Layman

The Jewish mindset would find a Roman run census much more offensive than a Jewish run census. In fact, one reason that the Romans let the Jews govern themselves to such an extent is because they were more restless under Roman governance than under Jewish governance, even when the Jewish client-king was answerable to the Romans.

Sauron

However, your claim was that:

According to Tacitus, we know of a Roman-style census being enforced by Roman troops in a client kingdom.

What client kingdom would that be, Layman?

It can't be Cappadocia, for reasons I already stated. So what client kingdom were you referring to?


It doesn't matter, because at the timeframe you cite, Cappadocia was already a Roman province. Intervention by Roman soldiers to enforce a census would be standard procedure.

In addition, I am not sure that by mentioning the Cietae being subject to Archelaus, that is somehow mutually exclusive of being subject to the emperor.

That wasn't your claim.

Your claim was about the political status of Cappadocia, as client kingdom vs. full Roman province.

But if I were to hazard a guess, the Cietae were subject to the Cappadocian prince, and that person was in turn ruler of a Roman province, subject to Rome. It is reasonable to assume that the Romans considered the Cietae to also be subject to them, by proxy.

As for the statement that Cappadocia became a Roman province in 17 AD, that's common knowledge. Here is one reference:

<a href="http://www.cappadociaonline.com/persian.html" target="_blank">http://www.cappadociaonline.com/persian.html</a>

Here's another:
<a href="http://www.xrefer.com/entry/499496" target="_blank">http://www.xrefer.com/entry/499496</a>

Not sure why this matters, exactly. Perhaps Tacitus thought it sufficient to explain that the Cietae were subject to a known ruler in a known Roman province.

Further stating that these same Cietae were also subject to the Roman Governor might have seemed superfluous to Tacitus.

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

Benjamin Franklin

But the reason why Jewish did not like censuses being taken was because of what happened during the time a census was taken by King David, their Jewish King. So if they really resented a census being taken at all, they should already have revolted when King Herod tried to take a census. If they did not revolt during King Herod's time, it would mean they have no aversion to being censuses being taken, then there is no reason why they would have revolted when a census was taken by Roman governor

BF

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Benjamin Franklin ]

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

Layman

I'm not sure from the sources you provided that it was not a "client-kingdom." As I noted, it has several of the earmarks of one that makes it similar to Judea under King Herod.

1. It was part of the Roman Empire.

2. It was ruled by a Local Ruler.

3. There was no Roman governor.

4. The local ruler was allowed to maintain his own troops and expected to use them to enfroce Roman rule.

As it would be in Judea too if there had been a riot. The significant similarities are the reliance on local rule to administer the region. That is what Cappodcia and Judaea under Herod had in common.

You don't seem to understand the important point here. King Herod was also subject to the Emperor. The relevant similarities are that the Romans allowed local administrators to rule the respective kingdoms and even allowed them to use their own troops. Only when that local rule failed did the Romans intervene.

Compare this to Judaea under Pilate. Pilate himself governed Judaea (although he allowed the Sanhedrin some measure of responsibility in Jerusalem). There was no Jewish King over Judaea at the time. The Roman governance was direct. Whereas in Judaea under Herod and and Cappaodica under Prince Archelus, the Roman governance was indirect.

Your attempt to claim it was a "province" and not a "client-kingdom" are semantics (as usual).

Your sites do not get into the specifics of Roman rule:

<a href="http://www.xrefer.com/entry/499496" target="_blank">http://www.xrefer.com/entry/499496</a>

<a href="http://www.cappadociaonline.com/persian.html" target="_blank">http://www.cappadociaonline.com/persian.html</a>

If you have something more specific then please provide it. These links do nothing to rebut the significant similarities between the indirect Roman governance in Judaea and Cappodica.

It matters because this is the core issue: indirect Roman governance and reliance on a local ruler. Judaea under Herod was also Roman territory and its King reported to the Roman Emperor.

Round and round you go and at the end -- nothing.

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

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

Layman

I'm not saying they would have enjoyed a census under Herod, I'm saying they would not necessarily revolt. Every scholar I have read credits the revolt against the Quirnius census as a revolt against Rome. Just because someone "did not revolt" does not mean "they have no aversion to [a] census being taken."

Herod did many things that his Jewish subjects did not like. Not all of them, not even most of them, caused his people to revolt.

Sauron

However, at teh timeframe you indicate, Cappadocia had already become a Roman province. Its history prior to 17 AD was that of a client kingdom, but not afterwards. It was a Roman province, like all the others.

Judaea was not a Roman province, nor was it under direct Roman control, prior to 6 AD. And your claim for a census or taxation in Judaea hasn't been proven yet. So you're assuming your conclusion here, by trying to compare Cappadocia with Judaea.

Until you prove that such a taxation/census occurred in Judaea while that region was still not a province, then you cannot point to similarities with the Roman province of Cappadocia.

Why would there have been a riot? Because of taxation? But a census/taxation in Judaea - which is the conclusion you want to prove, but have not yet done so.

Besides, you (and your source) explicitly state the timeframe (36 AD) and call it a client kingdom, when all the evidence says it clearly was not. It was a Roman province.


You cannot make the case that Cappadocia was a "client kingdom" like Judaea, because Cappadocia was already a Roman province.


I do understand the point - it's simply not germane to the discussion.

Your example of Roman intervention to enforce a census/taxation event is useless in proving anything about Judea, because Cappadocia was already a Roman province by that time. Judaea was not.

So the activities of Roman soldiers in a Roman province under direct Roman control do not help your argument about Judaea at all - regardless of how much freedom you think Archelaus had, in administering Cappadocia. Because at the end of the day, Cappodcia was still a full Roman province. Not a client kingdom.


Again: your claim here was tied to a specific year: 36 AD. Cappadocia had been a Roman province, under Roman rule, for almost 20 years by that time.

Your source, Paul Barnett, simply got it wrong when he said that the Tacitus entry described the actions of Rome in a client-kingdom.


Semantics? Not at all. It is the plain fact of history. Cappadocia became a Roman province in 17 AD.

Your attempt to ignore inconvenient facts is vintage Layman.


They note the political transition of the kingdom from client status to Roman province.

Your "indirect Roman governmance" is the point you wish to prove; but you have no evidence for it.

The evidence is that Cappadocia was a Roman province after 17 AD, and none of your blustery hand-waving changes that fact.


On the contrary. You tried to draw a parallel between two regions that were not politicall the same.

a. Cappadocia, a Roman province in 36 AD; and
b. Judaea, not a Roman province at all.

Your parallel did not work. But instead of admitting that fact, you painted yourself into a corner with ever-escalating bluster.

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

leonarde

I agree with Layman that when a local figure (prince, king, what-have-you)rules under Roman auspices, it is a client gov't/state whether it
is given a "Roman province" status or not....

Sauron

However, the status of official Roman province had special characteristics that you are brushing aside.

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

Peter Kirby

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).

However, I do not agree with an attempt to say that Luke did not place the birth of Jesus under the rule of Herod. What can be said, I think, is that Luke did not have precise knowledge of the date of the death of Herod the Great, the date of the census of Quirinius, or both.

This might be a historical error akin to placing the moon landing in the presidency of Kennedy--did the person think that Kennedy died after 69, that the moon landing happened before 63, or that the person is just confused, placing together a noteworthy person and a noteworthy event of the era? So, I do not think it can be confidently stated that Luke thought Jesus was born in a certain year.

best,
Peter Kirby