Toto

Layman - neither one of us reads Koine Greek, but I was hoping to get someone who did to comment on your "expert" on the issue of the meaning of prote.

I think your position has been thoroughly demolished on the other issue that you are gnawing at. What more could I add?

If you have some issue with Carrier's scholarly etiquette, you should take it up with him, or drop a line to Dr. Pearson and alert him to the article (if he doesn't know about it already). The internet was used for scholarly communication long before it was taken over by marketers and used car salesmen.

BTW - in what sense is The Catholic Biblical Quarterly a peer reviewed scholarly publication? It is published by The Catholic Biblical Association of American. Do you think there was a panel of neutral experts who judged this paper?

Layman

What happened to justifying Carrier's failure to even let Dr. Pearson know that he had been refuted?

Not "expert," but "experts."

The following scholars have accepted this translation as a reasonable one:

Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, at 23-24 ("This census was before the census taken when Quirinius was governor.");

N.T. Wright, Who Was Jesus, at 89; Wright, Luke for Everyone ("This census took place before the time when Quirinius was governor of Syria.");

William Temple, Readings in St. John's Gospel, at 16 (While discussing John 1:15, Temple notes that the construction of 1:15 impacts Luke 2:2, thus: "this census took place first in respect -- i.e. -- before Quirinius' Syrian governorship");

Luke, Craig Evans, at 43;

Ben Witherington, New Testament History, 65-66;

John Nolland, Luke 1-9:20, at 101;

Brook Pearson, "The Lucan Censuses, Revisited", The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Apr 1999;

Paul Barnett, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity, at 98-99; and

I. Howard Marshall, Gospel of Luke, at 104 ("it may be that protus should be understood as a comparative with the meaning `before,').

Other scholarly commentaries which have accepted the reasonableness of this translation are:

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown's Commentary ("Many superior scholars would render the words thus, 'This registration was previous to Cyrenius being governor of Syria'--as the word 'first' is rendered in John 1:15; John 15:18");

Adam Clarkes Commentary on the Bible ("This enrollment was made before Cyrenius was governor of Syria; or, before that of Cyrenius");

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible ("the words will bear to be rendered thus, 'and this tax, or enrollment, was made before Cyrenius was governor of Syria"); and,

Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament ("This registration was previous to Cyrenius being governor of Syria").

The opinion of Mr. "Matthew's Census" & "Paul Never Met Peter Until Galatia" Toto carries little weight.

Did you not see the irony of this attempt at a defense of Carrier? You are saying its inappropriate of me to bring up this issue on an internet discussion board and that I should contact Carrier directly. In other words, you are claiming that my criticism of Carrier only posting his piece on the internet without contacting Dr. Pearson is inappaprorpiatly posted on the internet without having contacted Carrier.

I would point out that I at least have posted this on a site maintained by Carrier and I knew that at least two of you have already emailed Carrier regarding this discussion.

Perhaps you should ask Ken Olson if he thinks that the CBQ -- which published a piece of his on Josephus -- is a peer reviewed publication?

If you are well-read in New Testament studies (a questionable assumption I grant you) then you would know that respected scholars across the board publish in and cite to the CBQ. From what I understand it is a selective journal with solid requirements of peer-review before publication.

But again, feel free to email Ken Olson and tell him how unreputable you find the CBQ.

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Toto

Can you read English without trying to twist the meaning? I am not justifying Carrier's alleged failure to contact Pearson. (Do you know that he never did?) I said to take it up with him.

My original objection was to your citing Pearson as if he were reporting only the unchallenged facts or scholarly opinion, when the site that maintains this board contains a point by point refutation of his thesis.

Is the law business that slow that you have time to be obsessed with this point, which we have all agreed does not make much difference? Don't you have some widows and orphans you need to harass?

I myself have some other demands on my time, like finding a Halloween costume for the Scary Bible Stories night.

It's been a while since Alexander was mentioned on this thread. Perhaps if you want to put that much time into this off-topic side issue, you should find a formal debate partner who has the same level of committment.

Layman

Ahhhh. Bye Bye Toto.

Layman

I have reason to be reasonably confident that he did not.

Sauron

Nothing in my statement requires that. You are getting confused:

1. You claimed that you noted what many historians have pointed out--one reason that the Romans let Herod govern Judaea was beause of its hostility to direct Roman rule.

2. I pointed out that this alternative scenario, that Herod would be acceptable as a census-giver, while Rome would not be, isn't plausible.

3. I then pointed out that the most likely scenario is that neither one would be acceptable, and a census conducted by either one would have the same end: an uprising.

4. Your statement about census equalling a large scale rebellion is a non-sequitir. Nothing I have said requires that.

Let's remember why we are even discussing this: your desperate assertion is that Herod would be acceptable as a census-giver, while Rome would not be. That is what you are hanging your entire argument about a pre-Quirinius census on. And it is this alleged acceptability of Herod that you are invoking to explain the fact that there is zero mention of any such Herodian census anywhere, as well as zero physical evidence for it.

So to this point, you have offered no evidence to support that assertion - - while I have offered plausible evidence why Herod would be at least as distasteful as a Roman governor.


You are, of course, desperately handwaving. The revolt in 6 AD is excellent proof of the Jewish reaction to overtaxation, esp. by a foreign power.

Incorrect. It is evidence that the Jews resented the taxation itself, due to the already-high taxation rates imposed upon them - as the quote from <a href="http://www.livius.org" target="_blank">www.livius.org</a> demonstrated. I bolded the text the first time for you. This time I bolded it, and also put it in all caps. Let's try again:

<a href="http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodians/herod_the_great02.html#Tax" target="_blank">http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodians/herod_the_great02.html#Tax</a>

The orthodox were not to only ones who came to hate the new king. The Sadducees hated him because he had terminated the rule of the old royal house to which many of them were related; their own influence in the Sanhedrin was curtailed. The Pharisees despised any ruler who despised the Law. And probably all his subjects resented his excessive taxation. According to Flavius Josephus, there were two taxes in kind at annual rates equivalent to 10.7% and 8.6%, which is extremely high in any preindustrial society (Jewish Antiquities 14.202-206). It comes as no surprise that Herod sometimes had to revert to violence, employing mercenaries and a secret police to enforce order.

And:

<a href="http://www.livius.org/jo-jz/judaea/judaea.htm" target="_blank">http://www.livius.org/jo-jz/judaea/judaea.htm</a>

Archelaus ruled so badly that the Jews and Samaritans unitedly appealed to Rome to request that he should be deposed. In 6 CE, Judaea became an autonomous part of the Roman province Syria, ruled by a prefect. A TAX REVOLT lead by Judas the Galilean, was repressed by the Syrian governor Publius Sulpicius Quirinius.

You are arguing a point that no one is making. I am not saying that the Jews objected to a census per se (i.e., a numbering of the people) on religious grounds. I am saying that they objected to the taxation (transfer of money) when they were already overtaxed and not happy about living under foreign domination.

I'm deleting your quotes from the OT as they are, sadly, off-topic.


Totally unconvincing. Somehow Quirinius' assessment was a recognition of someone other than God as a ruler - and thus a reason to revolt. Yet you postulate that your highly hypothetical census under Herod would mysteriously have been acceptable. Even though that would also have been a recognition of someone other than God as ruler and (of course) an identical reason to revolt. You are flailing about, Layman.

By the way: have you been able to dig up any evidence for that Herodian census yet? The one you postulate happened as a result of the Nabatean war? I repeat:

Moreover, you still have no confirming evidence for any such punitive action by Rome, forcing Herod to engage in such a census. You have six or seven years of emptiness to account for, and you haven't even tried. You're on a fishing expedition, with an empty hook.


I'm aware of the quote. However, as with your OT quotes, you are arguing against a position that no one is taking. My position is not that the Jews objected to a census per se.

Various off-topic quotes from Josephus have been mercifully deleted, as you are again sadly off-topic.

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]</p>

Sauron

However, your quote from Barnett indicates the practice of using an indigenous proxy king. That does not apply to Herod, since he was not Israelite. Moreover, his racial impurity would have made him particularly offensive choice as a proxy king.

Again: given his lifestyle and his bloodline, a stronger argument is that Herod would have been *less* acceptable, since he was an racially impure Edomite and mixed blood with Arab, through his mother. While the Jews might have chafed under a Roman governor, they wouldn't have cared about the racial makeup and such a governor wouldn't have had the same religious overtones as an Edomite. Add to that violations of the Mosaic law, plus ten marriages, and it's easy to see why Jews despised Herod.


Yet you claim that there he ruled successfully, with no major uprisings. From the <a href="http://www.livius.org" target="_blank">www.livius.org</a> website:

The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (37-c.100) describes in his Jewish antiquities a terrible war between king Herod, who had only recently been appointed by the Roman leaders Mark Antony and Octavian, and his future subjects, who refused to acknowledge their new king. (Josephus calls them 'robbers'.) Fightings like these were very unusual; they may give us an impression of the war against the soldiers of the Jewish leader

So evidently, Herod's reign started out in warfare. So much for "ruling successfully with no major rebellions", as was your claim. Your attempt to downplay the scope of this event is (a) pathetic and (b) typical.


1. However, it was your claim that "he ruled succesfully with no major rebellion for decades." In making that claim, you appear to have been uninformed that Herod started his reign with a major military conflict.

2. And you use an (alleged) lack of rebellions as proof that the Jews were somehow less unhappy with Herod, than they would be with a Roman governor. However, that is unconvincing. As I pointed out, Herod used the secret police and his troops very effectively, thus quelling opposition and becoming the more likely reason for the Jews' acquiescence.

3, Moreover, during the timeframe we are talking about, the generation that saw Herod's original brutality during his installation - that generation of people was still alive and remembered it, and would not be eager to repeat that event;

4. "Resent direct Roman governance more - you still haven't provided any evidence of that, while I've provided several plausible reasons why Herod bloodline and lifestyle would be equally as distasteful to the Jews, as having a Roman governor.

Sauron

All this does is make your case harder, not easier.

Besides, I am not merely asking for evidence of a census. I am also asking for evidence that Rome issued a punitive decree to Herod, telling him to conduct such a census. Where is your Roman record of that ever taking place? Where is the correspondence between Rome and Herod? You know Herod kept records of the valuations of his own household and his kingdom, so we would also expect to find a reference in such a work as that. Yet none exists.

Oh, and by the way: Herod's last invasion of the Nabateans was in 31 BC. And it was quite successful; Herod took control of a large swath of Nabatean territory, including the lucrative northern trading routes into Syria. Indeed, it was Romans taking control of Nabatean spice routes that led to the downfall of Petra.

<a href="http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/his_nabateans.html" target="_blank">http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/his_nabateans.html</a>

Anyhow: your position (and that of your source, Ben Witherington) is that this highly speculative census that Herod conducted now becomes pathetic. It is your position that Herod was being punished for an event that happened 21 years prior to Herod falling out of favor in 10 BCE? For an event that, by all accounts, was successful for Herod as well as for Rome?

Sorry; I'm calling your bluff, and that of your evangelistic source.

And, of course, the old problem that you have consistently failed to address: since there are precisely zero historical records of a census in a non-provincial area of the Empire, why should we believe that any were conducted in Judea?

Sauron

1. Unlikely, given the fact that the taxes were already high, and the people had appealed to Rome for tax relief;

2. Moreover, you indicated earlier that your position is that Rome had Herod on a short leash, for screwing up with the Nabatean war. It is unlikely that Herod would have tried such an act.

3. No such reference in Herod's own records or memoirs;

4. And finally, your own source Barnett said:

Can we envisage such a Roman census earlier, during Herod's reign (37-4 BC)? There is no other evidnce (beyond Lk. 2:2; cf. Lk 1:5) of such a census. Herod was, after all, a client king, levying his own taxes. Surely a client king institututing a Roman census is unimaginable.

Even though Barnett goes on to mis-identify Cappadocia as a client state when in fact it was a province, he does indicate how highly unlikely your first scenario is.


Ah, yes. We return to your hypothetical Herodian census, which you continue to invoke:

c. without any Roman records of such a command from Rome;
d. Without any local records of such a census taking place in Judea; and
e. without any precedent for a census in any other non-provincial area in the Roman Empire[/i]


Furthermore, you have yet to present any evidence that Rome was sufficiently dissatisfied with Herod to force such a census on him - especially given the time lapse above that I indicated, and the fact that the Nabatean invasion was a success for Rome.


Except that the Greek word indicates a taxation, and is the same word used in reference to taxation in Egypt, from where we do have extensive records.


Or more likely, we have no records of any such census, because there weren't any. There were instead flat taxations and tributes, of which we DO have records.

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

Only capitation and corvee taxes (taxes paid per person) required a census. Most taxes had no need of census returns, which were very expensive to administer: land taxes were based on records of property ownership, which were maintained regularly throughout the year; tariffs and other taxes on transportation or sale were levied on the spot; rents of royal land or animals were collected by contractual agreement peculiar to every case; fixed tribute assessed on townships and metropoleis was due in full no matter who had to pay it, and the general point of such taxation was to leave the central power without the expense of having to worry how they came up with it; taxes on produce were based on annual outcomes or predictions, and even when the productivity of land was based on scheduled assessments, this had nothing to do with counting people (and so would not require Joseph to travel).[16.3] What Pearson needs to show is evidence that any sort of capitation or corvee tax was ever levied by Herod, but he doesn't give a single piece of even indirect evidence of this.


Nonsense. For example, we would expect to find:

* Roman instructions to Herod - telling him to undertake such a census;

* tax records for Rome - Herod was already on the "short leash" with Rome, according to you, so he would want to provide an accurate accounting to Rome, to appease Caesar;

* Herod's own tax accounting, for his personal information - and we do know that Herod kept tax records of his own estates and annual income of the whole kingdom;


All this assumes that Herod would use a census (capitation tax) to achieve this revenue. As opposed to merely increasing land taxes, tariffs, or other such pre-existing revenue implements - a far more likely scenario, since those were already in place. After all, Herod would only care about income, not about counting heads and making people go back to their ancestral villages;

And, of course, this also assumes that there was any such a rationale from Rome - that Herod needed to be punished for the Nabatean war. A wild hypothesis which flies in the face of history, since the last Nabatean invasion was in 31 BCE and it was successful for Rome.

Try reading for content. The 77th generation that I wrote about above did not coincide with Herod's rule. It coincided with the Roman direct rule.


And religious Jewish zealots have nothing to do with messianic expectations, right?

Please. At least try to be plausible in your limp defense.

Uh, wrong. The tax rate above is not my speculation; it's a quote from the <a href="http://www.livius.org" target="_blank">www.livius.org</a> website.

Not speculating at all, Layman.


1. In the absence of any affirmative evidence for such a census in that tax structure;
2. without any any supporting precedent from other non-provincial areas of the empire;
3. minus any valid historical rationale as to why such a census would be invoked; and
4. totally lacking any supporting documents or artifacts from either Herod, Rome, or 3rd party bystanders;

you have tried to say that a pre-Quirinius census was conducted. And the only reason you are limply putting forth such an idea, is to save the Lucan story from the dust-heap of history.

Clearly, YOU are the one speculating here, and not I.


No, I do not. What I claimed is that current taxes were already at a record-high for the ancient world, especially in agrarian economies. Moreover, the region had already appealed to Rome for relief from taxes, and been granted some relief by Augustus - a highly unlikely event, except in the circumstance of extreme taxation.


The first point, that no census was conducted, is not an assumption. On the contrary, your attempt to invoke a census where no evidence exists is the assumption here.

As for the second point, about taxation causing revolt - unfortunately for you, several of the sources I used supported my statement that there was already mass discontent with the outrageous rate of taxation. Thus forcing Herod to use his secret police. Here we go again - since you clearly missed it the first time:

<a href="http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodians/herod_the_great02.html#Tax" target="_blank">http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodians/herod_the_great02.html#Tax</a>

The orthodox were not to only ones who came to hate the new king. The Sadducees hated him because he had terminated the rule of the old royal house to which many of them were related; their own influence in the Sanhedrin was curtailed. The Pharisees despised any ruler who despised the Law. And probably all his subjects resented his excessive taxation. According to Flavius Josephus, there were two taxes in kind at annual rates equivalent to 10.7% and 8.6%, which is extremely high in any preindustrial society (Jewish Antiquities 14.202-206). It comes as no surprise that Herod sometimes had to revert to violence, employing mercenaries and a secret police to enforce order.

The desperate musings of a man with no evidence, no precedent, and no historical rationale.

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]</p>

Sauron

They're actually quite persuasive - just not convenient for you. Do try and learn the difference.


During which nothing happened to refute my point: Tacitus does not indicate that Cappadocia was a buffer state, but instead became a Roman province in 17 AD. Which was nineteen years prior to the events that Barnett describes.

Therefore, a description of events in 36 CE is a description of events in a province, not in a client state.


And I'm sure there were similarities between many rulers, great and small, all around the Empire. But that does not refute the fact that Cappadocia was a province in 17 AD, and had been so for 19 years during the events that Barnett discusses in 34 CE. Nor does it bring you any closer to demonstrating that Herod ever conducted a census.


Yes, I know. I read all this before I first responded to you.


Perhaps. But still inside a province, operating under Roman provincial laws and precedents. Most likely Archelaus was the Roman governor, charged with carrying out Roman provincial law. In that case, a census would not be unusual at all.

Or perhaps this is in reference to the fact that Rome allowed Archelaus some small "royal lands". Note the part in bold:

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/7094/cal1.html" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/7094/cal1.html</a>

Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso, the new governor of Syria, and his wife Munatia Plancina were also on their way east. Piso had been elected to his post by the Senate, but Tiberius may have thought him useful to watch his adoptive son and curb any excessive behavior. However, Piso went out of his way to insult Germanicus. Germanicus traveled to Armenia where he established Zeno, son of Polemo of Pontus, as king. Zeno was highly popular during his 16 years on the throne and was acceptable even to the Parthians. Cappadocia became a Roman province with the exception of a small portion that was allotted to the king. The revenues from the new province were so lucrative that Tiberius was able to lower the sales tax from 1 to .5 percent. Commagene was organized as a province and was later absorbed by Syria (Dio 57.17; Ann. 1.78.2, 2.42, 2.56.5). Germanicus visited Syria late in 18 where at a banquet given by Aretas, king of the Nabataeans, Piso was given a smaller gold crown than Germanicus. Piso threw his gift to the floor declaring the banquet seemed fit more for a king of Parthia than a Roman prince. (Ann. 2.57).

Neither situation refutes the fact that Cappadocia was a Roman province. And so far, nothing here resembles Herod.

Archelaus is a Roman governor, a ruler who apparently was allowed to retain a small amount of land for himself, as an island inside a larger Roman province. Perhaps as a grant land, or quid pro quo from Rome.

Herod was a puppet ruler, placed by Rome, inside a buffer state.


Not quite. He ruled by virtue of Roman authority, and having been placed there by Rome. This was a Roman province, Layman.

And if he was the Roman governor, then it's obvious. As a tribe living inside that Roman province, the Clitae were subject to Archelaus, who was the Roman "presence" in Cappadocia, their "ruling man".

Or perhaps, if the Clitae lived on this tiny enclave of royal lands, they might have been subject to Archelaus that way - through his exclusive grant of land from Rome - but that wouldn't change the political status of the rest of the province.


1. This is not that unusual. The type of governorship from Rome varied from region to region; sometimes it involved consuls or senators; other times it was given to generals, legates, or equestrians (I believe the term). See the Oxford Companion to the Ancient World, the article on province/provincia - it is 4 pages in length; I am not going to retype it all.

2. In addition, in the specific case of Cappadocia, how do you know that Archelaus wasn't the governor?

3. Thirdly, a military commander is specifically mentioned - in 55 CE, a Cn. Coronbo would be given full command in the East as 'Legate of Cappadocia'. And later on, another legate, Arrian, would assume the title.

So contrary to your claim that there was no military governor, it is more likely that either:

a. there WAS a military governor, but within that framework Archelaus was allowed to retain this royal land for himself;

b. Archelaus was acting the role of the governor, and was given this enclave as his personal possession, to administer as he saw fit, as a quid pro quo from Rome

But in either case, it clearly does not map to the Judean situation with Herod.

No. It varied with each province.


Incorrect.

In the first place, I don't recall saying that Cappadocia was "more like Egypt than Judea". I believe what I said is that, for the purposes of political divisions, they were both provinces, and not buffer state like Judea. Which is still true.

Secondly, it must be remembered that when viewed overall, the province of Egypt, due to its great wealth and importance to the empire, is totally atypical of how a province of Rome. I believe that I mentioned that it was governed by 4 governors, to prevent any single one from gaining control. Moreover, whenever one of the Senate wanted to visit, they had to obtain permission beforehand.

Knowing all the above, I would definitely NOT have said that such a description fit Cappadocia.

Egypt, due to its great wealth and importance to th empire, is totally atypical of how a province of Rome.


Actually, the only person who 'recognizes' this so far is your man Barnett. Carrier is already on record as stating that there are no examples of a census in a non-provincial area.


Not much help for your argument there, I'm afraid. Archelaus would still be carrying out a census in Cappadocia within a Roman province. Which means:

a. he was ordered by Rome to do so, or
b. the census was ordered by Archelaus, acting as military governor, but on behalf of Rome; or
c. ordered by Archelaus, but within the scope of his private royal lands given to him by Rome.

None of which fits the Herod scenario in Judea.

Note that, from the eaerlier paragraph, you stated:

And it is not just Carrier and Professor Barnett who realize that the similiarities between Cappodica under Archeluas the Younger and Judaea unde Herod the Great.


However, what we see here is something different. Your 2nd man, Sherwin-White, does not comment at all on any alleged similarities between Judea and Cappadocia. He merely describes the situation in Cappadocia as he sees it - and then YOU jump to the unwarranted conclusion that Sherwin-White supports such a Cappadocia-Judea comparison.

Lastly, Sherwin-White's willingness (as you claim) to go against the majority of scholars and conclude that ARchelaus ordered the census himself is interesting: do you normally take the minority position?


Well, that's nice to know that you agree. However, your credentials have not been established, so I'm not much worried if you agree, or disagree. Moreover, the client-king appellation does not refute the fact that Cappadocia was a Roman province, and any such census taken there in 36 CE would have been under the umbrella of the Roman provincial law - whether:

a. ordered by Rome to do so, or
b. ordered by Archelaus, acting as military governor; or
c. ordered by Archelaus, but within the scope of his private royal lands


As for Sherwin-White, I disagree with him, and no evidence has been offered other than his statement - one which you at least partly disagree with.



Well, I never said that Judea was like Egypt. I said that Cappadocia and Egypt were provinces, and Judea was not.

But I certainly admire your standing long-jump. You covered a HUGE distance between initial assumption and your desired conclusion.

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]</p>