خطاً انجيل لوقا في تحديد تاريخ الإحصاء إلى ولاية كيرنيوس و الرد على تدليس هولي بايبل

[محمد سني 1989]

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

نقرا من انجيل لوقا الاصحاح الثاني
((1 وَفِي تِلْكَ الأَيَّامِ صَدَرَ أَمْرٌ مِنْ أُوغُسْطُسَ قَيْصَرَ بِأَنْ يُكْتَتَبَ كُلُّ الْمَسْكُونَةِ.
2 وَهذَا الاكْتِتَابُ الأَوَّلُ جَرَى إِذْ كَانَ كِيرِينِيُوسُ وَالِيَ سُورِيَّةَ.
3 فَذَهَبَ الْجَمِيعُ لِيُكْتَتَبُوا، كُلُّ وَاحِدٍ إِلَى مَدِينَتِهِ.))

الإشكالية التاريخية هي انه في ولاية كيرينيوس لسوريا لم يكن هناك اي إحصاء كما ان كيرينيرس لم يحكم سوريا إلا بعد وفاة هيرودس بعشر سنوات ( ٦ م) و هذا يعني ان الإحصاء لم يقام قبل او اثناء ولادة المسيح عليه الصلاة و السلام

نقرا من الموسوعة اليهودية
In the year 6 or 7 C.E., when Quirinus came into Judea to take an account of the substance of the Jews, Judas, together with Zadok, a Pharisee, headed a large number of Zealots and offered strenuous resistance (ib. xviii. 1, § 6; xx. 5, § 2; idem, "B. J." ii. 8, § 1).
https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/a...s-the-galilean

يقول ريموند براون في كتابه the birth of the messiah في الملحق السابع الصفحة547
((At that time an edict went out from Caesar Augustus that a census should be taken of the Syria And so his was the first census wader Quirinius as governor of Syria.) And so all went to be inscribed in tae census, each to his own city. Joseph also went up from Gallee, from the city of Nazareth, into Judea to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to have himself inscribed in the census. (Luke 2:1-5).
Il this notice about the census stood by itself, there would be some problems about the extent and the manner of registration; but the chrosolog could cause no difficulty. Augustus reigned from 44/42 B.C. 10 AD. 14;
Publius Sulpicius Quirinius became governor or legate of Syria in 10. 6 and conducted a census of Judea (not of Galilee) in AD. 6-7. The last mentioned date would then be implicitly fixed for Luke as the year of the birth of Jesus. But the chronological information in ch. 2 of Lake does not stand by itself; and when we compare it with other chronological information that he has given us in 1:5 and 3:1,23, there seems to be an impeclable conflict.
In 1:5 Luke tells us that the annunciation of the birth of JBap took place "in the days of Herod, king of Judea." According to our best formation Herod died in March/April 4 .c. (NoTe on Matt 2:1). According to Luke 1:36 Mary's pregnancy began some sir months sister Elina-bed's; and so Jesus would have been born about fifteen or sixteen months after the annunciation of JBap's birth. This would fix the year of his birth & no later than 3 B.c. and would bring Luke into an approximate correspondence with the information in Matt 2 that Jesus was born in the last year of Herod's reign.' However, such a date is ten years before Quirbias became governor of Syria and conducted the census.))

و يقول في الصفحة 413
((As I point out at length in Appendix VII, this information is dubious on almost every score, do spite the elaborate attempts by no scholars to defend Lucan accuracy. By way of lesser difficulties we have no evidence of one census under Augustus that covered the whole Empire, nor of a census requirement that people be registered in their ancestral cities. While these difficulties can be explained away, we cannot resolve satisfactorily the major objections, namely, the one and only census conducted while Quirinius was legate in Syria affected only Judea, not Galilee, and took place in A.D. 6-7, a good ten years after the death of Herod the Great. Since elsewhere Luke shows himself inaccurate about the dating of events surrounding this census,* the evidence favors the theory that the use of the census to explain the presence of Joseph and Mary at Bethlehem is a Lucan device based on a confused memory. Luke may have had a tradition that associated the birth of Jesus with the end of a Herodian reign (a dating confirmed by Matthew) and a time of political trouble. But Luke seems not to have known that, some eighty years before he wrote, there were two such troubled endings of Herodian reigns, namely, the end of the reign of Herod the Great in 4 B.C., when Jews protested against the giving of Judea to Archelaus, and the end of the reign of Archelaus in A.D. 6, when Jews revolted against the census imposed by Quirinius. Consequently he has given a composite scene as a setting for Jesus' birth.))

و نقرا ما تقوله الموسوعة البريطانية
((According to Matthew, Jesus was born near the end of the reign of Herod the Great, thus before 4 BCE. In Luke, chapter 2, verses 1 to 2, Jesus is said to have been born at the time of a census when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Such a census did occur, but in 6–7 CE. Because this was after Herod’s death and not in agreement with a possible date of Jesus’ baptism, this late date is unlikely. There may have been an earlier census under another governor; an inscription in the Lateran Museum records an unnamed governor who twice ruled Syria, and the suggestion has been made that this was, indeed, Quirinius and that in an earlier time a reported census according to Roman calculation might have been carried out c. 8 BCE, one of a series of such. With such speculation and the combined evidence of Matthew and Luke, an approximate year of birth might be 7–6 BC.))

نقرا ما يقوله ريبير خليل في كتابه العهد الجديد منشاه تكوينه تطوره 102- 103
(( من ناحية اخرى وقع كاتب انجيل لوقا في خطًا تاريخي واضح حينما ذكر ان ولادة المسيح كانت عندما سافر و خطيبته الحبلى مريم من مدينة الناصرة إلى بيت لحم في منطقة اليهودية لغرض التسجيل في الإحصاء الذي فرضه كيرينيوس (٢: ١-٧) فهو يقول ان ولادة المسيح كانت في زمن هيرودس (١: ٥) و موضع الخطا اولا هو ان احصاء كورينيوس جرى بعد ما لا يقل عن تسعة أعوام من وفاة هيرودس. فلقد ورد عند كل من يوسيفوس و المؤرخ الروماني تاسيتسان كيرونيرس لم يصلح حاكما على سوريا أبدا قبل ٦ م))

نقرا ما قاله يوسيفيوس في Jewish Antiques الكتاب 17 الفصل 13 الباب الخامس
((5. Now I did not think these histories improper for the present discourse, both because my discourse now is concerning kings, and otherwise also on account of the advantage hence to be drawn, as well for the confirmation of the immortality of the soul, as of the providence of God over human affairs, I thought them fit to be set down; but if any one does not believe such relations, let him indeed enjoy his own opinion, but let him not hinder another that would thereby encourage himself in virtue. So Archelaus's country was laid to the province of Syria; and Cyrenius, one that had been consul, was sent by Caesar to take account of people's effects in Syria, and to sell the house of Archelaus.))

و في الكتاب 18 الفصل الاول الباب الاول
((CHAPTER 1. How Cyrenius Was Sent By Caesar To Make A Taxation Of Syria And Judea; And How Coponius Was Sent To Be Procurator Of Judea; Concerning Judas Of Galilee And Concerning The Sects That Were Among The Jews.
1. 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 he 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; but the Jews, although at the beginning they took the report of a taxation heinously, yet did they leave off any further opposition to it, by the persuasion of Joazar, who was the son of Beethus, and high priest; so they, being over-pesuaded by Joazar's words, gave an account of their estates, without any dispute about it.))

و قد حاول هولي بايبل الترقيع لهذه الخطا بالادعاء ان كورينيوس فعلا كان واليا على سوريا زمن هيرودوس و ادعى وجود نقشين يثبتان ذلك ثم استشهد بكتابات يوسابيوس و ترتليان !

اولا : الرد على ادعائه ان النقشين يدلان و يصرحان ان كورينيوس كان واليا على سوريا زمن هيرودس !!

هذا قول مردود من وجهين
١. ان النقش الاول Lapis Tiburtis, لا يذكر أبدا اسم كورينيوس وإنما يشير إلى وال حكم سوريا مرتين و كان منتصرا في الحرب و الحقيقة ان الاستناج بانه كورينيوس ليس عليه اي دليل اذ هناك اكثر من اسم مطروح لهذه الإمكانية
نقرا من كتاب ريموند براون السابق في الملحق السابع الصفحة 550
(( Two inscriptions have been brought into the discussion to lend support to an earlier governorship by Quirinius. The first is the Lapis Tiburtis, an inscription on a marble slab found. in 1764 in the neighborhood of Tivoli (Tibur) and now in the Vatican Museum. 0 This inscription or itles, composed after in at 14ad, describes an unamed person who was a major official victorious in war, and who twice served as legate in Syria The thesis that this is a reference to Quriaius is a pure guess with as many dissenters as adherents.))

و يقول في الهامش ١١
((Sanclemente assigned the tindus to Quirinius in 1793, and Mommsen and Ramsay are among the more famous supporters of that identification. Schtirer, History, 1, 4 353-54 (rev. od., I, 258-59), and Sherwin-White, Roman Society, 164-66, are general supporters of Lucan historicity who think that the inscription has nothing to do with Quirinius. The exhaustive article by Syme on the timus builds a plausible case for referring the inscription to L. Calpurnius Piso, and exposes devastatingly the weakness of the Quirinius attribution.))

٢. النقش الثآني يذكر كورينيوس و لكن ليس فيه تصريح بتاريخ ولايته في النقش و انما هذا مجرد استنتاج و تدليس من تدليسات هولي بايبل الفاضحة الواضحة لكل من يراجع وراءها !!! حيث ان النقش المكتشف في أنطاكية هو اهداء إلى شخصية باسم "ج كاريستانيس فرونتو و الذي عمل لسيرفيلس و لكورينيوس الوالي"

وقد حاول مكتشف النقش Ramsay ( الذي استشهد به هولي بايبل )ان يجعل من كورينيوس واليا على سوريا في فترة الحرب ضد هومونادينيس ( قبل السنة السادسة قبل الميلاد ) و ذلك عبر الاستنتاج " الخارق" انه طالما ان كل من كورينيوس و سيرفاليس كانا في رتبة واحدة و سيرفاليس كان والي غلاطية اثناء تلك الحرب إذا كوريينتس كان واليا لسوريا ايضا في تلك الفترة !!!!
استنتاج فاشل و ذلك ان اعتبار كورينيرس واليا على سوريا في تلك الفترة هو امر مشكوك فيه و ذلك ان الحرب وقعت في جبل توروس ( جنوب تركيا اليوم ) و حينها تكون غلاطية المدينة الأكثر منطقية لتكون نقطة انطلاق للجيش بدلا من سوريا

يقول براون في الصفحة 551
(( The other inscription was found on a marble base in Antioch of Pisidia by W. M. Ramsay in 1912.13 The inscription is dedicated to G. Caristianus Fronto, a colonist of Antioch who served "as prefect of P. Sulpicius Quirinius, the chief magistrate [duumvir], and as prefect of M. Servilius." Quirinius is identifed as a chief magistrate, while Servilius is not; but Ramsay argues that Quirinius and Servilius were of equal status, and indeed Quirinius was legate of Syria at the same time that Servilius was legate of Galatia during the Homonadensian war (before 6 B.C.). Obviously Ramsay's theory goes considerably beyond what the inscription says. His thesis that Quirinius served as legate of Syria during the Homonadensian war is highly dubious: the war took place in the Taurus mountains, and for military operations there Galatia was a far more practical base than Syria. Thus neither inscription lessens the difficulty of proving that Quirinius had an earlier governorship in Syria during which he might have conducted a census.))

ثانيا أما ادعاؤه ان ترتليان اشار إلى وجود إحصاء كهذا فهو كذب محض من هولي بايبل لان ترتليان أشار إلى عدة إحصاءات زمن ساتيرنيناس الذي حكم سوريا من ٩ إلى ٦ قبل الميلاد فقبح الله هذا التدليس

يقول براون في كتابه الصفحة 553
((Since Saturninus17 was governor in the period 9-6 B.C., this would at least synchronize the census with the reign of Herod the Great, although it still labors under the lack of evidence for a Roman census during that reign. The support for identifying Saturninus as the census taker is a passage in Tertullian, Adversus Mar-cion IV xix 10: "At that time there were censuses that had been taken in Judea under Augustus by Sentius Saturninus, in which they might have enquired about Jesus' ancestry." The fact that Tertullian speaks of censuses (plural) is often overlooked, 18 and it is assumed that he was referring to the census in Luke 2:1-5. Some have thought that he had a superior text of 2:2 which read "Saturninus"; others have thought that he was correcting the "Quirinius" reading in Luke after consulting Roman census records. However, there is no real evidence that Tertullian had the Lucan census in mind.10 The passage occurs as part of an argument against the Docetists; and Tertullian wants to show that Luke 8:19-21 ("My mother and my brother are those who hear the word of God and do it") does not mean Jesus denied having any human ancestry. Accordingly, Tertullian points to the census records as a possible way of proving such ancestry.
Probably he is assuming that such records existed for Palestine, even as they existed in Tertullian's own time. This is not just a guess about Tertullian's reasoning, for we have evidence of his assumptions in relation to the death of Jesus.))

ثالثا حاول هولي بايبل الترقيع على مسالة ذهاب يوسف و مريم إلى بيت لحم للتسجيل في الإحصاء و ذلك لكون بيت لحم مسكن ذرية داود عليه الصلاة و السلام حينها فما تجاهله هولي بايبل هو ان بيت لحم أصلا ليست في الجليل و لكن في مقاطعة يهوذا و لم تكن تابعة حينها من ٦- ٩ ميلادية إلى كورينيوس و لكن إلى هيرودس انتيباس
يقول براون في الصفحة 549
((Yet, if we cannot confim or deny the pattern of enrollment in ancestral cities which Luke depicts, his narrative seems to presume that the census of Quirinius affected Galaliens This is not factual for the census of to ut sinceat time Gallalie Was not under Quirinius' direct supervision but was a tetrarchy Ruled by Herod Antipas.))

اما الاستشهاد بيوسابيرس فهو مضحك لانه من القرن الرابع و يعتمد على الانجيل نفسه فهو يكرر ادعاء كاتب انجيل لوقا الخاطئ و لا يقارن بمصادر كيوسيفوس و تاسيتاس من القرن الاول

وصلى الله على سيدنا محمد و على اله و صحبه وسلم