I am skeptical that the Idumeans were ever Edomites

As far as the role Idumea and Idumeans played in my Edom and Christianity post, the belief in that connection is what matters there, it was never about arguing for a literal Genealogical link between Edom and Christian.

You know how Bible Skeptics say that the 1 Kings 17 narrative for the origins of the Samaritans is just Judean propaganda to deny their Israelite Heritage?  Well whether that’s true or not the same idea is what I think happened to the Idumeans, they were a group of fellow Israelites who became too culturally distinct for some conservatives to tolerate admitting their kinship.

The first problem is that Ezra-Nehemiah spends some time talking about Gentiles in the region who are posing a problem for the returning Israelites, but the Edomites aren’t among them. Yet the standard understanding of Edomite-Idumean history is that the Edomites settled in the Hebron-Maresha region during the Captivity. 

I’m skeptical of Edom becoming Idum or Idoum in Greek, and for why I will focus on just the first letter.  Maybe there is another precedent for names that begin with an Aleph becoming an Iota in Greek, but it’s uncommon, usually the Iota replaces the Yot while Aleph becomes either Alpha or one of the Es.

Joshua 15:52 lists a place called Dumah in the allotment of Judah.  Lots of Hebrew names that begin with a Yot have variants without the Yot and it seems the non Yot version often came first.  So if a Y’dumah version of this place name existed at some point it could have become Idumea in Greek.  The only appearance of this name in the New Testament is Mark:38 where it’s a name of a region not of a people group.

The Greek Texts commonly called the Septuagint or LXX are, I believe, much later then they are traditionally claimed to be, and that the use of forms of Idumea for Edom and Edomite in it are derived of the false Idumean-Edomites identification not a reason for it. Yet it is still not always used. Genesis 25:30 uses a spelling that begins with Epsilon and has an Omega in it as does 32:3. Genesis 36:16 is the only appearance of an Iota form in the entire LXX Pentateuch.  The Pentateuch is the oldest part of the LXX, both the letter of Aristeas and Josephus refer to it as only being the Pentateuch.  Yet even the LXX Pentateuch as we know it likely had some Christina Tampering since our oldest copies for much of it are 4th Century Christian Bibles.  (And strangely enough Dumah is missing from the LXX of Joshua 15.)

The main pillar of alleged Archaeological evidence for this connection is that Qos was worshiped at pre-Hasmonean Marshea, but it’s mostly only because of this that Qos is viewed as a dysfunctional Edomite National Deity.  The only evidence for original Edomites having anything to do with Qos is that two for their Kings known from Assyrian Inscriptions had what look like Qos theophoric names, but Qos is also just a Semitic Root meaning Bow and the only alleged alleged Qos Theophoric in The Bible is Barkos a Levites in Ezra 2:53 and Nehemiah 7:55 not an Edomite.

Both The Hebrew Bible and Egyptian Records heavily imply the Edomites also worshiped YHWH, just possibly in an Idaloutus fashion like the Northern Kingdom.

Qos the Pagan deity is probably Nabatena in origin, a variant of the Arabian Quzzah.  When Strabo said the Idumeans were of Nabatean origin he was partly right culturally more so than genealogically. Even the mainstream view of the Iudmeans admits Nabatean cultural influence in Maresha.  (And it may or may not be relevant to note that the descendants of Dumah son of Ishmael were associated with Seir in Isaiah 21:11 and were probably counted among the Nabateans in Greco-Roman times.) 

A Marriage Contract considered Idumean found at Maresha dated to 176 BC (before the Maccabees) closely resembles Ketubah Jewish marriage contracts. I think these Idumeans were just highly Hellenized Judeans, possibly to the point of leaving Judaism altogether but at least to the point of Tolerating Polytheism/Idolatry and neglecting Circumcision.  Josephus includes Cappethra among Idumean towns but it's own Wikipedia Page says the archelogy shows it's population to have always been Hellenized Jews during the Hellenistic era.

But maybe some degree of cultural divergence begins with the Babylonian Captivity.  Just like the Assyrian it probably wasn't as complete as a casual face value reading of the account make it seem.  Specifically there is no Biblical or Archeological evidence for Hebron or these other later Idumean cities having their populations deported.  Tekoa/Teqoa is the furthest north of Josephus's Idumean cities and is the only one mentioned in the context of the Babylonian conquest at all in Jeremiah 6:1, or with the return form the Captivity via the Tekoites in Nehemiah 3..

The forced Conversion of the Idumeans isn’t in either book of Maccabees (though their being called children of Esau is in 1 Maccabees 5) since it happens after their narrative ends.  Only Josephus refers to the Forced Conversion which he says happened under Hyrcanus I, but Josephus says Hyrcanus tried this on more than just Idumeans but it only seems to have stuck with them. 

There are also historians who question the narrative of a Conquest and forced conversion of the Idumeans in the first place, but do so in the context of thinking they converted more willingly over time. I think the “conversion” of the Idumeans was really just rolling back their extreme Hellenization and that they were always Israelites of the Tribe of Judah.  

Their leading families probably descend from Caleb and/or Cadet Branches of the House of David.  Adoraim was fortified by Rehoboam according to 2 Chronicles 11:9, he also had a lot of spare sons and daughters, actually the same chapter says the same for a number of these.

The Idumeans disappear from history after AD 70.  I think in the captivity the quasi distinction between them and other Judeans simply faded away.  But I suspect some did become Christians and maybe particularly contributed to the Palestinian population both in the Hebron region and the Liturgical Greek Palestinian Christians of Jerusalem & Bethlehem and nearby villages which emerged after the Bar Kokhba Revolt.

How does this recontextualize my argument for Herod not being an Idumean?  It could go either way really. 

What happened to the Edomites?  Well like The Hebrew Bible says I think their history simply ended when they were conquered by Babylon, in Jeremiah’s prophecies of various nations being similarly conquered Edom stands out in being the only one without a promised restoration. Any people of Edomite ancestry who did survive were simply absorbed into other peoples, that was the end of Edom as a distinct identity. 

Even what was there for Babylon to conquer was already a greatly diminished remnant, they’d previously been nearly wiped out by Amaziah (2 Kings 14:7-10 and 2 Chronicles 25:14-20) and then by Simeonites in the time of Hezekiah (1 Chronicles 4:39-43) and then possibly by Assyria, the last recorded King of Edom was a contemporary of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal. 

Maybe there is a small chance that a small number of Eodmites wound up living in Southern Judah and mingling with the most Judahites who lived there and brought a few cultural influences with them.  But that's it.

Betar is mentioned in the Masoretic Text

Betar is an Ancient Israelite City located near the modern settlements of Battir and Beitar Illit most famous for having been the main base of operation of Simon Bar-Kochba during the Bar-Kochba Revolt.

Its Wikipedia Page talks about how there is archaeological evidence of its existence during the Iron Age yet says it isn’t mentioned in The Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible only specifically the Sinaitic Text of the Septuagint for Joshua 15:59a.

However The Masoretic Text and thus The King James Bible do mention a city in Joshua 15 and 18 who’s name can easily have been later shortened to Betar, Betharabah.

In Joshua 15:6 it is associated with the border of the land allotted to Judah, and then in Joshua 15:61 it’s described as being in a “Wilderness” right after talking about Kirjathjearim. But the name is also given to a Benjamite city in Joshua 18:22.

Betar’s location can be described as both between Kirjathjearim and Jerusalem and as between Kirjathjearim and Bethlehem.  So it is in a good place for being associated with both Benjamin and Judah.

Shiloh and Bethel

Shiloh as a name of a location does not appear in the Pentateuch, the name only appears in a Prophecy in Genesis 49, that can be interpreted as about the later Shiloh but we Christians like to see it is ultimately about Jesus.

If I used the Pentateuch alone to deduce where God intended the final resting place of The Tabernacle to be, I would assume it was Bethel based on Genesis 28. Genesis 12 and 13 use the name Bethel retroactively, it was because of the events of Genesis 28 that Israelites called where Jacob rested Bethel and in time that also applied that name to the nearby town of Luz.

Bethel is one of the more indisputable locations in Biblical Archeology, I do not dispute that modern Beitin is where the city of Luz/Bethel was.  In Joshua 16 and 18 Bethel is laced on the border of the Ephraim and Benjamin as a place that in some sense belongs to both.

Shiloh as a place name is introduced in the Book of Joshua but not during the accounts of the conquest or the allotted of lands to the Tribes, it first appears as the place where Joshua set up The Tabernacle that housed The Ark of The Covenant.   1 Samuel seems to imply The Ark remained consistently in Shiloh all through The Judges period until they lost it to The Philistines. And yet Judges 20:26-27 places The Ark at Bethel in the only reference to The Ark in the Book of Judges.

Really the only Bible passage that gives us any clue where Shiloh is located in Judges 21:19.

It’s first described as “on the Northside of Bethel” but that does not read to me as “North of Bethel” per se, certainly not closer to Shechem then Bethel where it’s traditionally placed. Rather it sounds more like it’s identifying it as Northern Bethel, in the context of how Bethel is allotted in Joshua you could say Ephraim’s side of Bethel.

But the verse also then places Shiloh to the East, towards the rising sun,, the road going up to Shechem.

Back in Genesis 12-13 Abraham’s Bethel Altar wasn’t in the city proper but east of it, between Bethel and Hai/Ai on the road as he traveled to and from Shechem. The place where Jacob rested is assumed to be the same. 

This Biblical Archaeology YouTube channel talks about the ruins of a Church built East of Bethel and West of Hai/Ai that is presumed to have commemorated that very location.

https://youtu.be/8cqBePFD9S4

I used Google Maps to get a better sense of this geography than the very primitive maps provided in the video.  And these ruins are indeed east of modern Beitin, but specifically of Northern Beitin, very far north.

So I believe that was the true location of Shiloh, where the name was principally used of The Tabernacle.  I don’t think it was ever much of its own distinct city but may have been at times synonymous with northern Bethel or Ephraimite Bethel.

The Daughters of Shiloh from Judged 21:21 I think refers to the Women by the Gate of the Tabernacle.

The Prophet Ahaijah was called a Shilonite I think because he liked to live a Hermit like lifestyle nearby the former Tabernacle location rather than as an indication of citizenship to a specific City.

I think the Shilonites of 1 Chronicles 9:5 are really a variation of Shelanites (Numbers 26:20) given how it appears between Pheraz and Zerah discussing the Tribe of Judah.

When you make a Map of the layout of The Holy Land in Ezekiel 40-48 you will notice that the Temple/Tabernacle isn’t in The City YHWHW-Shamah but significantly to the north of if.  If YHWH-Shamah is Jerusalem then perhaps this Mishkan is Shiloh east of Bethel once again, but even that assumption could be wrong.

I think the city most commonly traditionally identified with Shiloh is actually the Taanathshiloh located in northern Ephraim in Joshua 16:6.

Kadesh and Sinai were not in Jordan or Arabia

I stopped supporting the Jebel El Lawz theory a long time ago, but I”m no longer inclined to believe in the Jebel Baghir theory for Sinai either.  But most importantly I can’t even support Identifying Kadesh with Petra any longer.

This Link lays out the arguments for a Sinai Peninsula location for Mount Sinai.  

https://armstronginstitute.org/1059-where-is-mount-sinai-part-1-not-in-saudi-arabia

I still haven’t made up my mind 100% on where exactly I think Sinai was, the most official mainstream identification could be legit, but I”m equally open to Mount Catherine and Mount Sherbal and am willing to consider Hashem El Tarif.  But I can’t consider Mount Helal a plausible Sinai because God in Exodus 13:17 stressed taking them to Sinai partly to keep them far away from the Philistines, saying He’s going well out of the way to do so.  

The claim that Sinai is the tallest mountain in its region comes from quotes in Philo and Josephus, The Bible never says that.  If anything some translations of Psalm 68:16 suggest the Mountain God chooses doesn’t look impressive by secular standards.  The immediate context as a Davidic Psalm is probably about The Temple Mount or Zion, but it’s still worth noting.

Kadesh is the same, I’m not entirely convinced the current official site is correct, but I do now believe Kadesh-Barnea and Meirbah are the same location and must be west of the Arabah.

Now some anti Jebel El Lawz articles I’ve read other than what I linked to are arguing strongly for a more Northern Sinai Location based on the Southern Sinai being more than 11 days from Kadesh since they are not disputing Kadesh’s location.  Thing is I don’t think we can know for certain what distance that implies, moderners could easily be overestimating or underestimating how fan Ancient Peoples could travel.  We don't know what differences between how this region was then and now could make a difference in estimating that.  And as far as the Israelites Journey from Sinai to Kadesh goes there was various supernatural Assistance from God that could have sped things up.

My belief that the Petra as Kadesh theory could be Biblically supported was mainly that I had for some dumb reason misread Ezekiel 47:19, 48:28 and Number 34:4 as making Kadesh the Easternmost point of Israel’s Southern Border.  In fact Ezekiel makes Tamar the eastern end of the southern border and its Akrabbim in Numbers.  

The reason some think even Kadesh is on the Eastern Border is because they think Numbers 34:4 says “south of” Kadesh thus Kadesh can only be outside the Holy Land if it’s east of the border..  The KJV and YLT readings of Numbers 34:4 are arguably ambiguous but can be taken as saying to keep Kadesh-Barnea south of the borderline you are drawing. And Brenton’s Speutigant says “and the going forth of it shall be southward to Cades Barne”.  The Geneva Bible also agrees with the KJV and YLT on this.  The “south of” readings are entirely the fault of corrupt modern translations.

Why are these verses defined as the Southern Border if it’s actually still just an Eastern Border till we reach the reference to Kadesh?  That’s a question they don’t answer.

People also use Numbers 20:17 to argue Kadesh was on the King’s Highway.  In that verse they are promising to stay on that road as they travel through Edom, something they were denied precision to do, it doesn’t say anything about where Kadesh was located.

The Petra as Kadesh argument begins with Josephuss.  

Josephus’s first reference to Petra during the Wandering in Book III Chapter 2 of Antiquities is not as a place the Israleites were at but as a City of The Amalekites  That frankly seems mutually exclusive with being any place the Israleites camped at much less where they were the longest.  In Genesis 14:7 I believe Moses is anachronistically using geographical terms that weren't used at the time, but either way it’s not making Kadesh and the “country of the Amalekites” exactly the same location, rather it was from Einmishphat these kings carried out their campaign against those who lived where the Amalekites will live in the future.

In Antiquities Book VI Chapter 4 near the end Petra is associated with where Aaron died after leaving Meribah-Kadesh not Meribah-Kadesh itself, the place where Miriam Died is a different location.  And Josephus is arguably describing them as coming near Petra but not in the city proper.  The proposed Petra identification for Mount Hor, Jebel Harun, isn’t in Petra proper but to its North-West. I’m skeptical of even that location for Mount Hor since Numbers 21:4 and Deuteronomy 2:8 heavily imply to me that Mount Hor was west of the Arabah.  

But even if Petra's Mount Hor is correct, that actually works against Meirbah being in Petra proper because the narrative of Numbers 20-21 has Israel travel in the opposite direction when they reach Hor.  The context is that the King of Edom just refused to let Israel pass through his land so now Israel is heading away from Edom and from the Canaanite king Arad to go around Edom to Moab.  Meaning Israel should be heading East and/or South not North-West.

Josephus also doesn't mention Petra when he mentioned Paran in Book III Chapter 14.

If the Israelites were in or just south of Petra at any point it could be where the Brazen Serpent Narrative took place in Numbers 21:5-10, which is either Zalmonah or Punon of Numbers 31:41-43.

Josephus’s third reference to Petra is again in Book IV but this time Chapter 7 where it seems to be a Midanite city built or rebuilt by King Rekem (Numbers 31:8 and Joshua 13:21).   But at this point we've moved from early in the 40 year period to near the end, so any number of things could have changed which tribe controlled Petra.  Again this is a capital of a people the Israelites were at war with, can’t be the same as Kadesh.

Sometimes I wonder if the three Petra’s Josephus referred to aren’t even the same place, he treats each one like an introduction, and the Greeks may have called various Nabetian Rock Carved cities Petra.  The city we today call Petra has been archaeologically verified to have also been called Rigmu/Reken so it would have to be the Midianite one.

Those still fanatically devoted to Petra being Kadesh also confuse Petra and Sela/Cela which are separate cities.Sela is a core Edomite city, the Israelites were explicitly never in Edomite territory, or traveled through only its southernmost outskirts. Petra was also under Edomite dominion at some time periods when Edom ruled well beyond its main homeland, but Cela is presented as the heart of Edom, a place that is Edomite even when Edom was at its smallest.

Kadesh was not an Oasis, Genesis 14:7 gives us some reason to suspect a Spring/Fountain may have been nearby, but there was no local vegetation, God fed the Israelites supernaturally using the Manna and whatever local natural water there was became insufficient by Numbers 20 near the end of Israel’s time there hence the second Meribah incident.

Of the more mainstream scholarly choices for Kadesh I prefer Ain Qedeis over Ain Qudariet, the later became more favored because it’s Spring was larger but I don’t expect a large Spring and I do expect God to keep Israel far from the Philistines and closer to Edom.  Also both Petra and Ain Qudariet proponents spent most of their refuting of Ain Qedeis on just how barren it is, because again they are wrongly looking for an Oasis or some other place that could be naturally self-sustaining.

I do not think Kadesh was at the time a normal stopping point for traveling in this region, God is taking the Israelites through a route off the beaten path and He’s feeding them supernaturally.

One hunch I sometimes entertain for a Kadesh location is where the later Nabatean City of Avdat was built, or the nearby Ein Avdat.  But that’s pretty random and not based on much.

There are two places some have proposed for Sinai that I think could maybe be more likely as Kadesh locations since there was a Mountain at Kadesh in Numbers 14:40 and Deuteronomy 33:2.  Those are Hashem El Tarif and Har Karkom.

Let’s speculate on the history of the name Kadesh itself.  

The way Numbers 10-12 don’t use that name right away when Israel started heading there or arrived there but introduced it in 13:26 has me thinking this place wasn’t called Kadehs before then and only was a Holy location to the Israelites because it housed The Mishkan longer than any other single location during the 40 years in the Wilderness.

If that is correct I’m of two minds about the three uses of the name in Genesis (14:9, 16:14 and 20:1).  They could be another example of Moses editorially using a later place name anachronistically.  Or it could be a different Kadesh that has nothing to do with any place the Israelites camped at in Numbers. Genesis never uses the names Barnea, Meirbah or Zin. Paran is mentioned in Genesis once, maybe twice.  Genesis 21:21 identifies Paran as where Hagar and Ishmael settled which is why Islam needs to pretend Paran is where Mecca is. Genesis 14:6’s El-Paran, if it's the same place, is in context clearly distinct from Eimpishphat/Kadesh. Kadesh in Genesis is never a place Abraham or the Patriarchs visit, rather they visit some place between Kadesh and somewhere else. I’m starting to think the Genesis Kadesh could be Ein Qedeis and Numbers Kadesh someplace further east in the Negev.

The added Barnea is only ever used after the fact, not while Israel is still there.  While Israel was there it was The Kadesh but after leaving it needed to be distinguished from the various places the Pagans called Kadesh.  Kadesh-Meribah isn’t used in the Biblical Text but rather Meribah-Kadesh, there it’s Kadesh that is distinguishing that Meirbah from the earlier Meirbah of Exodus 17 at Rephidim.

Even the location of Mount Seir is a bit of an Enigma.

The Wikipedia page for Seir says The Bible refers to two mountains named Seir, one in Judah and one in Edom East of the Arabah.  But the Judean Seir of Joshua 15:10 is identified with a modern Palestinian VIllage far more likely to be Zior of Joshuah 15:54.  Joshua 15:10 is associating Seir with Judah’s border in a way that could imply being on the other side of it.

Deuteronomy 1:2 and 33:2 seem to place Seir between Sinai and Kadeshbarnea. But Deuteronomy 1:44 (in referencing back to the end of Numbers 14) and Deuteronomy  2 helps clarify that 1:2 is better read as saying Kadeshbarnea was on the way from Sinai to Seir, and that Seir is north of Kadehsbarnea. And chapter 33 is being Poetic, perhaps like the Seir reference in the Song of Deborah alludes to Seir as a place where YHWH had been worshiped.

I think the Joshua 15:10 Seir and the other references to Seir are the same being Edomite territory South-East of Judah’s allotment.

In all that context obviously the Easternmost candidate for either Ezion-Geber or Elath I find plausible is Tell el-Kheleifeh.

The more I think about my initial point of where Kadesh should be relative to Mount Hor, I think it’s either Har Karkom or some spot due east of Har Karkom but still west of the Arabah.

What implications does all this have for Petra as the original Mecca theory?  

I actually still support that one, because Biblically Accurate or not the misidentification of Kadesh and Paran with Petra predates the Birth of Islam being fully formed already in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Onomasticon and Jerome in Hebrew Questions on Genesis and to this day the local traditions still claim to be where the Meribah incident happened. 

"Kadesh Barnea (or Cades Barnea): "Kadea Barne. The desert which extends to (the city of) Petra a city of Arabia. There Mariam went up and died, and there the doubting Moses struck the rock to give water to the thirsty people. The tomb of Mariam herself is pointed out there even now. There also Chodollagomor beat the chiefs of the Amalakites." Eusebius, Onomasticon

"Gen 14:7: And they returned and came to the fountain of judgement, that is, to Cades. Because Cades was so named later on, it is specified by way of anticipation; and it refers to a place near Petra, which is called 'The Fountain of Judgement', because God judged the people there" (Saint Jerome's Hebrew Questions on Genesis, translated by C. T. R. Hayward, p 46, Gen 14:7, 1995 AD)

The origins of the Petra view even in antiquity probably came from misunderstanding Josephus.  And from that came the misidentifying of Paran as being in Arabia Deserta.

I dislike Extra Credits videos relevant to the Oriental Orthodox more every year

First of all the fact that in the final Episode of the Early Church Schisms series and the entire Justinian Saga they keep saying “Monophysite” in the videos proper to then in the Liars videos acknowledge the Miaphysite distinction but stills defend their Academic use of Monophysite really bugs me.

No one Self Identified as principally a Monophysite even the few niche Heretics who didn’t prefer Miaphysite.  But those people are never talked about in any of these videos, it’s all about the 5th and 6th Century Christians who became what we now know as the Oriental Orthodox Church.  They are ONLY ever talking about the Miaphysites who find the Monophysite label offensive.  

Monophysite is a term that shouldn't exist.

But I’ve grown to be annoyed even by how they initially defined the distinction between Chalcedonian and Miaphysite Christology. 

Yes I agree that ultimately the difference between both of them and Nestorianism is semantical, all three view Jesus as Fully Divine and Fully Human and the nuanced issues of how the two natures interact I can’t really as a Low Church Protestant find a definitive Sola Scriptura answer to, it’s a Mystery that maybe God didn’t want us overthinking this much.  Unfortunately I am a Nerdy overthinker by nature.

Years ago I had a thing for mildly preferring the Nestorian Formula, but the more I’ve learned about how Divine Impassibility is uniquely vital to their Logic the more I’ve drifted away from that.  But let’s return to the topic at hand.

Extra Credits chooses to define Chalcedonian Christology as “Two natures that are Mixed” and Miaphysite Christology as “One Nature that is both Divine and Human”.  This is mistaken however, there is nothing about Mixing or Mixture in the Chalcedonian Definition.

Rather the clause in the Chalcedonian Definition that the Oriental Orthodox object to “in Two Natures” because they prefer “Out of Two Natures”.

When I define how I personally view the Incarnation without trying to fit into one of  the boxes of Late Antiquity Greeks arguing over nuanced distinctions of Hellenic Verbiage, I like to say it like this.

In The Incarnation Christ Unified both the Divine and Human Natures, and that Unification is not ultimately just in Christ but at the future Consumption of all things, when all the Dead are Bodily Raised and All Things are Made New the separation between Divine and Human will fade away.  That of course also needs to be understood in the Context of my Materialist (maybe a little Stoic) understanding of Divinity in contrast to the Platonism more popular in modern Mainstream Christianity.

One can see how at face value the way Extra Credits had defined them made Chalcedonianism seem more compatible with my perspective, while the real distinction makes the Miaphysite model seem more compatible.  However I also suspect many Christians in both camps would say my way of looking at it can fit theirs.

I’ve been wanting to write this post for a while now but keep putting it off because it feels like every time I look into the “In Two natures” vs “Out of Two natures” distinction I change my mind on which one I prefer.  Sometimes I get a little too paranoid that the “Out of Two Natures” phrasing could be taken out of context to imply Jesus is a New Third Nature neither Human or Divine.

Honestly I feel like I’m sometimes biased against the Oriental Orthodox because of my personal distaste for Cyril of Alexandria.  Yes the Chalcedonians also consider him a Saint but the Miaphysites often seem like they are basing their entire self identity on being the “True Cyrilians”.  But it’s important to remember that people are complicated, Cyril could be right on Christology and a Bad Tyrannical Leader at the same time.  

The Branch of Oriental Orthodoxy most directly connected to Cyril, the Copts, are now the religious Minority in Egypt.  They have more in common with those Cryil persecuted than Cyril however much they may be in denial of Cyril’s villainy. 

Regardless of which Christology I prefer, I'm not eligible to join any Denomination that adheres to the Second Ecumenical Council because of my Congregationalist views on Church Governance and opposition to Infant Baptism.

Census Before Cyrenius was Governor

So I have become aware of another solution to the Luke 2 Census issue thanks to this PDF.

https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1072&context=sor_fac_pubs

THE CENSUS AND QUIRINIUS: LUKE 2:2 by Wayne Brinale

This answer is Section for starting on Page 7 of the PDF saying page 48 at the top. 

I shall now Copy/Paste some form it.

Feldman, in his edition of Josephus, states that "Luke 2:2 can be vindicated only if we translate ... , This census was the first before that under the prefectureship of Quirinius in Syria.'  The adjective prötos may mean "first" or "earlier," "former,".

"First census" must be taken in its Hellenistic connotation as the first of two, and then we must expand the clause a little. "This census was before the census which Quirinius, governor of Syria, made."

I am personally annoyed on why so many think the well known Census of the Empire taken in 8 BC can't fit this even when they are not identifying it with AD 6. Is it just lack of a formal "Decree"?

Again Tertulian says Saturninus was Governor of Syria when Jesus was born without any acknowledgment of how Luke seemingly says someone else was Governor.

Sunday is not Pagan

 First I want to state clearly that I disagree with the notion that Sunday replaces the Sabbath or that any weekly observance on the “first Day of the Week” is Biblically ordained.  

And that I strongly believe Biblically The Lord’s Day is The Sabbath.  I believe Paulian Christians kept keeping the Sabbath into the 2nd Century and that even in the Fourth Century many Seventh Day Sabbath keeping Christians still saw themselves as Paulian like the Nazarenes.

But this idea that Sunday was chosen because Pagan at Heart Emperors wanted to worship Jesus on a day for Sun Worship is absurd.

Christians well before Nicaea did start doing First day of the Week Observances because they misunderstood certain “first day of the week” references in 1 Corinthians 16:2 and Acts 20:7.

There was no Seven Day Week among Pre-Christian Greco-Romans, the idea of a Seven Day Week with one day in particular as more Holy than the others is inherently Abrahamic no matter which day you choose.

I'm going to copy and paste a Quote from Tacitus at this link, skim down to [4].

https://www.livius.org/sources/content/tacitus/tacitus-on-the-jews/

“We are told that the seventh day was set aside for rest because this marked the end of their toils. In course of time the seductions of idleness made them devote every seventh year to indolence as well. Others say that this is a mark of respect to Saturn, either because they owe the basic principles of their religion to the Idaei, who, we are told, were expelled in the company of Saturn and became the founders of the Jewish race, or because, among the seven stars that rule mankind, the one that describes the highest orbit and exerts the greatest influence is Saturn. A further argument is that most of the heavenly bodies complete their path and revolutions in multiples of seven.”

First of all we see a hint that the very idea of a day of rest was revolting to Roman Pagans, this is all the more reason why I believe Capitalist “Work Ethic” Values are Roman in Origin not Protestant.

When at some point Christianized Greco-Romans started identifying the days of the weeks with the visible wandering heavenly bodies since there were seven of them, Saturday was named for Saturn probably because of the influence of what Tacitus said here, or the older sources he got these ideas from.  

Now Biblically we know from Amos 5:26 and Acts 7:43 that the Israelites were departing from the proper worship of YHWH when they worshiped the planet we now call Saturn.  But there would have been a pagan affiliation no matter which Planet was assigned to the Seventh Day, Saturn’s Harvesting and Agriculture characteristics do fit some of the Sabbath associations.  And Tacitus’s observation that Saturn is the farthest from us of the visible Planets is worthy of note.  It appearing to move through the night sky the slowest could be a good reason to associate it with rest.

The day on which Jesus Rose from the Dead was associated with The Sun because of the Biblical reasons for viewing The Sun as a symbol of Jesus (Malachi 4:2) and Sunrise as a Symbol of Resurrection (Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 1:78-79, Matthew 4:16, Matthew 5:45, 2 Peter 1:19, 2 Samuel 23:4, Psalm 110:3).

And the SDA belief that it's specifically about attacking the Sabbath is also silly.  The fact is none of the earliest Christian Sunday observance based laws even post Nicaea forbid also resting on the Sabbath.  If you wanted to make another day the day of rest with the intention of making Sabbath observance more difficult, what would make sense is making the Sixth Day, the Biblical Preparation Day, the legally enforced day of rest.