Layman

[quote]Originally posted by Sauron:
Your disregard of it is unjustified. It is a good example of how the "autonomy" granted by the Romans was subject to their own whims. As Carrier and Barnett note, Archeluas was a client-king conducting a Roman-style census. So was Herod.

And to say that you are not "drawing any conclusions between Herod and Archelaus" is obviously false.

As usual, you are distorting what I said.

I never claimed that Herod lost all of his autonomy or that he was "just as" autonous as Archelaus.

Herod probably had more autonomy than Archelaus at one time in his reign, but he lost a measure of his sovereignty by disregarding Roman policy.

His autonomy and Archelaus' were similar in that both were client-kings, both ruled their territories without direct Roman oversight, both had their own armies with which they were expected to keep the peace, and (as we are assuming Luke's use of prote in 2:2 is "prior"), both were alleged by an ancient historian to have had a Roman-style census conducted in their territorires.

There are a couple of problems with this "reasoning."

First, we have to look at all of the options when interpreting Luke and determining his meaning. If we accept the majority opinion that proto means "first" we have the problem that -- just as there is no other direct evidence of a census before Quirinius -- there is no other evidence of a census after Quirinius. No evidence either way.

Second, if Luke is refering to a census "prior" to Quirinius and during the reign of Herod, you are wrong that we have no evidence of a census in a non-provincial area (or years).

Third, ignoring the Archelaus comparison is unjusfitied. While not a perfect parrallel it is -- as I have shown again and again -- substantially similar on many important points.

Fourth, the claim that no other "nonprovincial area" ever conducted a census is of limited value. Roman government was constantly changing, as was its relationships with its provinces, client-kings, and other territories. For example, it would be silly to argue that no census were conducted in non-provincial areas before August initiated his pet project to have census taken throughout the entire Empire. This assertion, therefore, is a simply a glittering generality.

Perhaps you missed the point because you seem to be question-begging. Let me rephrase it. If we had a definite aura of suspicion about something and an ancient historian who asserts an event occurred during that window that is fits in well with the change in circumstances, that historian should not be dismissed as necessarily in error.

Herod fell out of favor in 10 BCE. He died in 3 or 4 BCE. Most historians place Jesus' birth -- and therefore the disputed census -- in 7 or 6 BCE. We do not have a "long" "lapse" of time here. Especially not in the ancient days with delays in travel and the fact that back then census' could take years to accomplish.

This argument is a red-herring.

You are begging the question. I agree that if Luke is read to refer to a "first" census we have no direct evidence of a census under Herod, but if he refers to a "prior" census then we do have such a reference -- and therefore evidence of an ancient historian referring to such a census.

Layman

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.

I understand, so let me be up front.

I do not think and would not argue that even if Luke refers to a census "prior" to Quirinius that we can be certain that there was a census under Herod. I'm not even sure that -- at this time and with this evidence -- historically we could claim that it "probably" happened.

My position simply is that there is a possibility that Luke is correct here. I'll even modify that and say that I believe there is a reasonable possibility that Luke did not mistakenly refer to Quirinius census and that there is a reasonable possibility that there was some sort of census under Herod.

So I can understand if you do not want to expend a great deal of time an energy on my modest assertion that is -- admittedly -- somewhat apologetic in its purpose.

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

Benjamin Franklin

Does there have to be anything at stake here ? Can't we just discuss for the intellectual fun of it.

BF

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

Sauron

Flatly incorrect. You are trying to draw conclusions between two things that are not the same. Roman behavior in a buffer state does not equate to Roman behavior in a province.

1. Barnett's claim is based upon Tacitus - but Tacitus does not indicate that Cappadocia was a buffer state.

2. Tacitus does, however, indicate that Cappadocia became a province in 17 AD - thus invalidating Barnett's claim that this was equivalent to Judea during Herod's time.

3. I doubt carrier would support your claim that Archelaus and Herod were similar, and I *KNOW* that he understands the difference between a buffer state (like Judea) and a full province (such as Egypt or Cappadocia). In any event, I have emailed him for clarification.

4. You have no proof that Herod conducted any such census, and you have utterly failed to answer the many reasons why such an event would *not* have happened in a buffer state.


You are, in effect, engaged in wishful thinking and a flurry of handwaving.

No, Layman, it is not false. You are the one who desperately wants to draw conclusions between Herod and Archelaus; in fact you compare them and make claims for their autonomy, conducting censuses, etc. Those are your conclusions - not mine. I am merely illustrating the problems in making such conclusions.


Not at all. I am merely holding you accountable for the comments you make. Evidently that upsets you.



Here is what you claimed, Layman:

Autonomy that is factually very similar to Herod.

Now you want to pretend that you never said it. And you accuse others of playing semantic games.



Not likely. The provincial governors were near absolute, especially after the Roman Republic and during the time of the Empire. Herod was merely in charge of a buffer state, not a province - so it is highly unlikely that his freedom ever approached that of a full provincial governor.


Uh, wrong.
Herod was not a provincial governor.
And Since Cappadocia was a full Roman province, there was direct Roman oversight.

Sauron

You are amazingly incorrect. There was a census in 6 AD in Judea, when it came under direct Roman control. Josephus gives details, and indicates that it was the Quirinius census. The first census that Qurininius conducted was 6 AD. So there most certainly *is* evidence - but it points to Luke having screwed up and placed the census in the wrong years.


Repeating an error does not make it true. We have zero evidence of any census in a non-provincial area. Your only two examples so far have been Egypt and Cappadocia, but both of them are provinces.

I'll repeat Carrier here:

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.


So if you think you have examples of a census in a non-provincial area, then by all means bring it forth. However, the fact that you passed up several opportunities to do so already; well, that tells me that you are just blowing smoke here, as usual.


Sorry; the comparison with Archelaus is justifiably ignored. You may have found congruences, but never on the key point - the political status of the territory.

And yet, in all this fluency and changefulness that you are desperately invoking here, we *still* never find an occasion where a census was conducted in a non-provincial area.

You are, in effect, trying to blur the distinctions between a province and a buffer state because you believe that if you are successful in doing that, then you can make the argument that a census prior to 6 AD was conducted, as according to Luke. However, in addition to there being zero evidence for there *ever* being any non-provincial censuses, you also offer no affirmative evidence for the Lucan census.

Also - above you claim that there are examples of censuses in non-provincial areas.
Here you allow that it is true, but claim that it has limited value.

Having problems making up your mind again, Layman?


Mere assertion - and no more convincing than previously. You postulate that such censuses took place, but mysteriously we have no record of that ever happening. No tax records, no headcount of barbarians, nothing. There were lots of buffer states, and lots of years in which to conduct such a hypothetical census. And such data would have been useful to a lot of people, thus increasing the possibility that *someone* would have written it down, somewhere.

Had such a census ever been conducted in a non-provincial area, that is. Which it was not.

You used the word "silly" - what actually would be silly would to be maintain, with zero evidence, that any such census was taken outside of the Roman provinces. In other words, to maintain the position you now argue.

Furthermore, your position flies in the face of what we know about the rationale behind Roman administration of their empire. Carrier again:


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.


Flatly incorrect. It is an accurate summation of the historical record with regard to conducting censuses in the Roman Empire.


Or perhaps I did not miss the point at all, but found the weakness in your argument.

That was not your original claim, however. Since you are now straining to put distance between yourself and your original claim, I think it's useful to remind everyone of exactly what you claimed:


Unless these events were contradicted by direct evidence, an ancient historian who claimed something of the sort happened would have additional credibility.

* "Additional credibility"?
* Because a historian speculated with a high degree of specificity?
* Without any evidence upon which to hang such a detailed speculation?
* In your mind, this 'enhances credibility'?

Nonsense. It does NOT enhance the credibility of a historian. Especially when one considers that there is zero evidence to hang such a detailed speculation on in the first place.

So (bringing this all back to the bogus claim that started it):

when you say that "Rome might have imposed a taxation on Herod" as a result of the Nabatean war - that is just speculation without evidence, and special pleading. Its only purpose is to try and rescue the Lucan census story from the dust heap.


Nonsense. You have six or seven years to explain here - the time between the Nabatean war, and the time that Herod died. There are ZERO ROMAN RECORDS that support the idea of any census being ordered, or conducted, from that time.

Never mind the fact that a census in a buffer state was unheard of it the first place.

And never mind that such a census of the Jews would have certainly resulted in unrest and revolt in Judea anyhow - another event that would have been noticed.

This is similar to many creationist arguments I have heard - a mysterious supernatural event, that contradicts all the evidence that we have, leaves behind no trace of its existence - and yet you expect us to swallow the tale.


1. You're overstating the delays in travel. If Rome had wanted Herod to conduct a census because of the Nabatean wars, then it would only be a matter of a few weeks or a month to carry that message to Herod from Rome. And considering how small Judea was, as a region, relying on "delays of travel" is pretty feeble of you.

2. As for the preparatory time for such a census - that doesn't help your argument. It just expands the window of time/opportunity for someone to notice the event, and describe it in writing.

3. And of course, given the Judean mind-set and the political situation, any such census would have been accompanied by revolt, protest, etc. - as happened later, when a census was conducted in Judea. Unless you're now going to postulate a mysterious census that nobody recorded anywhere, and nobody objected to? The heights to which you will go to support such a desperate position amuse me, Layman.

4. And of course, your are interchanging the concept of a tax and a census, when they really are not the same thing at all - for reasons that Carrier outlines in his essay.

THe bottom line is that this Herodian census event never occurred - you are simply having a hard time accepting that fact.

Not at all. It's a problem you haven't sufficiently addressed yet.

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]

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

Sauron

The unanswered question, however, remains. As above, let's assume we are conducting a search for the most likely basis for the statements in these texts.

Given that, then what is your objection to the conclusion that (when attempting to relay the gospel story)Luke made a simple chronological error in co-locating the Quirinius census of 6 AD with the birth of Christ?

It is the most simple, straightforward conclusion and the only one that doesn't violently torture everything we know about Roman history and imperial administration. It also has the elegance of not invoking layer after layer of ad hoc speculation, for which no supporting evidence exists.

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

Benjamin Franklin

Why is it very probable that a census during King Herod's time, whether by the Romans or King Herod, would escape Josephus's attention ?

BF

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Benjamin Franklin ]

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

Benjamin Franklin

I hope I am not misrepresenting Peter Kirby here but I think he is saying that if there was a census of any sort during King Herod's time, whether by the Romans, or King Herod himself, it would not have escape Josephus's attention, which runs contrary to your claim that is highly probable that such a census would have escape Josephus attention.

BF

Bede

joedad,

Wow. I don't think I have ever been so effectively put down by such elegant and understated viciousness in my life before. After picking myself from the floor and dusting myself off, I find that we are no longer addressing the issue (why the methods we use for Alex are also suitable for Christian documents and why you cannot just dismiss them as liturgical and hence useless). I think your creative writing background meant you latched onto my final aphorism and ignored five thousand words of substance before that.

You seem happy to write off the achievements and methods of critical historians when you say that you think they are in the same boat as the council of Nicea. I would say that that is an untrue as claiming that the scientists at CERN are as stuck as Hero and Ptolemy in Roman Alexandria. Critical methods have made massive strides in the way that texts and events can be analysed and studied that people a hundred years ago had never thought of. You have a rather patronising attitude towards history that reminds me of how post modernists sneer at science. You are an amateur but I am training to be a professional, and perhaps those are the people I should talk to.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Amen-Moses

Originally posted by Peter Kirby:
Before I look into this any further, I would like to ask what is at stake here.

Since you opened it up to the floor let me grab my mop and bucket.

If it could be established that Luke 2:1-3 implies a historical improbability, what would follow from that?

Of all the gospel accounts Luke is the one that is supposedly written by a historian (albeit a self proclaimed one), I have found christians to be very protective about it.

In particular whenever you can show where GLuke parts company with history you bring suspicion against the claims made by the author as to his (or her?) "careful examination".

If it could be established that there is a plausible reading of Luke 2:1-3 that does not entail any inaccuracy, what have we lost or gained?

From a skeptical viewpoint, bugger all, but I'm not the one claiming that GLuke is a historical account. IMO there is as much historical accuracy in GLuke as there is in Moby Dick!

Amen-Moses