Sauron

As usual, Layman overstates his case while ignoring the flaws in it.

It's really quite simple. In order to demonstrate that Romans would have intervened in a client kingdom, you need an example of such intervention in a client kingdom.

Unfortunately for you, the region you selected (Cappadocia) and the timeframe your source suggests (36 AD) disqualify the Tacitus reference.

And Robin Lane Fox is a Fellow of New College, Oxford, and a reader in Ancient History. But I doubt you accept Fox's conclusions. Your point, then?



And Cappadocia was a province after 17 AD, not a client state at all. A fact confirmed by your Tacitus account, by the way:

<a href="http://www.romansonline.com/sources/Ann/BK02_42.asp" target="_blank">http://www.romansonline.com/sources/Ann/BK02_42.asp</a>

Therefore you still do not have a valid example of Roman intervention in a client state.

And if by some slim chance your account were valid, it would still only demonstrate Roman internvention in support of taxation - not in support of a census. Carrier outlines the difference between the two, as well as reasons why one does not imply the other.

Layman

Actually, I'm rebutting the argument that it is impossible that the Romans would have required Herod to conduct a census. Of course, this argument is flawed in its inception because it assumes that the Romans would have had to force Herod to do this. Herod was good friends with Augustus and wanted to say in his good favors as much as possible to retain what independence he had. There is nothing implausible in believing that he would have agreed to perform a census of his own volition to appease August's desire to have the empire tallied.

But the argument that it is impossible for the Romans to have ordered Herod to conduct the census is speculative. We have one concrete example where it appears that Roman expectations (or a direct order) prompted a client-king (a nonRoman ruler governing a Roman controlled terroritory) to conduct such a census. We also have the example of Egypt, which though not a client-kingdom, was given great local autonomy over its affairs. Nevertheless, the Romans conducted a census there as well.

To pretend that these accounts are irrelevant to the issue of Roman intervention in Judaea is unpersausive. The fact is that neither Judaea, Cappadocia, or Egypt fit into nice tight boxes like you seem to suggest. But they do have in common the fact that they were Roman territories given varying decrees of autonomy that most other territories did not get.

You have given evidence that the local rulers in Cappadocia fell into some disfavor with the Romans. That's relevant, but it does not mitigate the fact that -- like Herod -- Archeluas was a client-king, was responsible for governing his territory, there was no direct Roman rule, and Archeluas also had his own army and was expected to use it to keep order. Additionally, --as my above post indicates -- there was also evidence that Herod had also recently fallen out of favor with the Romans and had recently had his autonomy trimmed.

Given these parrallels it becomes even more speculative to claim that it is impossible that the Romans would not have interfered with Herod's rule -- especially after his loss of favor.

Sauron

Thus proving my point about being a province.

The fact that a client-king was acting as the ruler in this province doesn't invalidate Cappadocia's status of province. At this time in the empire, the adminstrative organization of province would allow for generals, legates, and others who were not consuls to be the magistrate. Please see the Oxford Companion to the Classical World, the entry under province/provincia.

All the more reason why Herod would not have stepped out of line, and enacted a private census on his own. With his wings clipped and with Rome watching him, such a census would have been even *less* likely.


But with Judaea not yet a province (prior to 6 AD), no census would have been conducted.

As for what Rome might have done:
* It's also possible that the Nabatean event caused Rome to station an extra garrison in Jerusalem to watch Herod.

* It's also possible that the Nabatean event caused Rome to send spies to observe Herod and report back on him.

* It's also possible that the Nabatean event caused Rome to start plotting the removal of Herod.

* Etc. etc. etc.

Saying that "Rome might have imposed a taxation on Herod" as a result of the Nabatean war is just speculation without evidence, and special pleading.

Sauron

But no affirmative evidence to show that it happened.

And no historical precedent to support the idea that it would have occured in a buffer state like Judea.

I think the opposite is true.

To argue that the Romans might have ordered Herod to do this, without any affirmative evidence and without any precedent to point to, strains credibility tremendously.

No, we don't. Cappadocia was a province, not a client-state.

And Egypt was also a province - the most prized of all provinces, actually. When Roman legislators left Rome to travel to Egypt, they first had to get permission to do so. The jealousy and suspicion over the ownership of the province (and its administration) was THAT serious.

So far you have two provinces that you desperately want to transform into client states.

It isn't working.

The fact that they all had differences of administration does not negate my point. In fact, the provincial law in Gaul varied from the provincial law in Syria. Or in cisalpine Gaul. And the administration of provinces could vary greatly. However, that does not refute the fact that on certain key characteristics they were the same.

Nor does it refute the fact that in non-provincial areas, we still have no examples of the kind of census/taxation event that you need.

But he was in a province, and not a client state. So the involvement of Rome would follow different guidelines.

Layman

You are simply ignoring the autonmy given to Archelaus. Autonomy that is factually very similar to Herod.

This makes no sense. Herod lost aotonomy making him more susceptible to Roman pressure. And Herod's one link to power -- his relationship with Augustus -- would certainly have encouraged him to perform such a census, because getting a census of the Empire was one of Augustus' pet projects.

In effect, you are claiming that because Herod became more like Archelaus, he was less likely to have a census conducted.

You are simply speculating. There is no historical evidence that such a census (which could very well have been voluntary) was impossible.

Yes, Herod's loss of autonomy would have opened the door up to further Roman control. Unless these events were contradicted by direct evidence, an ancient historian who claimed something of the sort happened would have additional credibility.

Actually, it's a rebuttal to an argument that is inherently speculative. The claim being made is that such a census was "impossible."

There is no direct evidence that Herod would not have cooperated (either voluntarily or under pressure) with Rome, given his patron's desire to have a census taken of the Empire. Certainly there are no records saying that Herod refused to participate in the push to census. If you have any such record, please provide it.

It appears, therefore, that you are simply speculating that something definitely did not happen, and indeed could not have happened. Your assumption leaves only one option: no census happened. On the other hand, my conclusion that such a census was possible leaves open two possibilities: (1) a census happened; or (2) a census did not happen.

And, since we have evidence of census being taken in other territories that had greater local control than the rest of the empire, the claim to "impossibility" is further rendered speculative. Even terrirotires ruled by local royalty conducted Roman style-census.

And when you add to that fact the reality that Herod had lost some of his autonomy to Rome -- during the period that Luke's "prior" census would have taken place -- and that the Emperor had been pushing for a census of the emperire, the assertion that such a census was "impossible" becomes untenable.

Sauron

I'm ignoring it because your example isn't relevant. It doesn't matter how autonomous Archelaus was; he was still acting in a province, not a buffer state.

And earlier you argued that Herod lost his autonomy. Now you argue that Herod was just as autonomous as Archelaus. Make up your mind, Layman. Which is it?


Which would have kept him in line, not allowed him the freedom to conduct private taxations or censuses.

Your argument is totally unpersuasive. Given Herod's previous failure, the frequent uprisings in Judea, and the Jews' specific hatred of censuses, you would have us believe that Herod would embark on the one task that was most likely to cause widespread revolt.

I'm not drawing any conclusions between Herod and Archelaus. I'm merely showing where:

a. your position on Herod is contradictory (first he's autonomous, then he lost power), and

b. comparisons between Herod and Archelaus are irrelevant, due to the difference of the political status of the areas they governed.

YOU are the one who is speculating, Layman. You have:

* no affirmative proof for a census in Judea during non-provincial years, and
* no precedent to point to for such a census event ever happening in any other non-provincial area.


Incorrect. Any historian who speculated that any of my three examples things happened without affirmative evidence, would simply be engaged in speculation - nothing more. Rather reckless speculation as well, seeing as how these examples are specific in nature, and not general. Had such a historian merely said "Herod fell under Rome's suspicion as a result of the Nabatean wars", such a general, non-specific statement might be said to enhance credibility.

But your example, that "it's possible that Rome might have imposed a taxation on Herod, as a reprisal for the Nabatean war" is idle speculation without any evidence. Furthermore, it is designed only to rescue this passage in Luke from being declared non-historical.

I might also add that the time elapsed between the Nabatean war and the alleged census event is several years. Had Rome decided to enact such a punitive reprisal against Herod, why did they wait so long? You see, Layman, it is not merely enough for you (and your sources) to toss out whimsical "might have" scenarios - you must also defend them as well.


1. Who made the claim of impossibility?

2. Speculation is not a rebuttal.


You want direct evidence that Herod would fail to cooperate with a outrageously speculative census, that you have no proof ever occurred?

Please.

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]</p>

Sauron

Actually, it is you who is engaged in speculation, Layman. You have:

* no affirmative proof for a census in Judea during non-provincial years, and
* no precedent to point to for such a census event ever happening in any other non-provincial area.



Except that you have presented no such evidence. Your only examples, Cappadocia and Egypt, were both provinces and not buffer states.


Unfortunately, you have presented no such examples that were not also provinces. Try as you might, you cannot get away from this fact.


A loss of autonomy by Herod would leave him with even less freedom to conduct a census or taxation event without Rome's approval.

joedad

Only a quick comment.

As the discussion is primarily a comparison of the historicity of Alexander to that of a Gospel Jesus, what would I have accomplished if I were able to demonstrate with some degree of authority, that Alexander did indeed exist, but only as a corporal, or a common fighter or oarsman in a larger military?

joe

Sauron

More to the point about the census being a uniquely provincial event in the Roman Empire:

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

III. Was There a Roman Census in Judaea Before Quirinius?

Even if Quirinius had been governor a previous time, conveniently during the reign of Herod the Great, and conducted a census, that census could not have included Judaea, for Judaea was not under direct Roman control at that time, and not being directly taxed. There is no example of, or rationale for, a census of an independent kingdom ever being conducted in Roman history. Therefore, the census Luke describes could only have been taken after the death of Herod, when Judaea was annexed to the Roman province of Syria, just as Josephus describes. All attempts to argue otherwise have no merit: Luke did not mean a census before Quirinius, could not have imagined Quirinius holding some other position besides governor, and could not have mistook him for someone else.

Whether conducted by Quirinius or anyone else, there could not have been a census in Judaea before 6 A.D., since the province had not entered direct Roman control before then. In contrast, we know that such control always entailed a census, because it initiated Roman direct taxation for which the census existed. Since Quirinius is the first Roman magistrate to control the province, we expect a census to occur at that time. So we expect a census in 6 A.D., and not before. This is due to the nature of Roman imperialism. The whole point of a client kingdom, as Judaea was in the time of Herod, was that the kingdom retain its independence while paying a set and agreed annual tribute--many territories received this special status for cooperating with Rome in important wars, or when Rome did not want to trouble itself with running the province directly, and typically these client states surrounded and protected the borders of the Empire, providing a kind of buffer zone against invasions.[9.1]

To conduct a census in contravention of such an alliance would have been a notable event indeed, mentioned in many other places as the peculiar event that it would have been--even if it did not start an outright war, as almost happened when the Romans finally did conduct a census in Judaea, once they were in direct control.[9.2] Why, after all, would Rome want a census of a territory it was not taxing directly? Such a thing was never done at any time in the history of Rome. Horst Braunert's study of the subject "disproves conclusively the notion of a Roman census before the creation of the province" while also demonstrating that a census was "a necessary consequence of the establishment of direct provincial government."[9.3] And as we saw above, Josephus confirms a census at the beginning of Quirinius' reign, just when we would expect it.[9.35]

So not only is a census before the annexation of a Judaean province against all probability and sense, it lacks all evidence of any kind. It is a purely groundless and ad hoc conjecture.

Peter Kirby

Layman writes: Fair enough, but perhaps this question should be asked of all participants since so many others seem as interested in the issue as I am.

OK. The question is asked of all.

Layman writes: For example, you have decided to intervene in tehd discussion, what is at stake here for you?

My first post was to inform people of a quote which might be interesting to them but perhaps not readily available. My second post was to explain my personal opinion in response to a direct request. My third post was to step back and ask what the big deal is.

Layman writes: Well, for the record, I think the arguments I have been responding to are doing much more than claiming that the verses "imply" a "historical improbability." The argument seems to be that Luke certainly made a mistake.

This emphasis on certainty and possibility makes it sound like an errancy/inerrancy dispute, which have never had much interest to me. I am more interested in an approach to these writings as texts in history, regardless of their later incorporation into the New Testament, and a search for the most likely basis for the statements in these texts.

best,
Peter Kirby