Roman Emperor, Septimius Serverus

 

You won’t learn this in school apart from the whitewashed version. pic.twitter.com/bCYYfQhzVI

— Typical African (@Joe__Bassey) February 11, 2025

Maps of Rome

Roman coins have been found as far as the Indian subcontinent clearly signifying the ancient routes of trade. pic.twitter.com/cNmyCt0ybK

— চ্যাটার্জি (@sanc_off) December 4, 2024

Does Christianity Come From The Roman Empire? | The Bisrat Podcast w/ Dr...

Debunking Christianity: Harry McCall on God, Yahweh and Elohim

John Loftus has posts an interesting exchange between Harry H. McCall and Brad Haggard. I agreed with Brad's point and was amazed by how much wrong McCall got wrong. Some of his comments almost deserve a Facepalm but I'll restrain myself. One of the more interesting comments is as follows:

So, in Genesis 1:1, did an assembly of male gods create the heavens and the earth or did one god create? (If you want to play the Trinity card, then I’ll let your explain the other names of אל + prefixes in the MT text.)
Can you show me why the divine name יהוה does not occur in the entire New Testament? Could it just be that “son of god” fit the Hellenic context of the Greek would while יהוה would have been an abhorrent pagan name for them, especially after the Jews were expelled from Rome in 46 CE?
Secondly, my view is in line with that of Edward Gibbons The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Weather or nor Gibbons was anti-Christian, his views of the end of the Roman Empire agrees with mine.
Another insider's look at how Christianity really worked in the late Empire is discussed in G.W. Bowersock’s award winning book: Julian the Apostate.
Julian, the grandson of Constantine, gives a horrific story about members of his own Christian family were murders and why he remained a non-Christian ("pagan", a derogatory term

What I want to focus on is the point about how the Tetragrammaton (יהוה or YHWH) does not occur in the entire New Testament. McCall is wrong. It does. Recall that the New Testament was written in Greek not Hebrew. Therefore what you want to know is what does the name look like when it is translated into Greek. A great Old Testament text to use to study this point is Exodus 3:14.   יהוה is the name by which Moses was to identify God with to the Israelites. It is often pronounced "Yahweh" although we don't know how its really supposed to be announced (but that is another story I don't have time for now). Let's look at Exodus 3:14 in English, Hebrews, and Greek (as it appears in the Septuagint). Please note that Hebrew is read right to left not left to right.



English

God said to Moses, "I am who I am .  This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' " 

Hebrew
וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־ מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם׃

 Greek

καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν καὶ εἶπεν οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς  

The Tetragrammaton comes over to English as "I AM". In Greek it is ἐγώ εἰμι. So now ask yourself..."Does this name appear anywhere in the New Testament? Further who is this name applied to in the New Testament?" Of course ἐγώ εἰμι appears in the New Testament and Jesus applies the divine name to himself that is why the Jews wanted to stone Him. The best indisputable place to see this in John 8:58

English

"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" 

Greek

εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς, Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί.  

 
 Let me be clear: Jesus applied the same Name - "Yahweh" ("ἐγὼ εἰμί") to himself that God used when God spoke to Moses on Mt Sinai!

Debunking Christianity: Harry McCall on God, Yahweh and Elohim

Is Luke Wrong About the Time of Jesus' Birth? - Come Reason Ministries

On John Loftus blog Debunking Christianity, I was challenged by Evil Don the Pirate to explain the following  apparent contradiction in the Gospels.  He stated the challenge thusly:




Here's a contradiction from the gospels you can try to explain. Matthew has Jesus born during the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE. Luke has Jesus born during the year of the Census under Quirinius. We know that Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria in 6 CE and Josephus confirms that this is when the census was taken. Which gospel writer got it correct? 

I sent him the following link: Is Luke Wrong About the Time of Jesus' Birth? - Come Reason Ministries

As you might imagine Evil Don does not agree with  the answer. Amazingly instead of just saying he disagreed and that I'm stupid for accepting the answer given, he actually gave five reasons for not believing this answer. Let's go through his reasoning.

Marcus, you aren't dealing with this honestly. If you had taken a few minutes to think critically about that article you posted to, you would see what is wrong with it. But you didn't. You found someone who confirmed what you wanted to believe and assumed it must be correct.
The first problem: the apologist at that site takes liberties with the wording of the verse. A better translation is this: "In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria." The problem is clear now isn't it?

Let's look at the verses Luke 2:1-2 from many different translations:

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

¹And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
 ²(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) (KJV)

 ¹Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of  all the inhabited earth.  ²This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria (NASB)


 ¹ And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. ² This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. (NKJV)

Do I see a discrepancy here? Nope Not really.  Maybe Evil Don would like to clarify. The only difference between the KJV and the newer translations is that the KJV says Cyrenius was governor of Syria and the newer versions say Quirinius was governor of  Syria..Cyrenius was his Greek name. Quirinius was his Latin name. I have found another great source that bears quoting:

History records that Varus was governor of Syria from about 7 B.C. to about 4 B.C. and was not a trustworthy leader. However, Cyrenius was a notable military leader. During the census of 8-7 B.C., Augustus entrusted Cyrenius with Palestine, effectively superseding the authority and governorship of Varus by appointing Cyrenius to a place of special authority. Cyrenius administered in Syria on two separate occasions, once while prosecuting the military action against the Homonadensians between 12 and 2 B.C., and later beginning about A.D. 6. A Latin inscription discovered in 1764 has been interpreted to refer to Cyrenius as having served as governor of Syria on two occasions.

History records that Cyrenius was on assignment in Syria during this time and was one of the few trusted leaders. It is probable that Varus was on his way out while Cyrenius was taking charge of matters during Luke's narration.

Read more: Luke 2:2 states that the Cyrenius/Quirinius was Rome�s governor of Syria when Jesus was born. It�s documented that he became governor in 6 AD. Was Luke wrong? | Answerbag http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/45325#ixzz0xauUsz2p

The second problem: The multiple censuses of Augustus were for Roman citizens. Judea was not even a Roman province under Herod. It was a client kingdom. There is historical evidence of any kind indicating that Rome ever conducted a census of Judea prior to 6 CE.


There is also no historical evidence that there were no censuses prior to 6 BC. You can't assume that there was nothing just because we have no documentation.  And even if you want to argue that there was only one census the facts given in the link above more than covers the problem.





Third problem: Josephus makes it very clear when the census was taken, why, and by whom. He wrote "Now Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them till he had been consul, and one who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to be a judge of that nation, and to take an account of their substance. Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with him, to have the supreme power over the Jews. Moreover, Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus's money." He records no other census of Judea (as does no one else).

 Cyrenius and Quirinius were the same person. Josephus is not contradicting Luke nor Matthew. 

Fourth problem: The apologist gives no evidence of any other censuses in Judea. He merely asserts that previous censuses of other areas are evidence that censuses were taken in Judea as well. What he fails to emphasize is that the other censuses are recorded history, whereas the supposed Judean censuses are not.

 Um...still arguing from absence. You can't honestly draw such a conclusion when you don't have enough information. The thing is that there is evidence from around 3 BC that do mention a Census in Judea. Check the same link from above.

Armenian historian Moses of Khorene (Armenian History 2:26) says that in 3 B. C. Roman authorities came to Armenia to set up images of Caesar Augustus in the temples of the area. These same sources state that it was the registration mentioned in Luke which brought them there. The purpose of this registration was to record an official declaration of allegiance from all of his subjects to present to Caesar Augustus in celebration of his Silver Jubilee.

Read more: Luke 2:2 states that the Cyrenius/Quirinius was Rome�s governor of Syria when Jesus was born. It�s documented that he became governor in 6 AD. Was Luke wrong? | Answerbag http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/45325#ixzz0xayJDwZz

Fifth problem: This one is especially important, so pay close attention. There is absolutely no justification anywhere in Luke for supposing that the census is any other than the one he is clearly referring to. Do you understand that? The census Luke describes matches the one (and only) census we know about in Judea. The only justification (and this is typical of Bible harmonizers) for supposing an earlier census is the Christian dogma that the gospels can't possibly contradict each other. There is no other way to justify the idea that Luke was not referring to the 6 CE census, which he clearly was. 

Of course I understand Don's argument. The problem is he's wrong. I just provided justification for understanding that there was more than one census. Something else that I think Evil Don has not thought about is that such a census would take more than one year to complete. I mean even with all the technology today, we can't complete a national census in one year and America is a lot smaller than the Roman Empire was at that time. Some people answer this question by pointing out that any census happening in 6 AD was started much earlier...like maybe 8-6 BC!

Sorry....well....let me be honest I'm not sorry. It's fun to watch people twisting in the wind when they look for a reason to reject scripture. It's fun because you see the Bible validating itself as true...even if that means everyone else is wrong. The Bible is not inerrant because of Christian dogma. It's inerrant because it's true.

Debate: The Rubicon Crossing and the Resurrection - Holding vs Carrier

I've come across an interesting written debate on the internet between Jame Patrick Holding and Richard Carrier. The debate is over The Julius Caesar's Rubicon Crossing and Jesus' bodily Resurrection from the dead - Which is better attested to by history? One tell-tale sign that a written debate is good is if there is a lot of back and forth. That means that each side brings up good points that must be answered and challenged. This when it gets good. Holding quotes William Lane Craig's statement in Reasonable Faith and this is what causes such uproar:

Historians of the Roman Empire often refer to "Caesar's crossing the Rubicon" as an undisputed fact of historic significance, even though it is attested only by four ancient writers, two to three generations after the event, all dependent on one eyewitness account [long since disappeared!], and preserved in significantly different forms corresponding to the various authors' ideologies, including one which attributes Caesar's decision to enlarge his frontiers to divine guidance.

I invite anyone with even a passing interest to read Holding's and Carrier's website. For my comment I want to focus on how much attestation we have for the Rubicon crossing. Carrier said he thought that Holding is being nit picky by pointing out that no where in the The Civil War (assuming in any of the 10 copies we have) does Caesar mentioned the Rubicon. I think it might be because Caesar looked at it like crossing the street not a watershed event in his career or history. How could he have known that. I mean he would have to have been God to know that. The thing is a lot of people (especially Muslims) are skeptical because no where in the Gospels does Jesus explicitly says "I am Yahweh, worship me!" and desire to ignore all the evidence that is in the Gospels and yet are willing to see that there is is plenty of Evidence that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon. Notice that no where does Holding try to argue that Julius Caesar did not cross the Rubicon and Carrier tries to prove that Jesus did not rise from the Dead. Jesus however does claim to know what was going to happen to him well before his crucifixion and Resurrection.

 ²¹From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. - Matthew 16:21

How did He know know? Gee, Jesus would have to be God or something. Yup, definitely God.

The other point that needs to be made from the stand point of manuscript attestation is that we only have 4 textual attestations for the crossing of the Rubicon.

The fourth point made is that we have the story of the "Rubicon Crossing" in almost every historian of the period, including the most prominent scholars of the age: Suetonius, Appian, Cassius Dio, Plutarch.

This is true, but it is irrelevant. As my co-apologist Mike Licona has noted, replying to the objections of Acharya S, these sources are rather late - later than even Carrier believes the Gospels to be from their sources: Appian wrote in the 2nd century A D, Plutarch after 70, and Suetonius around 115. And to make matters worse for Carrier, our earliest manuscripts of these works are as much as a millennium removed from the originals.

I make this point not to accuse these works of unreliability or having been tampered with, but because I see no reason to think they have been. The point rather is to treat these documents in the same way Carrier treats the Gospels would be unreasonable. (A reader has added that Plutarch does give an account of the personal crossing.)

Carrier has a retort for this, observing first that these other authors "have been confirmed in material evidence and in other sources." Of course the same may be justly said of the Gospels, especially Luke; but Carrier offers no further details at this juncture, so neither will we.

He adds secondly that these authors "often quote and name many different sources, showing a wide reading of the witnesses and documents, and they show a desire to critically examine claims for which there is any dispute." Be that as it may, it would not occur to Carrier that the Gospels lack this because there was no dispute over source material which required this kind of comparative work -- in other words, it is unreasonable to demand that the Gospels do comparative work if their sources are uniform and reliable, as indeed would be first-hand testimony.

On the matter of alleged bias in the Gospels, we refer the reader here, and to here, section titled, "Was Paul a Liar?", for a reply to the matter of the use of oaths, which shows exactly the opposite of what Carrier claims.

So the earliest attestation of Julius Caesar moving a huge army across the Rubicon is well over 100 years after it happened. Does this mean that Suetonius, Appian, Cassius Dio, and Plutarch were wrong? Nope. I wouldn't argue that. But that leaves folks like Richard Carrier in a quandary: Why accept Suetonius, Appian, Cassius Dio, and Plutarch because all four talk of the Rubicon crossing, yet discount Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John who all talk of the crucifixion, empty tomb, and Resurrection? Rejecting one means rejecting both.

While the discussion in the two article is really about the historicity of the Rubicon crossing with the Crucifixion of Christ, it lends itself well to the discussion to just how reliable History is in general and the New Testament in particular.

JP Holding - The Rubicon Crossing and the Resurrection
Richard Carrier - The Rubicon Analogy

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Birthplace of Emperor Vespasian

Dr. Claude Mariottini has posted a very interesting blog post pointing to information that an archaeological dig has unearthed the birth place of the nineh Roman Emperor, Vespasian. This is exciting for many historical reasons.

1. This is the emperor who presided over the destruction of  Herod's Temple, Jerusalem and the events at Masada.
2. These events are clearly described in the historical accounts of Roman sources and Josephus
3. Jesus prophesied the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 about 40 years before it happened.
4. Provides another touchstone validatying the historical record.

Check out the link below to see Dr. Mariottini article on his blog.


Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Birthplace of Emperor Vespasian