[Vision2020] Ron Smith's Sources

[Nick Gier]

Dear Visionaries,

I'm happy that Ron Smith has given up the impossible task of defending the 
historicity of Luke's census.  In his parting short, however, we should not 
allow him to put his "historians" on on par with the professional 
historians that professional Bible scholars use.

Smith offers a link to a piece by Ronald Marchant of Feasterville, Pa. He 
is writing for The Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, which 
describe itself as "a group of Christians who see a desperate need for men 
and women convinced of the complete reliability of the Bible who will:
      (1) get training both in Biblical studies and in some other academic 
discipline, and
      (2) use this training to help other Christians deal with the many 
areas where non-Christian teaching is so dominant today.
We believe that such trained people can be effective in removing many 
stumbling blocks that keep others from the Gospel."

Marchant begins by conceding everything that I argue in my article at 
www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/census.htm, but then begins an incredibly 
convoluted defense that I will not bore you with, except to mention three 
major points:

1) Marchant wrongly assumes the Joseph owned land in Bethlehem;

2) that Quirinius somehow had authority in Judea when two other governors 
ruled during the most likely times of Jesus' birth.  Remember, too, that he 
was fully occupied with a campaign in Asia Minor;

3) that the Egyptian census of 104 CE supports the idea of returning to 
ancestral homes.  If you will remember, it actually requires people return 
to their current homes.  And remember what Jesus himself said about his 
father's home, it was Nazareth.  This directly counters Smith's claim that 
Jesus' failure to name Bethlehem is birthplace is only negative 
evidence.  For me this amounts to positive evidence of Jesus' own 
understanding of where he was born.

No degrees are attached to Marchant's name and there is no evidence that 
his article has passed the essential test of peer review by professional 
historians.

Offering Marchant in his defense is equivalent to assigning Wilson and 
Wilkins for a course in Southern history.

Yours for honest scholarship,

Nick Gier