Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Richbee · 05-03-2006, 10:55 PM

Luke 2:1

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

In the Greek Luke 2:2 can be translated as: "This enrollment (census) was before that made when Quirinius was governor of Syria."

So many posts and much brouhaha has been stirred up over these verses, but there are practical and fair minded reasoning to be drawn and rational inferences to be discrned here.

Logically speaking, the idea that a census would occur simultaneously throughout the Roman Empire is silly. IN the USA we have a highly centralized process administered by the federal government declaring a fixed year. Such a feat was not possible in ancient times. We should carefully consider exactly what Luke is specifying about the census process declared by Augustus. The Roman Emperor Augustus commanded that the whole of the empire would be registered to manage the tax base and the levy.

Ben Witherington writes:

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 apographo and 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.

Link: THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS

Are they Reliable?

By F.F. Bruce

So why do Skeptics get their underwear tied up in knots challenging the greatest ancient Historian Master Luke?

Do Skeptics have any real evidence to discredit Luke?

Vorkosigan · 05-03-2006, 11:00 PM

Quote:

So why do Skeptics get their underwear tied up in knots over little old pagan Augustus counting his subjects, Jews and gentiles alike?

Probably because it never happened.

Nightson · 05-03-2006, 11:05 PM

What sort of stupid ass census would have people return to the town where they were born?

Richbee · 05-03-2006, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightson

What sort of stupid ass census would have people return to the town where they were born?

Actually, better understood as returning to the family estate or farm, or Land. Augustus was interested in taxes, not Jewish prophesies regarding the Savior Messiah.

spin · 05-03-2006, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richbee

Luke 2:1

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

In the Greek Luke 2:2 can be translated as: "This enrollment (census) was before that made when Quirinius was governor of Syria."

Actually that doesn't seem to come from the text. Here it is:

auth h apografh prwth egeneto hgemoneuontos ths surias Kurhniou

literally, "this the taxing first was made (when) ruled Syria Quirinius".

There is no doubt that prwton and its derivatives are used in the new testament to mean "first" -- you know, first will become last etc.

Could you put forward your grammatical case for this irregular expanded translation please?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richbee

So many posts and much brouhaha has been stirred up over these verses, but there are practical and fair minded reasoning to be drawn and rational inferences to be discrned here.

Logically speaking, the idea that a census would occur simultaneously throughout the Roman Empire is silly. IN the USA we have a highly centralized process administered by the federal government declaring a fixed year. Such a feat was not possible in ancient times. We should carefully consider exactly what Luke is specifying about the census process declared by Augustus. The Roman Emperor Augustus commanded that the whole of the empire would be registered to manage the tax base and the levy.

Ben Witherington writes:

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 apographo and 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.

Link: THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS

Are they Reliable?

By F.F. Bruce

So why do Skeptics get their underwear tied up in knots challenging the greatest ancient Historian Master Luke?

Do Skeptics have any real evidence to discredit Luke?

I have no interest in discrediting Luke. I don't read the text as necessarily historical, let alone "the greatest ancient Historian".

Judea was not a province of the Roman Empire under the reign of Herod. It was a client kingdom and it administered by Herod independently. Rome didn't meddle in the affairs of client states in this manner, but let them tax themselves. It was more cost effective at the time. That indicates that any Roman census was after his reign, as a census was about taxation.

And it is difficult to see when one could insert a prior Quirinius prior "hegemony" over Syria. Maybe before the first rule of Varus 6 - 4 BCE, before the rule of Sentius Saturninus 4 - 2 BCE or before Varus second rule 2 - BCE? These opportunities seem rather unlikely. A census would require some months to carry out. When could Quirinius have been legate in those times, with enough time to organize and carry out the census (presuming he broke protocol and carried out an illegal census)?

spin

Amaleq13 · 05-04-2006, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richbee

[size=2]But it is now widely admitted that an earlier enrollment, as described in Luke 2:1 ff.,...

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

This is certainly not "widely admitted" but frequently asserted by apologists despite the idiocy of the notion and the total absence of any supporting evidence. Bruce joins this minority view, based on faith rather than reason, in citing an Egyptian census in which individuals abroad were required to return to their own homes. This does absolutely nothing to support the ridiculous requirement described in Luke that would have everyone who could trace their ancestry to David traveling to Bethlehem to be counted.

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-04-2006, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richbee

[size=2]Luke 2:1

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

In the Greek Luke 2:2 can be translated as: "This enrollment (census) was before that made when Quirinius was governor of Syria."

Spin beat me to this but this is a blatant falsehood. The passage cannot be translated that way. The Greek says "first" made with no ambiguity. Not only that but there was no Roman census of Judea before Quirinius became governor. That's because - get this - Judea was not a Roman province until then. It was part of a client kingdom under Herod and no Roman governor had any authority in Judea until it was annexed as a province in 6 CE. That's the whole reason that Quirinius imposed a census. It was the FIRST census after it became a Roman province.

Quote:

Logically speaking, the idea that a census would occur simultaneously throughout the Roman Empire is silly. IN the USA we have a highly centralized process administered by the federal government declaring a fixed year. Such a feat was not possible in ancient times. We should carefully consider exactly what Luke is specifying about the census process declared by Augustus. The Roman Emperor Augustus commanded that the whole of the empire would be registered to manage the tax base and the levy.

Ben Witherington writes:

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 apographo and 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."

The "whole world" thing is pretty much a minor point and could easily be conceded as hyperbole so it's kind of a diversionary tactic to bang on and on about. Having said that, please look at the phrase that I've highlighted in your Witherington quotation above. Can you guess why I highlighted it? Can you guess what I'm going to say? Here's a hint: when did Judea become part of the provincial empire?

Quote:

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.,

Not a single one of these things are "widely admitted" and none of them have a shred of evidentiary support. Taking them one by one:

Quote:

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

There was never a Roman census under Herod the Great. Palestine was a client kingdom, not a province, and was not subject to census or tax.,

Quote:

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

Completely false. This is neither "widely admitted" nor remotely credible.,

Quote:

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

Judea was not part of the Roman provincial Empire until 6 CE.,

Quote:

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

1. There is no evidence whatsoever for a previous govenorship of Syria by Qurinius.
2. We do know for a fact that he was NOT the governor of Syria in 4 BCE (because we know it was a guy named Quintilius Varus).
3. NO governor of Syria had any jurisdiction over Judea until 6 CE.

Quote:

Are they Reliable?

No.

Ben C Smith · 05-04-2006, 09:56 AM

Stephen Carlson has written up an interesting take on the census issue, with a follow-up and brief response from Mark Goodacre.

I frankly do not yet know whether or not I agree with him, but I think most will agree he is always a good read.

Ben.

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-04-2006, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Stephen Carlson has written up an interesting take on the census issue, with a follow-up and brief response from Mark Goodacre.

I frankly do not yet know whether or not I agree with him, but I think most will agree he is always a good read.

Ben.

Thanks for the links. I think that Carlson's hypothesis, while interesting, and perhaps even accurate as to Luke's intent, still does not lend his (Luke's) story any more historical plausibility (something I don't think Carlson is even trying to assert, by the way). There would still be no reason for Joseph to have to participate in any registration or Census before Quirinius and he certainly wouldn't have to go to Bethlehem for it. I'm not even sure Stephen's analysis even requires the author of Luke to have believed that the event took place before Quirinius. It would help to resolve the minor issue of how Luke thought Qurinius' census related to Augustus' "census of the world," but I don't see how it has to do anything more than that.

Julian · 05-04-2006, 10:17 AM

Here is Richard Carrier's take on Quirinius and the census: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...quirinius.html

Julian

05-03-2006, 10:55 PM	#1
Richbee Banned Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Falls Church, Virginia Posts: 264	Luke 2:1,2: Emperor Augustus and the Queer skepticism regarding Quirinius Luke 2:1 In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. (NRSV). In the Greek Luke 2:2 can be translated as: "This enrollment (census) was before that made when Quirinius was governor of Syria." So many posts and much brouhaha has been stirred up over these verses, but there are practical and fair minded reasoning to be drawn and rational inferences to be discrned here. Logically speaking, the idea that a census would occur simultaneously throughout the Roman Empire is silly. IN the USA we have a highly centralized process administered by the federal government declaring a fixed year. Such a feat was not possible in ancient times. We should carefully consider exactly what Luke is specifying about the census process declared by Augustus. The Roman Emperor Augustus commanded that the whole of the empire would be registered to manage the tax base and the levy. Ben Witherington writes: 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 apographo and 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. Link: THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS Are they Reliable? By F.F. Bruce So why do Skeptics get their underwear tied up in knots challenging the greatest ancient Historian Master Luke? Do Skeptics have any real evidence to discredit Luke?

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

05-03-2006, 11:05 PM	#3
Nightson Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Eurasia Posts: 1,133	What sort of stupid ass census would have people return to the town where they were born?

05-04-2006, 09:56 AM	#8
Ben C Smith Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Midwest Posts: 4,787	Stephen Carlson has written up an interesting take on the census issue, with a follow-up and brief response from Mark Goodacre. I frankly do not yet know whether or not I agree with him, but I think most will agree he is always a good read. Ben.

05-04-2006, 10:17 AM	#10
Julian Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark) Posts: 3,789	Here is Richard Carrier's take on Quirinius and the census: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...quirinius.html Julian

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.