Peter Kirby

I know that you certainly didn't mean your sentence quite so strictly, but the client kingdom of Judea was subject to tax under Herod. Taxes were collected by a network of tax collectors who were ultimately responsible to Herod. Herod himself had to pay tribute to Caesar. So there is no reason for us to doubt--and, more relevantly, no reason for Luke to doubt--that Herod could have conducted his own registrations for the purpose of taxation. Further, Luke may have thought that Herod was instructed to conduct such a registration by Augustus. Of course, such an event may not have happened.

best,
Peter Kirby

Diogenes the Cynic

there is no historical support for a census under Herod the Great and it would have been something very unlikely to have gone unremarked upon by other Jewish historians.

ETA, you're right, though. I should have said that Judea was not subject to a ROMAN census under Herod the Great.

Peter Kirby

Luke may have thought that Herod was instructed to conduct such a registration by Augustus. Of course, such an event may not have happened.

The fact that Josephus didn't mention it does not show it didn't happen. Carlson points out (in my link) that Josephus has a possibly artificial narrative framework for the Judas the Galilean / census of Quirinius affair. And there is no other ancient historian whom we would expect to mention it.

Of course, such an event might not have happened in any case.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

I've drawn up a diagram of what I think is the position that has emerged from those who have responded to my original arguments (my arguments being admittedly simple and possibly to the point of naivete).



Is this an accurate depiction of what everyone else here thinks? Suggestions, questions, other alternatives?

best,
Peter Kirby

Diogenes the Cynic

I would say that this is an argument from absence at best.

Chris Weimer

Once, again, Peter, your diagram is far too overly simplistic. At some point in time, all three knew each other.

Diogenes the Cynic

It looks good to me but after reading and pondering on this issue for the last few days, I'm starting to warm up to the Farrer Hypothesis.

Diogenes the Cynic

how could they all three know each other?

Do you mean to suggest that Mark knew Luke and Matthew before they were written?

Toto

Where's Yuri?

Peter Kirby

While you're still warm, my short bibliography on the subject includes:

The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Appraisal, ed. Bellinzoni
Questioning Q, ed. Nicholis Perrin
The Case Against Q, ed. Mark Goodacre

Last I checked, they are all on Amazon for pretty cheap.

best,
Peter Kirby