quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by rodahi:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Metacrock:
Now this time please read all the words.
Tutornm says the census in Luke 2 didn't take place.

rodahi: According to Robin Lane Fox, Michael is correct. Fox states, "The scale of the Gospel's error is now clear. The first census did occur under Quirinius, but it belonged in A.D. 6 when Herod the Great was long dead; it was a local census in Roman Judaea and there was no decree from Caesar Augustus to all the world; in A.D. 6 Joseph of Nazareth would not have registered at Bethlehem: as a Galilean he was under direct Roman rule and was exempt from Judaea's registration; his wife had no legal need to leave home. Luke's story is historically impossible and internally incoherent. It clashes with his own date for the Annuciation (which he places under Herod) and with Mathew's long story of the Nativity which also presupposes Herod the Great as king. It is, therefore, false." The Unauthorized Version, P. 31.

Metacrock: No! The AD 6 date is ruled out by several sources, all of the sources I've posted above rule it out specifically not only historically but also on the grounds of the textual passage itself.He's clealry not talking about that census, and Martin says that in no uncertain terms.

No, no, no! The 6 CE date is NOT ruled out. There is no good reason to think Fox is incorrect in his statement.

rodahi

Metacrock: That's not the census to which Ramsay is refuring. That was a one time shot. He's talking about an on going mechinism that was still in place in the second and thrid centuries. So this is not the same thing.

rodahi: The writer of “Luke” speaks of ONE census: “And it came to pass in those days that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.” (2:1-3KJV)

Metacrock: No that is an imporper reading. The Greek implies "before" And "taxed" could just mean "enrolled." See the quotes I've already put up that is dealt with completely.

No, no, no. There is no "improper" reading of the Greek or English. You have NOT dealt with this issue "completely" or otherwise.

Metacrock: In fact there is a ludicrous page on the infidels site that also asserts this.

rodahi: What makes the site "ludicrous?"

Metacrock: It ignores the facts I've demonstrated.

rodahi: And you have ignored the facts Robin Lane Fox stated.

Metacrock: No I did not! You just quote him being wrong about which date, and I dealt the date, I ruled out the AD 6 census in one of the early posts on this thread.

You have not proved Fox is incorrect. You have quoted a few Christian apologists.

[b]Metacrock: Read the Martin quote again (if you ever did)

[QUOTE]" A sixth reason for placing the nativity of Jesus in 3 or 2 B.C. isthe coincidence of this date with the New Testament account that Jesus was born at the time when a Roman census was being conducted: "There went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the IRoman] world should be registered" (Luke 2:1). Historians have not been able to find any empire-wide census or registration in the years 7-5 B.C., but there is a reference to such a registration of all the Roman people not long before 5 February 2 B.C. written by Caesar Augustus himself: "While I was administering my thirteenth consulship [2 B.C.] the senate and the equestrian order and the entire Roman people gave me the title Father of my Country" (Res Gestae 35, italics added). This award was given to Augustus on 5 February 2 B.C., therefore the registration of citizen approval must have taken place in 3 B.C. Orosius, in the fifth century, also said that Roman records of his time revealed that a census was indeed held when Augustus was made "the first of men"--an apt description of his award "Father of the Country"--at a time when all the great nations gave an oath of obedience to Augustus (6:22, 7:2). Orosius dated the census to 3 B.C. And besides that, Josephus substantiates that an oath of obedience to Augustus was required in Judea not long before the death of Herod (Antiquities I7:4I-45). This agrees nicely in a chronological sense with what Luke records. But more than that, an inscription found in Paphlagonia (eastern Turkey), also dated to 3 B.C., mentions an "oath sworn by all the people in the land at the altars of Augustus in the temples of Augustus in the various districts." And dovetailing precisely with this inscription, the early (fifth century) Armenian historian, Moses of Khoren, said the census that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem was conducted by Roman agents in Armenia where they set up "the image of Augustus Caesar in every temple.''. The similarity of this language is strikingly akin to the wording on the Paphlagonian inscription describing the oath taken in 3 B.C. These indications can allow us to reasonably conclude that the oath (of Josephus, the Paphlagonian inscription, and Orosius) and the census (mentioned by Luke, Orosius, and Moses of Khoren) were one and the same. All of these things happened in 3 B.C."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Metacrock: That establishes the passage as speaking about a census before 6AD, probably in 3BC and there was such a census! That is direct proof.

Again, no, no, no! At no point in the quote of ancient documents is there a mention of a CENSUS! The fact is, it is imagined by the Christian commentator whom you quoted.

rodahi

My main problem with the whole census thing is that at the time (under Herod the Great)neither Judea or Galilee were under Roman rule so it mattered little what Augustus ordered. Even if you go forward to the 6AD census this would not affect anyone living in Galilee as it was not under Roman rule at that time either (although Judea had become a protectorate by this time) it was an independent nation under the rule of Herod Antipas.

Amen-Moses

Meta, either you're pulling my leg or you're going to be lots of fun.

Hello! THIS thread. Here's a link. Try again.

To correct something I said earlier, that I think you missed anyway... Judea came under Roman control in 63 B.C. when Jerusalem was captured by Pompey. They were allowed to keep their own rulers though they were heavily influence by Rome.

In 6 A.D., Judea was made an official Roman province. This was when the Roman Emperor appointed a prefect or procurator (like Pilate) to the province.

In other words, they had been under the thumb of the Romans for quite some time, so the census mentioned in Luke is likely.

Ish


[This message has been edited by Ish (edited June 03, 2001).]

I'm sorry but my understanding is that Herod was sole autonomous ruler and there was no Roman intervention until 6AD (and then only in Judea. Samaria otoh was under Roman rule so there may very well have been a census there but that should not have impinged on Judea or Galilee.

Rome did try to take the Nabatean empire in 63 BCE but were ceremoniously kicked up the rear end, thereafter Rome supplied military aid and especially building know how in order to strengthen the southern border (i.e Masada was built with Roman know how but was manned entirely by Herod.

Amen-Moses

Around 63 B.C., Pompey attempted to resolve a dispute in Judea between two leaders vying for power. One of them, Aristobulus, angered Pompey, so Pompey took him prisoner and then took Jerusalem in 63 B.C. This is directly from An Introduction to Early Judaism by James C. Vanderkam (2000).

Vanderkam says, "The city of Jerusalem fell to him in 63 BC, the beginning of the fateful Roman rule that was to last for centuries. The Romas, who had for a long time been the allies of the Judeans, were now their masters." Also, "Pompey left Scaurus in charge of the area and turned toward Rome, taking Aristobulus and his family with him as prisoners." Much of this history can be found in Josephus. I believe this is also mentioned in Raymond Brown's New Testament History.

Obviously, Rome was quite in control of this area. I believe Syria had already come under their control. Galilee could not withstand that kind of pressure and would have also been subject to the whims of Rome's puppet kings in the area.

A census in this setting is likely.

Ish


[This message has been edited by Ish (edited June 03, 2001).]

Ish: In other words, they had been under the thumb of the Romans for quite some time, so the census mentioned in Luke is likely.

It seems it is only Christian apologists who wish to claim that the writer of Luke was not in error.

Be that as it may, I will present the arguments of Emil Schurer AGAINST the Lucan census. The following are from The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, I, ii, pp. 114-133.

1. "Of a general imperial census in the time of Augustus, history otherwise knows nothing."

2. "Under a Roman census, Joseph would not have been obliged to travel to Bethlehem, and Mary would not have required to accompany him thither...It is...remarkable that Luke makes it appear as if Mary had been obliged to travel with Joseph in order to be taxed. No such requirement could have been made by a Roman census."

3. "A Roman census could not have been made in Palestine during the time of King Herod...When Quirinius in A.D. 7 undertook to make a census in Judea, this was quite in order; for Judea had been converted into a Roman province. On the other hand, Luke would have us believe that a Roman census had been made in Palestine, at a time when Palestine, under Herod the Great, was still an independent kingom, under the suzerainty of Rome. After all that we have come to know about the position of the regis socii toward the Romans, and especially in regard to the position of Herod, this seems impossible."

4. "Josephus knows nothing of a Roman census in Palestine in the time of Herod: speaks rather of the census of A.D. 7 as something new and previously unheard of."

5. "A census held under Quirinius could not have occurred in the time of Herod, for Quirinius was never governor of Syria during the lifetime of Herod."

rodahi

Just to make sure the point is driven home, up until the Romans deposed Herod's successor, Archelaus, in 6 A.D. Judaea was a vassal state of Rome. Josephus tells us that a Roman census occured at that time. Before that time, the kings of Judaea were responsible for taxation, and providing tribute. Which is why the census described by Luke couldn't have occurred before then: the Romans didn't directly control that province until 6 AD.

People might want to check out Carrier's http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...quirinius.html Problems with the Nativity of Luke. Not a favorite of theists, of course, but until I see a refutation of the facts and interpretation presented (instead of a personal attack on Carrier because he is an atheist), given the documentation Carrier provides, his presentation is entirely convincing.

Richard Carrier

Please read my essays before criticising them. This 14 year cycle is largely a myth. I discuss it at length.

There is no reason to suppose Luke meant any other census than the one Josephus describes, and even if he meant another one, the description cannot refer to any census in Judaea before 6 AD because there never was one: Judaea was not Roman until Archelaus was deposed in 6 AD.

Again, I discuss all this at great length. Read it.