Sauron

Yes, and I dealt with the weaknesses in your response as well.

Sauron

Translation: he does not, in fact, know whether Carrier sent the paper in.

He simply claims it, because doing so helps Layman in slandering Carrier's academic credentials.

Benjamin Franklin

Layman wrote
"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.

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

Couldn't the later census that Luke be referring to be the one conducted be in 74 AD. It would explain why he thought the census conducted in 6AD one was an empire-wide one

BF

[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: Benjamin Franklin ]</p>

Sauron

Exactly. Luke was commenting on the (locally) universal nature of such censuses, and noting for the reader that the practice of conducting such a universal census first got started when Quirinius was governor.

Peter Kirby

What is the evidence that the Roman Empire ever conducted a universal census, i.e., a census of all provinces and allies in the same year?

best,
Peter Kirby

Benjamin Franklin

From Richard Carrier's article

"Another possible source of such an error could be the assumption that the first universal census, conducted by Vespasian and Titus in 74 A.D. (which would be fresh in everyone's memory for the remainder of that century), was "typical" when in fact it was not. "

<a href="http://http://" target="_blank">The Date of the Nativity in Luke</a>

BF

[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: Benjamin Franklin ]</p>

Peter Kirby

Great, Ben. Looks like a hint for dating to me, at least as strong as that old argument from silence concerning the death of Paul.

best,
Peter Kirby

Richard Carrier

This thread is long and meandering and hard to follow. I was asked to comment. I don’t have time for online debates. So you can take what I have to say, or leave it. If you disagree, take it up with me by email (<a href="http://mailto:rcarrier@infidels.org" target="_blank">rcarrier@infidels.org</a>), for I do not maintain any sort of presence in the forums. Even on email I can take a month to get around to reading and replying.

There seems to be only two subjects here that concern me. One is the relevance of the Cappadocian census to the possibility of a Herodian census, the other is a personal attack on my ethics.

(1) There are both important similarities and important differences between Cappadocia in 36 A.D. and Judaea the late 1st century B.C., and likewise between Archelaus and Herod. For example, as one learns from reading Josephus, Herod was a very close friend of Augustus. Archelaus had no such friend in Tiberius. What does that mean for the question at hand? That’s the sort of question you should be asking here.

As for what I myself argue, I say only what the facts go so far as to entail: that Archelaus conducted “a Roman-style census.” On Roman orders? No evidence of that. So I don’t claim it. But I don’t deny it either. As I say, “Cappadocia was then already under more direct, punitive Roman control (Annals 2.42),” a major difference from Herod’s situation, leaving room for differences of treatment. But can we conclude from this that Herod conducted no census? Certainly not. And I do not. My conclusion that he didn’t is based on an accumulation of evidence which merely includes this point, but does not rest on it. I make a proper argument from silence (an argument I define and explain in my <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.shtml" target="_blank">Review of Doherty’s Jesus Puzzle</a>).

The fact is we have no evidence of such a census, yet ought to have such evidence if one occured. That alone is enough to decide the matter. But it gets worse: such a census seems a priori improbable given the peculiar facts of Herod’s unusually favored position (beyond comparison with any client king before or since, especially Archelaus), the Jews’ unusual hostility to the very idea, the lack of any apparent need for such a census at the time (which costs a lot of money to undertake), and the corrolary argument from silence regarding the total absence of capitation or corvee taxes in his reign (the only ancient reason for a census).

This is simply compounded by the fact that Luke plainly refers to a Roman event recorded and confirmed by Josephus, and not even obliquely to any Herodian action (the Roman event cited by Josephus, unlike the proposed Herodian one, is at least supported by the physical evidence of coinage--this I relate in a print version of the article being prepared for publication: coins minted in Judaea by Roman officials begin in A.D. 6, per Burnett 1992, no. 4954...note that his suppl. vol. corrects a typographical error: the coin in fact reads “Year 36 of Caesar,” i.e. the 36th year after Actium or A.D. 5/6--and inscriptions: the <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#LapisVenetus" target="_blank">Lapis Venetus</a>). Hence my conclusion stands unchallenged even here: “there is no evidence of a Herodian census, and no reason to believe there ever was one.” No one here has presented either.  “And even if there were, there is no way Luke's reference could be to such a census,” no small a point.

If anyone has any facts contrary to what I say in my essay, please tell me. If anyone can identify any formal logical flaw in anything I say there, please tell me. Otherwise there is nothing more to discuss concerning my position on this matter, is there? Send email if you know of any factual or formal logical errors in my essay, or any omitted facts. Otherwise, please don’t trouble me.

(2) Now to the personal attack on my ethics. It has been repeatedly claimed that I “ought” to have informed Pearson that I critiqued something he wrote.

First of all, that is a fallacious argument. Whom I informed of my critique has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is correct. You ought instead be asking: Am I right? Certainly you consider yourselves intelligent enough to answer that question, to weigh evidence independently, and come to a conclusion, all without availing yourselves of any peer reviewed venue or even expecting an advanced degree in ancient history. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t have filled this thread with eleven pages of debate. You all know it: just look at the evidence. For evidence trumps the assertions even of experts. That's why we rely on it so much. Why should we care what Pearson’s reaction is? To spend so much ink on such a question in an obvious attempt to avoid even addressing my critique or the merits of Pearson’s argument is more questionable a behavior than anything I am being accused of.

Secondly, I am not aware of any such ethical standard anyway. No scholar is ever expected to “inform” every other scholar he criticises (I criticise over a hundred, online and in print). Even when dealing with peer reviewed academic journals, I have never been asked to do this (with one notable exception: when I accused a scholar of a degree of professional incompetence bordering on unethical, I was asked to seek his comment before publication--the paper is currently awaiting the individual’s reply before going to press...but I made no such claim against Pearson, of course). Nor have journals ever done this on my behalf. The fact is, the vast majority of what gets published will never be seen by any scholar. There may be criticisms of my own writings in print already--I’ll never know, because there is no industry expectation that I should be informed. I am aware of the practice being undertaken only occasionally, or in extreme cases (such as the one exception I encountered), or in those few journals explicitly devoted to seeking rebuttals.

Lastly, it is irrational to ignore what a man has to say just because someone else hasn’t heard it. If you are concerned to know what Pearson has to say, then shouldn’t it be you who asks him? Why hasn’t anyone here done this? If you haven’t, then you don’t really care. And if you don’t care, why pretend to?

One correct observation was made here: an unpublished web essay does not carry the same authority as a peer reviewed article in an academic journal (which CBQ is not). I agree. Still, that does not mean we cannot criticise peer reviewed articles on the web or anywhere else, nor does it mean they are assuredly true and beyond public reproach by virtue of their venue. It only means that we need to pay closer attention to the facts in contention when debating outside the peer community. After all, what men say is hardly relevant when they offer no facts to back them up. And when contrary facts are revealed, it does not matter where: they remain facts, so long as they are true.

The case of Pearson stands out here: he gave hardly any evidence for his positions in the article. Why should we bother asking him if he has any? If he did, wouldn't he have included it in the published argument? And even if for some reason he didn't, my critique is of what he wrote, not what I can telepathically read from his mind. Anyone can read his article, which I duly cite, and see if my criticisms are on target or not. Indeed, that is the only thing that anyone should be debating here, not to whom I mailed my remarks. It is rather sad to see such a vain debate replace substantial discussion of actual facts and argument. What is being accomplished by that? Advancement of knowledge and understanding? None whatsoever as far as I see.

That will be my last word on this subject. You can, again, take it up with me by email.

P.S. Incidentally, a print version of my essay has been subject to peer review: it was read and critiqued by five professors of antiquity (Richard Billows, William Harris, Alan Segal, Elizabeth Castelli, and Vincent Wimbush) in preparation for future publication. They found no fault with any major details. This does not mean they endorse the online version, though, as I have made no attempt to check every claim in that against my print revision, but the major arguments of both are the same (mostly it is only their presentation and wording that differs).

[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: Richard Carrier ]</p>

Layman

Wrong. I have corresponded with Dr. Pearson about Carrier's article. I did so before ever raising the issue.

Toto

That seems to be a non-issue at this point. Carrier says he did not, and there was no expectation or professional requirement that he do so.