Roman census practices and Luke 2

[technomage]

There was never an "empire-wide census" during the reign of Augustus. Indeed, you are quite correct that there a regional census in the province of Judea during his reign--but this census was in 6 CE, when Judea became a province, rather than a client kingdom. The Romans did not perform census in client kingdoms--only in provinces.

Rich, just the claim that something is historical is not sufficient: one must document that claim. Since the question here is whether or not the Bible is historically accurate, the proper way to do that is to examine a Biblical history claim and see if that claim can be verified in an extra-biblical source.

False.

You Sir, have the burden of proof! So, get busy and prove your horse manure theories!

What Wiccan knows anything about "evidence"? All you have is Bull Spit and the musings of dead poets!

For the purpose of this thread, I will ignore the slander of the last paragraph. We will deal solely with historical evidence of Roman census practices.

First and foremost, let us examine the relevant verses in Luke.

1In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2(This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3And everyone went to his own town to register.

As I noted, the question here is the accuracy of the history claim in the Bible. Therefore, let us examine the history of Roman census practices.

There were two types of Roman censuses: a universal census that affected only Roman citizens (this dealt with issues of citizenship and voting), and a regional census that counted all residents in an particular area (this dealt with issues of taxation).

Universal Censuses
There were, indeed, universal censuses of the first type in 28 BCE (when Caesar Augustus and Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa were first elected to the office of Censor), 8 BCE (when Caesar Augustus was elected as sole Censor), and in 14 CE (when Caesar Augustus and Tiberius Julius Caesar were elected Censors), but these universal censuses affected only Roman citizens: Joseph and Mary would have been unaffected for these censuses, therefore, we shall dispense with the "universal" census.

Regional Censuses
The regional Census under Quirinius is well established historically:

When king Herod the Great (http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodians/herod_the_great01.html) died in 4 BCE, the Roman emperor Augustus divided his kingdom between his three sons. Herod Antipas (http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodians/herod_antipas.html) was to rule Galilee and the east bank of the Jordan as a tetrarch until 39 CE; Philip (http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodians/philip.htm) was to be tetrarch of the Golan heights in the north-east, which he held until 34 CE; and Herod Archelaus (http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodians/herod_archelaus.htm) became the ethnarch of Judaea, which included Samaria (http://www.livius.org/saa-san/samaria/samarians.htm) in the north and Idumea in the south. Archelaus ruled so badly that the Jews and Samarians unitedly appealed to Rome to request that he should be deposed. In 6 CE, Archelaus was banished to Gaul. Judaea became an autonomous part of the Roman province (http://www.livius.org/gi-gr/governor/provinces.html) Syria, ruled by a prefect (http://www.livius.org/pp-pr/prefect/prefect.html).
The Syrian governor (http://www.livius.org/gi-gr/governor/governor.html) Publius Sulpicius Quirinius (http://www.livius.org/su-sz/sulpicius/quirinius.html) was ordered to organize the taxation of the new prefecture. Until then, taxes had been paid in kind. However, during the census which Quirinius organized, the inhabitants were required to declare their property in money.
Cited from Wars between the Jews and Romans: the establishment of the province Judaea (http://www.livius.org/ja-jn/jewish_wars/jwar02.html).

Before 6 CE, Judea was a client kingdom: autonomously governed, but tributary to Rome (not to Syria). There has never been any record of Roman censuses or direct taxation within a client kingdom: it was only after the banishment of Archelaus that direct Roman taxation was levied on Judea: this prompted the Quirinian census (and the resultant riots, as noted by Josephus).

Now, it has been mentioned that perhaps Quirinius was an assistant to the Syrian governor during the life of Herod. This is also impossible, as Quirinius was governor of Crete and Cyrene from 14-6 BCE, then governor of Pamphylia-Galatia from 6 BCE to 1 CE, where he engaged in military action. (see Wikipedia: Quirinius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirinius).)

In short, Richbee, the Lukan census could have only taken place in 6 CE ... approximately ten years after the death of Herod called "the Great."

Justin

[technomage]

Any comment from the historians among us?

:bump:

[bandecoot]

Any comment from the historians among us?

:bump:


Nope, I would quote the Res Gestae if I were you, buts thats about the only criticism. But its your thread, you go on with it.


Andrew

[technomage]

Shh! Don't tip my hole card. :wink:

[Richbee]

For the purpose of this thread, I will ignore the slander of the last paragraph. We will deal solely with historical evidence of Roman census practices.

First and foremost, let us examine the relevant verses in Luke.

1In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2(This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3And everyone went to his own town to register.

As I noted, the question here is the accuracy of the history claim in the Bible. Therefore, let us examine the history of Roman census practices.

There were two types of Roman censuses: a universal census that affected only Roman citizens (this dealt with issues of citizenship and voting), and a regional census that counted all residents in an particular area (this dealt with issues of taxation).

Universal Censuses
There were, indeed, universal censuses of the first type in 28 BCE (when Caesar Augustus and Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa were first elected to the office of Censor), 8 BCE (when Caesar Augustus was elected as sole Censor), and in 14 CE (when Caesar Augustus and Tiberius Julius Caesar were elected Censors), but these universal censuses affected only Roman citizens: Joseph and Mary would have been unaffected for these censuses, therefore, we shall dispense with the "universal" census.

Regional Censuses
The regional Census under Quirinius is well established historically:


Cited from Wars between the Jews and Romans: the establishment of the province Judaea (http://www.livius.org/ja-jn/jewish_wars/jwar02.html).

Before 6 CE, Judea was a client kingdom: autonomously governed, but tributary to Rome (not to Syria). There has never been any record of Roman censuses or direct taxation within a client kingdom: it was only after the banishment of Archelaus that direct Roman taxation was levied on Judea: this prompted the Quirinian census (and the resultant riots, as noted by Josephus).

Now, it has been mentioned that perhaps Quirinius was an assistant to the Syrian governor during the life of Herod. This is also impossible, as Quirinius was governor of Crete and Cyrene from 14-6 BCE, then governor of Pamphylia-Galatia from 6 BCE to 1 CE, where he engaged in military action. (see Wikipedia: Quirinius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirinius).)

In short, Richbee, the Lukan census could have only taken place in 6 CE ... approximately ten years after the death of Herod called "the Great."

Justin


Dude, like man, I was in the weeds!

I was searching in the Lockeroom!

Man, like where am I? Why is it so quiet over here?

Give me time, I would like to respond!

Question, why do you think Josphesus is abetter source, or a more truthful or exacting source, Vs. Luke?

I note that Jospesus wrote around 90 A.D., and after the Jewish Temple was destroyed.

[CatholicSage]

Any comment from the historians among us?

:bump:

Meh. I like history, but I don't know much about Roman history. I hate to argue by weblink, but all I can really do is point to an interesting defense by Glen Miller: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html

Ultimately, watching both sides argue the point, I tend to take that hop of faith and think that Luke knew what he was talking about.

[technomage]

Dude, like man, I was in the weeds!

I was searching in the Lockeroom!

My fault, Rich, due to miscopying the thread.

Man, like where am I? Why is it so quiet over here?

This is the World History 201 Forum ... probably the least popular forum on TWeb. I like to come over here because it's nice and quiet ... well, there is the downside that maid service isn't what it should be, and there are all these cobwebs, but hey, you can't have everything. :wink:

Give me time, I would like to respond!

No problem, Rich, but ... do me a favor, please? The cut-and-paste riposts are really impersonal: I get the feeling that I'm talking to an answering machine, not a real live person.

Question, why do you think Josphesus is abetter source, or a more truthful or exacting source, Vs. Luke?

I note that Jospesus wrote around 90 A.D., and after the Jewish Temple was destroyed.

I'll get into that in the course of the thread--as a matter of fact, I'll try to do that later tonight.

Justin

[Richbee]

What can we say about the Bible as History?

R. T. France, a British New Testament scholar, has written:

At the level of their literary and historical character we have good reason to treat the Gospels seriously as a source of information on the life and teaching of Jesus.... Indeed many ancient historians would count themselves fortunate to have four such responsible accounts [as the Gospels], written within a generation or two of the events, and preserved in such a wealth of early manuscript evidence. Beyond that point, the decision to accept the record they offer is likely to be influenced more by openness to a super naturalist world view than by strictly historical considerations.

R. T. France, "The Gospels as Historical Sources for Jesus" (1985): 86.

[Richbee]

No problem, Rich, but ... do me a favor, please? The cut-and-paste riposts are really impersonal: I get the feeling that I'm talking to an answering machine, not a real live person. - Justin

So, you were there, LIVE?

O.K., let us be real, you have your sources and I have mine! I trust Luke, and you have what source(s)?

I am alive.

If I die, please accept that a long unexplained silence may occur in my posts!

That, or, the TWeb gods have banned me! :eek:

[Sacrificial Ram]

Meh. I like history, but I don't know much about Roman history. I hate to argue by weblink, but all I can really do is point to an interesting defense by Glen Miller: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html

Ultimately, watching both sides argue the point, I tend to take that hop of faith and think that Luke knew what he was talking about.

There are a number of problems with Glen Miller's appology about Quinius.

One of them is insisting that LUke was a 'very very very reliable historian'.
Next, much of his arguements that he described are 'if then maybe's' , and not based on any hard evidence at all. For example, a stone tablet that has the name of the person wiped of is not evidence that quintarsis served twice..

The main point that is NOT even addressed by all the speculation is that
when Herod the king ruled in Judah, Augustus Ceasar did not have the legal authority to conduct a cencus in Judaah at all. It wasn't until Judah became part of the providence of Syria (In 6. C.e.) that he had that authority.

[technomage]

Question, why do you think Josphesus is abetter source, or a more truthful or exacting source, Vs. Luke?

I note that Jospesus wrote around 90 A.D., and after the Jewish Temple was destroyed.

OK, I'm going to have to make this fairly quick, but I'll do what I can.

Richbee, I grew up Fundamentalist Christian. Heck, I went to college and learned many of the arguments you've been quoting well enough that I could stand in the middle and work my way towards either end.

The problem was, in learning the Bible that well, I was also learning the history ... and the history I was learning wasn't jibing with the scripture. To make a long story short, for several years I assumed that the history books were wrong, and the Bible was right ... but it finally got to the point that the evidence for the historical accuracy of the Bible was wanting.

Now, that does not mean I reject the entire Bible: for instance, much of the later chapter of Acts I take as fairly accurate, and I'm almost sure the seven actual Pauline epistles came straight from old Paul himself. I am as certain as I can be that there was a real Jesus walking around. I'm just not at all sure that the Gospels are an accurate account of his life and ministry.

Justin

[Richbee]

There are a number of problems with Glen Miller's appology about Quinius.

One of them is insisting that LUke was a 'very very very reliable historian'.

This is a great place to start the thread, and first things first, we should know the Man Luke and his motivations, honesty and credibility.

Luke, very carefully interviewed all witnesses in regard to the details and timing of the virgin birth: nice Ladies like Mary the Mother of Jesus, and on again, off again fisherman like John, James, and Peter.

Once you read Luke, who could esteem Herodotus? And, BTW, are you willing to evaluate ancient Historians on equal terms?

Luke’s credibility as an historian has been defended brilliantly by such renowned scholars as Sir William Ramsay, who began his academic career as a skeptic, but was turned around by the hard facts of evidence.

The ancient historian had investigated carefully the background of Jesus (Lk. 1:3), and he argued vigorously for the fact of the Lord’s virgin birth. As a doctor (Col. 4:14), he would have resisted the notion of such an event had there not been compelling evidence for it.

'Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statement of fact trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense; he fixes his mind on the idea and plan that rules in the evolution of history, and proportions the scale of his treatment to the importance of each incident. He seizes the important and critical events and shows their true nature at greater length, while he touches lightly or omits entirely much that was valueless for his purpose. In short, this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."

Sir William Ramsay, as quoted by F.F. Bruce - Click Here (www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocc07.htm)

As an example, in the book of Acts, Luke mentions 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 Mediterranean islands. He also lists 95 people by name, 62 of which are not named elsewhere in the New Testament (Bruce Metzger, The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, Content, p. 171).

In addition, Luke is intimately familiar with the constantly-changing political conditions of the Roman world. References to Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius, Quirinius, the Herods, Felix, and Festus are recorded.

Next, much of his arguements that he described are 'if then maybe's' , and not based on any hard evidence at all. For example, a stone tablet that has the name of the person wiped of is not evidence that quintarsis served twice..

The main point that is NOT even addressed by all the speculation is that
when Herod the king ruled in Judah, Augustus Ceasar did not have the legal authority to conduct a cencus in Judaah at all. It wasn't until Judah became part of the providence of Syria (In 6. C.e.) that he had that authority.

Speaking of "hard evidence", pony up!

IMO, you and Justin are banking on Josephus, who is highly suspect in getting his details correct!

Yes, it has happened before, and while we're on this topic, have you considered the errors of Josephus?

[Richbee]

OK, I'm going to have to make this fairly quick, but I'll do what I can.

Richbee, I grew up Fundamentalist Christian.

What is a "fundamentalist"?

Heck, I went to college and learned many of the arguments you've been quoting well enough that I could stand in the middle and work my way towards either end.

Sorry, but as a New Englander, we don't place much stock in any Southern colleges. :nsm:

I grew up in the town with the former Bible College, Dartmouth, founded by A a preacher from another Bible University - Yale, which was founded by another Theologian and preacher from Harvard.

Holy Hades, Justin, one of my ancestors graduated from Yale, and taught Greek - Hebrew in 1779 to Indians at Datmouth, and we trace my Mothers family back twice crossed over to the great William Elder Brewester of Pilgrim fame. (Not not a Puritan)

The problem was, in learning the Bible that well, I was also learning the history ... and the history I was learning wasn't jibing with the scripture.

There are many mysteries I admit and many paradoxes. Most so called "contradictions" are reconciled and here in lies the rub, if you want to leave the Christian faith and then attack the Bible, no doubt you have some pebbles and stones to throw, but in the end, you have no proof!

Just conjecture and speculation based on your own bias rooted in spiritual deception. Once deceived, always deceived and with an ax (angst) to grind.

Etc, etc, hubris noted, and again be careful about Luke, or Paul; please no rigging of the debate, all so called "evidence" must be evaluted according to fair and reasonable rules of evidence!

Hmmm, speaking of RULES and EVIDENCE!



Dr. Simon Greenleaf has written:

"Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise.

An ancient document, offered in evidence in our courts, is said to come from the proper repository, when it is found in the place where, and under the care of persons with whom, such writings might naturally and reasonably be expected to be found; for it is this custody which gives authenticity to documents found within it. If they come from such a place, and bear no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes that they are genuine, and they are permitted to be read in evidence, unless the opposing party is able successfully to impeach them. the burden of showing them to be false and unworthy of credit, is devolved on the party who makes that objection.

Source:: Click Here (www.myfortress.org/simongreenleaf.html)

[technomage]

There are many mysteries I admit and many paradoxes. Most so called "contradictions" are reconciled and here in lies the rub, if you want to leave the Christian faith and then attack the Bible, no doubt you have some pebbles and stones to throw, but in the end, you have no proof!

Just conjecture and speculation based on your own bias rooted in spiritual deception. Once deceived, always deceived and with an ax (angst) to grind.

Rich, if you'd like to throw temper tantrums, call names, and generally act like a child, may I suggest a different forum ... say, Yahooligans, or something to that effect.

On the other hand, if you'd like to stay here and discuss substantive issues like an adult, then might I request that you act like an adult.

Up to you.

Justin

[Amazing Rando]

The main point that is NOT even addressed by all the speculation is that
when Herod the king ruled in Judah, Augustus Ceasar did not have the legal authority to conduct a cencus in Judaah at all. It wasn't until Judah became part of the providence of Syria (In 6. C.e.) that he had that authority.

I'd dispute that. Judea had been under de facto Roman control since 63 BCE (I think that's the right date!) when Pompey decided he wasn't leaving Jerusalem. Herod was nothing but a puppet of the Roman empire to give the Jews the semblance of autonomy. He'd even received his kingship directly from Augustus himself.

If Caesar wanted to do something, he just did it! It's like the question of where the 1,000 pound gorilla can sit. Arguing that the census never took place is one thing, but arguing that it could not have taken place due to Augustus' lack of authority is very weak. You'd do better to stick with the former.

[FirstSunday33ad]

According to other sources, ie, other than Luke and Josephus, the "census" was in reality a reform of the tax records. Up until the time of Augustus, the Senate contracted tax farmers for various districts and told them how much tax was to be collected for that region. The tax farmers would then squeeze the money out of the people. This method naturally led to enormous corruption and it was found that some regions were paying three or four times more in taxes than had been levied.

Augustus reformed the system by ceasing the contracting of tax collection and employing tax-men employed by the Government. He also determined the amount of tax each region was to pay by the size of its population. Areas with few people paid less then those with many. This however, created a problem - how to seperate actual inhabitants with visitors or non-residents.

To solve this problem, people were required to return to the town of their birth and register themselves. This registry was then used as the basis for the tax that would be levied. It was a momuemental reform that took years, possibly decades to complete and lessened to a great the degree the amount of corruption that existed in the tax-gathering.

[technomage]

Greetings, FirstSunday33ad,

Do you have a reference for those sources? I've never heard anything like this from contemporary texts.

Justin

[FirstSunday33ad]

Greetings, FirstSunday33ad,

Do you have a reference for those sources? I've never heard anything like this from contemporary texts.

Justin

Hello:

I am at work so I don’t have access to the books, but Cassius Dio mentions the tax problems and Augustus’ reform, as does the Res Gestea. Luke himself states that “all the world should be taxed”. The statement that people had to return to their home cities to register is also mentioned by Dio. I believe there was another source for this information, but as I said I haven’t access to them just yet. I will follow this up when home and put something together for you.

[technomage]

Hello:

I am at work so I don’t have access to the books, but Cassius Dio mentions the tax problems and Augustus’ reform, as does the Res Gestea. Luke himself states that “all the world should be taxed”. The statement that people had to return to their home cities to register is also mentioned by Dio. I believe there was another source for this information, but as I said I haven’t access to them just yet. I will follow this up when home and put something together for you.

No problem: I look forward to seeing it when you get access to your references. :thumb:

Justin

[bandecoot]

I have let justin play long enough. He has been unspeakably cruel to you all.

This is a link to the Res Gestae Divi Augustus in which the dates of all Census in his Reign are listed.

Bear in mind that A Lustrum is a sacrifice held at the end of a census at which the numbers were anounced. That is fairly important, as a lustrum held in say 8bc was in fact announcing a census held earlier in the year or even the previous one.

Another thing to recall was that a Senatorial Census was for the enlarged Senate and was not a general Census of Citizens. It was a way of purging the senate of the unworthy or undesirable from the senate.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Augustus/Res_Gestae/home.html

Its in Latin, Greek and in translation to English. It also has footnotes explaining various terms and practices.

Of course if you dont accept Bill Thayers site I can suggest a few other online resources from Tufts University and other places.

You could of course just go and buy a bunch of texts and study them yourself , like I did. But that assumes time and money you may not have.

I suggest you go straight to section 2 which contains all the info you will need. all dates are in the footnotes.


Andrew: Who has just trumped Jasons ace.

[Amazing Rando]

No problem: I look forward to seeing it when you get access to your references. :thumb:

Justin

FirstSunday just started a good thread in Apologetics 301 on this if you're still interested.

[cweb255]

On the reliability of Luke.

First of all, Luke should be treated like every other historian, id est naturally with skepticism. If every historian would be taken at face value, then surely the world was created multiple times with multiple gods. Herodotus or Genesis? Papyrus of Ani or Gospel of Mark?

Some things should be obvious is Sir William Ramsay's arguments being fallacious. One, to say that Luke was a doctor and that gives creedence to the virgin birth is assuming two things, one that Colossians is authentic, which is disputed greatly even today, and two that Luke not only examined Mary before she was born, but that it was recorded somewhere, both preposterous and highly assumptuous. No such thing was recorded from Luke (but there was in the apocryphal Gospel of James if you want to make such a claim there).

And the style of a person's writings should never be a factor in their authenticity, as Tacitus wrote in a very erudite style, and as an esteemed hitorian, yet his mentionings of the Roman Gods doing such and such acts are never taken at face value.

Your point is null. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim, and you claim Luke's narrative is history, thus prove it.

[Richbee]

Rich, if you'd like to throw temper tantrums, call names, and generally act like a child, may I suggest a different forum ... say, Yahooligans, or something to that effect.

Ummm, like Dude, have you seen my latest thread in the Locker Room?

On the other hand, if you'd like to stay here and discuss substantive issues like an adult, then might I request that you act like an adult.

Up to you.

Justin

Hmmmm, I think like, Dude, I been cool over here, on account of the stuffy air, and the Library like atmosphere! :ahem:

J.P. Holding is correct, Biblical Skeptics are a waste of time! They never study Greek or Hebrew, or even History!

Why bother with these @#$&%!

Josephus made more than a few errors and the so called "skeptics" have little hard facts to go on.

The Bible is the best source for this History and Luke is the greatest ancient Historian - bar none!

Richbee Classic Redux!

The Biblical nihilists are refuted again!



Here is what the Gospel of Luke actually says:

In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. (NRSV).

The notion that a census would occur simultaneously throughout the entire Empire at one point is an anachronism. That’s the way we do it in the United States, in a highly centralized process administered by the federal (central) government during a discreet time period. Such a feat was not possible in ancient times. And note that Luke does not actually describe the census being carried out through the entire empire. He merely states that Augustus decided and made it official policy that the entire Roman world be registered

And it appears that Luke was on to something. As Ben Witherington notes:

If Luke is not simply indulging in rhetorical hyperbole, it is not absolutely necessary to take Luke 2:1 to mean that the whole empire was enrolled at once. What the Greek suggests is that Caesar decreed that "all of the Roman world be enrolled."

The present tense of the verb apographoand the use of pos suggest that what Caesar was decreeing was the extension of the enrollment already going on in some parts of the empire to the rest of the empire. Historian A.N. Sherwin -White reminds us,

"A census or taxation-assessment of the whole provincial empire . . . was certainly accomplished for the first time in history under Augustus."

(New Testament History, page 65.)

F.F. Bruce writes:

The reference in Luke 2:2 to Quirinius as governor of Syria at the time of the birth of Christ (before the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC) has frequently been thought to be an error, because Quirinius is known to have become imperial legate of Syria in AD 6, and to have supervised in that year the enrollment mentioned in Acts 5:37, which provoked the insurrection led by Judas of Galilee. But it is now widely admitted that an earlier enrollment, as described in Luke 2:1 ff.,

(a) may have taken place in the reign of Herod the Great,

(b) may have involved the return of everyone to his family home,

(c) may have formed part of an Empire wide census, and ...

(d) may have been held during a previous governorship of Quirinius over Syria.

a) Josephus informs us that towards the end of Herod's reign, that the Emperor Augustus treated him more as a subject than as a friend,' and that all Judea took an oath of allegiance to Augustus as well as to Herod. The holding of an imperial census in a client kingdom (as Judaea was during Herod's reign) is not unparalleled; in the reign of Tiberius a census was imposed on the client kingdom of Antiochus in eastern Asia Minor.

(b) The obligation on all persons to be enrolled at their domiciles of origin, which made it necessary for Joseph to return to Bethlehem, has been illustrated from an edict of AD 104, in which C. Vibius Maximus, Roman prefect of Egypt, gives notice as follows: 'The enrollment by household being at hand, it is necessary to notify all who for any cause whatsoever are away from their administrative divisions to return home in order to comply with the customary ordinance of enrolment, and to remain in their own agricultural land.'

(c) There is scattered evidence of the holding of enrollments in various parts of the Empire between 1 and 8 BC, the papyrus evidence in the case of Egypt being practically conclusive.

(d) There is good inscriptional evidence that when Quirinius took up office in Syria in AD 6 this was the second occasion on which he served as imperial legate. The first occasion was when he commanded an expedition against the Homanadensians, a mountain tribe of Asia Minor, some time between 12 and 6 BC. But our evidence does not state expressly in which province he was imperial legate at this earlier date. Sir William Ramsay argued that the province was Syria. We have, however, a continuous record of governors of Syria for those years, which leaves no room for Quirinius; Ramsay suggested that he was appointed as additional and extraordinary legate for military purposes. On the other hand, a good case has been made out for believing that his first term of office as imperial legate was passed in Galatia, not in Syria.

The question is not yet finally decided, but it may be best to follow those commentators and grammarians who translate:

'This census was before that which Quirinius, governor of Syria, held'.'


Source: Click HERE (www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocc07.htm)

[bandecoot]

Ummm, like Dude, have you seen my latest thread in the Locker Room?



Hmmmm, I think like, Dude, I been cool over here, on account of the stuffy air, and the Library like atmosphere! :ahem:

J.P. Holding is correct, Biblical Skeptics are a waste of time! They never study Greek or Hebrew, or even History!

Why bother with these @#$&%!

Josephus made more than a few errors and the so called "skeptics" have little hard facts to go on.

The Bible is the best source for this History and Luke is the greatest ancient Historian - bar none!

Richbee Classic Redux!

The Biblical nihilists are refuted again!



Here is what the Gospel of Luke actually says:

In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. (NRSV).

The notion that a census would occur simultaneously throughout the entire Empire at one point is an anachronism. That’s the way we do it in the United States, in a highly centralized process administered by the federal (central) government during a discreet time period. Such a feat was not possible in ancient times. And note that Luke does not actually describe the census being carried out through the entire empire. He merely states that Augustus decided and made it official policy that the entire Roman world be registered

And it appears that Luke was on to something. As Ben Witherington notes:

If Luke is not simply indulging in rhetorical hyperbole, it is not absolutely necessary to take Luke 2:1 to mean that the whole empire was enrolled at once. What the Greek suggests is that Caesar decreed that "all of the Roman world be enrolled."

The present tense of the verb apographoand the use of pos suggest that what Caesar was decreeing was the extension of the enrollment already going on in some parts of the empire to the rest of the empire. Historian A.N. Sherwin -White reminds us,

"A census or taxation-assessment of the whole provincial empire . . . was certainly accomplished for the first time in history under Augustus."

(New Testament History, page 65.)

F.F. Bruce writes:

The reference in Luke 2:2 to Quirinius as governor of Syria at the time of the birth of Christ (before the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC) has frequently been thought to be an error, because Quirinius is known to have become imperial legate of Syria in AD 6, and to have supervised in that year the enrollment mentioned in Acts 5:37, which provoked the insurrection led by Judas of Galilee. But it is now widely admitted that an earlier enrollment, as described in Luke 2:1 ff.,

(a) may have taken place in the reign of Herod the Great,

(b) may have involved the return of everyone to his family home,

(c) may have formed part of an Empire wide census, and ...

(d) may have been held during a previous governorship of Quirinius over Syria.

a) Josephus informs us that towards the end of Herod's reign, that the Emperor Augustus treated him more as a subject than as a friend,' and that all Judea took an oath of allegiance to Augustus as well as to Herod. The holding of an imperial census in a client kingdom (as Judaea was during Herod's reign) is not unparalleled; in the reign of Tiberius a census was imposed on the client kingdom of Antiochus in eastern Asia Minor.

(b) The obligation on all persons to be enrolled at their domiciles of origin, which made it necessary for Joseph to return to Bethlehem, has been illustrated from an edict of AD 104, in which C. Vibius Maximus, Roman prefect of Egypt, gives notice as follows: 'The enrollment by household being at hand, it is necessary to notify all who for any cause whatsoever are away from their administrative divisions to return home in order to comply with the customary ordinance of enrolment, and to remain in their own agricultural land.'

(c) There is scattered evidence of the holding of enrollments in various parts of the Empire between 1 and 8 BC, the papyrus evidence in the case of Egypt being practically conclusive.

(d) There is good inscriptional evidence that when Quirinius took up office in Syria in AD 6 this was the second occasion on which he served as imperial legate. The first occasion was when he commanded an expedition against the Homanadensians, a mountain tribe of Asia Minor, some time between 12 and 6 BC. But our evidence does not state expressly in which province he was imperial legate at this earlier date. Sir William Ramsay argued that the province was Syria. We have, however, a continuous record of governors of Syria for those years, which leaves no room for Quirinius; Ramsay suggested that he was appointed as additional and extraordinary legate for military purposes. On the other hand, a good case has been made out for believing that his first term of office as imperial legate was passed in Galatia, not in Syria.

The question is not yet finally decided, but it may be best to follow those commentators and grammarians who translate:

'This census was before that which Quirinius, governor of Syria, held'.'


Source: Click HERE (www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocc07.htm)



For all of your rhetoric you fail with your paper rich. You failed to cite even one primary source even though it was provided for you.

The Res Gestae Divi Augustus which lists each of the census during his Reign.

If we are discussing Roman census practice it is usual to cite Roman sources.

I have already given the dates of the Lustrum which happened durig Augustus' reign with links to the source in Latin Greek and English. I also gave you mainstream scholarship links to verify the dates. As I am sure you are aware a Lustrum was the ceremony which marked the close of a census. so you have at the very least a TPQ for each of them.

Considering that Augustus knew when he did things , He being the one who did them. I think that trumps any speculation on the part of NT scholars.

Andrew

[FirstSunday33ad]

For all of your rhetoric you fail with your paper rich. You failed to cite even one primary source even though it was provided for you.

The Res Gestae Divi Augustus which lists each of the census during his Reign.

If we are discussing Roman census practice it is usual to cite Roman sources.

I have already given the dates of the Lustrum which happened durig Augustus' reign with links to the source in Latin Greek and English. I also gave you mainstream scholarship links to verify the dates. As I am sure you are aware a Lustrum was the ceremony which marked the close of a census. so you have at the very least a TPQ for each of them.

Considering that Augustus knew when he did things , He being the one who did them. I think that trumps any speculation on the part of NT scholars.

Andrew

I fail to understand how the Res Gestae Divi Augustus compromises Luke. If anything it confirms that Luke knew what he was talking about.

The census mention in the Res of 8bce is the census that caused Joseph to return to his home to register. The Res is the extra-biblical source that confirms this fact of history.

[bandecoot]

I fail to understand how the Res Gestae Divi Augustus compromises Luke. If anything it confirms that Luke knew what he was talking about.

The census mention in the Res of 8bce is the census that caused Joseph to return to his home to register. The Res is the extra-biblical source that confirms this fact of history.


You may wish to rethink that. The 8 B.C census, may have in fact been started in 9, 10 or late 11 B.C depending on when the Lustrum was conducted, the 8 B.C date is for the Lustrum, the ceremony which marks the end of a census. Not the date of the census itself. Then there is the date on which Quirinus took offiice which is not known from Roman Sources.
have a look for yourself:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Augustus/Res_Gestae/2*.html

Look in the footnotes for an explanation of Lustra.

This is not as simple as it may seem on a superficial reading, which is why it's a disputed point.

But I do thank you for your interest.


Andrew

[Richbee]

You may wish to rethink that. The 8 B.C census, may have in fact been started in 9, 10 or late 11 B.C depending on when the Lustrum was conducted, the 8 B.C date is for the Lustrum, the ceremony which marks the end of a census. Not the date of the census itself. Then there is the date on which Quirinus took offiice which is not known from Roman Sources.
have a look for yourself:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Augustus/Res_Gestae/2*.html

Look in the footnotes for an explanation of Lustra.

This is not as simple as it may seem on a superficial reading, which is why it's a disputed point.

But I do thank you for your interest.


Andrew

There is no reason to doubt Luke, and no fixed facts about the census process or dates in Palestine.

[Richbee]

I have already given the dates of the Lustrum which happened durig Augustus' reign with links to the source in Latin Greek and English. I also gave you mainstream scholarship links to verify the dates. As I am sure you are aware a Lustrum was the ceremony which marked the close of a census. so you have at the very least a TPQ for each of them.

Considering that Augustus knew when he did things , He being the one who did them. I think that trumps any speculation on the part of NT scholars.

Andrew

In summary, you really don't "know" what your talking about!

You can only speculate about how, when and where the original Augustian census may have occureed in Palestine or specically Bethleham.

[technomage]

Hi, Charleen,

With your permission, I'm going to continue our discussion here. It's a less "busy" thread, so I'll have a greater ability to keep up with your responses here--the thread you started is quite busy, and while tremendously civil , it's hard to keep up with.

OK, let's take your statements one by one.

I understood, but I think we can accept class 2 for other reasons than a prior acceptance of class one. But, not really a point of the argument.

Charlene, Class 2 statements require faith ... OK, I can see that. But here we have a document (Luke 2 specifically, the Bible in general) with both Class 1 claims and Class 2 claims. We're told that bnoth the Class 1 and Class 2 claims are "Truth" ... yet at first glance, some of the Class 1 claims are not accurate. Now, this may not be a point of your argument, but it is a significant part of my hesetation at accepting the Class 2 claims: I am told that the entire document is "Truth," yet if the Class 1 claims are not accurate, how can I accept the Class 2 claims?

One, I don't think it nessesary to bring up Josephus or the other examples. We are not discussing the reliability of those other accounts. I know what you were doing, but I don't think it fair.

Charleen, when I examine the history of Wicca (my own faith), I compare the historical claims to actual history: this means I compare my documents with other documents, with archaeological evidence, with (whenever possible) eyewitness acounts. If the history claims of Wicca dealt with the time period Josephus wrote about, I would certainly use Josephus as a comparative ... and frankly, if there was a discrepancy, Josephus would probably get more credence from me than the Wiccan History.

I want to take things individually. Measure each evidence on its own merit and not the merit of other arguments. I think this "problem" of Quirinius is reasonably answered. Why bring up other things?

Because the problem of Quirinius is not "answered," it has been explained away--and falsely at that. The objections you mentioned (that Quirinius was made governor on more than one occasion, or that Luke 2:2 has been mistranslated) are statements made without evidence: actually, the second is made contrary to the available evidence, as I will demonstrate later.

Charleen, by making those statements, I am not accusing you of lying: you have read information that you accepted in good faith. However, the information you have read was wrong.

And I am not like the others to whom you refer. I do accept evidence, as long as it is reasonable. My sig. line sums me up. Try me on this, as you are able and your health permits.

OK, we'll walk through this ... but I must ask for three conditions.
1: Do not take my word as authoritative without checking the information with reliable scholarship. In this particular case, the areas of scholarship we will be investigating are Greek semantics (a fancy word that basically means "Greek words and how they're used"), and Roman history.
2: Do not let the level of scholarship throw you. I will do my best to break things down in plain English (I have to, or I get confused), but some of the stuff is pretty technical. If I can't explain something to your satisfaction, I'll find someone who can--as a matter of fact, I'd recommend Jantus for the Greek stuff right off the bat.
3: Do not be afraid to challenge my conclusions or ask questions. Hey, goes right along with Point 1. I'm just as capable of being factually incorrect as anyone else.

If those conditions are OK with you, we can proceed. I'll start with the translation issue first.

----- Start: Greek Semantics -----

Second, the Greek in Luke 2:2 can be translated as "This enrollment (census) was before that made when Quirinius was governor of Syria." (Bruce, Christian Origins, p. 192.) If this were the case, Luke dated the census before Quirinius took over the governorship.

Let's look at the Greek.

auth apografh prwth egeneto hgemoneuontoV thV suriaV kurhniou.

Now, at first glance, that's gonna look like so much chickenscratch if you're not familiar with Greek, so here are the same words in Roman ("English") letters.

Aute apograthe prote egeneto 'egemoneuontos tes surias kureniou.

Now, right off there are a few words you'll recognize, if you're at all familiar with how Grrek does things. The word surias is Greek for Syria, kureniou is Quirinius (or Cyrenius), and 'egemoneuontos is Hegemon--Greek for Governor. Let's get a word-for-word translation going.

Aute = This
Apograthe = registration
Prote = first
Egeneto = happened
'Egemoneuontos = "He Governed"
tes = the or this (definite article)
Surias = Syria
Kureniou = Quirinius

Now, of course, Greek grammar is not like English, but a good translation of the sentence is "This registration first happened when Quirinius governed Syria."

But someone wants to tell you that Prote should not be translated as "First," but as "Before." Charlene, there's a problem with this ... but this is where we get into Greek semantics. Prote (or Proton) is what is referred to as the "superlative" of Pro--it goes Pro (the base adjective, like "good") Proteron (the comparative, like "better"), Proton (the superlative, like "best").

Pro definitely means "Before." Proteron means "Before." Proton, however, almost always means "First"--there is one place (that I am aware of) where it does not: that place is John 15:18, and only in the King James version.

If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.

The decision to translate Proton as "First" is not perfect, but it is the most reasonable translation that we have available, and (to my mind) far more accurate than translating the passage as "This enrollment (census) was before that made when Quirinius was governor of Syria."

I'll drop a note to Jaltus to have him check my Greek.

Justin

[FirstSunday33ad]

You may wish to rethink that. The 8 B.C census, may have in fact been started in 9, 10 or late 11 B.C depending on when the Lustrum was conducted, the 8 B.C date is for the Lustrum, the ceremony which marks the end of a census. Not the date of the census itself. Then there is the date on which Quirinus took offiice which is not known from Roman Sources.
have a look for yourself:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Augustus/Res_Gestae/2*.html

Look in the footnotes for an explanation of Lustra.

This is not as simple as it may seem on a superficial reading, which is why it's a disputed point.

But I do thank you for your interest.


Andrew

:lol: That's funny. "thanks for your interest" wasn't what you were saying when we first tusselled.

Simple fact is Bandi, the census and Luke agree and as I demonstrated in my earlier thread in apologetics, there is sufficient evidence to show that the Augustus reforms required registration in the city of birth.

BTW - do you now have a better idea of the actual birth of Jesus or do you still hold it was 1 BC/AD?

[bandecoot]

:lol: That's funny. "thanks for your interest" wasn't what you were saying when we first tusselled.

Simple fact is Bandi, the census and Luke agree and as I demonstrated in my earlier thread in apologetics, there is sufficient evidence to show that the Augustus reforms required registration in the city of birth.

BTW - do you now have a better idea of the actual birth of Jesus or do you still hold it was 1 BC/AD?

I make no claims one way or another, as I am fairly sure there is no evidence as to when he was born. I was unaware of the birthdate of Christ was an article of faith with any of the various sects.

Which Census agrees with luke? You have a few to choose from. As for your evidence I dont recall it being compelling as you used sourses from a long time prior and a long time after, where as the most compelling evidence from the person who ordered census' is something you ignore.

Roman citizens were required to return to their homes, have you any evidence that Joseph was a Roman citizen? Provincials were not required to return home as they were had no place in the voting procedures of Rome.

I have one other minor quibble, if Luke intended to give a date why not just give the names of the Consuls of that year as was the custom in those days?

But you are entitled to your opinions, what ever they are, I have worked out that not much in the way of facts will change your pressupositions, so for me its a case of "why bother trying".

Thus my rather diffident reply to you.

[Richbee]

Because the problem of Quirinius is not "answered," it has been explained away--and falsely at that. The objections you mentioned (that Quirinius was made governor on more than one occasion, or that Luke 2:2 has been mistranslated) are statements made without evidence: actually, the second is made contrary to the available evidence, as I will demonstrate later.

You have only your faith in the lack of your own "evidence".

So pony up?

One need only read Josephus and discover a very sloppy Historian, but we can gather that Palestine was very dynamic and changing always.

"Syria" was changing and morphing over and over.

So no one has "proof" as to who exactly Quirinius was with DNA samples and a resume or track record.

For that matter, who was Pontius Pilate?

Where did he go to hide after his adventures with the Jews?

And, why is Josephus silent on so many topics, dates and names???

[Jaltus]

Let's look at the Greek.

auth apografh prwth egeneto hgemoneuontoV thV suriaV kurhniou.

Now, at first glance, that's gonna look like so much chickenscratch if you're not familiar with Greek, so here are the same words in Roman ("English") letters.

Aute apograthe prote egeneto 'egemoneuontos tes surias kureniou.

Now, right off there are a few words you'll recognize, if you're at all familiar with how Grrek does things. The word surias is Greek for Syria, kureniou is Quirinius (or Cyrenius), and 'egemoneuontos is Hegemon--Greek for Governor. Let's get a word-for-word translation going.

Aute = This
Apograthe = registration
Prote = first
Egeneto = happened
'Egemoneuontos = "He Governed"
tes = the or this (definite article)
Surias = Syria
Kureniou = Quirinius

Now, of course, Greek grammar is not like English, but a good translation of the sentence is "This registration first happened when Quirinius governed Syria."

But someone wants to tell you that Prote should not be translated as "First," but as "Before." Charlene, there's a problem with this ... but this is where we get into Greek semantics. Prote (or Proton) is what is referred to as the "superlative" of Pro--it goes Pro (the base adjective, like "good") Proteron (the comparative, like "better"), Proton (the superlative, like "best").

Pro definitely means "Before." Proteron means "Before." Proton, however, almost always means "First"--there is one place (that I am aware of) where it does not: that place is John 15:18, and only in the King James version.

If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.

The decision to translate Proton as "First" is not perfect, but it is the most reasonable translation that we have available, and (to my mind) far more accurate than translating the passage as "This enrollment (census) was before that made when Quirinius was governor of Syria."

I'll drop a note to Jaltus to have him check my Greek.

Justin

Justin is likely correct. However, proth is not the superlative form, it is in fact the ordinal itself. That means its usage can be stretched, and only with a genetive. In this case, the genetive would be Quirinius' name itself (actually the whole phrase, but you know what I mean). In that case, it sometimes (rarely) can function as a preposition (commentaries note John 1:15, 30; 15:18; 19:39, for example, though not all have genetives).

I'd like to study this more before I'd make any final decision on it, but that might be a while.

- Jaltus