniel fragment from Cave VI is written on papyrus.

However, it has also been shown that these variations from other Biblical books found at Qumran aren’t “an infallible criterion for determining whether or not the Qumran scribes regarded a given book as canonical or non-canonical.” — Also, it has been noted that “the Book of Kings, whose canonizing is unquestioned, has been found on a papyrus manuscript in 6Q; also that Cave IV has yielded Biblical scrolls in a true cursive script; and that the column arrangement found in the Daniel copies has been found in Biblical works discovered in other caves.” So, again, from this, there is no reason to believe the Essesnes didn’t see Daniel as scripture. — Also, some scholars have noted that because of the multiple fragmants of Daniel at Qumran Daniel may have been “one of the most treasured” books at Qumran.

Glenn M. Miller, the webmaster to Christian Thinktank, in his study on the Daniel scrolls at Qumranreasons that since it is widely believed that the Essene community at Qumran was founded in 150 B.C., dangerously close to the alleged 165 B.C. date of Daniel’s composition then it should have been written earlier than the second century. He points out that the Essenes in other scrolls cite Daniel as a prophet so it would be unlikely that the Essenes would have viewed or cited Daniel as a prophet or would have treasured his book so much if it were written only within 15 years of its their community’s founding, well within the memories of the founders themselves. It just isn’t plausible or credible!

Miller mentions the non-canonical book of Jubilees, which was written at 160 B.C., was at Qumran. However, he points out major differences: 1) The Essenes as well as all other Jews viewed Daniel as Scripture while Jubilees was only seen as authoritative which is a lower lever i.e. not viewed as scripture. 2) The Essenes didn’t even agree on whether Jubilees was to be cited at all. However, there was wide agreement on Daniel.

Lastly, he mentions a major double standard in the scholarly community in relation to the Daniel scrolls and other Biblical manuscripts: Because of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran, scholars have re-dated Biblical literature once believed to be from the Maccabean period in the second century B.C. to even earlier periods due to the time requirement for them to be considered scripture. Such examples mentioned in his essay are the book of Ecclesiastes and some of the Psalms. However, even though the the manuscript evidence, in the case of Daniel is the same, scholars still prefer the late date in the second century for its composition. This is because Daniel apparently contains prophecies that likely points to that era, and in their minds prophesy is impossible. So there is a clear unjustifiable double standard as Daniel goes.

Conclusion
My Conclusion is that there is no reason to date the Book of Daniel to the second century, apart from anti-Biblical bias and every reason to date it to an earlier date based on the manuscripts at Qumran and accounts of Josephus. However, this evidence has not been allowed to speak for itself due to pre-conceived bias, and unfortunately, it may never be because of the assumption that the future cannot be predicted.

Recommended Links:
When was Daniel Written?
The Date of the Book of Daniel
Was Daniel written after the events he fortold?

Belshazzar, the “son” of Nebuchadnezzar

One of the most criticized portions in the Book of Daniel, besides the appearance of Darius the Mede, the depiction and description of Belshazzar, the King (or co-regent) of Babylon. Critics have often pointed to what they believe to be historical errors in the Book of Daniel as to who and what he was.

The Book of Daniel introduces Belshazzar right after it finishes talking about a divinly inflicted mental illness that causes him to behave like an animal. — Belshazzar was having a feast and under influence of wine intoxication he orders that the sacred vessels from Solomon’s Jewish temple be brought to him. And he used the dishes which were sacred to Yahweh to bless pagan gods, hence committing sacrilege against him.

And then a hand appears and writes four words on the wall right by a lamp stand: Mene Mene Tekel Parsin. — When the court astrologers and wise men couldn’t understand the meaning of the writing the Queen mother tells Belshazzar about Daniel and how he helped his predecessor, Nebuchadnezzar. So the King sent for him.

When Daniel had come he reminded Belshazzar about Nebuchadnezzar’s punishment from God for until he realized that God was greater than him, but that he (Belshazzar) didn’t repent like him, but blasphemed against God. The writting on the wall was God’s condemnation of his kingdom. And that night, he was killed by the united coalition of the Persians and Medes.

The “Son” of Nebuchadnezzar
The most used criticism of the depiction of King Belshazzar is that the book calls him the “son” of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 5: 1,23. Also, The latter is called the formers “father.” — Farrel Till, in his post entitled “A Father/Son Discrepancy in Daniel” insists that this is a historical mistake and that if the writer of Daniel were a high ranking official of the Babylonian court then he wouldn’t have made such an error. — He protests against Christian apologists that say that “son” and “father” in the case of Belshazzar are nothing more than indications that one was an ancestor and that the other was a descendant. He makes the claim that Christians are wrong in using the logic that Father/Son in this case is anything like saying the Jews are the “sons” of Abraham or that Jesus Christ is the “son” of David because Abraham and David were separated from the later Jews and Jesus by centuries which he points out is not the case with Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. Till says:

In the book of Daniel, however, the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar are related in consecutive chapters. The account of Nebuchadnezzar’s seven years of madness in fulfillment of a second dream that Daniel had interpreted ends the 4th chapter, where Nebuchadnezzar praised Daniel’s god after he had regained his sanity: “Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and extol and honor the King of heaven, for all his works are truth, and his ways are justice; and he is able to bring low those who walk in pride” (4:37). Then immediately the next chapter opens with an account of the feast that King Belshazzar held to honor a thousand of his lords, so the writer went directly from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar to the reign of Belshazzar without mentioning any of the four kings who reigned between them. This within itself would indicate an ignorance of 6th-century Babylonian history, because it at least implies that the writer thought that Belshazzar’s reign followed Nebuchadnezzar’s.

In other words, just because Daniel doesn’t mention any of the kings that came between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, Farrel Till assumes that Daniel thought that they were literal first generation father and son instead of ancestor and descendant. But this argument doesn’t take into account an important implication: This doesn’t need to be construed as ignorance on the author’s part. One could also say that Daniel just didn’t see the other rulers of Babylon that came between the two said kings as being relevant to what he wanted to write about and therefore didn’t mention them.

Till goes on to say that in order for the terms for “father” and son” to be justifiably understood as “ancestor” and “descendant” that there has to be a context to support it. He says:

As I showed by analyzing Driver’s examples above, the word father was indeed used to convey a relationship as distant as “grandfather,” but the contexts of the passages cited show that this was the intended meaning. Context, context, context–it is always the context that determines the meanings of words, and inerrantists like Hatcher and Miller seem to have trouble recognizing this very basic literary principle. (Emphasis his)

The context he’s talking about is to show “textual evidence” (i.e. showing kings between) that the terms for “father” and “son” could be understood as not being literal. Or else, he insists, it must be literal. — But my arguement, however, is that Daniel omitted any mention of the intervening kings because he saw them as irrelevant to what he wanted to say, not necessarily out of ignorance. And if that’s the case, the terms are not problematic at all.

Till rightly points out that other passages in the Bible mention one other Babylonian King Amel-Marduk (a.k.a, the Biblical “Evil-merodach“) in the Book of Jeremiah52:31. — But taking this fact into account, remembering that the author of the Book of Daniel had in fact read the book of Jeremiah (Daniel 9:2) that makes it even less likely, in my opinion, that the writer was ignorant of other kings of Babylon between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. I think this supports my theory that Daniel purposely left out any mention of the other kings. — And if this is the case, as it seems to be, then Till’s arguments of context are rendered irrelevant, hence, there is no reason to assume that Daniel believed they were actually father and son.

Also, it so appears that the ancient historian Josephus’ perspective was the same as mine. In the Antiquities of the Jews 10,11,2 he mentions the kings that came between Belshazzar and Nebuchadnezzar and then, in the next paragraph, and then calls Nebuchadnezzar a “progenitor” (i.e. an ancestor) of Belshazzar. — So Josephus understood the terms in Daniel as I do (that Nebuchadnezzar was only an ancestor and not the actual father), which is more support for my position.

Well, Till keeps on with his criticism:

The fact that the writer of Daniel leaped from Nebuchadnezzar to Belshazzar, passing over completely the reigns of four intervening kings, certainly indicates a fuzzy knowledge of the history of this period. That lack of knowledge provides the best explanation for why the writer would have called Nebuchadnezzar the “father” of Belshazzar and Belshazzar the “son” of Nebuchadnezzar when the two were not related. He called them father and son because he thought that they were.

I think I have already made my point clear as to why Daniel wouldn’t have had to necessarily mention the other kings because of the irrelevance to Daniel, so I will move on. — However, Till’s argument that the two men weren’t related is a huge assumption. In fact the Encyclopædia Britannica says:

The Babylonian inscriptions indicate that he was in fact the eldest son of Nabonidus, who was king of Babylon from 555 to 539, and of Nitocris, who was perhaps a daughter of Nebuchadrezzar. (Emphasis mine)

Till dismisses such claims of relations between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar as nothing more than Christian apologetics that only base their arguments on assumptions. But I just cited the Encyclopædia Britannica which is not a Christian apologetic at all. It shows that even secular scholars and historians believe it as well, and are therefore not in agreement with Till. But Till has a habit of dismissing probabilities if he just doesn’t like them or if they allow for the Bible to be true.

Also, a fact that Farrel Till never mentions it that the two men didn’t have to be related for the terms for “father” and “son” to be used. An alternate meaning for “father” other than “ancestor” is also “predecessor.” And likewise, the alternate understanding for “son” other than “descendant” can also mean that Belshazzar was just a “successor” to Nebuchadnezzar. So there’s nothing out of the ordinary here.

Daniel Gets it Right!!
According to the Book of Daniel Belshazzar was called the “King” of Babylon. This claim hase been assailed by anti-Daniel critics (not Farrel Till) who point out the fact that Nabonidus was still king of Babylon officially as long as he was still alive. –Archaeological Experts point point out that Belshazzar “stood in as temporary ruler” in his father’s absence. One could say he was a stand in king. They also point out:

Nabonidus, as King of Babylon, paid little attention to the politics, religion, of Imperial Babylon preferring instead to travel and research the older buildings, temples, and objects of antiquity that lay in the outer most of his Empire. For this reason he is included in archaeology’s ‘hall of fame’ because his abandonment of his royal duties were in favour of some of the first archaeological investigations.

In other words, Nabonidus wasn’t much of a king and his son was a stand in as Co-Regent. Apparently Belshazzar was more of a king than his father, though he was officially second in command or a stand-in king.

Further vindication of Daniel’s calling Belshazzar the king of Babylon is found in ancient text of The Verse Account of Nabonidus (which is pro-Cyrus propaganda). In talking about Nabonidus it says:

After he had obtained what he desired, a work of utter deceit, had built this abomination, a work of unholiness -when the third year was about to begin- he entrusted the army [?] to his oldest son, his first born, the troops in the country he ordered under his command. He let everything go, entrusted the kingship to him, and, himself, he started out for a long journey. The military forces of Akkad marching with him, he turned to Temâ deep in the west.

Nabonidus is said to have “entrusted the kingship” to his oldest son in this ancient Persian inscription. In another ancient tablet from Babylon called “The Nabonidus Cylinder”–Nabonidus himself identifies his oldest son as Belshazzar. – The can be no greater vindication for Belshazzar being called the “king” than this, though he was second in the kingdom. — A hint in the Book of Daniel itself that Belshazzar was the second in the kingdom can be found Daniel 5:16 when Balshazzar asks Daniel to interprate what the so-called writing on the wall:¨

Now I have heard that you are able to give interpretations and to solve difficult problems. If you can read this writing and tell me what it means, you will be clothed in purple and have a gold chain placed around your neck, and you will be made the third highest ruler in the kingdom.

The hint that Daniel knew that Belshazzar was the second in the kingdom and not first is his offer to make him the third ruler in the kingdom. Why not make him the second? Because that was his office while Nabonidus was the first as long as he was still alive. Hence we have indirect textual evidence of Nabonidus in the Book of Daniel. — Farrel Till, however, has no real response to this. He says: 

This conclusion, however, is mere assumption, because the text reads as if the queen exercised a great deal of power in the kingdom. How, then, do Turkel and his like-minded cohorts who recycle this quibble not know that the author of this book meant here that if Daniel could decipher the handwriting on the wall, he would be elevated to a position that would make him third behind the king and the queen? The fact that chapter five indicates to any reasonable reader who doesn’t have an emotionally important belief in inerrancy to protect that Nebuchadnezzar was Belshazzar’s father would lend support to the probability that Belshazzar was offering Daniel only a position of authority after the queen’s.

Till’s argument is that Daniel cliams the Queen mother was the second and that Belshazzar was first. But let’s see what Daniel really says about the Queen mother:

The queen, hearing the voices of the king and his nobles, came into the banquet hall. “May the king live forever!” she said. “Don’t be alarmed! Don’t look so pale! There is a man in your kingdom who has the spirit of the holy gods in him. In the time of your father he was found to have insight and intelligence and wisdom like that of the gods. Your father, King Nebuchadnezzar, appointed him chief of the magicians, enchanters, astrologers and diviners. He did this because Daniel, whom the king called Belteshazzar, was found to have a keen mind and knowledge and understanding, and also the ability to interpret dreams, explain riddles and solve difficult problems. Call for Daniel, and he will tell you what the writing means.” (Daniel 5:10,13)

 This is all Daniel says about the Queen mother. There are no other passages about her in the entire book. — And I fail to see where the text of Daniel reads as if ”the text reads as if the queen exercised a great deal of power in the kingdom,” as he says. That’s because it doesn’tsay or even imply it what Till says. He is resorting to inserting things in the text of Daniel that aren’t there because he cannot satisfactorily explain away why Daniel would only receive the third position of power and not the second.

The proof is in the name

The very proof that Daniel is authentic is the very use of the name “Belshazzar” in the book. The Bible Dictionary of the Commentary Reference Series volume 8 points out: 

Until Recent years, there was no historic evidence regarding Belshazzar as the last king of Babylon, and critics commonly pointed to this silence as evidence that the writer was misinformed. Now, of course, the existence of Belshazzar, his position as joint king ruling in Babylon for his absent father, and his role during the last years before the fall of Babylon are all amply attested. (Page 250, emphasis mine)

Also, Belshazzar’s identity was unknown until the 19th century when ancient inscriptions were found with his name on it. (Ibid, page 126) But apparently, not even this is good enough for skeptics. — Farrel Till quotes a Christian apologist that mentions that the Historian Herodotus who wrote in 450 B.C. didn’t know Belshazzar’s name so “the very name of Belshazzar had been forgotten, at least so far as the informants of the Greek historian were concerned.”  Till’s rebuttal is: 

The fact that the name Belshazzar, to use Turkel’s own expression, had been “forgotten” in some places does not mean that it had been forgotten everywhere; hence, Turkel is arguing from silence when he claims, as he apparently intended, that second-century BC Jews would not have known about the existence of Belshazzar. I have already quoted above a passage from the second-century BC apocryphal book of Baruch that shows a mistaken belief of the time that Nebuchadnezzar was Belshazzar’s father, so rather than the name of Belshazzar having been forgotten by second-century BC Jews, it was obviously known to them. What had apparently been forgotten was the real parentage of Belshazzar, so the fact that Daniel 5 reflects the same mistaken view of his parentage that was indicated in other second-century BC works really indicates the opposite of what Turkel wants his gullible readers to think: This book was in all probability written much later than the 6th century BC when “Daniel” was allegedly an important official in the Babylonian court.

It is absolutely ironic that Till is resorting to the tactic that no early mention of Belshazzar’s name doesn’t prove that he was unknown to the Jews.  Calling it an argument from silence knowing that this man makes such arguments all the time when it suits his purpose is quite hilarious. — It is true that the apologist he is answering to does leave some room for the idea that Belshazzar’s name may still have been known by some, however I also want to make a more solid claim.

 The MSN Encarta Encyclopedia explains:

Although no ancient historian mentions his name as one of the successors of the second Chaldean king, Nebuchadnezzar II, the Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions gave the name Belsaruzar as that of the son of Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon. (Emphasis mine)

The MSN Encarta, which is not a Christian apologetic, shows no historian names him. So to say that an ignorant Jew from the Maccabean period could get information that had already been unknown to the most educated and informed is absurd and a major stretch. Not to mention, Belshazzar is not mentioned anywhere else in the Bible outside of Daniel. A second century B.C. writer would have had no historical source. The inscriptions mentioned, as I said earlier, were found in the 19th century.

Also, Till’s citation of the non-biblical book of Baruch, despite Till’s claims, is not independent proof that Belshazzar was still known because the book, being written in the late second century B.C., would have sourced the book of Daniel itself. — And If anyone were to cite Daniel as proof that Belshazzar’s name was indeed known in the second century B.C. I would say that Till is obviously correct in saying that he was indeed known to the Jews of the second century B.C., but that was only because of Daniel. I would like to ask: “Then who did Daniel source?” — Again, there were no sources. Till’s claim is just pathetic and a desperate attempt to salvage his anti-Daniel stance. The only logical explanation is what he rejects: That Daniel was written in Babylon in the 6th century B.C. by someone who knew more about Babylon than any of the best historians.

Conclusion

The conclusion of this post is that there is no historical problem about Belshazzar in the book of Daniel. Perhaps a blood-relationship will indeed be proved in the future or perhaps the meanings of the terms father and son as “predecessor” and “successor” are really all we need to resolve any so-called “problem” in Daniel about this person.  — Also, I want to point to the lack of knowledge about Belshazzar out side of the Bible until the 19th century as proof of the books authenticity. Furthermore, the claims that Daniel made a mistake in identifying Belshazzar as the “son” of Nebuchadnezzar are nothing more than critical grumblings that were began when skeptics were forced to eat crow when it it was discovered that Daniel’s mention of a previously unknown Babylonian ruler had been vindicated.

The Identity of Darius the Mede

He is a man who is unknown to history outside of the book of Daniel. He is shown as the depicted as the one who conquered the Babylonian empire and became king. His name is given as “Darius the Mede.” The absence of knowledge about him outside of the Bible has lead most historians and scholars to assume that he never existed. Also, the description that Daniel gives about him may have also lead others to believe that the writer of Daniel had confused Darius I with Cyrus the Persian. — Alongside the doubts of his existence, there are also theories that attempt to identify him. Many speculate that he was a governor and others believe he was a king. Many prefer to believe that the Bible is just an inaccurate collection of myths and illustrations told to get a certain point across.

I have already studied the identity of this mysterious man named “Darius the Mede” in a previous post (see “Defending the Book of Daniel“) but what I plan to do now is make a more detailed study about who he may be and what sceptics think about him.

The Ugbaru Theory
One of the most widely referenced theories that many Christians cite is that Darius was a general under Cyrus. The Ancient Chronicle of Nabonidus found in the middle east gives detailes about the kings of Babylon from the year 556 B.C. to 539. In it, there is a general mentioned that is said to have conquered Babylon. He is called Gobryas or Ugbaru. In the text, he is described as doing certain things that Daniel 6:1 claims that Darius had done (i.e appointing sub governors immediately.) Then on October 29 of 539 B.C. Cyrus finally entered Babylon .

Chris Sandoval in his paper “The Failure of Daniel’s Prophecies” doesn’t buy into the theory that Gobryas the governor could be Darius on the grounds that:

His royal edicts were irrevocable according to the laws of the Medes and Persians(Daniel 6:8,12,15). Darius had the power to decree that he was the only god or man in the empire to whom petitions might be made (Daniel 6:7)–a foolish move to make indeed if he were just a governor or puppet king who owed allegiance to Cyrus and the Persian Empire.

He then insists that “contemporary documents prove the nonexistence of Darius the Mede beyond reasonable doubt.” He says that since Cyrus’ documents never mention him that therefore he never existed. But even later he then admits it is possible he existed, but only “barley.”

He then admits that arguments from silence which he makes in the case of Darius the Mede “must be used with caution” but later says that “silence carries even more weight as evidence if positive facts get in the way,” again basing his arguement on the lack of any mention of Darius in documentation saying they “leave no room for Daniel’s Darius the Mede as the sole sovereign of Babylon, thereby proving his nonexistence at that time beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Also, Farrell Till (in Darius the Son of Ahashuerus?) argues against the theory that Gobryas is Darius says that “there are no records that Gubaru was ever made the ‘king of Babylon.’”Again, the argument is based on silence. And in “Darius the Mede: An Actual Historical Character?,” another of his posts he argues:

Gobryas, which was literally Ugbaru, died on March 4, 538 BC, just a few months after the conquest of Babylon in October 539 BC. Hence, if this information is correct Gobryas or Ugbaru could not have been “Darius the Mede,” because Daniel referred to the “first year of the reign of Darius” (9:1-2; 11:1), which implies that Darius had reigned longer than a year and certainly longer than just five months.

I’m now going to make some concessions: I agree with Chris Sandoval that the description of Darius in the book of Daniel seems to indicate a monarch and not a mere governor because of his ability to legislate irrevocable laws. But my bigger problem with this particular theory is the lifespan of Gobryas as described in the Chronicle of Nabonidus: “In the month of Arashamnu, on the night of the eleventh, Gobryas died [November 6].” That’s just a very few days after the Persians conquered Babylon, so it would have been an extremely tight fit for Daniel. Not that it’s impossible, but it is very unlikely.

And also, the date given by the Nabonidus Chronicle differs from the date Till gives for the death of Gobryas which is actually November 6, and not March 4. However, the date he gives is still supported by a reliable link he gives, so I will cut him some slack here.

But as for his protests that Gobryas cannot be Darius the Mede because of the time shown in historical records and the Bible only referencing “the first year” of Darius the Mede and no more, Till shows his ignorance of the Babylonian-Persian calender system called the “accession year.” — The Berytus Archeological Studies of the American University of Beirut shows:

The Achaemenidae, having introduced in the Persian Empire the same Babylonian system of time-reckoning, used the device of the “accession year.” The last civil year of a previous ruler was identified with the “year of the beginning” of his successor, and “year 1″ of the latter started at the next Nisanu 1 only. Under the Macedonian rulers the natives of Asia continued to reckon regnal years from Nisanu 1.

So, using this system, though Gobryas‘ life ended really soon, his reign over Babylon as governor (or possibly Satrap) under Cyrus would have officially lasted a year starting on the first day of the next year. So, on that basis alone, there is no problem.

But, where I disagree with Sandoval and Till is obvious: I do not believe that the lack of a mention of Darius’ name in ancient records in anyway disproves or undermines his existence beyond a reasonable doubt. It would be to much of an oversimplification to believe that it did. After all, scholars used to doubt the existence of Belshazzar because of the lack of any mention of him, however he had been identified in the 19th century when inscriptions bearing his name were found (Commentary Reference Series vol 8, Pages. 127-250 & 255)

The Cyrus-Darius Theory
Another theory is mentioned in D. J. Wiseman’s Some Historical Problems in the Book of Daniel which he advanced in 1957 that Darius the Mede may, in fact, be Cyrus the Persian. He says:

The basis of the hypothesis is that Daniel 6:28 can be translated ‘Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, even (namely, or i.e.) the reign of Cyrus the Persian.’ Such a use of the appositional or explicative Hebrew waw construction has long been recognized in Chronicles 5:26 (‘So the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria even the spirit of Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria’) and elsewhere.

In this particular verse the term “waw” is usually rendered as “and.” –But Mentioning Pul and Tiglath-Pileser as an example to prove his point is important, because the two of them were the same person . Pul was a title name, and Tiglath-Pilaser was his real name. His translation of 1 Chronicles 5: 26 emphasise that they were one and the same, though with different titles. Even though some translations like the New American Bible translate this verse as “God of Israel incited against them the anger of Pul, king of Assyria, and of Tiglath-pileser” phrasing the verse as if they were different persons, many modern translations, like the New King James Version, phrase it as “the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, that is, Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria” showing they are the same individual, which they are, and also because it was a possible translation. — So, obviously, this verse can be legitimently translated both ways.

He then points out that his verse is structured similarly to Daniel 6: 28, hence it would then be possible that Cyrus and Darius were the same. *One name would be a given name and the other might possibly be a title.*

Well, of course, this solution has been attacked by overly skeptical critics. In his post entitled “Darius the son of Ahashuerus?” Farrell Till argues:

I have checked various translations, and I can find none that support Wiseman’s hypothesis. The translation of the Jewish Publication Society renders this verse the same as do other translations: “Thus Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and during the reign of Cyrus the Persian.”

Till’s objection has two major problems: 1) The over reliance on Bible translations to rule out how a Biblical verse can or cannot be translated is very unscholarly and crossing the line to being pathetic. And 2) In his search of “support from translations” for Wiseman’s suggestion he obviously hasn’t checked enough translations because in several of them (in the footnotes) similar readings are accepted as a legitimate alternative translation. These Bible versions are the New International Version, the New Living Translation, the Holman Christian Standard Bible, and the Today’s New International Version. It is given as, ” . . . Darius, that is, the reign of Cyrus,” or as “Darius, even . . .”

So Wiseman didn’t make this up. The verse can be translated as ” So Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius, that is, the reign of Cyrus the Persian.” It doesn’t just have to say ” . . . during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus” as Till keeps on insisting. The “that is” or “even” point to the reigns of both Cyrus and Darius as being one and the same, like King Pul’s anger or spirit being the same as Tiglath-Pileser’s. So, the truth is that Wiseman’s hypothesis does, in fact, have support. — So, even with this evidence that any novice, including Till, can access I think this renders any protests against the alternate translation of Daniel 6:28 as irrelevant. However, this isn’t the end of the end of the Cyrus-Darius debate.

Cyrus’s Possible Origins
Something very important to the Cyrus-Darius debate is where Cyrus came from and what his origins are. It would be understandable for people to reject the theory that Cyrus is Darius on the basis that Cyrus is called a Persian and Darius is called a Mede. However, that would be to forget Cyrus’s heritage. — Cyrus was possibly half-Mede, the grandson of Astyages who was the last king of the Medes.

The Historian George Grote says that Cyrus’ childhood may be legendary as the Historian Herodotus tells it. He says:

According to the legend, Astyages, the king of the Medes and overlord of the Persians, gave his daughter in marriage to his vassal in Persis, a prince called Cambyses. From this marriage Cyrus was born.

This shows that is possible that Cyrus was Half-Mede, though some historians think it is legend. And Ferrell Till is very sure to say that this relationship to the Medes by Cyrus “is by no means historically certain.” Till continues to say:

Let’s assume that Cyrus’s mother was a Median princess. Why would that have made the son of a Persian king, born in Persia, “a Mede by birth”? That kind of logic would have made Obed, the grandfather of David, a Moabite, because his mother Ruth was a Moabitess (Ruth 1:3-4; 4:13-21) [ . . . ] According to 1 Chronicles 3:1-3, the mothers of three of David’s sons were foreigners, so the same logic that inerrantists use to make Cyrus a Mede would make these sons of David the same ethnicity as their mothers.

Till is trying to show the saying that Cyrus was Mede as problematic based on certain Biblical examples of Half-blood Isrealites. He apparently thinks that these children could not have identified, at least in part, as part of their mothers’ race. As someone who is biracial himself I find this assumption absurd. — There is no reason why Obed, a son of an Isrealite man mentioned by Till in his examples, couldn’t have admitted to being of the “seed” of a Moabite. And as for his examples of David’s sons: It wouldn’t be said that they were actually “foreigners” because they were the sons of an Isrealite, but they did have foreign blood in their veins from their mother, so the same thing goes for them. So again, Till’s reasoning is absurd and I think barley even worth mentioning.

Now, back to the prossible relationship between Astyages and Cyrus: Some Livus.org historians, in fact accept that it is “possible that the story of Cambyses‘ Median marriage was invented to justify Cyrus’ rule.” – However, they also say that such a relationship between the two men “would explain why the Medes accepted Cyrus’ rule; he was one of them.” — In other words, it is possible one way or the other, and such a relationship of Cyrus the Persian to the Median royal family should not be ruled out. And to do so would be bad scholarship.

Also, if the Medes indeed did accept Cyrus as “one of them” because of the blood relation through his mother, then that would be full justification for also labeling him as a Mede. — Also, that assertion shows that scholars don’t agree with Till when he claims that even if Cyrus were the grandson of the last Median King and the son of a Mede princess that he wouldn’t be of the “seed of the Medes.” But apparently, nothing is good enough for Farrell Till:

Cyrus was not “of the seed of the Medes” or “by birth a Mede.” He was a Persian, and the writer of Daniel described him as such when he was unequivocally referring to his ethnicity (Dan. 6:28). As noted above, the author of Daniel specifically said that “Darius the Mede” was “by birth a Mede,” so he was obviously emphasizing his ethnic origin; therefore, if Miller’s spin on Daniel 6:28 is correct, it would have this verse meaning: “So Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius [the Mede], even in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.” Only a desperate biblical inerrantist would say that this interpretation of the verse makes any logical sense, because a more plausible interpretation is that the writer was emphasizing that Cyrus was a Persian as opposed to Darius, whom he had just identified as a Mede.

This arguement that, dispite potential authentic historical possibilities, shows how closed minded Till is. There is no way he can actually say with certainty that Cyrus was not of Median origins. But since it hurts his anti-Biblical position, he decides to pretend it is impossible. And that, as I said, is bad scholarship. — And as for his protest for the alternate translation of Daniel 6: 28, I think I have already made my point.

The Meaning of “Darius the Mede“
A logical question could potentially be: If Daniel meant that Darius the Mede is Cyrus the Persian, then why not simply call him “Cyrus?” Several Christian scholars and apologists have noted that certain pre-Daniel Biblical prophesies that predicted that the Medes would have a hand in Babylon’s downfall. A notable example, in the context of a fall of Babylon is Isaiah 21:2:

A dire vision has been shown to me: The traitor betrays, the looter takes loot. Elam, attack Media, lay siege! I will bring to an end all the groaning she [Babylon] caused. (TNIV, Brackets mine)

Another example is Isaiah 13: 17,19:

See, I will stir up against them the Medes, who do not care for silver and have no delight in gold. Their bows will strike down the young men; they will have no mercy on infants, nor will they look with compassion on children. Babylon, the jewel of kingdoms, the pride and glory of the Babylonians, will be overthrown by God like Sodom and Gomorrah. (TNIV)

So for a Jewish prophet, it would only be natural to emphesis the fullfilent of this certain prophesy in his lifetime. Hence, we get the Median side of Cyrus. As a matter of fact, Daniel personally may have prefered calling him a Mede over a Persian. For modern readers, this is misleading, but it wouldn’t have been for Daniel’s first readers.

Farrel Till, always scratching for something wrong, insists that these verses are a basis that a misinformed Jew from the second century B.C. used to come to conclusion that the Persians didn’t conquer Babylon, but rather the Medes instead. (I’ll talk about this a little later)

I have another contention about the name “Darius” as far as Cyrus is concerned. According to the Encyclopedia of the Orient “It is not known whether Cyrus was a title or a personal name.” — So if “Cyrus” is indeed a title then his real name would be unknown. But then if he and “Darius the Mede” are indeed one and the same as Daniel 6:28 seems to show, then that could mean that Daniel himself that he preserved his name (Darius) which is otherwise historically unknown.

The Son of Ahasuerus
According to Daniel 9:1 Darius the Mede is called the son of Ahasuerus (or Xerxes). The main point of Farrel Till’s “Darius the Son of Ahashuerus?“ is to slam this statement. He claims that this makes a chronological problem:

Ahasuerus was the Xeres of the book of Esther, who reigned over the Persian empire from 485-465 BC. How, then, could Darius the Mede, who conquered Babylon in 539 BC and allegedly ruled over it, have been the son of a king who didn’t reign till 54 years later? The sensible explanation is that the writer of Daniel, who lived centuries after the events he was writing about, was confused about when and where certain 5th- and 6th-century BC rulers had lived.

One could understandably agree with Till that this is a “chronological problem” as he puts it. Till then mocks assertions by Christian apologists that “Ahasuerus” could be a title instead of an actual name. By this he says that making “Ahasuerus” a title for Darius’ father would cause confussion to the ancient readers of the Hebrew Bible. He then cites verses from the books of Esther, Ezra as well as other verses which mention the Persian “Ahasuerus.” — He continues after citing an extremely long Biblical passage which mentions many kings:

This passage, which described conflict that the returning Jewish exiles had with the inhabitants of the region, mentioned five kings: Esar-Haddon of Assyria, Cyrus of Persia, Darius of Persia, Ahasuerus of Persia, and Artaxerxes also of Persia. Werethese names or just “royal titles”? Will inerrantists try to argue that Esar-Haddon was not the name of an Assyrian king, that Cyrus was not the name of a Persian king, that Darius was not the name of a Persian king, and that Artaxerxes was not the name of a Persian king? In each case, the “royal title” king was used in reference to these monarchs, so if inerrantists argue that Ahasuerus was just a “royal title,” they will be arguing that Ezra used the specific names of four different kings in this passage but referred to the fifth one by just a “royal title.” How likely is that? (Emphasis his)

For the record, as I mentioned earlier, “Cyrus” may indeed be a title. But apparently Till doesn’t know that. — And also, to compare Daniel’s style of writting to that of others is a flawed approach because obviously Daniel doesn’t have to write in the same manner as Ezra or any other prophet. Different people have different writing styles, and that’s a fact. — Till is assuming way to much in believing that the “Ahasueras” of Esther and Ezra really has to be the one mentioned in Daniel.

I don’t pretend to actually know who this “Ahasueras” really was, but I do have a really good idea as to his identity. I think it would be a huge mistake to identify him as Cambyses (Cyrus’ birth-father). So I’d say that leads to the maternal side of the family which would identify him as King Astyages the Mede. — Besides my assumption, there is historical evidence to back it up: The ancient Jewish historian Josephus, although he doesn’t identify Darius as Cyrus, says that, “[Darius] was the son of Astyages, and had another name among the Greeks.” (Antiquities of the Jews, 10,11, 4) — This identification of Darius’ father as Astyages is extremely important because Josephus would have known that Daniel called Darius’s father “Ahasueras.” So he likely saw them as one and the same.

Also, I should mention that if, as mentioned before, that Daniel focused on the Median ethnicity of Cyrus to show that Biblical prophesy had been fulfilled through him, then Astyages is the safest bet to identify “Ahasuerus.” — I have no opinion of which of the two names (”Astyages” or “Ahasuerus”) are titles or actual names as some other Christians do.

To the Medes or the Persians?
Earlier, I mentioned that Farrel Till insists that the Book of Daniel says that Babylon fell to the Medes and not to the Persians:

The author of Daniel, writing long after the fact, obviously didn’t know the facts about the actual fall of Babylon, and so he theorized that the city had to have been conquered by the Medes.

The truth is there is textual evidence in Daniel itself that the author know the true history of the Babylonian fall. It can be found in the fifth capter of the book when Daniel interprates the so-called “writing on the wall.”

“This is the inscription that was written: Mene, Mene, Tekel, Parsin. “This is what these words mean: Mene: God has numbered the days of your reign and brought it to an end. Tekel: You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting. Peres: Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.” (Daniel 5:25,28 NIV)

This may not look like proof but it should be noted that in verse 28, Daniel used “Peres” which is the singular of “Parsin.” The Alternate understandings of this term include renderings such as “half mina,” “half shekel,” and most importantly to my case it can even mean “Persia.” — In other words the evidence that Daniel know the true story of how Babylon fell is found in a pun in the term used for “divided.” Daniel did not make a mistake. However in another of his posts (See “The Linguistic ‘Evidence’”) this still isn’t good enough for Till. So, one could wonder if any evidence will ever be good enough.

Conclusion
The identity of Darius the Mede is indeed problematic, but not impossible to resolve. So far, there seems to be more of a possiblity for him to be Cyrus the Persian than for him to be Gobryas (or Ugbaru). The strongest bit of evidence is the alternate translation of Daniel 6:28 as, “Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, even (namely, or i.e.) the reign of Cyrus the Persian” which points in that dirrection. The rest of the evidence to identify him as such in no way goes against known history, though sometimes it is speculative in several instances. Someday this matter may be resolved satisfactually.

Defending the Book of Daniel

Introduction
The book of Daniel is an apocolyptic book of the Old Testament which starts with King Nebuchadnezzar II’s defeat of Johoiakim, the Judean king. Nebuchadnezzar then decided to take certain members of the Jewish royal family and nobility with him, as well as certain articles of the temple. (This may have been in 605 B.C.)

Daniel and his three freinds are offered food from the king’s own table. However they refuse to take it asking for vegetables and water. The guard that they say this to protests and says that vegetables and water would have negative affects on them. — They eventually agree to a ten day test to see who is healthier, them or the ones who ate the rich food of the king. After the ten days they appeared healthier than the others.

Nebuchanezzar has a dream that he immediately forgets when he wakes up and demands his wise men to tell him what it was and then to interpret it. They are unable to so the king gets angry and decrees that all wise men should be executed. Daniel then goes to the king and offers to interpret his dream. He starts by telling him what he dreamed. Satisfied with Daniel’s description and interpretation, Nebuchadnezzar promotes him to a high position.

What I plan on doing in this post is defend the authenticity of the Book of Daniel from the people who say that it is a forgery from the Maccabean revolt in the second century.

One of the top on my list is a post from Farrell Till of Infidels.org entitled “ Bad History in the Book of Daniel,” however, there are others I plan on defending it from. *Some of the issues here deserve there own blog posts, and probably will get them.

Being a Christian, faith in God and the Bible are fundamentals, especially if you believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God. So if the Bible is shown to have historical blunders then that could shake any open-minded person’s faith. — However, it is good for that person to do his own independent research and check his facts.

A philosopher and “violent opponent of Christianity and defender of paganism” and author of the book Against the Christians named Porphyry who lived between 232 and 304 A.D. was the first person to call into question the authenticity of the Book of Daniel, saying that is was written during the Maccabean revolt at around 165 B.C. — Since then, most scholars seem to have accepted his accusation as fact without question. Even the scholars who worked on the catholic New American Bible in the introduction of Daniel accept this idea.

Also, many scholars mention many apparent “historical blunders” to show that the book can’t possibly be authentic or accurate. — In this post, I’m going to take a look at these apparent historical errors in Daniel.

King Belshazzar, “Son” of Nebuchadnezzar
In his criticism of the Book of Daniel, the first apparent historical blunder Farrell Till deals with is found in Daniel 5: 1-23 where King Nebuchadnezzar is called Belshazzar’s “father” five times and Belshazzar is called his “son” once.

Till is very quick to point out that Belshazzar is actually the son of Nabonidus, not Nebuchadnezzar. – He then insists that someone who was once ruler of the entire province of Babylon would not make be so uninformed. He then dismisses an explanation that says that Belshazzar could be the son of Nebuchadnezzar like Jews are the sons of Abraham and that Jesus was the son of David on the grounds that Abraham and David were separated from modern Jews and Jesus Christ by centuries while Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar weren’t.

An explanation for this apparent “historical blunder” can be found in the bottom page reference of these passages of Daniel in any New International Version of the Bible. These references give an alternate translation of “father” as “ancestor” for Nebuchadnezzar. And it also shows that in Belshazzar’s case an alternate understanding for “son” can be substituted with “descendant.” — So, on that grounds alone, Daniel isn’t necessarily in error.

But he goes on: He insists that Daniel means that Belshazzar and Nebuchadnezzar are literally father and son by mentioning that between that last acts of Nebuchadnezzar in the Bible until Belshazzar, the other Babylonian rulers aren’t mentioned. — He then insists that “this within itself would indicate an ignorance of 6th-century Babylonian history.”

This, however, doesn’t need to be construed as ignorance of the author. It could be that Daniel just didn’t see the other rulers of Babylon that came between the two said kings as being relevant to what he was writing.

But he keeps on with it. He mentions that Nebuchadnezzar’s family was deposed and replaced by men who were not related to him, like Nabonidus. Then he says:

The fact that the writer of Daniel leaped from Nebuchadnezzar to Belshazzar, passing over completely the reigns of four intervening kings, certainly indicates a fuzzy knowledge of the history of this period. That lack of knowledge provides the best explanation for why the writer would have called Nebuchadnezzar the “father” of Belshazzar and Belshazzar the “son” of Nebuchadnezzar when the two were not related.

While it is true that Nabonidus was not related to Nebuchadnezzar, that doesn’t rule out any relation that his son Belshazzar could have had with him. — In fact the Encyclopædia Britannica says that Belshazzar’s mother was named Nitocris “who was perhaps a daughter of Nebuchadrezzar.”

Hence, Belshazzar was not related to Nebuchadnezzar by his father Nabonidus, however it is possible that he was his grandson through his mother. — These details support the book of Daniel. — So Farrel Till, in his paper against the historicity of Daniel, in assuming that the two weren’t related at all obviously didn’t do enough research.

Some Critics (Not Farrell Till) criticize Daniel for calling Belshazzar the King of Babylon, pointing out that his father Nabonidus was still alive. It is true that Nabonidus was still alive and still officially King. But there are other details that should be looked at that show Daniel is correct.

Archaeological Experts point out that Belshazzar “stood in as temporary ruler” in his father’s absence. One could say he was a stand in king. They also point out:

Nabonidus, as King of Babylon, paid little attention to the politics, religion, or affairs of Imperial Babylon preferring instead to travel and research the older buildings, temples, and objects of antiquity that lay in the outer most parts of his Empire. For this reason he is included in archaeology’s ‘hall of fame’ because his abandonment of his royal duties were in favour of some of the first archaeological investigations.

In other words, Nabonidus wasn’t much of a king and his son was a stand in as Co-Regent. Apparently Belshazzar was more of a king than his father, though he was officially second in command.

More evidence is found in ancient text of  “the Verse Account of Nabonidus” which says:

After he (Nabonidus) had obtained what he desired, a work of utter deceit, had built this abomination, a work of unholiness -when the third year was about to begin- he entrusted the army [?] to his oldest son, (Belshazzar) his first born, the troops in the country he ordered under his command. He let everything go, entrusted the kingship to him, and, himself, he started out for a long journey. The military forces of Akkad marching with him, he turned to Temâ deep in the west. (Parentheses Mine)

The Nabonidus Verse says that Nabonidus “Entrusted the Kingship” to his oldest son, who was Belshazzar. You cannot get much stronger evidence in favor of Daniel’s calling him the King of Babylon.

There is actually certain evidence in the book of Daniel itself that Belshazzar wasn’t first in the Babylonian Kingdom. — In Daniel 5 Belshazzar sees writing on the wall and doesn’t know what it means. He then asks Daniel to read and interperate the meaning. Belshazzar then tells him:

“Now I have heard that you are able to give interpretations and to solve difficult problems. If you can read this writing and tell me what it means, you will be clothed in purple and have a gold chain placed around your neck, and you will be made the third highest ruler in the kingdom.” Daniel 5:16 NIV

That Belshazzar offers Daniel the office of third in the kingdom is very important. Why not make Daniel the second ruler? Because Belshazzar was second and Nabonidus was first. — So even though King Nabonidusisn’t mentioned outright by Daniel, there is a certain implication of his existence.

The “third year” of Jehoiakim
Another apparent error in Daniel is found as the book opens:

During the third year of King Jehoiakim’s reign in Judah, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it with his armies. The Lord gave him victory over King Jehoiakim of Judah. When Nebuchadnezzar returned to Babylon, he took with him some of the sacred objects from the Temple of God and placed them in the treasure house of his god in the land of Babylon. Daniel 1:1-2 NLT

This invasion of Judah would have happened in 605 B.C. when King Jehoiakim pledged allegiance to Nebuchadnezzar instead of Neco, the Egyptian king, after the the Battle of Carchemish. Then same year Nebuchadnezzar had to go back to Babylon when his father Nabopolassar died to claim his throne.

Farrell Till assumes that Jerusalem wasn’t besieged in 605 B.C. — He says that even the Biblical records say that the seige was in the last year of Jehoiakim, not his third. However, the Bible also says that when Nebuchadnezzar first invaded Judah in 605 B.C., he made Jehoiakim, after his surrender, his vassal for three years before he rebelled. (1 Kings 24: 1) Even though a siege isn’t mentioned, it is possible that that is exactly what happened. In fact, it doesn’t have to have been an actual seige because the Hebew term ,צור (pronounced as tsür), allows for the alternate understanding as “to show hostility to,” or “to treat as foe.”

He also claims that then, and apparently only then, were the sacred objects of the temple of God and captives taken, probably hoping to show a contradiction between Daniel 1:1-2 and 2 Kings 24: 10-13. — However, this isn’t a contradiction.

In Daniel 1:1-2, which would have happened in 605 B.C., it is said the Babylonians took only “some”of the temple objects. — In 2 Kings 24: 10-13, which happened years later under Jehoiachin, Jehoiakim’s successor,it is said that the Babylonians, then, took all of them. — Some temple articles being taken in one year, and then all of them years later is hardly a contradiction.

It should also be mentioned that 2 Chronicles 36: 5-9 shows that temple treasures were taken from the temple twice by the Babylonians. Once when Jehoiakim was king, and the other time when Jehoiachin, his son ruled.

Another doubt of Daniel from the beginning of chapter 1 comes from the claim that the first Babylonian invasion of Judah was in “the third year”of King Jehoiakim. — As I mentioned earlier, this invasion happened in the same year almost immediately after King Neco of Egypt was defeated by Nebuchadnezzar at the battle of Carchemish. — In Jeremiah 46, this battle is mentioned and it is said to have happened in “the forth year” of King Jehoiakim’s reign (Jeremiah 46:2).

Understandably, this does look like a contradiction. But the fact is that the Babylonians had a different system of time reckoning. — The Berytus Archeological Studies of the American University of Beirut shows that the Babylonians had a calender system called the “accession year” which was later adopted by the Persians.

This is how they define accession years:

The last civil year of a previous ruler was identified with the “year of the beginning” of his successor, and “year 1″ of the latter started at the next Nisanu 1 only.

In other words, because the Jews had no such system, they counted 609 B.C. as the first year of Jehoiakimand counted the first year of his reign starting with the first day he became king. Therefore to the Jews the year 605 B.C. would have been his fourth year on the throne. — However, in the Babylonian system, the first year of the reign of Jehoiakim would have been officially started on the first day of their calender in 608 B.C., counting 609 B.C. as the last year of his predecessor. So according to the Babylonians, the third year of King Jehoiakim would have been in 605 B.C.

If Daniel were a Babylonian official, as his book claims, he likely would have adopted their style of time reckoning. I seriously doubt Daniel would have known of this system difference if he lived in the second century.

King Darius the Mede
The biggest problem in Daniel is the Identity of Darius the Mede. Many assume that Daniel confuses Cyrus with Darius the first. There are a couple of theories as to his identity.

One theory suggests that he is Gobryas (or Ugbaru) who, according to the Nabonidus Chronicle, was the General of Cyrus that became the Governor of Babylon. However, my problem with this theory is that Ugbaru died just a few days after capturing the city, so if he is indeed Darius then it would be a very tight fit. However, there is another theory which I think fits even better. The theory that Darius is Cyrus.

D.J. Wiseman has noticed that there is an alternative translation of Daniel 6: 28. This verse usually shows up in the Bible as “So Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian.” However, he mentions the following:

The basis of the hypothesis is that Daniel 6:28 can be translated ‘Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, even (namely, or i.e.) the reign of Cyrus the Persian.’ Such a use of the appositional or explicative Hebrew waw construction has long been recognized in Chronicles 5:26 (‘So the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria even the spirit of Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria’) and else where.

Mentioning Pul and Tiglath-Pileser as an example to prove his point is important, because the two of them were the same person. Pul was his given name, and Tiglath-Pilaser was his throne name. His translation of 1 Chronicles 5: 26 emphasises that they were one and the same, though with different titles. Even though some translations like the New American Bibletranslate this verse as “God of Israel incited against them the anger of Pul, king of Assyria, andof Tiglath-pileser” phrasing the verse as if they were different persons, many modern translations, like the New King James Version, phrase it as “the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, that is, Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria” showing they are the same individual, which they are, and also because it was a possible translation. — So, obviously, this verse can be legitimately translated both ways.

He then points out that his verse is structured similarly to Daniel 6: 28, hence it would then be possible that Cyrus and Darius were the same. *One name would be a given name and the other might possibly be a title.*

In Farrell Till’s responce he says: “I have checked various translations, and I can find none that support Wiseman’s hypothesis.” — Well, Till obviously has not searched enough. In certain Bible translations like the New International Version, the New Living Translation, and the Holman Christian Standard Bible in the bottom of the page references (not in the actual text of Daniel) there is an alternative translation similar to Wiseman’s. It is given as, ” . . . Darius, that is, the reign of Cyrus,” or as “Darius, even . . .”

So Wiseman didn’t make this up. The verse can be translated as ” So Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius, that is, the reign of Cyrus the Persian.” It doesn’t just have to say ” . . . during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus” as Till keeps on insisting.

The “that is” or “even” point to the reigns of both Cyrus and Darius as being one and the same, like King Pul’s anger or spirit being the same as Tiglath-Pileser’s. So, the truth is that Wiseman’s hypothesis does, in fact, have support.

It would be understandable for people to reject the theory that Cyrus is Darius on the basis that Cyrus is called a Persian and Darius is called a Mede. However, that would be to forget Cyrus’s heritage. — Cyrus was probably half-Mede, the grandson of Astyages who was the last king of the Medes.

George Grote says:

Astyages, the king of the Medes and overlord of the Persians, gave his daughter in marriage to his vassal in Persis, a prince called Cambyses. From this marriage Cyrus was born.

He then mentions a legend in which Astyages saw Cyrus growing up to dethrone him so he decided to have him killed. He then changed his mind later and in 550 B.C. His dream became reality.

– A reasonable question, though is why would Daniel want to use the “Median” title for the conqueror of Babylon? The answer may be because of prophesies that predicted that Babylon would fall to the Medes.

See, I will stir up against them the Medes, who do not care for silver and have no delight in gold. Their bows will strike down the young men; they will have no mercy on infants nor will they look with compassion on children. Babylon, the jewel of kingdoms, the glory of the Babylonians’ pride, will be overthrown by God like Sodom and Gomorrah. Isaiah 13: 17-19 NIV

Knowing Cyrus’s tribal background, this isn’t impossible. It also seems likely that Daniel may have preferred the name “Darius the Mede” to Cyrus the Persian, though he did use the latter a variety of times. This would be misleading to us but obvious to Daniel’s first readers.

Going back a little Since both 1 Chronicles 5:26 names King Pul along with his title as manarch, and Since Daniel 6: 28 can be understood in both ways, we can be sure that one of the two names given is Cyrus’s given name and that the other is a title. The question then becomes: Which is which?

According to the Encyclopedia of the Orient “It is not known whether Cyrus was a title or a personal name.” This then indicates that if “Cyrus” is a title and not a personal name then his name is probably lost to history. Or is it? — Since Daniel 6: 28 shows both as the same, then what if Daniel was the one who preserved his real name? What if his given name was, in fact, Darius?

There is also the question of the father of Darius the Mede is called ofAhasueras in Daniel 9:1. I believe that if Cyrus is indeed Darius then “Ahasueras” may be an alternate name for Astyages his grandfather, or for Cambyses his actual father. But if Daniel wanted to stress that Cyrus was half-Mede as accomplishment of the prophesy that the Medes would conquer Babylon, then most probably he meant Astyages the last of the Median Kings. — Actually there is a historical source to back this up. Josephus, the ancient Jewish historian, does in fact mention that Darius “was the son of Astyages” (Antiquities of the Jews, 10,11, 4). This is important because Josephus would have known that Daniel called Darius’s father Ahasueras. So he likely saw them as one and the same.

Even though some question such a relationship between Astyages and Cyrus, it has never been disproved. Also, it is possible that Cyrus was more than his grandson. He may have also been his son-in-law. It was suggested that, although his mother was a daughter of Astyages, that he married his mother’s sister (i.e. his aunt). It isn’t impossible. And if this is true, then Cyrus could be called “the son of Astyages” in more ways that one.

The last issue about the Cyrus-Darius theory has to do about Cyrus’s age when he took Babylon. Daniel 5:31 says that Darius the Mede was sixty-two years old when his rule began. We know that he took Babylon in 539 B.C., meaning his accession year would have begun in 538 B.C.

The year of his birth, however, in unknown. — Some sources (like the Encyclopaedia Britannica) suggest the years 590 to 580 B.C. If either of these are true, then Cyrus would have been between 41 and 51 at the time of the conquest of Babylon. — Other sources (like the Encyclopaedia of the Orient) suggest the year 600 B.C. Now if this is true, then Cyrus would have been 61 at the time of the Babylonian conquest and, possibly, 62 when his accession year as King of Babylon began just as Daniel points out. — The evidence seems to point to King Cyrus as Darius the Mede.

Conclusion
Based on this evidence, I believe that the Book of Daniel is not historically inaccurate. It seems to me that accusations of historical inconsistency are based on honest misunderstandings of the book and known history.

Luke and the Census of Quirinius

In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) Luke 2:1-2 TNIV

This verse, for reasons that will be discussed has caused many anti-Biblical skeptics and anti-Christian websites to call the historicity of Luke’s account into question. –The use of the name “Quirinius” is what is truly problematic for Christian scholars and apologists.

According to Josephus after Archelaus had been deposed by Rome in 6 A.D. as the ruler of Judea after his father Herod the Great Quirinius who is described as being “of great dignity” was sent by Augustus, the Roman Emperor to be the new Syrian governor (or legate). He was instructed to carry out a registration which would include the Jews because Judea had become a province of Syria.

At first the Jews were outraged a the thought of such a registration however most of them apparently decided to accept it. Josephus’ account says:

The Jews, although at the beginning they took the report of a taxation heinously, yet did they leave off any further opposition to it, by the persuasion of Joazar, who was the son of Beethus, and high priest; so they, being over-persuaded by Joazar’swords, gavean account of their estates, without any dispute about it. (Antiquities 18,1,1)

And then right after, Josephus mentions the famous Jewish rebel known as “Judas the Galilean.” The Jewish historian describes him as being from Gamala. (This same Judas is mentioned in Acts 5: 37) — Judas began a revolt against Rome claiming that this census was “no better than an introduction to slavery.” He and his followers insisted that if the Jews were to participate then God would no longer assist his people. Josephus then described:

All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; one violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends which used to alleviate our pains; there were also very great robberies and murder of our principal men. This was done in pretense indeed for the public welfare, but in reality for the hopes of gain to themselves; whence arose seditions, and from them murders of men, which sometimes fell on those of their own people.

It is obvious that Josephus didn’t see the revolt as justified. He also describes the burning of the temple in the same context seemingly implying that its destruction was one in a series of chain reactions even though it happened decades after Judas’ revolt. He says that he (or rather he says “we”) lost friends because of those wars which shows a digression to Jewish revolt of the 60’s. — Needless to say: The Jewish rebels lost both wars.

The Date of Jesus’ Birth

The major problem with Luke’s usage of Quirinius for the date of the nativity is when he bacame the legate (or governor) of Syria which was 6 A.D. — The Book of Matthew places the birth of Jesus durring the reign of Herod the Great who died in 4 B.C., ten years before.

Richard Carrier, of infidels.org, in The Date of the Nativity in Luke (5th ed., 2006) says:

It is beyond reasonable dispute that Luke dates the birth of Jesus to 6 A.D. It is equally indisputable that Matthew dates the birth of Jesus to 6 B.C. (or some year before 4 B.C.). This becomes an irreconcilable contradiction after an examination of all the relevant facts.

Also James W. Deardorff in his paper entitled “His Birth Year: 6 B.C. or A.D.6“ speculates that Matthew is wrong in putting the birth of Christ in 6 B.C. and that Luke is probably more accurate. He then says:

An A.D. 6 birth date would mean that Jesus was significantly younger than commonly supposed during his Palestinian ministry — only in his mid twenties — and that his education during his youth was a remarkably advanced one, for him to have become known as “Teacher” at such a young age. His relatively young age may havegiven psychological reason why his teachings were rejected so quickly by scribes, Pharisees and elders. It similarly gives reason why theologically committed scholars and influential church leaders alike prefer the earlier birth date, as it yields a more mature Jesus during his ministry. It appears that the writer of Luke felt the same way, in saying, in Lk 3:23, that Jesus was “about thirty” years of age when he started his ministry.

As he says Luke claims Jesus was about thirty when he began to preach. However, his claim that Luke felt Christ would be rejected if he were presented as younger is without any evidence and is no more than a baseless assumption. Also, I seriously doubt that the pharisees would have considered Jesus a threat if he were still that young, not to mention I doubt that many people would have even taken him seriously in his lifetime. — Also Luke 1:5 claims that Jesus was born in the days of King Herod, placing his birth at 4 B.C. or earlier like Matthew. Also, without changing the context of time, the census at the beginning of chapter two is said to happen “in those days.”

I seriously doubt that this mention of Herod in Luke would do anything to change Carrier’s position that Luke places Jesus’ birth in 6 A.D. In Footnote 1.1.3 of his essay he shows his belief that Luke may be refering to Archelaus, Herod’s successor in Judea. He also rightly points out that he as well could have been called “Herod” but wrongly assumes that he could also be called “king.” (His Brothers Antipas and Philip received other territory that their father had.) He therefore believes John the Baptist was born in 5 A.D. — However, Carrier’s position totally dismisses the fact that, as I said, Luke says Jesus was (at least) thirty when he began his ministry after be was baptized by John. He thinks Luke didn’t care about his accuracy which flies in the face of Luke 1: 1,4.

Luke implies that the thirty year old Jesus began to preach in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar when he was baptized (Luke 3:1). Tiberius Caesar became the Roman Emperor in 14 A.D., so the fifteenth year of his reign would have been 28 A.D. So Jesus would have had to be born in at the very least 2 B.C. at the very least for this to be true (that is, eight years before the well-known census of Quirinius). Although this rough date of 2 B.C. would be technically in the days of (Herod) Archelauswho ruled for ten years from 4 B.C. to 6 A.D. his birth year would be years away from the QuiriniunCensus. So the age of thirty is an estimate, not a rough number.

Certainly, if Luke wanted to tell his readers that Jesus was born in 6 A.D. then he would have said that he was twenty-two years old when he began. This obviously cannot be estimated as thirty. I think it is more likely that Herod the Great, and not Archelaus, is who Luke was refering to. As mentioned, Luke 1:5 calls Herod the “King” of Judea, and yet Archelaus was not recognized as a king. The Encyclopedia Britannica, about Archelaus, says:

Named in his father’s will as ruler of the largest part of the Judaean kingdom –Judaea proper, Idumaea, and Samaria—Archelaus went to Rome (4 BC) to defend his title against the claims of his brothers Philip and Antipas before the emperor Augustus. Augustus confirmed him in possession of the largest portion but did not recognize him as king, giving him instead the lesser title of ethnarch to emphasize his dependence on Rome. (Emphasis mine)

So Carrier’s preferred position that Luke is not talking about Herod the Great seems majorly flawed because Archelauswas not recognized as “king of the Jews” by the Roman emperor despite his father’s wishes. He was given a lower title. So I see this as proof that Luke puts Jesus’ birthat4 B.C. or anytime before Herod’s death.

To be honest, Matthew does seem to call Archelaus “king” in Matthew 2: 22 because the term for “reign” that is used is related to “Basileas” which is Greek for king. But this isn’t necessarily proof to the contrary. Matthew doesn’t seem to feel obligated to givethe literal titles of Roman politicians. An example of Matthew’s free style can be found in Matthew 14: 1, 9 where he calls Herod Antipas both a tetrarch and a king within verses. (Antipas was a Tetrarch, not officially a king.) Perhaps Matthew and Mark felt free to do this because he was a son of a King.

– But Luke, on the other hand, shows no such writing freedom. He tends to give the official title of Roman Politicians. Every time he mentions Antipas (Luke 3:1-19) he only ever calls him by his real title. Also when he mentions Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:7,8 ) the procosul of Cyprus as well as others he does this as well. It is not impossible that Luke may havebroken with this particular writing style, but it is unlikely. So I think the odds are that Luke 1:5 is a reference to Herod the Great and not to Archelaus.

Another problem with usingLuke to date Jesus’ birth from 6 A.D. is its agreement with the other three gospels that Pontius Pilate was the Roman governor that allowed the Jewish leaders to execute Jesus. Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea from 26 to 36 A.D.. — If Jesus was born in 6 A.D., then he would have been 30 years old in 36 A.D. which was the last year Pilate was governor. Traditionally, Jesus preached for slightly over three years. So this would make the year of his death 39 A.D. when Pilate was no longer governing the Jews.

So, by dating the Nativity during the reign of Herod as well as Christ’s age at certain points withthe governorships and the year of the emperor of Rome (Tiberius) all combine to show that Luke is by no means dating the birthof Jesus to 6 B.C., but rather before Herod’s death which was in 4 B.C. — So, Luke is clear, however the census of Quirinius remains problematic.

The Census “Before”

Jesus was born before the death of Herod, but Luke 2:2 all by itself appears to put his birth ten years after. So this is a major reason why this particular Biblical passage is used by skeptics to show the Bible as fallible and self-contradicting.

One popular solution promoted by some Christian apologists is a re-translation of the term “first” or “prote” which is used in the verse. So, instead of Luke 2:2 saying that the census was the “first” one taken while Quirinius was governor it is translated as:

This was the first registration, before the one the one when Quirinius was governor of Syria.

With this, the problem would seem te be resolved. Layman of CADRE Comments, in his post “Luke, the Census, and Quirinius: A matter of Translation“ says:

Under this translation, Luke is not placing Jesus’ birth during the governorship of Quirinius, but before it. Before the uprising that it spawned and during the reign of King Herod. But is this translation merely a contrivance to avoid the problem? No, there are good reasons for translating Luke 2:2 in this manner.

He’s mostly right in saying this. It would also do away with the apparent historical confusion of Quirinius being governor of Syria during Herod’s reign which was not the case. He gives an important piece of evidence:

The oddity of the author of Luke making such an uninformed error here is matched, perhaps exceeded, by the awkwardness of the grammar in Luke 2:2. As Craig Evans, notes, “most commentators agree that Luke’s use of the word ‘first’ is grammatically awkward.” Craig Evans, Luke, New Testament Series, page 43. This leaves the proper translation of the verse in doubt. And, in fact, many commentators haveinterpreted 2:2 as indicated above — refering to a census before the governorship of Quirinius.

Richard Carrier, a professional anti-Bible skeptic, in his extensive essay against Luke 2:2 in a certain section entitled “Did Luke Mean “Before” Quirinius” he objects to this suggestion saying:

For in fact this argument is completely disallowed by the rules of Greek grammar. First of all, the basic meaning is clear and unambiguous, so there is no reason even to look for another meaning. The passage says hautê apographê prôtê egenetohêgemoneuontos tês SyriasKyrêniou, or with interlinear translation, hautê(this) apographê(census)prôtê[the] (first) egeneto (happened to be) hêgemoneuontos[while] (governing) tês Syrias(Syria) Kyrêniou[was] (Quirinius). The correct word order, in English, is “this happened to be the first census while Quirinius was governing Syria.” This is very straightforward, and all translations render it in such a manner.

In other words, Carrier is making the argument that translating the term “prote” as “before” instead of as “first” is nor grammatically correct. But he never addresses the fact that the term in the passage is grammatically awkward. If it weren’t for that fact, then I should be more likely to accept his criticism. But by not taking it into account, his argument therefore falls short.

Layman, in defence of this translation of the verse says:

This translation is not without literary support. Dr. Brook Pearson notes that there are several examples from other ancient Greek texts of “protus” being used in the same grammatical sense as in Luke 2:2, to mean “before” or “prior.” Brook W. R. Pearson, “The Lucan censuses, revisited”, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Apr. 1999. Perhaps most important, there are other New Testament examples of the Greek word “protus” being used to mean “before” or “former.” John 1:15 is translated: “John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.” Also, John 15:18 is translated in the New American Standard to state, “If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you.” Additionally, there are parallels in other ancient Greek literature of “protus” being used in the same sense as in Luke 2:2 to mean “before” or “prior”: Aristotle Ph. 8.8 (263a, lines 11 12) (”therefore, in the earlier words concerning movement”) and Athenaeus Deipnosophistae (discussing the origin of movements in dancing).

So, the bottom line seems to be that despite the unorthodoxy of this translation, it cannot be ruled out as a possible solution of the problem with Luke 2:2. Several Christian apologists like Glenn Miller of the Christian Thinktank and James Patrick Holding of Tekton Apologetics have embraced this alternative meaning of the passage.

A decree “most prominent”

Another suggestion translation of the verse which I personally find interesting was made by Stephen C. Carlson, a Greek linguist. Carlson disagrees with the alternate translation of “prote” as “before” however also has problems with the standard traditional translation. He says that if Luke really wanted to say that if Luke meant that this were the very census during which Jesus’ birth took place then there is little use for the term “prote.”

In his post “Luke 2:2 and the Census” he suggests that Luke 2:2 should be translated as:

This registration became most prominent when Quirinius was governing Syria.
or
This [decree to get registered] became the/a most important registration when Quirinius was governing Syria.

This translation, like the rendering of the term as “before” would also solve the problem. — Carlson suggests Ephesians 6:2, which he points out has similar structure to that of Luke 2:2, and says out that “prote” in this verse which is usually translated as “first” legitimately may be translated as “most prominent.” The verse says: “Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment with a promise.”(NRSV) He then cites Danker who believes the term really means that the commandment is most important rather than “first” in chronological order.” The verse then is parralleld with Mark 12 29.

In his second post “Parsing Luke 2:2” Carlson points out that his new translation on Luke 2:2 depends on how manuscripts of the New Testament put the wording:

One reason for the hand-waving is text critical–different manuscripts haveslightly different wordings for Luke 2:2, which attest to the apparent difficulty of the text and some of the variants affect the determination whether ἀπογραφὴ goes into the subject or the predicate. For example, most of the later witnesses, including the second corrector to Codex Sinaiticus (012) of the sixthcentury or so, insert the definitearticle ἡ between αὕτη and ἀπογραφὴ to read: αὕτη ἡ ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο; the original hand of 01*, on the other hand, read with a different placement of the verb: αυτη απογραφη εγενετο πρωτη. Codex Bezae(D) of the fifth century has a different word order, also by moving the verb: αὕτη ἐγένετο ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη.

Of course, Richard Carrier, in Footnote 10.6 of his essay criticises Carlson’s suggested translation. -I’ve already blogged Carrier’s criticism as well as Carlson’s response to him in “A ‘Most Prominent’ census: Carlson vs. Carier.”

Carlson believes, like those who support the translation of “prote” as before, that Luke is talking about a different census than that of Quirinius. He therefore thinks that this particular one is probably related to the other. — In his final post “Putting Luke 2:2 in context” he argues that this verse works as a digression to reference the later census.

The Census of Saturninus?

Whether Luke meant that “prote” was to be translated as “before” or as “most prominent” it seems quite apparent that he was talking about a registration that happened before the well known census of 6 A.D. But depending on the circumstances I would favor one over the other.

I think, as others do, that the answer to the problem of Luke 2:2 may be found is the early Christian writings may help with this. An interesting comment is made by Tertullian an ancient Christian from the third century A.D:

There is historical proof that at this very time a census had been taken in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus, which might have satisfied their inquiry respecting the family and descent of Christ. (Against Marcion 4:19)

Tertullian’s statement places the census during the time that Sentius Saturninus was the Governor of Syria (from 9 – 6 B.C.) If this is so, then it would likely have been in the last year of his government because Jesus’ birth is traditionally placed in 6 B.C.

Carrier, in the section of his essay entitled “Was “Quirinius” a Mistake for Someone Else?” he dismisses this:

Around the turn of the 3rd century, it is believed that Tertullian claimed the Lukan census occurred during the tenure of Gaius Sentius Saturninus (who was governor of Syria from 9 to 6 B.C.). Of course, Tertullian is not very reliable. So the fact that he makes this claim in the context of antiheretical rhetoric is enough to cast doubt on its authority.

To back up his that Tertullian isn’t reliable on this issue, in Footnote 15.2 he says that “Tertullian claims that Emperor Tiberius asked the Senate at Rome to recognize Christianity as an official religion in Apology 1.5.” — The weakness of this criticism is obvious. All this shows is that Tertullian was fallible. And God forbid that anyone be infalible to be considered as a reliable source. Also, Carrier’s example is completely unrelated to the statement of the census and therefore doesn’t prove (or disprove) a thing.

He then goes on to argue that Tertullian is talking about “censuses” in the plural and that therefore those who believe he is talking about the census of the nativity are ignoring the context of his statement. But whether he uses the plural or the singular doesn’t proveor disprove anything to me. — It is also true that Tertullian’s context was more inline withtalking about Jesus’ family and not about his birth, but that is far from proof that this isn’t the census in question. The fact that Saturninus’ governorship is dated to lasting until 6 B.C. (the same year historians date thebirth of Jesus) shows this may in fact be a piece of the puzzle of solving the problem of Luke and the census. Carrier then goes on to say:

Therefore, Tertullian could not possibly have been thinking of the census during which Jesus was born. So he may well mean another Sentius Saturninus (an ancestor of the other), who was governor of Syria in A.D. 19-21 (Tacitus, Annals 2.76-81), a plausible time before which Jesus’ siblings would have been born.

I’m just going to say that Carrier is assuming to much in saying that Jesus’ brother’s would have been born so late and that the later Satutninus was who Tertullian was talking about. There is no reference to the birthdate of any of his siblings. So Carrier is left to argue on flimsy assumptions. He then says:

But even if Tertullian meant brothers by a previous marriage, and thus had in mind the previous Sentius Saturninus, this still would not be the census during which Jesus was born, since Jesus had to be born later to a subsequent wife of Joseph. And Tertullian in that case would simply be bluffing, since no census under the first Saturninus would have counted the inhabitants of Judaea.

I have no allusions to Joseph being married previously before Mary though it is possible. As far as I’m concerned that is a baseless tradition with no Biblical support. Carrier’s assumption is that Tertullian is bluffing comes from his argument that a census could not have happened before 6 A.D. But in the next section I plan on showing that he’s wrong.

The Census Identified?

As most criticism of Luke’s account revolves around Quirinius and a taxation census it should be noted that this may not have been for taxation at all. According to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words the term Luke uses is “apographe” which means registration and not necessarily a taxation in every case. Many, as I, believe that this is indeed the case and that it happened between 3 to 2 B.C. in the case of Caesar Augustus. In Augustus’ own words:

In my thirteenth consulship [2 BC] the senate, the equestrian order and the whole people of Rome gave me the title of Father of my Country, and resolved that this should be inscribed in the porch of my house and in the Curia Julia and in the Forum Augustum below the chariot which had been set there in my honor by decree of the senate. At the time of writing I am in my seventy-sixth year.

Many Christian apologists point out that at this time the subjects of the Roman empire had to take an oath of obedience to the emperor. — Josephus, in the Antiquities of the Jews 17: 41-45 mentions such an oathmade in Judea shortly before Herod’s death at the time of Saturninus, the governor of Syria. A group of Pharisees (six-thousand in number) refused to take the oathto the Emperor and to the King while the rest of the nation did. And as a result Herod fined them. They were then later put to death.

Richard Carrier doesn’t take this suggestion seriously as he only gives a very condenced detail of it in a section of his paper entitled “Two Last Ditch Attempts.” I have to admit that the Augustus and Jesephus citations seem weak when used alone.Carrier rejects this explanation for two reasons. 1) He doesn’t believe that Herod could possibly have been alive in 2 B.C. and 2) he thinks Josephus’ language and Luke’s differ way to much for it to be the same event.

First for the assumption that Herod could not havebeen alive in 2 B.C., I have already gone into great detail as to why I believe Herod lived longer than what most historians think in my blog post entitled “Josephus and Herod the Great.”

A major reason for the placing the birth of Jesus in 6 B.C. has a lot to do with the accepted dating of King Herod’s reign over Judea from 37 B.C. to 4 B.C. Again, as pointed out, skeptics of the Bible use this date and say that it is in conflict withLuke 2 with the traditional translation of verse 2 which indicates that Jesus was born while Quirinius was governing Syria in 6 A.D. (around 12 years later.)

Part of his logic as to why Herod couldn’ t havebeen alive later than even 3 B.C. was that his sons succeeded him in a certain year. But there is a little bit of evidence that Archelaus antedated his reigh. Right after his father died he went to Rome to claim his throne. Josephus’ account says:

Then stood up Salome’s son, Antipater, (who of all Archelaus’s antagonists was the shrewdest pleader,) and accused him in the following speech: That Archelaus did in words contend for the kingdom, but that in deeds he had long exercised royal authority. (Wars of the Jews 2: 26, emphasis mine)

Archelaus “had long exercised royal authority.” This was actually not true. But the only way that this could legitimately be said if he antedated his rule over Judea. Lets remember, he still didn’t technically rule at all. Not as king and never as co-regent. The late Antipater was co-regent for a while so it has been speculated that all three of Herod’s surviving sons dated their reigns from then on. And so that would cause Josephus to reduce Herod’s reign by three to four years.

An implication of Herod’s death being later than 4 B.C. would mean that the dating of Syrian governors who reigned durring Herod’s last years should therefore be re dated as well. Traditionally, the governorship of Sentius Saturninus is placed from 9 to 6 B.C. However, since this is based on traditional assumptions and the more popular dating of Herod’s reign and if my belief about Herod’s death is correct then his governorship of Syria can be placed from 5 to 2 B.C. That would place the term of Quintilius Varus, his successor, which is usually dated from 6 to 4 B.C. within 2 B.C. to 1 A.D.

It should be noted that I do believe the traditional date for his governorship can be salvaged. Although I have great reservations about his book, Ernest L. Martin the writer of The Star of Bethlehem: The Star That Astonished the World in chapter eleven which is entitled “The Two Governorships of Quintilius Varus” gives pretty convincing evidence that he was the Syrian governor twice: Once right before the term of Saturninus and right after. The best evidence he gives is the inscription found near Tivoli which mentions an unnamed man who had a legateship (or governorship) twice. (At least the latter one was in Syria, but there is no indication that the first one wasn’t.) The inscription was, in fact, found very near to Varus’ home.

And as for Carrier’s second objection that Luke and Josephus use overwhelmingly different language (i.e., that Luke used the term “census” andthatJosephusused the other term “oath” he either overlooks or doesn’t know about other evidence that actually ties these two terms together.

The Spanish historian and Christian apologist, Paulus Orosius, who wrote in the fifth century A.D. gives a key detail about this event:

[Caesar Augustus] ordered that a census be taken of each province everywhere and that all men be enrolled. So at that time, Christ was born and was entered on the Roman census list as soon as he was born. This is the earliest and most famous public acknowledgment which marked Caesar as the first of all men and the Romans as lords of the world. (6.22.7)

He places Jesus’ birth in the time when Augustus was named “first of all men.” This could only be between 3 to early 2 B.C. when he was named “Father of his country.” And later Orosius says, “That first and greatest census was taken, since in this one name of Caesar all the peoples of the great nations took oath, and at the same time, through the participation in the census, were made part of one society.” (7.2.16, emphasis mine) — Hence, he ties the term “census” with an “oath.” It now is clear that both of Carrier’s objections against this explanation come up short and are irrelevant.

His last objection to this is the way oaths were “typically” taken:

Indeed, typically, oaths were not registered at all: one swore before a magistrate and received a diploma attesting to the fact that you swore, which you could present if anyone challenged the fact, as is shown in detail in the martyrologies of those who refused to swear for Decius in 249 A.D.

I want to emphesise that Richard Carrier is talking about how oaths were “typically” made. The oath of 3 to 2 B.C. with Augustus named as the father of his country would not have been a typical one. It would, in fact, have been a very special occasion. So when one takes this into account, this last objection is not good enough. Right before the conslusion odhis paper, Carrier then says he’s never seen evidence of this, a statement I find incredible because most, if not all Christian apologists who embrace the idea of the oathand the census being one and the same cite (or at least mention) these passages of Orosius’ works. Perhaps he just ignored it.

–Also, lastly, it should be mentioned that Orosius’ placing Jesus’ birth at this later time is another reason to place King Herod’s death after 4 A.D. –And with my dating of the census as 2 B.C. with the terms of Saturninus, it would seem that Tertullian wasn’t bluffing after all.

The trip to Bethlehem

Even if the census has been identified as the oath of 2 B.C., that still leaves open another criticism. Luke 2: 4-5 says:

So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.

The criticism is that Mary would not havehad to go with Joseph even if he had to go to Bethlehem. –Despite disagreementswith Ernest L. Martin’s book, I think he gives a good idea as to why they would have had to go to Bethlehem. (But I do think he misses the hint he gives.)

He makes assertions I do not believe, but he does say one thing I consider credible. It would have been that Herod ordered that (at least for the descendants of David). — The descendants of David would havebeen considered legitimate heirs to the throne, or in other words, Herod would have wanted to keep an eye on the Davidic descendants. One wrong move and he would move in for a kill.

This would be historically consistent because Herod always made sure to get rid of all and any competition to the throne. For example, he had Antigonus murdered before he could become the “king of the Jews.” — Andalso, fivedays before his death, when he found out his son Antipater plannedon becoming king in his father’s place he ordered him killed. This gives the so-called “massacre of the innocence” of Matthew 2:16,18 therefore has a historical ring of truth.

David Cox in his commentary on Luke suggests:

Luke does not say how long in advance of Jesus’ birth Joseph left for Bethlehem (v. 4) nor why he took Mary with him. It is possible that he used the emperor’s order as a means of removing Mary from possible gossip and emotional stress in her own village. He had already accepted her as his wife (Matt 1:24), but apparently they continued in betrothal (v. 5: “pledged to be married”) till after the birth.

He could have wanted to spare her the shame of rumors that she was going to havean illegitimate child that wasn’t his. Or this could have been a case of a man not wanting to leave his wife. Or both. There’s no reason to assume that this couldn’t have happened.

Conclusion

As his long essay comes to a close, Richard Carrier concludes:

There is no way to rescue the Gospels of Matthew and Luke from contradicting each other on this one point of historical fact. The contradiction is plain and irrefutable, and stands as proof of the fallibility of the Bible, as well as the falsehood of at least one of the two New Testament accounts of the birth of Jesus.

I’m going to answer by saying that even though Carrier covers a lot of ground, that he doesn’t pay attention to all the evidence. For example, even though he protests against the alternate translation of Luke 2:2 as meaning “before Quirinius” on the ground that it is grammatically incorrect, he doesn’t take into account that Greek linguists see the term as grammatically awkward and thus leaves the door opened to alternate ways to translate it. — Also when he argues that the oath of 2 B.C. couldn’t be the census of Luke on the grounds of Josephus and Luke using two different terms, he either overlooks or ignores the account of the 5th century historian Orosious who placed Jesus’ birth at that time and used bothterms used by Luke and Josephus. Also, Orosius’ placing of Jesus’ birth at a later date than 4 B.C. is a reason for re dating Herod’s death to a later time as well.

And I’m going to give Carrier the benefit of the doubt that he doesn’t know of any evidence placing Herod’s death later than is usually historically accepted. I believe the lunar eclipses of either the years 1, B.C. or A.D. are more mathematically less problematic than accepting the eclipses of 5 to 4 B.C. And since Archelaus claimed to have “long exercised royal authority” (when he obviously hadn’t) creates a basis for Josephus to reduce Herod’s reign by a few years.

The only two sources for a census associated with the name “Quirinius” come are Luke and Josephus. So since Josephus isn’t writing to promote a religion in his account of the census critics seem to assume it to be the more accurate of the two. Luke’s accuracy would predictably be called into question, being a part of the Christian Bible. — I am convinced that if Luke were a secular work, then the speculation would mearly be that two prominent ancient historians disagreed about a certain historical date. Except for these two, there is no other historical account. So there is no way to be one hundred percent sure.

Josephus and Herod the Great

A major reason for the placing the birth of Jesus in 6 B.C. has a lot to do with the accepted dating of King Herod’s reign over Judea from 37 B.C. to 4 B.C. Again, as pointed out, skeptics of the Bible use this date and say that it is in conflict with Luke 2 with the traditional translation of verse 2 which indicates that Jesus was born while Quirinius was governing Syria in 6 A.D. (around 12 years later.)

There have been attempts to use Josephus, the ancient historian, to attempt to reconcile a census with a pre-Herodian death. Several of the suggestions to re date the death of Herod the Great seem reasonable, however, when the research is done they turn out to be problematic.

One such suggestion was proposed by Arthur Eedle, the author of the online book “Seven Steps to Bethlehem.” In chapter seventeen he attempts to re date the first years of Herod’s kingship. He argues that historians are wrong in believing that Josephus dates the apointment of Herod as King of the Jews in 40 B.C. and insists that in that year he was mearly sponsored by Antony in that year. He then says that the thirty seven years of Herod’s reign should be counted from 37 B.C. Then from then Eedle attempts to redate the death of Antigonus to 34 B.C. (This would move Herod’s death to early 1 A.D.) He then argues that Herod couldn’t become the King of the Jews without rival until Antigonus was dead. He is correct in that one detail, but his basis for placing Antigonus’ execution in 34 B.C. instead of 37 is faulty.

He cites Josephus’ Antiquities14: 490 which says that his death marked the end of the 126 years of the Hasmonean dynasty. He says that the dynasty began in 160 B.C. so therefore ended in 34. But the truth is that the Hasmonean Dynasty lasted for about eighty years showing that Josephus was wrong.

As another rationale for allowing his re dating of Herod’s appointment as King from 40 B.C. to 37 Eedle says:

Then, on reading that his reign lasted 37 years from when he was “made king by the Romans”, we are forced to accept the understanding of this as meaning the capture of Jerusalem. Josephus did not say “made king at Rome”, and this is borne out by Ant.XV.1.1.

Despite this, Josephus in Wars of the Jews 1: 388 says that Herod himself said that he was madeKing by Antony. This mention of Mark Antony can only mean that Herod was made king in 40 B.C. and not just sponsored by Antony as Eedle thinks.

Eedle misunderstands Josephus’s time measurements. What Josephus meant was that even though Herod was made king in 40 B.C. his reign officially began in 37 B.C. three years after when he was able to have his rival executed.

–Another faulty suggestion for re dating Herod’s first years was proposed by Dr. Ernest L. Martin in his book “The Star that Astonished the World” in chapter thirteen. He attempts to use Antiquities 14: 487-488 as a basis for re dating the first years of Herod’s rule. — Here Josephus says that Herod’s destruction of Jerusalem happened twenty-seven years after General Pompey first conquered the city. That happened in 63 B.C., so therefore Martin feels justified in re dating the destruction of Jerusalem under Herod to 36 B.C. instead of 37. — He then suggests that Herod’s first ascension year therefore started in 35 B.C. and therefore Herod must have died in 1 B.C.

There are chronological problems with accepting 36 B.C. as the year of Jerusalem’s destruction and 35 B.C. as Herod’s first accession year. — In Wars of the Jews1: 370 and Antiquities15: 121 Josephus says that the war of Actium happened in the seventh year of Herod’s reign. — The Encyclopedia Britannicashows that this battle happened on September 2, 31 B.C., so that would make the first year of Herod 37 B.C. and the year of Jerusalem’s destruction. This also shows that Josephus isn’t using an accession calender system starting in 35 B.C. or he would have said that the battle of Actium happened in the fifth year of Herod’s reign and not in the seventh. Therefore, the date of 36 B.C. is an apparent transcribal error and the so-called twenty-seven years is an anachronism. It goes against all the other evidence given by Josephus.

Despite the valiant attempts to re date King Herod’s first years, these suggestions do not hold water. Herod’s appointment and his first year can only be dated as 40 B.C. and 37 B.C. There is no way around this when the necessary research is done.

This is not to say that I don’t think there shouldn’t be some revision in the accepted dating of King Herod’s reign, that is, in the last years of his kingship.

Traditionally Herod’s de factoreign is dated from 37 B.C. to 4 B.C. However, Josephus says that his reign from the time Antoginus was executed he reigned for 34 years. (Antiquities 17: 191) Taking Josephus’ dating at face value this would put his death in 3 B.C., a year later. — The apparent reason for historians reducing Herod’s apparent reign by a year is because Josephus mentions that a short time before his death there was a lunar eclipse. (Aniquities 17: 167) There was no such eclipse visible in the region in 3 B.C. However the nearest one to that date was on March 13, 4 B.C.

It must be noted that Josephus gives the impression that Herod died before passover as Archelaus was going to go to Rome to claim the throne in Judea (Antiquities 17: 213). With the March 13 date being overly close to passover possibly for chronological reasons the Footnotes in the Works of Josephus insist that this Passover was thirteen months after the eclipse mentioned, placing that Passover in 3 B.C.

If this is the case, this would mean that even though Herod died around the spring of 4 B.C. that Archeleaus would have waited until the same time the next year (in the spring of 3 B.C.) to claim his throne (Wars of the Jews2). – The major problem with that assertion is obvious. It doesn’t make sense for him to fight to claim the kingdom a year after his father’s death.

Richard Carrier, in his essay in the section entitled “Was Herod Alive in 2 B.C.? ” rightfully points out another weak point for accepting the eclipse of March 4 B.C:

We cannot trust the reported coincidence of a lunar eclipse near to Herod’s death (Jewish Antiquities 17.167). Only a partial eclipse is astronomically confirmed for March 13, 4 B.C., which makes this an unlikely candidate, and it is unclear how much time followed the event and his actual death anyway.

However, dispite this, he embraces the eclipse of March 23, 5 B.C. saying that this certain eclipse would allow for Herod’s death to fall within 4 B.C. and that “all the events supposed to happen in the interim more easily fit this than the partial eclipse of 4 B.C.” – However, there are are two problems with accepting Carrier’s prefered eclipse as the one mentioned by Josephus: Herod, on the day of the of the lunar eclipse, had an important Jew named Matthias executed for destroying the Roman eagle that was in front of the temple (Antiquities 17: 167). Josephus shows that the Jewish people were still mourning his death until some time before the next Passover (Antiquities 17: 206).

If Carrier were right in saying that the eclipse of March 5 B.C. was the one mentioned by Josephus then that would mean that the Jewish people were still in mourning over him for ten to thirteen months. This has the same problem as assuming that Archelaus claimed his throne a year after his father died. This is really unlikely because only parents who lost a child would mourn so long. Even if Josephus only meant that people were still emotional about his death (and not necessarily that they were still within the customary days of mourning) it wouldn’t have been so long. So there is no likelihood that this could have been the eclipse of March 5 B.C. And the same is true for the eclipse of 4 B.C.

The other weakness with accepting that eclipse is the disease that Herod suffered from before he died. Josephus indicates the disease right after the eclipse. The illness was described:

There was a gentle fever upon him, and an intolerable itching over all the surface of his body, and continual pains in his colon, and dropsical turnouts about his feet, and an inflammation of the abdomen, and a putrefaction of his privy member, that produced worms. Besides which he had a difficulty of breathing upon him, and could not breathe but when he sat upright, and had a convulsion of all his members. [ . . . ] Yet did he struggle with his numerous disorders. (Wars of the Jews 1: 656-657)

Dr. Jan Hirschmann , as reported by CNN News in “Expert: Kidney disease, gangrene killed Herod” attempted a diagnosis of Herod’s condition. He believes he died of “chronic kidney disease complicated by gangrene.” He said:

When I first looked at the general diseases that cause itching, it became clear that most of them couldn’t explain a majority of the features of Herod’s illness.

Hence, he came to his conclusion. CNN continued to report:

The kidney disease, gonorrhea or excessive scratching may have caused the gangrene. While it’s unclear how long Herod suffered from his kidney ailment, he likely died within days or weeks of contracting the Fournier’s gangrene, said Hirschmann. (Emphasis mine)

Although it is not possible to identify the disease Herod died of beyond a reasonable doubt perhaps we’ll know for sure some time soon now that King Herod’s tomb was found. –However, even if Hirschmann is wrong, it is hard to believe that he would have lived so long judging by his symptoms. 

Some others in the medical concluded that Herod could not possibly have lived so long afterwards. A conference of four doctors called by Dr. W.H.Emslie of Glasgow said that,

Herod may have died at any time after that, even the same day, and it is unlikely that he lived more than about 14 days after. (Link)

– So based on the life expectancy Carrier’s statement that the March 5 B.C. would allow Herod to live until 4 B.C. is extremely far fetched.

Also, the eclipse of September 15, 5 B.C., despite not having as much time separating it from the next Passover, still suffers from the same disqualifications as the other two.

There are only two eclipses of the moon that do not suffer from these problematic dilemmas: They both occurred in 1 B.C. One on January 10 and the other on December 29. Either of these eclipses would fit the time period much more adequately than the other three. But now the question becomes “which one is it?”

John Pratt, in his paper “Yet Another Eclipse for Herod“ believes that the eclipse that bests fits all the requirements is the one on December 29. — In section 2.5 he argues that since this eclipse happened relatively early while the ones on January 10, 1 B.C. and March 13, 4 B.C. occurred over six hours after sunset meaning that it would be less likely for them to have been observed. I think that this suggestion has merit, and if it is accurate, then this would mean that Herod died in early 1 A.D. It would also mean that his de facto reign would have lasted thirty-seven years.

Whether we accept 1 B.C. or 1 A.D. as the year of Herod’s death we run across another problem. Josephus says that in Archelaus’ tenth year (Antiquities 17: 342, but he says in his ninth year in Wars 2: 111) he was deposed and banished to Vienna. This is knownto have happened in 6 A.D., so on the surface this would seem to disprove the placement of Herod’s death between 1 B.C. and 1 A.D. because this would seem to place the first year of Archelaus in 4 or 3 B.C. However, there are two explanations for this.

The first one is that He and his bothers, Philip and Antipas were co-regents with their father in that period. However, it doesn’t seem likely. Richard Carrier argues against this suggestion saying:

Finegan tries to suggest against this evidence that all three of these kings were made co-regents with Herod in 4 B.C. until his death in 1 B.C., a claim that is groundless and prima facie absurd. With Antipater, that would make five kings ruling simultaneously! It is inconceivable that Josephus would not mention such a remarkable action.

I have to agree with Carrier in this regard. Five kings of the Jews at one time just seems like way to much a stretch. I have no choice but to reject this absurd idea. But there is another explanation that makes more sence: Antedating (i.e., assigning to an earlier date).

John Pratt, in section 3.3of his paper, argues that Herod’s three successors perhaps reckoned their reigns from the co-regency of Antipater, their older executed brother. According to Antiquities17: 3, Antipater began to rule alongside his father being the same as a king. A careful reading of Josephus shows he began his reign while Sentius Saturninus was governing Syria, so within the last three or four years of Herod’s reign.

[Note: Traditionally, the governorship of Sentius Saturninus is placed from 9 to 6 B.C. However, since this is based on traditional assumptions and the more popular dating of Herod's reign and if my belief about Herod's death is correct then his governorship of Syria can be placed from 5 to 2 B.C. That would place the term of Quintilius Varus, his successor, which is usually dated from 6 to 4 B.C. within 2 B.C. to 1 A.D.]

Within time, Antipater was arrested for his crimes, accused, and condemned to death by both his father and Quintilius Varus, the new governor of Syria, and they held him for until the emperor gave his permission for his execution. (Antiquities 17: 83-144) Naturally, this would have meant the end of his co-regency with his father. Later, when Herod learned about his plans to try taking the kingdom he finally had him executed with no delay (Antiquities 17: 185-187). Herod himself died five days later (Wars 1: 665).

If Pratt is correct in suggesting that Archelaus and his two brothers reckoned their reigns from the start of Antipater’s then that would explain everything quite nicely. That would mean that their first three or four years would have been de jour years, just justifying why Josephus would say that Archelaus ruled for nine or ten years. And taking into account that only the two eclipses of 1 B.C. fit the requirements of the eclipse mentioned by Josephus then the others in 5 to 4 B.C., it is the best explanation.

Later, while he talks about Josephus’ Chronology, he says that it is possible that Josephus didn’t know about the antedating used by Herod’s sons. He says that this would have lead him into a dilemma of inconsistent dating if some of his sources said Herod died in 1 A.D., especially since his three sons dated their first years from before his death. The way to avoid the problem would have been to redate Herod’s reign.

I think that Josephus actually did know about antedating of Archelaus’ reign. During the time that Archelaus went to Rome to claim his kingdom, he met with competition from his older brother, Herod Antipas. And of this time, Josephus says:

Then stood up Salome’s son, Antipater, (who of all Archelaus’s antagonists was the shrewdest pleader,) and accused him in the following speech: That Archelaus did in words contend for the kingdom, but that in deeds he had long exercised royal authority. (Wars of the Jews 2: 26, emphasis mine)

Archelaus “had long exercised royal authority.” This was actually not true. But the only way that this could legitimately be said if he antedated his rule over Judea. Therefore, this is evidence that Archelaus did indeed antedate his reign, likely from the start of the reign of Antipater *different from Archelaus’ accuser* and that Josephus may have known about it.

If Josephus reduced Herod’s reign to accommodate Archelaus’s de jouryears then that would mean that Antipater became co-regent with his father between 4 and 3 B.C. Most probably 3 B.C. if one it to take Josephus’ dating more at face value.

Interestingly enough, up to a certain point, Josephus puts an end to all the dating of the events of Herod’s life as he writes about his last years. With the probability that he was mearly accommodating the antedates of his sons, this was most likely to avoid confusion for his more informed readers. — As mentioned earlier, Josephus puts Herod’s seventh year of kingship of the Jews in 31 B.C. during the battle of Actium putting his official first year in 37 B.C. He also says that three years before that he was appointed king by Rome. In Antiquities 14: 386-389 he places his Roman appointment as King in the 184th olympiad which lasted from 44 to 40 B.C. placing it in its last year.

So after making this clear and then accommodating his sons de jouryears it would have caused confusion to say that Herod died near the end of the 192nd olympiad (3 B.C. to 1 A.D.). And yet apparently, after taking into account all the chronological impossibilities of the eclipses between 5 to 4 B.C. with the account of Herod’s death as well as his life expectancy due to his disease it seems that that is exactly what happened. My conclusion is that Herod reigned for a total of thirty-six to thirty-seven de facto years and died between 1 B.C. and 1 A.D. due to the two eclipses of 1 B.C. having more consistencies to the time requirements.

A “most prominent” census: Carlson vs. Carrier

A suggested translation of the verse Luke 2:2 which I personally find interesting was made by Stephen C. Carlson, a Greek linguist. Carlson disagrees with the alternative translation of “prote” as “before” however also has problems with the standard traditional translation. He says that if Luke really wanted to say that if Luke meant that this were the very census during which Jesus’ birth took place then there is little use for the term “prote.”

In his post “Luke 2:2 and the Census” he suggests that Luke 2:2 should be translated as:

This registration became most prominent when Quirinius was governing Syria.

or

This [decree to get registered] became the/a most important registration when Quirinius was governing Syria.

This translation, like the rendering of the term as “before” would also solve the problem. — Carlson suggests Ephesians 6:2, which he points out has similar structure to that of Luke 2:2, and says out that “prote” in this verse which is usually translated as “first” legitimately may be translated as “most prominent.” The verse says: “Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment with a promise.” (NRSV) He then cites Danker who believes the term really means that the commandment is most important rather than “first” in chronological order.” The verse then is paralleled with Mark 12 29.

In his second post “Parsing Luke 2:2” Carlson points out that his new translation on Luke 2:2 depends on how manuscripts of the New Testament put the wording:

One reason for the hand-waving is text critical–different manuscripts have slightly different wordings for Luke 2:2, which attest to the apparent difficulty of the text and some of the variants affect the determination whether ἀπογραφὴ goes into the subject or the predicate. For example, most of the later witnesses, including the second corrector to Codex Sinaiticus (012) of the sixth century or so, insert the definite article ἡ between αὕτη and ἀπογραφὴ to read: αὕτη ἡ ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο; the original hand of 01*, on the other hand, read with a different placement of the verb: αυτη απογραφη εγενετο πρωτη. Codex Bezae (D) of the fifth century has a different word order, also by moving the verb: αὕτη ἐγένετο ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη.

Of course, Richard Carrier, in Footnote 10.6 of his essay criticises Carlson’s suggested translation. -I’ve decided to blog Carrier’s criticism as well as Carlson’s response here as well because I think it is a good idea to allow both Carlson and Carrier speak for themselves.Carrier, him his criticism says:

Carlson incorrectly identifies the preposition en as an adverb in Ephesians 6:2, although that may simply have been a slip. More seriously, Carlson falsely claims Ephesians 6:2 shares the same structure as Luke 2:2, but they aren’t even close: there is no prepositional clause following protê in Luke 2:2 but instead a verb followed by a genitive absolute.

The first mention that Carrier makes is correct in that Carlson slips up in identifying an adverb. (In this IIDB thread Carlson admits to the typo) However, the statement that Carlson falsely claims “Ephesians 6:2 shares the same structure as Luke 2:2″ is inaccurate. He actually said “very similar sentence structure to Luke 2:2.” Whether they are close, which they are, can be seen in any Greek-English Interlinear New Testament by any novice. — More importantly, Stephen Carlson was able to discredit Carrier’s criticism by saying:

Whether πρώτη is followed by a prepositional clause or a genitive absolute is immaterial to the grammatical point about the identification of the subject and predicate.

Onward, Carrier then accuses Carlson of ignoring contextual markers:

The prepositional phrase in Ephesians establishes the context of comparison as conceptual rather than chronological, whereas the genitive absolute in Luke establishes the context as chronological rather than conceptual (it reads as when Quirinius was governing Syria because of the preceding temporal marker “it happened in those days” and the immediately following phrase “and everyone was going,” together linking the Quirinius clause with the temporal context and purpose of the story, not with any conceptual digression). Carlson is thus ignoring contextual markers.

However, Carlson was able to work his way out of this one as well. He goes on to say:

Thanks for pointing something new out to me, though it is not what you think. There is no explicit time qualification in Luke 2:2. Though the English rendering “while Quirinius was governor of Syria” looks like a temporal clause, the Greek phrase ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου is merely a genitive absolute. Whether such a participle phrase is temporal or something else has to be determined by context. It had been bothering me for a long time that, if ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου was temporal, why doesn’t it precede the main verb as such genitive absolutes usually do? Instead, it follows the main verb. Looking at the examples in BDF, most of such cases are not temporal at all, but causal or concessive. If the genitive absolute ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου is rendered as a causal phrase, then the whole verse means something like: “this became a very important registration on account of Quirinius’ governing of Syria.” In other words, the Augustan policy of registration did not become a big deal until Quirinius executed one in the way that he did it. So, there is certainly no explicit time qualification in Luke 2:2, and a closer look at the grammar, inspired by your (ultimately incorrect) claim, indicates that the genitive absolute should not be read to imply one either.

The next point Richard Carrier makes is:

Carlson also seems unaware of the ubiquitous use of egeneto as a form of “be.” He seems to think “was” is a “weak” translation of this verb when in fact it’s a common one, especially when used in a chronological sense (e.g. Luke 1:5, 2:13, 4:25, etc.; or Luke 1:8, 1:23, 1:41, 2:1, 2:6, 2:15, etc.). In fact, this connotation of the verb appears over a hundred times in Luke-Acts alone, so I don’t understand why he thinks it peculiar.

Carlson, in his posts, is not denying that the usual translation of ἐγένετο (or egeneto) is a form of the verb “to be.” Carlson was merely saying that another term would have done a better job if it were to be translated as “was” in this certain case. Richard Carrier apparently had missed the point that Carlson was making. Carlson answers:

I am puzzled as to why Carrier would think I’m unaware of something I had called the “standard translation” nor why Carrier would ignore the evidence I cited in favor of my position that it is a weak one. Perhaps, it wasn’t so clear in the condensation of my case that was given to Carrier.

Anyone who has carefuly read Stephen Carlson’s first post would know the reasons that he calls the translation of “egeneto” weak in the case of Luke 2:2 which Carrier ignores:

Danker identifies two major senses for this adjective: (1) being first in sequence, time, number, or space, and (2) being first in prominence or importance. Many examples of the second sense can be found in Luke’s writings, e.g. Luke 15:22 “[my]best robe”; Luke 13:30 (first vs. last); Acts 17:4 “quite a few prominent women” (NET); Acts 13:50 “the prominent men in the city”; Luke 19:47 “the prominent leaders of the people” etc. This second sense gives full force to the γίνομαι as “become” (experience a change in nature) and Luke loves using adj. + γίνομαι (e.g. Luke 23:31, Acts 1:19, 9:42, 12:23, 16:27, 19:17, and 26:19 [exx. from BDAG]). Thus, πρώτη ἐγένετο would mean “became most prominent.” (Emphasis mine)

Carlson is making sence of two different senses. However, as I mentioned, Richard Carrier pays no attention to this. Such major gaps of information in his criticism of Stephen Carlson’s translation had caused the latter to assume that Carrier got his information of the new translation indirectly from another source thus causing his knowledge about it to be condensed and badly distorted. — Next Richard Carrier claims:

Carlson commits other gaffs in “Parsing Luke 2:2″ (2004), incorrectly claiming that without a definite article the intensifier hautê becomes the subject and apographê prôtê becomes the predicate, but there is no such rule. In Greek, it could be read that way, or the reverse (hautê apographê the subject and prôtê the predicate), or neither (hautê apographê prôtê as subject with no predicate). Moreover, in Koine Greek, articles are often omitted, hence Carlson is incorrect to cite its absence as a reason to reject an attributive or predicate position for the intensifying pronoun (just see Luke 20:42, 24:15; or Acts 15:32, 20:34). In fact, such a usage could even serve as an intensified definite article (e.g. Luke 1:35).

However, Calson effectively objects to this claim by showing more evidence that Carrier ignores:

Again, Carrier appears to be a victim of the condensation, and Carrier’s claim of “no such rule” is a case in point. I don’t expect Carrier (nor anyone else) to have memorized every rule of grammar in Smyth, which is why I tend to cite the rules I apply. In this case, I had cited Smyth section 1178, which I now quote:

1178. οὗτος, ὅδε, ἐκεῖνος sometimes omit the article. a. Regularly, when the noun is in the predicate: αὕτη ἔστω ἱκανὴ ἀπολογίᾱ let this be a sufficient defence P. A. 24 b, οἶμαι ἐμὴν ταύτην πατρίδα εἶναι I think this is my native country X. A. 4. 8. 4.

Because Carrier still seemed unaware of a rule that Smyth called “regularly,” the inference most favorable to Carrier’s critique is that my citation of Smyth must not have been in the condensation of my case he was presented with. Carrier’s counter evidence, on the other hand, is irrelevant to the point at issue. Here we are dealing with the demonstrative οὗτος, not the intensive αὖτος nor the article ὁ. The syntax of these words is very different.

Carlson is absolutely correct in saying that his citation of Smyth was not mentioned in Carrier’s response. Knowing this, it has come to the point with me that the more I read Richard Carrier’s critique the less credible he seems. — This is not the last uninformed error Carrier makes in his criticism. He accuses Carlson of making false comparisons with other New Testament verses to make his point:

Carlson also repeats the mistake of citing an example of the genitive of comparison (Mark 12:28 ) as a parallel for Luke 2:2, which cannot be a genitive of comparison, thus eliminating any relevant parallel.

Carlson’s answer basically is that this is not his point at all:

Mark 12:28 was cited for the lexical scope of πρώτη, not for the different, syntactic issue of the genitive of comparison. In fact, I had explicitly argued against the genitive of comparison proposal:

The difficulties in Luke 2:2 have led to a number of proposals, but many are worse than the text they are trying to interpret. In particular, I disagree with the attempt to read πρώτη as a comparative (“before” or “earlier”) followed by a genitive of comparison to get something like “before Quirinius was governing Syria” because Κυρηνίου has to be the subject of a genitive absolute ἡγεμονεύοντος.

In sum, I appreciate the effort Carrier has made into critiquing my argument, but, unfortunately, the exercise (aside from one typo he found, thanks) has not been productive as I hoped, because the counter-evidence to his points had already been cited in the posts themselves or on this thread. The best explanation for this lackluster critique is that Carrier seems to have relied on a condensation that omits the full case, such that Carrier had been ill-served by this indirect exchange of views.

This is the end of Carlson’s defence of his translation. However, I have a couple of my own against Carrier which Carlson never addresses. Carrier makes a blunder in saying:

Carlson also incorrectly thinks he can cite an Attic author (Thucydides) to establish an idiom for a Koine author (Luke), even though these dialects often differ in their use of articles and intensifying pronouns.

From this, I myself wonder if Carrier has even read Carlson’s posts. His use of a Greek citation from Thucydides was not to point out the “use of articles and intensifying pronouns” and parallel that to Luke 2:2. –The citation was just used to explain factors of why many Bible translations are wrong in translating “prote” as “first” instead of as “most prominent”in Luke 2:2. — This citation, Carlson says, allows for “prote” to be translated in both ways. The main reason according to him is that mistranslating the term “usually has little ill-effect” because often the context permits both readings. Carrier therefore takes the citation out of its proper context and argues against a point that Carlson doesn’t even make.

Finally, in the actual text of his study, just as he finishes arguing against the translation of “prote” as before, he briefly mentions Carlson’s translation. He argues against Carlson’s assertion that Luke 2:2 is a digression in parenthesis to reference the later census under Quirinius. Carrier argues that:

A digression away from that point would require an explanation, simply to make the digression intelligible. Since Luke gives no such explanation, he cannot have intended this to be a digression, much less one so obscurely worded. Luke can only have meant this to be the reason for Joseph’s journey, and that’s how every ancient reader would have read it.

Carrier probably only would have read “Luke 2:2 and the Census” (i.e. Carlson’s first blog post) since this is his only argument in this regard. There, Carlson only slightly mentions his position of the verse being a digression. However interestingly enough, he ignores his third and final post entitled “Putting Luke 2:2 in context” where Carlson had already elaborated:

If, in the evangelist’s view, the Quirinius census is different from the one that Joseph obeyed, why should it be mentioned at all? Isn’t it just an irrelevant piece of information? Perhaps, it is irrelevant to us now, but it would be not irrelevant if the Quirinius census was so well-known among Luke’s audience that it was bound to be raised. This implies that Luke’s audience was situated after the War has started in 66, and probably after Josephus emphasized that census as an ultimate cause of the War.

In other words, the explanation is that Luke didn’t elaborate because he was writing his gospel more directly to people who would have had a fresher memory of the census under Quirinius. Luke therefore wouldn’t have seen the need to go into a greater explanation. Luke cannot be held at fault because several critics don’t have the same understanding of his works that his first readers would have had.

When I was introduced to Carrier’s criticism of Stephen Carlson’s translation I still hadn’t read all Carlson’s arguments so for a while I actually ruled it out as a possibility until I actually got the opportunity to read what he said carefully as well as read his defence on the Infidels forums. –The fact that he was able to answer directly to the protests made against his translation which I found very encouraging. I also find the defence stronger than the prosecution, you could say.