Talk:Quirinius

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitles

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Posted here. Awotter (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  requested review of NPOV language 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 . Doug Weller (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Census of Luke 

message: 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)
thread_title: Ancient sources

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Greek name 

message: 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)
replies: text: We can only do that through reliable sources, what suggestions do you have? Doug Weller talk 12:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No, read WP:NPOV but be sure you read WP:UNDUE when you read it. Doug Weller talk 16:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancient source to verify claims of governorship

message: 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)
thread_title:  Name of article? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Judea, Iudea, Iudaea and Judaea 

message: 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)
replies: text: That sentence was added in July 2023: . 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)
thread_title:  Meaning of the word "Governor"