Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Benjamin Franklin · 10-09-2002, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby:
I will leave at one side the issue of whether such a pre-Quirinius census is historically probable.

It would be informative to hear your opinion on this issue

BF

Peter Kirby · 10-09-2002, 12:34 AM

Hi BF,

It is my opinion that a Roman census was invariably undertaken for the purposes of taxation (or conscription or both) and that it is nearly impossible that a census had already been undertaken while Herod lived because the census of Quirinius in 6/7 CE (later!) generated violent resistance, which is what you would expect from the first census to take place in Judaea. It is also my opinion that Josephus, who had access to extensive data on Roman activity in the time period, would have been aware of a pre-6 CE census and would not have failed to notice this precedent for a census when recounting the one that took place under Quirinius in 6/7 CE--especially if, as some believe, Quirinius was responsible for the census in each case. Penultimately, it is my opinion that the Romans never even attempted such a massive and complicated project as attempting to conduct a census of the entire empire with all its provinces at the same time. Rather, each province went through its own cycles of census-taking--one such cycle, that in Egypt every 14 years between ca. 33 and ca. 257, has been mistaken as applying to the entire empire by some. Finally, despite the fact that a census was an exercise in record-keeping, no record or echo of a record is preserved to secular history of a census of the world under Augustus or of a census of Judaea under Herod. Rather, in the words of Fitzmyer (op. cit., p. 400): "Aside from this statement here in Luke (and of later Christian and pagan writers who depend on him), there is no ancient evidence of a universal, worldwide registration or census ordered by Caesar Augustus. No ancient historian tells of a Roman census conducted on this scale in the time of Herod the Great (37-4 B.C.)."

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman · 10-09-2002, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
Perhaps Sauron can enlighten us as to which characteristics he/she has in mind. I was merely
responding to this statement by Sauron: As far as I can tell, unless the ruler is
indeed a Roman one, a al Pontius Pilate over Judea, you have, ipso facto, "indirect governance'.

Cheers

I haven't seen Sauron support his claim that there was a big difference in governance between Cappadocia and Judaea. He's latching on to one vauge reference on a limited website. Everything written by historians on the subject seems to confirm the strong parrallels.

Paul Barnett is a Professor of Ancient History at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia.

Quote:

Can we envisage such a Roman census earlier, during Herod's reign (37-4 BC)? There is no other evidnce (beyond Lk. 2:2; cf. Lk 1:5) of such a census. Herod was, after all, a client king, levying his own taxes. Surely a client king institututing a Roman census is unimaginable. In point of fact, however, a client ruler introducing a Roman-style census independently of Rome is known. Archelaus the Younger of Cappadocia did this in A.D. 36. Significantly, there had been extensive connections between Archaelaus's father, also named Archelaus, and Herod. Herod arranged an interdynastic marriage between his own son Alexander and Archelaus the Elder's daugher Glaphyra. Archelaus the Elder also visited Judea in the latter years of Herod. If Herod had conducted a census, Archelaus the Elder, and therefore also his son, would have known it. Archelaus' known use of a census in a client kingdom, which had close ties with Herod, leaves open the possibility that Herod conducted a Roman-style census for his own tax-gather purposes.

Paul Barnett, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity, at 98-99.

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

Layman · 10-09-2002, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by Peter Kirby:
It is also my opinion that Josephus, who had access to extensive data on Roman activity in the time period, would have been aware of a pre-6 CE census and would not have failed to notice this precedent for a census when recounting the one that took place under Quirinius in 6/7 CE--especially if, as some believe, Quirinius was responsible for the census in each case.

I'm not advancing the theory that Quirnius was responsible for both census. I'm still skeptical of such arguments.

Penultimately, it is my opinion that the Romans never even attempted such a massive and complicated project as attempting to conduct a census of the entire empire with all its provinces at the same time. Rather, each province went through its own cycles of census-taking--one such cycle, that in Egypt every 14 years between ca. 33 and ca. 257, has been mistaken as applying to the entire empire by some. Finally, despite the fact that a census was an exercise in record-keeping, no record or echo of a record is preserved to secular history of a census of the world under Augustus or of a census of Judaea under Herod. Rather, in the words of Fitzmyer (op. cit., p. 400): "Aside from this statement here in Luke (and of later Christian and pagan writers who depend on him), there is no ancient evidence of a universal, worldwide registration or census ordered by Caesar Augustus. No ancient historian tells of a Roman census conducted on this scale in the time of Herod the Great (37-4 B.C.)."

I do not think Luke needs to be, or necessarily should be, read to require such a broad, one-time, emperor-wide census.

As Ben Witherington notes:

Quote:

If Luke is not simply indulging in rhetorical hypoerbole, 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. Hiostrian A.N. Sherwin-White remind sus, "A census or taxation-assesment of the whole provincial empire .. was certainly accomplished for the first time in history under Augustus." Luke then would be referring in a general way to this unprecedented event. []There is some evidence of a census in Judea during the governorship of Saturinius between 9 and 6 B.C. We know that Herod had lost some of his autonomy after 10 B.C. when he fell into disfavor with Augustus due to the war with the natabteans. It is possible that Rome might have imposed a taxaion on Herod as a reprisal for his violation of the Pax Romana in the region.

New Testament History, at 65.

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

Layman · 10-09-2002, 07:33 AM

There has been some discussion of the proposed solution that the author of Luke-Acts was referring to a census before the famous census for the purposes of taxation of Quirinius (not that there is another kind of census made by ancient Romans). I will leave at one side the issue of whether such a pre-Quirinius census is historically probable. In order to show that Richard Carrier is not the only historian to disagree with that interpretation of the Greek, I will quote the respected Catholic scholar Joseph A. Fitzmyer (The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, p. 401).

Pearson has addressed Fitzmyer's argument:

Quote:

Joseph Fitzmyer's argument against the comparative sense of prote in this passage is perhaps the most perplexing. Although he admits that the comparative sense of the word is attested and could have been intended in Luke 2:2 if Luke had written, he considers it impossible in Luke 2:2 because of the word order, which includes a genitive absolute whose first word is a participle. "Moreover," he writes, any interpretation of the verse in which prote is taken as a comparative is "obviously a last-ditch solution to save the historicity involved. It is trying to make Luke more accurate than he really is." It is difficult to understand why the attested Hellenistic use of prote in a comparative sense is not possible in this context, or why the participle renders such an interpretation of this verse impossible. Fitzmyer gives no evidence.

It seems that what we have here in Luke's use of prote is either unique, with the sense of the entire clause coming from the genitive absolute, or is a usage to be explained the other way around, with the sense of the genitive absolute coming from the rest of the clause. To decide this issue, we will begin by surveying Hellenistic use of.

Among the meanings associated with prote is the sense of time, "first, earliest, earlier." Perhaps the most interesting example of this in the New Testament for the present purpose is John 1 :15, 30: translated either "he was earlier than I" or "he was before me." There are also at least two significant examples outside the New Testament. The first is Aristotle Ph. 8.8 (263a lines 11-12): "therefore, in the earlier words (books, studies) concerning movement." Clearly, in this instance cannot be made to mean "first," unless one posits that there is more than one "first," which would beg, of course, for such a sense as the one given in my translation. The second example, Athenaeus Deipnosophistae 14.630c, is from Egypt at the end of the second century or beginning of the third. The topic is the origin of movements in dancing: Here too must have the sense of "earlier" or "before." So, although Luke's parallels are few in extant Greek literature, he is by no means without company.

In Luke 2:2, however, the verb and the genitive absolute must also be explained. The verb is a verb of existence, and though it is not strictly a copulative verb like , it often functions very similarly. If prote functions copulatively here, we may have a use very similar to what we see in John 1:15 and 1:30. The genitive absolute in this case really, then, must take its sense from the preceding construction (contra Fitzmyer). As in John 1:15, 30, we have, then a linking verb, then a genitive. We have the same thing here in Luke 2:2. A genitive absolute is not a finite verb after all, even though it may function similarly. A genitive absolute does not grammaticalize time; rather, as with other participial constructions, it often gains its sense from other grammatical constructions. The sense of time must come from surrounding deictic indicators, not from the verb forms themselves. The sense of time in this verse, therefore, must be sought primarily from the context of the verse and from deictic markers within the verse. The only possible deictic marker in this clause is [Greek word lost in my copy]. If [it] functions [in Luke 2:2] as it does in John 1:15, 30, the sense of the verse is, "This census was earlier than (or before) Quirinius governed Syria."

While it is often customary to translate genitive absolutes with a "while" attached to them, this is by no means necessary or even to be recommended.

In Luke-Acts there are several examples in which the genitive absolute must be construed with the sense of "after" or "when" (Luke 11:14, 29; 12: 1; 22:59; Acts 7:30; 13:43; 14:20; 25:13), and at least one example where it must be construed with a future meaning (Luke 21:26). This pattern holds true not only for the Greek of the New Testament but also for Hellenistic Greek generally. In Luke 2:2, then, we must turn to the surrounding context to determine the particular time frame in question. We have seen that the idea of "earlier" or "before" for is an acceptable Hellenistic sense. Thus, the genitive absolute in this verse is not determinative at all, and it must take its sense from the preceding construction.

"The Lucan censuses, revisited", The Catholic Biblical Quarterly; Washington; Apr 1999; Brook W R Pearson.

Moreover, in addition to the scholars I listed above who accept the "former" interpretation as reasonable, I want to add:

Ben Witherington, New Testament History, 65-66

William Temple, Readings in St. John's Gospel, 17

John Nolland, Luke 1-9:20, at 101

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

Layman · 10-09-2002, 07:42 AM

It is my opinion that a Roman census was invariably undertaken for the purposes of taxation (or conscription or both) and that it is nearly impossible that a census had already been undertaken while Herod lived because the census of Quirinius in 6/7 CE (later!) generated violent resistance, which is what you would expect from the first census to take place in Judaea. It is also my opinion that Josephus, who had access to extensive data on Roman activity in the time period, would have been aware of a pre-6 CE census and would not have failed to notice this precedent for a census when recounting the one that took place under Quirinius in 6/7 CE....

This is a classic example of why this verse is problematic no matter how you interpret it. Luke is either referring to a "former" census of which we have no direct record, the "first" census under Quirinius -- an impossibility since his reign lasted only two years --, or, the "first" census in Judaea generally, leaving open the possibility of later census under other rulers.

But this latter interpretation is also problematic. As N.T. Wright notes, "Why should Luke say that Quirinius' census was the first? Which later ones was he thinking of?" Who Was Jesus, at 89.

Does Josephus record any other census' in Judaea prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE? Or at all in his writings? I was under the impression that he did not, but if you know of a reference I would -- of course -- modify my position accordingly.

If not, however, you have the same problem interpreting it as "first" as those interpreting it as "prior" -- no record of a mentioned census. And the problem facing the "first" interpretation implying later census may be even more severe if our records after such things would be more likely to mention such a census -- as seems to be the case because after the Qurinius census Rome ruled Judaea directly and would have administered the census' directly.

In fact, the reason that Josephus notes the census under Quirinius is because of the disturbances it caused. To assume, however, that any census -- even if conducted by a Jewish king -- would generate the same hostility is unfounded. The reason that the Quirinius census caused such an uproar is because it was ordered as a result of Rome's assumption of direct control over Judaea. It struck at the core of Jewish resenment of direct Roman rule. That would not have been so under a census under Herod, who was unpopular but known for keeping the peace and efficient administration.

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

Peter Kirby · 10-09-2002, 07:45 AM

Hi Layman,

Before I look into this any further, I would like to ask what is at stake here.

If it could be established that Luke 2:1-3 implies a historical improbability, what would follow from that?

If it could be established that there is a plausible reading of Luke 2:1-3 that does not entail any inaccuracy, what have we lost or gained?

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman · 10-09-2002, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by Peter Kirby:
Hi Layman,

Before I look into this any further, I would like to ask what is at stake here.

Fair enough, but perhaps this question should be asked of all participants since so many others seem as interested in the issue as I am.

For example, you have decided to intervene in tehd discussion, what is at stake here for you?

If it could be established that Luke 2:1-3 implies a historical improbability, what would follow from that?

Well, for the record, I think the arguments I have been responding to are doing much more than claiming that the verses "imply" a "historical improbability." The argument seems to be that Luke certainly made a mistake.

First, as I've said before, one of my primary areas of interest is Luke/Acts, so I'm interested in the issue from that perspective. I also admit that because of my study of Luke/Acts and have found him to be a rather reliably writer when it comes to the "details" of Roman and local governments, I'm intrigued by the idea he may have bungled this one so badly.

Second, I'm sure many people who believe in inerrancy find this to be a powerful religious issue. I'm not one of them, but I admit that as a Christian I have a general bent towards advacning the case -- if there is a legitmate, convincing one to be made -- for accuracy. However, my faith certainly does not rest on Luke's accuracy re: the census. In many ways, it would be the most understandable mistake to make, since he is writing about something that is furthest from his own life.

If it could be established that there is a plausible reading of Luke 2:1-3 that does not entail any inaccuracy, what have we lost or gained?

Much of this is answered above.

I would add that we would have gained a renewed appreciation for Luke's accuracy -- well-attested in Acts -- about Roman and local governence.

If the "former/prior" reading of these verses is plausible, hardcore skeptics have "lost" one more argument against the accuracy of Luke as an early Christian writer.

Sauron · 10-09-2002, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
Perhaps Sauron can enlighten us as to which characteristics he/she has in mind.

The status of province was different than the status of buffer state or client kingdom. It implied that a provincial law was set down, magistrates sent to rule, empowered with imperium, a census was taken wheneer a new region was acquired and turned into a province (usually as the result of war), etc.

Quote:

I was merely
responding to this statement by Sauron: As far as I can tell, unless the ruler is
indeed a Roman one, a al Pontius Pilate over Judea, you have, ipso facto, "indirect governance'.

It's the difference between having Roman control directly working and administering a province, and allowing a client state/kingdom to continue its affairs and simply pay tribute. Cappadocia was the former, after 17 AD.

Cheers[/QB][/QUOTE]

Layman · 10-09-2002, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:


Paul Barnett, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity, at 98-99.

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

In addition to Professor of Ancient History Paul Barnett, local authority Richard Carrier also believes that Cappadocia was run by a client-king.

Quote:

Indeed, the only case we even know of a client king trying to conduct a Roman-style census actually ended in just such a disaster....

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Herod" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Herod</a>

Although Carrier goes on to argue that "whereas Cappadocia was then already under more direct, punitive Roman control (Annals 2.42), Herod the Great enjoyed the greatest favor and freedom of any client king ever under Roman influence and thus any Roman attempt to "force" Herod to run a census would have been inexplicable and unprecedented" he is overlooking related historical developments before the alleged birth of Christ that resulted in substantial limitations on Herod's power.

Quote:

Herod had lost some of his autonomy after 10 B.C. when he fell into disfavor with Augustus due to the war with the Natabteans. It is possible that Rome might have imposed a taxation on Herod as a reprisal for his violation of the Pax Romana in the region.

Ben Witherington, New Testament History, at 65.

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

10-09-2002, 07:42 AM	#186
Layman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 2,635	It is my opinion that a Roman census was invariably undertaken for the purposes of taxation (or conscription or both) and that it is nearly impossible that a census had already been undertaken while Herod lived because the census of Quirinius in 6/7 CE (later!) generated violent resistance, which is what you would expect from the first census to take place in Judaea. It is also my opinion that Josephus, who had access to extensive data on Roman activity in the time period, would have been aware of a pre-6 CE census and would not have failed to notice this precedent for a census when recounting the one that took place under Quirinius in 6/7 CE.... This is a classic example of why this verse is problematic no matter how you interpret it. Luke is either referring to a "former" census of which we have no direct record, the "first" census under Quirinius -- an impossibility since his reign lasted only two years --, or, the "first" census in Judaea generally, leaving open the possibility of later census under other rulers. But this latter interpretation is also problematic. As N.T. Wright notes, "Why should Luke say that Quirinius' census was the first? Which later ones was he thinking of?" Who Was Jesus, at 89. Does Josephus record any other census' in Judaea prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE? Or at all in his writings? I was under the impression that he did not, but if you know of a reference I would -- of course -- modify my position accordingly. If not, however, you have the same problem interpreting it as "first" as those interpreting it as "prior" -- no record of a mentioned census. And the problem facing the "first" interpretation implying later census may be even more severe if our records after such things would be more likely to mention such a census -- as seems to be the case because after the Qurinius census Rome ruled Judaea directly and would have administered the census' directly. In fact, the reason that Josephus notes the census under Quirinius is because of the disturbances it caused. To assume, however, that any census -- even if conducted by a Jewish king -- would generate the same hostility is unfounded. The reason that the Quirinius census caused such an uproar is because it was ordered as a result of Rome's assumption of direct control over Judaea. It struck at the core of Jewish resenment of direct Roman rule. That would not have been so under a census under Herod, who was unpopular but known for keeping the peace and efficient administration. [ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

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

10-09-2002, 12:34 AM	#182
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Hi BF, It is my opinion that a Roman census was invariably undertaken for the purposes of taxation (or conscription or both) and that it is nearly impossible that a census had already been undertaken while Herod lived because the census of Quirinius in 6/7 CE (later!) generated violent resistance, which is what you would expect from the first census to take place in Judaea. It is also my opinion that Josephus, who had access to extensive data on Roman activity in the time period, would have been aware of a pre-6 CE census and would not have failed to notice this precedent for a census when recounting the one that took place under Quirinius in 6/7 CE--especially if, as some believe, Quirinius was responsible for the census in each case. Penultimately, it is my opinion that the Romans never even attempted such a massive and complicated project as attempting to conduct a census of the entire empire with all its provinces at the same time. Rather, each province went through its own cycles of census-taking--one such cycle, that in Egypt every 14 years between ca. 33 and ca. 257, has been mistaken as applying to the entire empire by some. Finally, despite the fact that a census was an exercise in record-keeping, no record or echo of a record is preserved to secular history of a census of the world under Augustus or of a census of Judaea under Herod. Rather, in the words of Fitzmyer (op. cit., p. 400): "Aside from this statement here in Luke (and of later Christian and pagan writers who depend on him), there is no ancient evidence of a universal, worldwide registration or census ordered by Caesar Augustus. No ancient historian tells of a Roman census conducted on this scale in the time of Herod the Great (37-4 B.C.)." best, Peter Kirby

10-09-2002, 07:45 AM	#187
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Hi Layman, Before I look into this any further, I would like to ask what is at stake here. If it could be established that Luke 2:1-3 implies a historical improbability, what would follow from that? If it could be established that there is a plausible reading of Luke 2:1-3 that does not entail any inaccuracy, what have we lost or gained? best, Peter Kirby

10-09-2002, 07:55 AM	#188
Layman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 2,635	Originally posted by Peter Kirby: Hi Layman, Before I look into this any further, I would like to ask what is at stake here. Fair enough, but perhaps this question should be asked of all participants since so many others seem as interested in the issue as I am. For example, you have decided to intervene in tehd discussion, what is at stake here for you? If it could be established that Luke 2:1-3 implies a historical improbability, what would follow from that? Well, for the record, I think the arguments I have been responding to are doing much more than claiming that the verses "imply" a "historical improbability." The argument seems to be that Luke certainly made a mistake. First, as I've said before, one of my primary areas of interest is Luke/Acts, so I'm interested in the issue from that perspective. I also admit that because of my study of Luke/Acts and have found him to be a rather reliably writer when it comes to the "details" of Roman and local governments, I'm intrigued by the idea he may have bungled this one so badly. Second, I'm sure many people who believe in inerrancy find this to be a powerful religious issue. I'm not one of them, but I admit that as a Christian I have a general bent towards advacning the case -- if there is a legitmate, convincing one to be made -- for accuracy. However, my faith certainly does not rest on Luke's accuracy re: the census. In many ways, it would be the most understandable mistake to make, since he is writing about something that is furthest from his own life. If it could be established that there is a plausible reading of Luke 2:1-3 that does not entail any inaccuracy, what have we lost or gained? Much of this is answered above. I would add that we would have gained a renewed appreciation for Luke's accuracy -- well-attested in Acts -- about Roman and local governence. If the "former/prior" reading of these verses is plausible, hardcore skeptics have "lost" one more argument against the accuracy of Luke as an early Christian writer.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.