hinduwoman

Once more on the census in Bethleham, this time by Terry Eagleton


http://www.books.guardian.co.uk/revi...899641,00.html

It would be hard to think up a more ludicrous way of registering the population of the entire Roman empire than having them all return to their birthplaces. Why not just register them on the spot? The result of such a madcap scheme would have been total chaos. The traffic jams would have made Ken Livingstone's job look positively cushy. And we would almost certainly have heard about this international gridlocking from rather more disinterested witnesses than Luke. Yet fundamentalists must take Luke at his word.

Qinopio

According to http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRIS.../infancy1.html
about halfway down under "Objection 3" - and I've heard this other places too - , there is a precedent for a Roman census requiring the people to return to their birthplaces.

Is this author misinformed?

Haran

No.

Census Edict for Roman Egypt (K.C. Hanson's website)

bagong

Well, I'm not a historian of Roman adminstration, so I don't know what "return to their own hearths" specifically means in this context, but it seems to me this edict calls for rural economic migrants in the cities (probably mostly single men) to return to their homes: i.e. their birthplace, presumably where their parents and extended family still lived.

This clearly wasn't the case with Joseph and Mary: their "hearth" was in Nazareth, they had no home or family in Bethlehem - why else would they be forced to find lodgings in some stranger's stable?

Sauron

First, it's well known that the administration of Egypt, as a province, was unique and separate from all other Roman provinces. This was because Egypt was such a vast and valuable prize, and because anyone possessing it could feasibly launch a revolt against Rome. In fact, Roman senators were required to request permission to travel to Egypt before their departure; something which was required nowhere else. So the presence of a census in Egypt demonstrates nothing about the practice of censuses elsewhere in the Roman empire. The administration of that province was sufficiently unique that events in Egypt cannot be used to generalize events over the whole Empire.

Secondly, the Roman practice was to leave in place previous administrative frameworks of conquered peoples. This was also done in Egypt. Any such census that occurred in Egypt could also have been the result of implementing previous administrative laws. Again: no generalizations about the overall Empire can be made, based upon what is found in Egypt.

And finally, this is a census event in a province. At the time of the nativity, Judaea was not a province. There is no evidence anywhere of a census event in the Roman empire, except within a province.

So there is nothing useful that can be derived from this papyrus, in relation to the alleged census of the nativity.

Steven Carr

Yes. I'm not sure what 'precedent' means for a census which took place much later than any census in 6 AD or 7 BC or whenever.

BTW, Luke says Joseph had to return to Bethlehem because it was David's birthplace, not Joseph's.

It seems reasonable that people had to return to their normal residence for a census, which is what the edict means.

Of course, in most cases, the normal place of residence was the birthplace, but their is nothing in the edict about birthplace.

Haran

This is a funny picture, but far from the reality of what would have happened. I'm sure you know that a census of this kind would not have taken place all at the same time!

Haran

While this is true to some degree, it does not mean that we cannot glean examples from that region. It was not that isolated, and was in fact quite integrated with Judea in many ways.

By this time, Rome was in control and held ultimate sway over this area (Egypt, Judea, and Syria), whether an official Roman province or not.

True on some level. However, as I said, ultimate authority was in the hands of the Romans by this time in history. I think "framework" is the operative word here. After all, even Herod the Great was appointed King by the Roman Senate with the help of Octavian (Augustus) and Mark Antony.

I believe you are wrong. The Romans did take a census outside of Roman provinces (and also interferred in the dealings of vassal kingdoms):

• A gravestone in Venice mentions a Roman officer ordered by none other than Quirinius to conduct a census of Apamea, an autonomous city-state which minted its own coins (like Herod was allowed to do).
• A.D. 36 - a census was imposed on the client kingdom of Archelaus of Cappadocia.
• Nabatean kings (also allowed to mint their own coins) were apparently obliged to have Roman financial officers.
• Augustus reduced the Samaritans taxes before Samaria was incorporated into a Roman province.

The above can be found in both Dr. Harold W. Hoehner's and Dr. Jack Finegan's Chronologies (quoted in modern scholarly books on the historical Jesus).

Hoehner goes on to say:
"Normally, it seems that Herod collected his own taxes and paid tribute to Rome. However, in 8/7 B.C. Herod came into disfavor with Augustus and was treated as a subject rather than a friend. This would mean Herod's autonomy would be taken away. ....Therefore, since Augustus had taken censuses in other vassal kingdoms and since Herod had come into the emperor's disfavor as well as having troubles in his realm, it is more than probable that Augustus had conducted a census assessing Herod's kingdom while Herod was still alive."


This is simply not true. It is obvious that the papyrus is useful and still an object of interest today as it is included (if I remember right) in the famous Loeb Library's "Select Papyri", Adolf Deissmann's Light from the Ancient East, and mentioned in many scholar sources (for one, Hoehner). One can say that something covered so extensively can be useless, but one might be completely wrong.

By the way, according to Ulpian, Iustiniani Digesta 1. 15. 4. 2., "Roman law states that the property owner had to register for taxation in the district in which his land was situated." Hoehner states therefore, "Since the Jews' property was the property of the fathers' estates the Romans would comply to the custom of laying claim to one's family estate in order to assess it for taxation."

As in many issues with the Bible, there are good scholars and good arguments on both sides. History is in possibilities and probabilities. There are good scholars who seem to think that Luke's claims are possible and even probable. Though some Christians disagree and think that Luke is flat wrong, I tend to believe that he was correct and that we do not have access to the necessary information 2000 years later to make the best judgements.

After all, early Christians (before Constantine and the Christianizing of Rome) seemed to believe that others could verify the information. Justin Martyr (A.D. 114-165) mentions "the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius" (Apology 1.34) and Tertullian (A.D. 145-220) talks of these registers being "kept in the archives of Rome" (Against Marcion 4.7 - although Tertullian believed the census was taken by Sentius Saturninus).

Steven Carr

And Tertullian thought Jesus was born in what we would call ether 1 BC or 1 AD, so a fat lot he knew.

Clearly Justin and Tertullian were simply parroting Luke.

It is , of course, true that Rome was in ultimate sway, but Herod raised and altered his own taxes.


Apamea was a Syrian city and Quirinius was governor of Syria. It was not autonomous. Really, Haran you can do better.


Did Joseph have any land in Bethlehem? Luke thinks not, and Luke says quite straightforwardly that Joseph went there because he was of the House of David.

'So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David.'

Haran

A fat lot we know today as well for that matter. There are still many differing views as to when Jesus was actually born.... I find it interesting that he stated the records were there, something that others might be able to verify for themselves.

I mentioned this. However, he fell out of favor with Augustus. Augustus had Herod under his thumb. Judea might as well have been a province since Syria to its immediate north had been since the 60's BC and Egypt since 30 BC. There is no reason to believe that they wouldn't have done as they were told. Herod risked being stipped of power.

I think you missed the "autonomous city-state" part. Apparently they even minted coins bearing the title "Autonomos"! They were "Autonomos", or at least they thought they were until Quirinius ordered a census there anyway. Some kind of autonomy that was!