[Vision2020] Ron Smith's Sources

[Ron Smith]

Hmmm, I thought you were done on this subject, Mr. Grier. I can see how threatened you are by the notion that someone would actually do some research and come to a different conclusion than you. Why is this? Is it because you and your "Biblical Scholars" have a monopoly on the truth?

Anyway, you clearly did not take a careful read at the article. Either that, or you are a rapscallion. Again, I would suggest those whose minds are not bent in one way or another to take a look, against Mr. Grier's apparent trepidation. Mr. Grier misrepresents Marchant on every point.

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

X wrong. Marchant says: "Quite possibly Joseph had property rights (probably undivided) in some small plots of land around Bethlehem." Not an assumption, a speculation. At least he admits where the data is unclear and where he is speculating, rather than trying to pass speculation off as fact. Mr. Grier assumes that Joseph did not own property in Bethlehem. I mean, how could he have? We haven't uncovered any deads of puchase, therefore, a la "professional historian/Biblical scholar" logic, he could not have.

NG: "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;"

XX wrong again. Isn't Syria part of Asia Minor? Marchant makes no "assumptions" here either. He speculates that it is quite possible since Quirinius led a successful campaign sometime from 12-6 BCE against the Homonadensian tribe in the Taurus Mountains of Cilicia and since the only Roman legion in Asia at the time was in Syria, Quirinius was militarily ruling in that area and Luke is referring to a military command rather than the elected office of governor. The greek word Luke uses in 2:2 is a verb that can mean "to rule", "to govern" or "to command".

NG: " 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."

XXX Strike 3. Marchant says and I quote, "There is, however, no necessity to assume that the procedure was the same in every Roman census" He acknowledges that the Egyptian census record did not require this. Luke states that this census was the first of at least two in Judea (He mentions a later one in Acts) and Marchant simply states that it is simply possible that this particular census was different than the others.

At worst, Luke's account is plausible. I am not willing to say it is confirmed, historical fact, but Mr. Grier seems all too eager to dismiss it as fiction. Again, why is this?

-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] On Behalf Of Nick Gier
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 10:50 AM
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Vision2020] Ron Smith's Sources

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


_____________________________________________________
 List services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯