Sauron

Actually, it *does* mean that. Egypt stands out, as a singular and atypical province - not just because of administration, but also because of its political arrangement, history, etc.

If you think Egypt and Judaea were integrated in many ways, feel free to list those ways, as well as the supporting documentation to prove those integrations.

Irrelevant. Roman control is not in question. The question on the table is one of a census. There simply are no examples of a census outside of a province. Period.

Of course ultimate authority was in the hands of Rome. So what? That doesn't change the fact that Egypt, as a province, was a "horse of a different color" when it came to administration and legal oversight.

Nor does it change the fact that any such "returning census" you think might have happened stands at least as good a chance of being a holdover from previous Egyptian practice, and not a Roman mandate at all.

You are coming up empty-handed so far, Haran.

None of which is relevant to this example of Egypt.

• Which Richard Carrier already addressed:
  http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...us.html#Apamea
  
  
  Quote:

  A.D. 36 - a census was imposed on the client kingdom of Archelaus of Cappadocia.

  Cappadocia was a province in AD 36, Haran. It became a province in 17 AD. Encyclopedia Britannica:
  
  Retained as a client state by Rome until annexed by Tiberius in AD 17, Cappadocia, with command over strategic passes in the Taurus, remained a bulwark of the Byzantine Empire until the 11th century.
  
  
  Quote:

  Nabatean kings (also allowed to mint their own coins) were apparently obliged to have Roman financial officers.

  Which says nothing about a census. The presence of Roman financial officers proves zero about census, especially since they were stationed there to collect tribute. Finally, the ability to mint coins proof that a city wasn't part of a province (see Carrier's comments above on Apamea).
  
  
  Quote:

  Augustus reduced the Samaritans taxes before Samaria was incorporated into a Roman province.

Which also says nothing about a census. I didn't say that non-provincial areas escaped taxation; I said that there are zero examples of a non-provincial area being subject to a Roman census.

Review Carrier's article for a description of the difference between taxation and census.

Pity they can't tell the difference between a census and a taxation.

The first part is correct (that Herod fell out of favor). There is no evidence for the 2nd half (that Herod's autonomy was taken away). Hoehner is fantasizing here, in order to create a springboard to pin his hopes for a census.

Except that Augustus had not taken censuses in any other vassal kingdom.

Sauron

PS Haran - I just finished watching another ossuary special on the PBS show "ThinkTank". They had Shanks and Meyers on as their guests.

Shanks quite handily dismissed the idea both of a Bethlehem location for the nativity, as well as any such census. They were literary devices intended to get Jesus down from Nazareth (where he didn't belong) to Bethlehem, city of David, where he did belong. That is, if he was going to be of the "house and lineage of David" and fulfill the Davidic line.

Haran

I caught part of this as well. I don't remember Shanks having an opinion on the Bethleham issue, but I do remember him stating that he believed that Luke was mixed up with the census issue.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean, though. Just because I believe similar to Shanks about the James ossuary, I should believe him on the issue of Luke's census?

Similarly, though Richard Carrier does some good research, I wouldn't trust him as my ultimate authority. I've noticed what he has to say about the ossuary and how seriously he seems to take Dr. Altman's claims. I don't believe he ever mentions the serious mistakes that she made. It seems as if he writes mostly to disprove Christianity just as some Christians write to prove. Just my opinion...

Fact is, there are still reasons to believe that Luke's census was a possibility and perhaps even a probability. Absense of evidence does not necessarily prove anything.

By the way, did you see the Discovery Channel special on the James Ossuary? Open and shut case for authenticity! Just kidding. I loved the "Spear of Jesus" show afterwards. Pure entertainment. I guess I thought the Discovery Channel would produce something a little more scholarly for the James Ossuary. I guess not (they actually had Dr. Altman on! ).

My absolute favorite part was when reknowned paleographer (who wrote a paleographical work that has pretty much become the standard for understanding ancient Hebrew / Aramaic scripts) Dr. Cross looked into the camera and said that the inscription was in one hand and that if it was forged, the forger would have to have been a genius.

Still waiting for that committee and some new info, but nothing so far. I want to know more about the scholars on the committee and their bias previous to studying the ossuary.

Sauron

Then you weren't paying attention. Shanks spent most of those moments in the discussion talking about the Nazareth/Bethlehem issue.
Not because you believe the same as Shanks about the ossuary.
But because you use Shanks as a reference witness on the James ossuary.
Probably because he disagrees with you that such mistakes were made.

Moreover, the points Carrier raised are good ones. And Kyle McCarter agrees that two hands are visible in the script; one from the correct time period; and another, from the 2nd century.

The fact that Carrier disagrees with your view of Altman is irrelevant. That doesn't make using Carrier as a reference for issues on the census is invalid; it simply means you've failed to prove your point about Altman.
Indeed - just your opinion.


1. You say"there are reasons to believe".
2. But then you speak about "absence of evidence".

Face it, Haran. If you had any real, verifiable "reasons to believe", then you wouldn't be stuck with an "absence of evidence".

There are no reasons to believe in Luke's census. And plenty of reasons to disbelieve in it. And, as your friend Shanks described, the most likely reason for creating the census was as a literary device to move Jesus' birth from Nazareth to Bethlehem.
No. And I skipped the previous show also, about Moses and the Red Sea. In fact, given the Discovery Channel's penchant for creating "docu-tainment" shows, I'm still not sure that I buy into their presentation of the ossuary. I would have liked more information about Amir Ganor, and a detailed explanation of why Oded Golan's discovery claims about the ossuary are so suspicious.

Haran

I wasn't paying a whole lot of attention because I was doing something else at the time and waiting for the Discovery Channel special. I do remember Shanks saying something about not siding with anyone in particular on some issue. I thought the issue was Bethlehem. I didn't record the show, so I can't go back and see what he was referring to now.

Now this is just silly.

Why does this mean that I must/should use Shanks as a reference witness on the census issue? Shanks has an incredible amount of Biblical knowledge and is close the James ossuary issue, but he is still an archaeological magazine owner/editor.

One can agree with a particular person's view on one issue and not on another.

LOL!

Ok, fine. If he disagrees with me on that (and most of the rest of the academic world), then I know that I would not trust his opinion!

I don't know why he didn't mention her mistakes because he knows better, but to think, especially now, that the inscription is excised is ludicrous! To my knowledge, she has never actually admitted that she was wrong about this! And then there was the deal about the final pe marking the end of a sentence (at least that is the way many seem to have read it) is a most basic mistake because final pe is used at the end of words. There is the nonsense about an archaic greek upsilon smack in the middle of an otherwise ledgible aramaic inscription. Finally, there is her lack of understanding in aramaic by misunderstanding "achui d'" which has been shown to be correct Aramaic grammar.

Whatever....

If he does not recognize her serious mistakes (and I have to wonder since they are not mentioned), then it gives me pause in accepting anything else he might write about. In other words, he might have overlooked, misunderstood, or left out important information just as with Dr. Altman.

LOL! Please... Why is everything so polarized with you? Considering the responses from reputable personalities that I've had, I'd say the vast majority of people get it.

I wasn't clear. We have found no Roman records of the census mentioned by Luke. This is the absense of evidence that I am referring to. I don't know if we have actual Roman records of the census in 6 AD either. Do we? If so, then are you willing to believe the accounts of this census written by others and not the account of Luke? Why?

To say that there are no reasons to believe in Luke's census is to badly polarize the issue. It is completely untrue. If you want to say that you believe the evidence is slim, that is one thing.

If there were only questionable scholars who believed it, then I would probably abandon it (for it is not necessary to my belief). However, that is not the case because good scholars do believe the census was a possibility. I would have to do more study to back up their points. I just don't have the time. So, poor appeal to authority or not, that is what I am presenting here until and unless I have time to research it further. There is a possibility that I am wrong. Can you admit the same on any topic, or do you just have some divine insight on all issues Biblical?

Phew! Something we can agree upon!!