Freethought & Rationalism Archive

06-04-2001, 02:16 PM

Actually, let's put Carrier's discussion of the 14 year myth here on the board where everyone can easily see it. That way, we can compare what real historical research looks like next to the hyperbole and misrepresentation we often see from the theistic side.

Quote:

But it [the alleged 14 year cycle] is such a glaring error that it must be corrected. First, all these claims take for granted the reality of an "empire-wide registration" (based on what Luke appears to say, cf. box above), but there never was such a thing until the massive enrollment made by Vespasian and Titus in 74 A.D.[12.15] Thus, since censuses were scattered and never uniform, no "cycle" could ever have been a uniform reality. We know of only two provinces which, owing to their peaceful nature and unusually well-organized infrastructure, were regularly assessed: Sicily and Egypt. Second, the constitutional census cycle for counting Roman citizens was actually five years, and this was actually maintained in Sicily in rare conjunction with a regular census of non-citizens in that province. This was only due to the fact that it had been placed under a special tax system by the kings that ruled the island before the Roman conquest, which the Romans simply continued.[12.2] But regular civil war and the unwieldly size of the empire in the 1st century B.C. resulted in this cycle being disrupted elsewhere. Even after the civil wars were ended, Augustus was only able to complete three of the general censuses in his long reign, which were only of Roman citizens, not provincial inhabitants. These were taken in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and 14 A.D.[12.3] This flatly refutes any possibility of a fourteen year cycle for these censuses. One comes twenty years after another, then twenty two years after that.

As far as provincial censuses go, we have our second best information from Gaul. Censuses under Augustus were performed there in 27 B.C., 12 B.C., and 14 A.D. (this last was completed only two years later due to local unrest). None of these fits a fourteen-year cycle. Other provinces also fit no pattern. For instance, we also know that a census was taken in Cyrenaica (North Africa) in 6 B.C.[12.4] Our best information comes from Egypt, since from that province alone we actually have countless papyrus census returns. Egyptian administration was unique, for like that of Sicily, it was simply the system employed by its previous ruler (Queen Cleopatra), which the Romans found convenient to continue. In Egypt alone there was a fourteen-year cycle, and this was the direct consequence of a particular capitation tax unique to Egypt in which everyone paid an annual tax after reaching the age of fourteen. Since this tax did not exist in Judaea or Syria (in Syria, a different capitation tax began at age 12), the fourteen-year cycle would not apply to any census in which Quirinius was involved. That a census in year 6 matches the Egyptian cycle could well be a coincidence, or the result of a special reorganization of all the Eastern administrations in that year, and it does not entail that the cycle was observed in Syria or Judaea either before or after that year.[12.5] It could have been, or any other cycle, or no consistent cycle at all.

[This message has been edited by DennisMcD (edited June 04, 2001).]

06-04-2001, 07:12 PM

As the Romans Did: A Sourcebook in Roman History by Jo Ann Shelton (1997) mentions specifically that censuses occured every 5 years and in many cases required citizens to return to their place of origin. She also provides ancient sources to bolster her work. The idea of an ongoing census is not mythological as Carrier seems to imply.

Also, Carrier does not seem to understand the implications of Rome's conquering of Jerusalem in 63 B.C. Herod was a puppet king. He may have done great things under the guise of autonomy, but Rome's thumb was directly on him. Ancient sources talk of his shift in allegience from Mark Antony back to Octavian when he sensed Mark Antony losing. Herod knew who his masters were...

Again, the census was quite likely. I believe that historical probability lies ultimately in its favor.

Ish

06-04-2001, 07:58 PM

No one suggests Herod was independent. It's a question of administration. As a tributary, there was no reason for Romans to be counting noses in Judaea. They just wanted the money. How Herod raised it was his problem.

Also, Ish, I notice how possible keeps becoming likely in your posts. Couldn't have anything to do with the conclusion you want to reach, could it?

BTW, just to be clear, as far as I'm concerned, all that's at issue here is inerrancy. IMHO, some of the Gospels is good history, but too much isn't to sustain the proposition that the Bible is the literal inspired word of God. But it proves no more than that.

[This message has been edited by JubalH (edited June 04, 2001).]

06-04-2001, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DennisMcD:
Actually, let's put Carrier's discussion of the 14 year myth here on the board where everyone can easily see it. That way, we can compare what real historical research looks like next to the hyperbole and misrepresentation we often see from the theistic side.

Meta =>Now that is totally absurd to say that Carrier has the real research and imply that my sources are amatures. Ramsay did far more academically that I will wager Carrier will ever do in his life. Carrier may be a fine student of history, I don't know what kind of grades he makes, but I'm sure he's a good student. But he is only a student. He does not have his Ph.D. He is not a professor. I quote five sources, all of the are professors, they have their Ph.D's and a couple of them were recognized as big wheels in their fields. So that is absurd to say that Carrier's research is "the real thing" and Ramsay's isn't.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But it [the alleged 14 year cycle] is such a glaring error that it must be corrected. First, all these claims take for granted the reality of an "empire-wide registration" (based on what Luke appears to say, cf. box above), but there never was such a thing until the massive enrollment made by Vespasian and Titus in 74 A.D.[12.15] Thus, since censuses were scattered and never uniform, no "cycle" could ever have been a uniform reality.

Meta =>That's just empirically disproven. Ramsay found the records, we have the records. Even if it wasn't 14 years, there was one in 6BC and one in 3 BC so that gives two possibilities for being the one Luke had in mind.

Quote:

We know of only two provinces which, owing to their peaceful nature and unusually well-organized infrastructure, were regularly assessed: Sicily and Egypt.

Meta =>The census in 3 BC was found in Armenia and Asia Minor so that is also empirically disproven.

Quote:

Second, the constitutional census cycle for counting Roman citizens was actually five years, and this was actually maintained in Sicily in rare conjunction with a regular census of non-citizens in that province. This was only due to the fact that it had been placed under a special tax system by the kings that ruled the island before the Roman conquest, which the Romans simply continued.[12.2] But regular civil war and the unwieldly size of the empire in the 1st century B.C. resulted in this cycle being disrupted elsewhere. Even after the civil wars were ended, Augustus was only able to complete three of the general censuses in his long reign, which were only of Roman citizens, not provincial inhabitants. These were taken in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and 14 A.D.[12.3] This flatly refutes any possibility of a fourteen year cycle for these censuses. One comes twenty years after another, then twenty two years after that.

MEta => Two fallacies here. First, he's assuming its about taxes. The word used can mean a census for anything, not just taxes. Secondly, We know from Josephus that Cesar ordered Herod to conduct the census in his provence. So is emprical evidence that Carrier is just wrong.

Quote:

As far as provincial censuses go, we have our second best information from Gaul. Censuses under Augustus were performed there in 27 B.C., 12 B.C., and 14 A.D. (this last was completed only two years later due to local unrest). None of these fits a fourteen-year cycle. Other provinces also fit no pattern. For instance, we also know that a census was taken in Cyrenaica (North Africa) in 6 B.C.[12.4] Our best information comes from Egypt, since from that province alone we actually have countless papyrus census returns. Egyptian administration was unique, for like that of Sicily, it was simply the system employed by its previous ruler (Queen Cleopatra), which the Romans found convenient to continue. In Egypt alone there was a fourteen-year cycle, and this was the direct consequence of a particular capitation tax unique to Egypt in which everyone paid an annual tax after reaching the age of fourteen. Since this tax did not exist in Judaea or Syria (in Syria, a different capitation tax began at age 12), the fourteen-year cycle would not apply to any census in which Quirinius was involved. That a census in year 6 matches the Egyptian cycle could well be a coincidence, or the result of a special reorganization of all the Eastern administrations in that year, and it does not entail that the cycle was observed in Syria or Judaea either before or after that year.[12.5] It could have been, or any other cycle, or no consistent cycle at all.

Meta =>AGain, he's limited his research to taxes.

Ok so let's see what we have learned.

The amature fake resarcher makes sure of his facts,studies the words and finds the empirical data.

The "real historan" Ignores what the words mean, dogmatically excludes possibilities that don't flatter his bias, and ignore empricial data that counts directly as disproof of his theisis. o thanks for showing me how history works.

06-04-2001, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JubalH:
No one suggests Herod was independent. It's a question of administration. As a tributary, there was no reason for Romans to be counting noses in Judaea. They just wanted the money. How Herod raised it was his problem.

Meta =>You are assuming it was about taxes. This misconcept could have been avoided had you read the original post. It was not necessarily a census for taxes, but to asscess the overall strength of the empire. There would ceratinly be a reason for the Romans to "count noses" in Judea in any case, the more noses the more money! Reason enough. But you can't understand who is in the empire if you don't count them all.

Quote:

Also, Ish, I notice how possible keeps becoming likely in your posts. Couldn't have anything to do with the conclusion you want to reach, could it?

Meta =>I notice how empirical becomes ignored in all of your posts.

Quote:

BTW, just to be clear, as far as I'm concerned, all that's at issue here is inerrancy. IMHO, some of the Gospels is good history, but too much isn't to sustain the proposition that the Bible is the literal inspired word of God. But it proves no more than that.

Meta =>I don't argue for inerrency. what is at issue is the census argument as it feeds into the larger picture of the Gospel material as historically grounded rather than an attempt to write mythology.

06-04-2001, 11:31 PM

Ah, ace scholar Meta is back in the saddle. Find my first post yet?

Guess what, I did understand the point and made a pertinent, even prescient comment. When you've caught up, I'll take up your subsequent posts.

ps - Remember, it's on this thread, p.1.

pps - Decided not to start a new thread on the fish story after all. Used the old one.

06-05-2001, 08:18 AM

Quote:

JubalH:
No one suggests Herod was independent. It's a question of administration. As a tributary, there was no reason for Romans to be counting noses in Judaea. They just wanted the money. How Herod raised it was his problem.

As Meta says, this is only if you take the census to be purely for taxation which was not always the case (though it certainly was in the census of 6 AD).

The Dictionary of New Testament Background says: "Herod's being a client king, and the inevitable difficulties with transition of power in such a context, might well have led Augustus to extend the Egyptian census of 4/3 BC or perform one something like it in Judea." The existence of the Egyptian censuses during the appropriate period seems to be a good indicator.

Quote:

JubalH:
Also, Ish, I notice how possible keeps becoming likely in your posts. Couldn't have anything to do with the conclusion you want to reach, could it?

JubalH, I won't say I didn't, but I don't think I did. The post before this last one also reads "likely." I certainly believe in the possibility of Luke's census being during Herod's final years. However, possibilities range from low to high, not very likely to likely. I happen to believe it is likely.

Quote:

JubalH:
BTW, just to be clear, as far as I'm concerned, all that's at issue here is inerrancy. IMHO, some of the Gospels is good history, but too much isn't to sustain the proposition that the Bible is the literal inspired word of God. But it proves no more than that.

Too often people dismiss the stories as errors when it is quite possible that we simply don't understand what is meant by the evidence. Besides, why does everyone always assume if there is an error that it must be in the Bible? Could the errors possibly be in our interpretation of the data, or another ancient historian's error? Don't be so quick to jump on perceived Biblical errors...

Ish

06-05-2001, 09:44 AM

Hey Ish. Okay, the proposition that it's possible the Romans did a census in Judaea is potentially sustainable. I don't think so, mainly because of how Josephus describes the 6 AD census, but that's interpretation.

As to the Bible, I've not been around long enough to know. Are you an NT inerrantist? Difficult to address your questions without knowing whence you're coming.

06-05-2001, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Metacrock:
the Census and other matters

Metracock. As far as I know there were 5 census. Site, Herring, Smel, Tuch and Taset

Boro uNt

06-05-2001, 10:12 AM

Quote:

JubalH:
As to the Bible, I've not been around long enough to know. Are you an NT inerrantist? Difficult to address your questions without knowing whence you're coming.

I do not consider myself an inerrantist (though the term is somewhat subjective). I suppose that, for me, someone in the Bible could have reported a fact incorrectly. However, I see no reason to dismiss a Biblical account until I see an absolute refutation of it. From the information that I have seen, I believe that Luke's account is probable and in agreement with Matthew.

Ish

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-04-2001, 07:12 PM	#82
Guest Posts: n/a	As the Romans Did: A Sourcebook in Roman History by Jo Ann Shelton (1997) mentions specifically that censuses occured every 5 years and in many cases required citizens to return to their place of origin. She also provides ancient sources to bolster her work. The idea of an ongoing census is not mythological as Carrier seems to imply. Also, Carrier does not seem to understand the implications of Rome's conquering of Jerusalem in 63 B.C. Herod was a puppet king. He may have done great things under the guise of autonomy, but Rome's thumb was directly on him. Ancient sources talk of his shift in allegience from Mark Antony back to Octavian when he sensed Mark Antony losing. Herod knew who his masters were... Again, the census was quite likely. I believe that historical probability lies ultimately in its favor. Ish

06-04-2001, 07:58 PM	#83
Guest Posts: n/a	No one suggests Herod was independent. It's a question of administration. As a tributary, there was no reason for Romans to be counting noses in Judaea. They just wanted the money. How Herod raised it was his problem. Also, Ish, I notice how possible keeps becoming likely in your posts. Couldn't have anything to do with the conclusion you want to reach, could it? BTW, just to be clear, as far as I'm concerned, all that's at issue here is inerrancy. IMHO, some of the Gospels is good history, but too much isn't to sustain the proposition that the Bible is the literal inspired word of God. But it proves no more than that. [This message has been edited by JubalH (edited June 04, 2001).]

06-04-2001, 11:31 PM	#86
Guest Posts: n/a	Ah, ace scholar Meta is back in the saddle. Find my first post yet? Guess what, I did understand the point and made a pertinent, even prescient comment. When you've caught up, I'll take up your subsequent posts. ps - Remember, it's on this thread, p.1. pps - Decided not to start a new thread on the fish story after all. Used the old one.

06-05-2001, 09:44 AM	#88
Guest Posts: n/a	Hey Ish. Okay, the proposition that it's possible the Romans did a census in Judaea is potentially sustainable. I don't think so, mainly because of how Josephus describes the 6 AD census, but that's interpretation. As to the Bible, I've not been around long enough to know. Are you an NT inerrantist? Difficult to address your questions without knowing whence you're coming.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.