Talk:Quirinius

Untitles

THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE TOTALLY FLAGGED FOR ***BIAS*** AND FOR FAILURE TO FACT-CHECK. There is almost NOTHING in this article which is accurate, correct, source-cited, or for which evidence is cited. The article makes flat assertions of ***FAITH NOT FACT*** which means this article is ***NOT TRUSTWORTHY*** and certainly NOT based on archaeology or any of the academic disciplines, particularly HISTORY. This is a totally UNENCYCLOPEDIC ARTICLE and violates just about every precept of Wikipaedia.Lethomme (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

Samiam

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

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

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

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

Andrew

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested cultural dichotomy

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

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

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

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

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

NPOV extends to references

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

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

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

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

requested review of NPOV language

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

Herod the Great

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

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

Actually the word translated as "king" in Matthew 2 and Luke 1:5 is ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ and in addition to king it also means leader of the people, commander, lord of the land, and prince. In fact, this very word is used in Mark 6:14 to refer to Tetrarch Herod Antipas: "And king (ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ) Herod heard of him (for his name was spread abroad:) and he said, That John the Baptist was risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him." (KJV)

Matthew's Herod in the original Greek is ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ while Luke 1:5's is ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΤΗΣ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΑΣ. The first is basically 'leader of the people who are the Jews' (compare to the Greek in John 19:3-ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ) while the second is 'lord of the land known as Judea' and could refer to Herod the Great or Ethnarch Herod Achelaus. So yes Matthew 2 does refer to Herod the Great but Luke 1:5 is less clear.--216.31.124.47 (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Census of Luke

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

Sorry, Eric but all Luke 1:5 really says is Herod ruler of Judea; it could be Herod the Great or Ethnarch Herod Achelaus.--216.31.124.87 (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Even if Luke is speaking of Herod the Great in Luke 1:5, he places Elizabeth's pregnancy "after these days" (1:24). There is no indication of how much time has passed since the days of Herod. Don Bodo (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I feel as if there is a lot of speculation from those seeming to be for the dates in Luke being accurate, I also feel the article writer did come across as bias even if this was not the intent. My question, Why has no one discussed the recent discovery of the coin found from 11 BCE with the name Quirinius? This Quirinius sat in council around 12 BCE. Now with out speculation and myself not trying to be bias. It is hard for me to ignore the clear alignment of Augustus, Herod, and Quirinius. https://www.google.com/search?q=coin+with+the+name+quirinius&rlz=1C1FERN_enUS588US588&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=643&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi25rWY2MTJAhXIMSYKHQVhAL8QsAQIIw This link will show you images of the found coin Thank you, look forward to continued discussion 74.142.168.142 (talk) 12:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC) Zach

Many people have contributed to the writing of this article, not just one person. The coin you mention is the only mention of a Quirinius sitting in council then, and is dubious. See [1]. Doug Weller (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The Google search you linked to has a mix of two different things. First, there are images and drawings of a denarius with the name and representation of the Roman god Quirinus. Note that Quirinus is not Quirinius, although various people online have confused the two similar names. Second, there are references to Jerry Vardaman, who claimed to read various implausible words in minute scratches on various ancient coins and monuments. These are just ordinary scratches of the kind that you'll find on any used coin; they are not at all like the actual lettering on coins, such as the name "Quirinus" on the denarius I linked above. Now someone named John McRay claimed that Vardaman told him there was a coin mentioning Quirinius, but we have no idea whether Vardaman really maid such a claim, or what coin (if any) he may have been talking about. So no such coin is actually known. A lot of the pages that come up in a Google search like the one you linked are mixed-up versions of the Vardaman story put together with the Quirinus denarius or other coins like Vardaman's drawing supposedly showing the name "Jesus" (but not "Quirinius") in microscopic scratches. There are no images of an actual Quirinius coin, and as far as we know, there never was any such coin. --Amble (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed that the Greek rendering of his name

Looks very similar to the Greeks renderings of Cyrene and Cyrenian?

Ancient sources

It would be helpful if, in addition to putting Quirinius's reconstructed biography in chronological order, we had a section detailing which information is provided by each of the available ancient sources. However, I'm not finding a good parallel to this in other articles. Any suggestions? --Amble (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Greek name

Giving a Greek name doesn't imply that Quirinius was Greek or that his name was originally Greek. Rather, Greek was the standard language of the East, and some important sources for his life are originally in Greek. Josephus refers to him as Κυρίνιος, Kyrinios [2]. Luke has him in a slightly different variant, Κυρήνιος, Kyrenios. This was sometimes re-Latinized as Cyrenius, and for example that's the form found in the original King James translation. There's some discussion of the name and its variants in a rather old source here. --Amble (talk) 04:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit cautious about a Greek link - after all, there's a Quirinale Hill in Rome, and that might be a more likely source of his name. But I simply don't know - maybe somebody who edits Roman topics might be able to help?PiCo (talk) 08:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, there's no suggestion that the name Quirinius is derived from Greek. --Amble (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The point is that relevant ancient sources were largely written in Greek and the Greek rendering of his name (including the re-Latinized version "Cyrenius") continue to have some currency today. Therefore, they deserve a mention. There isn't / should not be any implication that the Greek version is somehow more original than the Latin version. --Amble (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

It gave me the impression the article was saying Quirinius, or his name, was Greek. Maybe this should be moved down into the body of the article and the point explained?PiCo (talk) 00:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I can see how the language template in the first sentence gives that impression, although it doesn't always imply that; for ancient people who were written about in several languages, the first sentence often gives multiple variants. See for example Cambyses II. Adding the info in the body of the article with a good explanation would of course be an improvement, regardless of whether or not we also keep it in the first sentence. --Amble (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Ancient source to verify claims of governorship

The article currently uses Josephus as a source verifying Quirinius was made governor 6 AD. But the link provided actually reads "being sent by Caesar to be a judge of that nation, and to take an account of their substance". The word translated judge is δικαιοδότης. Strabo uses the same word while describing the Roman administration of Egypt: "The governor thus sent out has the rank of king. Subordinate to him is the administrator of justice [δικαιοδότης], who is the supreme judge in many causes." (Strabo, Geography 17.1.2). So based on Josephus one cannot tell Quirinius was governor. There is actually only one source (apart from The Gospel of Luke) calling Quirinius governor of Syria, and that is the tombstone of Q. Aemilius Secundus. So when the article claims Quirinius was made governor, there is no proof. Neither is there any proof he resigned 12 AD, since there is no proof he was governor this period at all. The period 6-12 is also just one suggestion. Others say 5-9 AD. http://blog.svd.se/historia/2011/12/25/vem-var-quirinius/

So I would say that the facts in the article must be doubted, not because they do not rest on research but because researchers are of different opinions and because there actually are no clear proof as to when he was governor. I would say that his connection to Syria is strongest the last years BC, when he fought a rebellion and was awarded a triumph, but since people have strong feelings about this Luke - Quirinius affair, I think any change to the article will cause a war.

Somehow the article ought to reflect the uncertainties of the sources instead of falling for the temptation to claim to know with certainty. DagKihlman (talk) 07:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

We can only do that through reliable sources, what suggestions do you have? Doug Weller talk 12:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, one possibility would be to quote more than one researcher and thus displaying that different scholars reach different conclusions, but then you might be accused of original research I guess... DagKihlman (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

No, read WP:NPOV but be sure you read WP:UNDUE when you read it. Doug Weller talk 16:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Name of article?

So why is this article named "Quirinius" as opposed to "Publius Sulpicius Quirinius"? The latter is the more normal format for a Roman, & he is not that famous of an individual for his mention in the Gospel of Matthew to overrule the standard format. (And using that format implies a Christian bias to this article. -- llywrch (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Judea, Iudea, Iudaea and Judaea

In this article there are three mentions of Judea, one of Iudea, two of Iudaea and one of Judaea.

I find this confusing, and suspect others might.

The two 'J' places have their own wikipedia entries, and the two 'I' places don't, so although I know nothing about 1st century Palestinian geography, I'm going to take a chance and change the 'I's to 'J's. Nick Barnett (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Meaning of the word "Governor"

The article claims that "[T]he title of governor was also used about the general in charge of the largest army in a province" with seemingly no source. As this is a rebuttal to the claim that Luke was mistaken, it seems like nothing but apologetics. AwaweWiki (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

That sentence was added in July 2023: [3]. It does seem to be drawing on apologetics, but it's also a bit mixed up, since the argument needs to connect to the campaign against the Homonadenses, but instead it seems to refer to the revolt in 6 AD, when Quirinius actually was governor of Syria. I have removed the sentence in question. If there's something worth re-adding, it needs good sourcing and some clarification about what role and what time period it's referring to. --Amble (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Academic consensus

This is an encyclopedia article about an event in history, not a Sunday school lesson. The stuff you quote is exactly what I meant when I referred to "desperate attempts of Christian fundamentalists to make the Luke story seem accurate". I have read it all before many times and it is all a load of tosh. The Luke story is objectively historically false. The dating is wrong, end of story, and even the sources you quote do not attempt to defend "Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David. " People did have to return to their homes for certain Roman censuses, yes, but the idea that someone had to go to a city of a supposed ancestor from a thousand years earlier for a census is absurd. Actual historians of Roman history, as opposed to "theologically conservative" propagandists, dismiss this story as laughable. However I do not believe in one person trying to force their view onto a WP article, if I were the only person saying these things I would accept consensus but I am not.Smeat75 (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey, look who it is!

"I do not believe in one person trying to force their view onto a WP article, if I were the only person saying these things I would accept consensus but I am not"

I'm not trying to force my view on the article. I have organized the article into sections that make it more readable and have gathered together information from experts regarding Luke's account. I don't really care if you think the information is stupid, it's valid and deserves to be included. Removing sourced information because of a "consensus" is unheard of, and unacceptable. Furthermore, the information I added did not disproportionately add to the size of the article, it only summarized the arguments made in favor of Luke, which, LIKE IT OR NOT, is a historical account. William Mitchell Ramsay, one of the most esteemed archaeologists of his day, referred to him as a "historian of the first rate". We can't ignore his account because it doesn't fit a modern consensus, nor is it appropriate to write an article in a condescending tone that dismisses any arguments regarding one of the most WELL ATTESTED HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS IN ANTIQUITY as "pseudohistorical" is gatekeeping insanity, and not in the spirit of a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Despite your claims otherwise, your attempts to control the narrative are a completely outrageous violation of NPOV and other Wikipedia policies. If you don't like my edits, edit them to make them more neutral. Do not revert them completely, as you are removing sourced information. On the other article you unceremoniously removed valid information sourced from PBS and the Vatican Museum. Are these not valid sources that should have due weight?(152.61.40.231 (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC))

If your objective is fighting against present-day WP:RS/AC, you have little chance of prevailing.

Also, I don't understand your point about WELL ATTESTED: the Harry Potter books are extremely well attested, does that make them truthful?

Ramsay's POV is roughly a century old, and above all it is WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Correction regarding Armitage's proposed alternative reading of Luke 2:1-7

The article states, "Luke 2:1-5 are to be linked with the proceeding verse rather than 2:6ff." I am pretty sure it is supposed to be "the preceding verse," not "the proceeding verse." 2.6 is the proceeding verse. Luke 1:80 is the preceding verse. BillionFires (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)