Sauron

Irrelevant. I am not arguing Pearson.
You are.

The burden to address the rebuttal is on you, not me.

Layman

Wrong. You are taking a position: you claim that Carrier has effectively refuted Pearson. Yet you have never read Pearson. Or, for that matter, when making the claim had you even read Carrier's article?

Anyway, I do not consider a claim completely "refuted" just because someone has attacked it. The last person to write on a subjet is not necessarily correct, they are simply the last person to write about the subject.

You remind me of Omnedon, which suggests that your posts will simply devolve into semantics, personal attacks, and other nonsubstantive "arguments."

If you have something substantive to say, I'll respond, otherwise I'll just let you keep cheerleading your friends.

Sauron

Wrong as usual, Layman. I am saying that there is a charge on the table that Pearson has been rebutted. And the source of the rebuttal is an individual who, a priori, has some knowledge in the field.

You have failed to address that rebuttal - in fact, you have dodged it. And as long as you continue to do so, your usage of Pearson carries no weight.

Perhaps Carrier lied. Perhaps Carrier is just wrong. Or perhaps Carrier is dead-on correct. It doesn't matter. The point that Toto was making is that until you address the question of the rebuttal and stop running from it, your arugment is incomplete and your reference to Pearson carries no weight.

You have no idea what I have, or have not read, and yet you make strong accusations like this?

This isn't a question of who wrote the last word. It's a question of whether the rebuttal has been addressed by you, or not. The sequence of events (who wrote what, when) does not matter.

Perhaps you would like to address Carrier's rebuttal now, instead of just whining?

Skeptical

"Days of Herod" sounds to me like a phrase used to describe a non-specific period of time and not necessarily a specific start and end of a particular reign. In any case, even if you want to argue that it is specific, it would only mean that Luke is internally inconsistent.

I'm not trying to make busywork, so I will go back through the whole thread, and I see that you post several references.

But not all interpretations are equally reasonable. If your interpretation is correct, then the most straight-forward way of reading every english translation we have is wrong. I might buy that one or even some of them got it wrong, but every translation I have looked at indicates that the census took place during the reign of Quirinius. Carrier specifically addresses the "before" question:

"Some have tried to argue that the Greek of Luke actually might mean a census "before" the reign of Quirinius rather than the "first" census in his reign. As to this, even Sherwin-White remarks that he has "no space to bother with the more fantastic theories...such as that of W. Heichelheim's (and others') suggestion (Roman Syria, 161) that prôtê in Luke iii.2 means proteron, [which] could only be accepted if supported by a parallel in Luke himself."[10.1] He would no doubt have elaborated if he thought it worthwhile to refute such a "fantastic" conjecture. For in fact this argument is completely disallowed by the rules of Greek grammar. First of all, the basic meaning is clear and unambiguous, so there is no reason even to look for another meaning. The passage says autê apographê prôtê egeneto hêgemoneuontos tês Syrias Kyrêniou, or with interlinear translation, autê(this) apographê(census) prôtê[the] (first) egeneto(happened to be) hêgemoneuontos[while] (governing) tês Syrias(Syria) Kyrêniou[was] (Quirinius). The correct word order, in English, is "this happened to be the first census while Quirinius was governing Syria." This is very straightforward, and all translations render it in such a manner." (emphasis mine)

and:

"But even if one wanted to render it differently, the basic rules of Greek ensure that there is absolutely no way this can mean "before" Quirinius in this construction. What is usually argued is that prôtê can sometimes mean "before," even though it is actually the superlative of "before" (proteros), just as "most" is the superlative of "more." Of course, if "before" were really meant, Luke would have used the correct adjective (in this case, proterê), as Sherwin-White implies, since we have no precedent in Luke for such a diversion of style. But there is a deeper issue involved. The word prôtê can only be rendered as "before" in English when "first" would have the same meaning--in other words, the context must require such a meaning. For in reality the word never really means "before" in Greek. It always means "first," but sometimes in English (just as in Greek) the words "first" and "before" are interchangeable, when "before" means the same thing as "first." For example, "in the first books" can mean the same thing as "in the earlier books" (Aristotle, Physics 263.a.11). Likewise, "the earth came first in relation to the sea" can mean the same thing as "the earth came before the sea" (Heraclitus 31).[10.3]"

While I don't know Greek, Carrier certainly does and his argument looks solid unless you can find fault with his grammar.

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]</p>

Sauron

Cappadocia was not a client kingdom at all. Cappadocia became a province of the Roman Empire in 17 AD - nineteen years prior to the census event that Tacitus describes above, in 36 CE.

So you cannot use the census in Cappadocia as proof that Rome would have conducted a census on a client kingdom - because in 36 CE, Cappadocia was already a province.

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]</p>

Sauron

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

Did Luke Mean "Before" Quirinius?

Some have tried to argue that the Greek of Luke actually might mean a census "before" the reign of Quirinius rather than the "first" census in his reign. As to this, even Sherwin-White remarks that he has "no space to bother with the more fantastic theories...such as that of W. Heichelheim's (and others') suggestion (Roman Syria, 161) that prôtê in Luke iii.2 means proteron, [which] could only be accepted if supported by a parallel in Luke himself."[10.1] He would no doubt have elaborated if he thought it worthwhile to refute such a "fantastic" conjecture. For in fact this argument is completely disallowed by the rules of Greek grammar. First of all, the basic meaning is clear and unambiguous, so there is no reason even to look for another meaning. The passage says autê apographê prôtê egeneto hêgemoneuontos tês Syrias Kyrêniou, or with interlinear translation, autê(this) apographê(census) prôtê[the] (first) egeneto(happened to be) hêgemoneuontos[while] (governing) tês Syrias(Syria) Kyrêniou[was] (Quirinius). The correct word order, in English, is "this happened to be the first census while Quirinius was governing Syria." This is very straightforward, and all translations render it in such a manner.

It does not matter if Luke meant that he knew of a second census under Quirinius, since we have already shown that if there were one it would have occurred some time after 6 A.D. Nevertheless, the passage almost certainly does not mean this. We have no reason to believe Quirinius served as governor again, or long enough to conduct another census, and the Greek does not require such a reading. The use of the genetive absolute (see below) means one can legitimately put a comma between the main clause and the Quirinius clause (since an absolute construction is by definition grammatically independent): thus, this was the first census ever, which just happened to occur when Qirinius was governor. The fact that Luke refers to the census from the start as the outcome of a decree of Augustus clearly supports this reading: this was the first Augustan census in Judaea since the decree. Another observation is made by Klaus Rosen, who compares Luke's passage with an actual census return from Roman Arabia in 127 A.D. and finds that he gets the order of key features of such a document correct: first the name of the Caesar (Augustus), then the year since the province's creation (first), and then the name of the provincial governor (Quirinius). Luke even uses the same word as the census return does for "governed" (hêgemoneuein), and the real census return also states this in the genitive absolute exactly as Luke does.[10.2] This would seem an unlikely coincidence, making it reasonable that Luke is dating the census the way he knows censuses are dated. The only fault with Rosen's thesis (apart from the fact that Luke's passage lacks a lot of other typical features of a census return, e.g. the year of the emperor) is that he assumes the prô:tê refers to a year since every province begins with a census. Instead of adopting such an assumption, it is simply more reasonable to take the language at its plain meaning: the first Augustan census, which happened under Quirinius.

But even if one wanted to render it differently, the basic rules of Greek ensure that there is absolutely no way this can mean "before" Quirinius in this construction. What is usually argued is that prôtê can sometimes mean "before," even though it is actually the superlative of "before" (proteros), just as "most" is the superlative of "more." Of course, if "before" were really meant, Luke would have used the correct adjective (in this case, proterê), as Sherwin-White implies, since we have no precedent in Luke for such a diversion of style. But there is a deeper issue involved. The word prôtê can only be rendered as "before" in English when "first" would have the same meaning--in other words, the context must require such a meaning. For in reality the word never really means "before" in Greek. It always means "first," but sometimes in English (just as in Greek) the words "first" and "before" are interchangeable, when "before" means the same thing as "first." For example, "in the first books" can mean the same thing as "in the earlier books" (Aristotle, Physics 263.a.11). Likewise, "the earth came first in relation to the sea" can mean the same thing as "the earth came before the sea" (Heraclitus 31).[10.3]

Nevertheless, what is usually offered in support of a "reinterpretation" of the word is the fact that when prôtos can be rendered "before" it is followed by a noun in the genitive (the genitive of comparison), and in this passage the entire clause hêgemoneuontos tês Syrias Kyrêniou is in the genitive. But this does not work grammatically. The word hêgemoneuontos is not a noun, but a present participle (e.g. "jogging," "saying," "filing," hence "ruling") in the genitive case with a subject (Kyrêniou) also in the genitive. Whenever we see that we know that it is something called a "genitive absolute" construction, and thus it does not make sense to regard it as a genitive connected to the "census" clause. In fact, that is ruled out immediately by the fact that the verb (egeneto) stands between the census clause and the ruling clause--in order for the ruling clause to be in comparison with the census clause, it would have to immediately follow the adjective "first," but since it doesn't, but the entire clause is distinct from the rest of the sentence, it can only be an absolute construction. A genitive absolute does have many possible renderings, e.g. it can mean "while" or "athough" or "after" or "because" or "since," but none allow the desired reinterpretation here.[10.4]

John 1:15 (and 1:30) is a case in point: the verb emprosthen is already used (the first "before" found in English translations of the verse) in order to establish the context, and then comes hoti prôton mou ên, "because he was first [in relation] to me." So here we have an example of when prôtos means "before," yet all the grammatical requirements are met for such a meaning, which are not met in Luke 2.2: the genitive here is not a participle with subject, but a lone pronoun (thus in the genitive of comparison); the genitive follows immediately after the adjective; and the previous use of emprosthen establishes the required context. Thus, this is clearly not the same construction as appears in Luke 2.2. Another example is the use of this construction in Acts 16:12, where again the sentence can be rendered "first in relation to" and only then can it be simplified in English to "before." No such license is allowable in Luke 2.2. As a genitive absolute the Quirinius clause cannot have any grammatical connection with prô:tê, and "first in relation to the reign of Quirinius" would not produce the meaning "before" anyway.

Layman

Tacitus is quite clear that Cietae were subjet not to a Roman governor, but "subject to the Cappadocian prince Archelaus ." Tacitus also notes that Prince Archelaus had his own troops and was expected to enforce his own census. Only when his efforts failed did the Romans intervene.

Do you dispute any of this?

And what is the source for your comments? I'm certainly interested in any evidence that the Cietae were under direct Roman rule. Who was the Roman Governror at the time and why did Tacitus not note that the Cietae were under his rule (as opposed to Archelaus)?

Sauron

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sauron:

Apologies to Skeptical. I see that we both posted the relevant paragraphs from Carrier's essay. I did not check before posting.

Layman

I don't how you can take "In the days of Herod, king of Judaea" to mean "outside the days of Herod, king of Judaea."

And yes, agree that if Luke does mean the census under Quirnius known to us today he is making a mistake. But the mistake is obviously placing the census too early, not in placing Jesus' birth in the CEs.

This would fit in with what some commentators believe -- that Luke used the census as a device to get the Holy Family into Bethlehem and placed it too early. I have yet to see anyone who agrees with Carrier that Luke places Jesus' birth after the reign of Herod.


Sigh. I'm very aware that Carrier has discussed this issue. That's how this whole shebang got started. I've offered some criticisms of his arguments and offered authority contrary to his.

Benjamin Franklin

Layman wrote
"Well, it was mostly God that got mad at King David. I do not remember the people revolting. And you are right that there was a lot of dissent when Quirinius did his census, but that was under direct Roman rule -- not under a Jewish client king known for efficient governance. "

The reason the people did not revolt under King David is becasue at the moment the census was taken, that God has not punished the people yet. It was only after the census was taken that the people were punished. Which is why people after the time of King David developed a hyper-sensivity to censuses being taken.

Is there any reason why people would want to revolt to a census take under Roman governance but not under King Herod ?. I would think it would happen the other way around. When King Herod first took a census, people would protest because of their memory of what happened during David's time (the people of Israel were punished for a census taken by a Jewish King) and by the time the Roman rulers took a census, they have gotten used to the idea of censuses being taken. The fact that there was much dissent whem Quirinius did his census, suggests that it was a first census conducted since King's David time and people revolted in memory of what happend during King David's time.

BF

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Benjamin Franklin ]</p>