10-08-2015, 03:19 AM
James,
It is possible that they could have looked like that (although Corbridge Type 'A' segmentata may not have been in service that early) but it would be safer to depict them in mail or scale, as both these armour types were in use throughout the empire, whereas the earliest evidence for segmentata in Judea comes from the camps around Masada and thus dates to around AD70. There is a distinct lack of evidence for segmentata in the region earlier than that, unless of course some has been found since I last saw an update on the matter. There is also a debate to be had about whether auxiliaries wore segmentata as well, with most people taking the view that they did not and others taking the view (based I believe on finds in the Batavian homelands) that some of them might have done.
Aaron,
"Then how did he know the correct tax money exchange for that time period? No way that could have been known for that time period unless it was a first hand account."
The presence of all three synoptic gospels in the library of the Qumran community shows that they must all have been completed before the temple was destroyed. What the rate of temple tax was would therefore be common and current knowledge. When you talk about the time period though, don't forget that we are probably dealing with a span of less than thirty years, which is not that long really. I have no problem recalling things in detail which happened thirty years ago, as well as the prices I paid for some things. I doubt people in the first century AD found it any more difficult to recall things over the same space of time.
"That isn't in the book of Luke."
Why would it have to be? Neither Matthew nor Luke were copying from each other, and each of them provides details which were unknown to, or omitted by, the other.
"Where are you getting your time periods from? The book of Luke was written sometime between 60-61 AD. The book of Matthew was written sometime between 50-61 AD, and the book of Mark was written sometime between 50-60 AD."
Actually, we cannot be nearly as precise as that. For Luke's gospel, all we know is that it was completed before he wrote the Acts of the Apostles (which he must have written in late AD62 or shortly after) and after Mark's gospel and 'Q'. For Matthew's gospel we have slightly less. All we know is that, like Luke's, it must have been written after Mark's and 'Q' and before AD68 or thereabouts. Similarly, we cannot be precise about the date of Mark's gospel, except to say that it must have been written before Matthew's and Luke's, which means that it could have been written as early as AD33 (although if it is true that Mark was Peter's secretary, then 33 may be rather too early) and potentially as late as AD60. However, the fact that Mark's gospel shows no knowledge of the account of 'Q' would suggest that it might be earlier than 'Q', which probably dates to the early AD40s at the latest.
http://www.livius.org/sources/about/q/
"I'd like to see your sources."
Gospel of Mark; Gospel of Matthew; Gospel of Luke; and the Acts of the Apostles. What sources are you using? ;-)
"Also don't you think there's a possibility that if they were both disciples of Jesus Christ that the reason their gospels are closely the same is due to seeing the same thing?"
Well, that is always possible, but the fact that all of the 'Q' passages in both Luke and Matthew are word for word the same (if you can read Greek you can confirm this from the Septuagent) argues against the sayings and events recounted in these passages being the eyewitness accounts of two people. Even if two people stand next to each other and witness the same things, go home to two different houses and then write accounts of those same things that very night, the chances of them both writing exactly the same words for every passage are thousands, if not millions, to one against.
Crispvs
It is possible that they could have looked like that (although Corbridge Type 'A' segmentata may not have been in service that early) but it would be safer to depict them in mail or scale, as both these armour types were in use throughout the empire, whereas the earliest evidence for segmentata in Judea comes from the camps around Masada and thus dates to around AD70. There is a distinct lack of evidence for segmentata in the region earlier than that, unless of course some has been found since I last saw an update on the matter. There is also a debate to be had about whether auxiliaries wore segmentata as well, with most people taking the view that they did not and others taking the view (based I believe on finds in the Batavian homelands) that some of them might have done.
Aaron,
"Then how did he know the correct tax money exchange for that time period? No way that could have been known for that time period unless it was a first hand account."
The presence of all three synoptic gospels in the library of the Qumran community shows that they must all have been completed before the temple was destroyed. What the rate of temple tax was would therefore be common and current knowledge. When you talk about the time period though, don't forget that we are probably dealing with a span of less than thirty years, which is not that long really. I have no problem recalling things in detail which happened thirty years ago, as well as the prices I paid for some things. I doubt people in the first century AD found it any more difficult to recall things over the same space of time.
"That isn't in the book of Luke."
Why would it have to be? Neither Matthew nor Luke were copying from each other, and each of them provides details which were unknown to, or omitted by, the other.
"Where are you getting your time periods from? The book of Luke was written sometime between 60-61 AD. The book of Matthew was written sometime between 50-61 AD, and the book of Mark was written sometime between 50-60 AD."
Actually, we cannot be nearly as precise as that. For Luke's gospel, all we know is that it was completed before he wrote the Acts of the Apostles (which he must have written in late AD62 or shortly after) and after Mark's gospel and 'Q'. For Matthew's gospel we have slightly less. All we know is that, like Luke's, it must have been written after Mark's and 'Q' and before AD68 or thereabouts. Similarly, we cannot be precise about the date of Mark's gospel, except to say that it must have been written before Matthew's and Luke's, which means that it could have been written as early as AD33 (although if it is true that Mark was Peter's secretary, then 33 may be rather too early) and potentially as late as AD60. However, the fact that Mark's gospel shows no knowledge of the account of 'Q' would suggest that it might be earlier than 'Q', which probably dates to the early AD40s at the latest.
http://www.livius.org/sources/about/q/
"I'd like to see your sources."
Gospel of Mark; Gospel of Matthew; Gospel of Luke; and the Acts of the Apostles. What sources are you using? ;-)
"Also don't you think there's a possibility that if they were both disciples of Jesus Christ that the reason their gospels are closely the same is due to seeing the same thing?"
Well, that is always possible, but the fact that all of the 'Q' passages in both Luke and Matthew are word for word the same (if you can read Greek you can confirm this from the Septuagent) argues against the sayings and events recounted in these passages being the eyewitness accounts of two people. Even if two people stand next to each other and witness the same things, go home to two different houses and then write accounts of those same things that very night, the chances of them both writing exactly the same words for every passage are thousands, if not millions, to one against.
Crispvs
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers. :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
