Ancient Sources: History and Theology.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It would indeed be impossible for both to be correct if ηγεμονευω only had the meaning that you choose to impose on it. Fortunately, additional information available from Luke shows that Humpty Dumpty does not rule the word's definitions in reality.

My love of Carroll not withstanding the word is used as the writer of Luke intended it. It is a general military term and it was used in that context for Quirinius the governor. The author of Luke also uses it in reference to Pontius Pilate in 3.1.

I have already stipulated that, unlikely as it is, Luke may simply have referred to the wrong person, but not otherwise be incorrect.

On what attested and accredited historical evidence?

The simple fact that the census of 6CE is not the one referred to by Luke is demonstrated by other evidence provided by Luke

On what attested and accredited historical evidence?

Nothing in Luke shows that Quirinius conducted a census in Judaea prior to 6CE, nor even in that year.

The author of Luke states it was the first with his use of the Greek adjective πρωτος.

Nothing in what you have posted suggests that a client king would have been exempt from conducting an empire wide census.

What attested and accredited historical evidence are you citing in support of that statement?

Nothing in what you have posted suggests that a one-off request would not have been made in the event that a general principle exempting client states applied.

What attested and accredited historical evidence are you citing in support of that statement?

Judaea was in fact subject to taxation by Rome, albeit in one context only, from the middle of the first century BCE.

Firstly tribute is not precisely the same as a tax. Secondly tribute payments would have been collected by Herod's own officials, not those of Rome. Thirdly, it remains uncertain as to whether Herod continued to pay a regular tribute despite the fact that a fixed sum had been stipulated when he was appointed as King.

All up - some uncertainty must be admitted regarding a census conducted at the time of Christ's birth. No evidence strong enough to allow the conclusion that Luke WAS BEYOND DOUBT mistaken has been advanced.

Josephus gives us a precise date for this census.

If the previously ceded point that some uncertainty attends Luke 2:2 fails to satisfy, so be it.

The author of Luke makes it clear he is referring to the 6 CE census conducted by Quirinius. However ,I will repeat my remarks from my post #154 referencing H R Moehring

The arguments against the Lucan account were best summarised by Schürer and they deserve to be mentioned again at this point.

• History, except for the passage in Luke, knows nothing of a general census throughout the Roman Empire during the reign of Augustus.
• A Roman census could not have obliged Joseph to travel to Bethlehem and for Mary to accompany him.
• A Roman census could not be carried out at all in Palestine during the time of Herod.
• Josephus knows nothing of a Roman census in Palestine at the time of Herod; on the contrary, he speaks of the census in AD 7 as something new and unheard of.
• A census held under Quirinius could not fall into the time of Herod, since during Herod’s lifetime Quirinius was never governor of Syria.

This is a formidable list of problems and no one has ever come close to solving all of them.

[My added emphasis]

You have provided nothing by way of conclusive evidence

The historical evidence exists but you will not accept because you want to fit the history to the gospel accounts of Jesus' age during his ministry and his death. In other words you want want theocratic history not proper history.

- except to show what was already known: Luke was not referring to the census of 6CE.

What attested and accredited historical evidence are you citing in support of that statement?

[tabibito]

Then recognise another discrepancy, namely that the two birth narratives contradict one another.

They cannot both be historically correct.

It would indeed be impossible for both to be correct if ηγεμονευω only had the meaning that you choose to impose on it. Fortunately, additional information available from Luke shows that Humpty Dumpty does not rule the word's definitions in reality. I have already stipulated that, unlikely as it is, Luke may simply have referred to the wrong person, but not otherwise be incorrect. The simple fact that the census of 6CE is not the one referred to by Luke is demonstrated by other evidence provided by Luke re Christ's age and the time that John the Baptist began his ministry.

Nothing in Luke shows that Quirinius conducted a census in Judaea prior to 6CE, nor even in that year.
Nothing in what you have posted suggests that a client king would have been exempt from conducting an empire wide census.
Nothing in what you have posted suggests that a one-off request would not have been made in the event that a general principle exempting client states applied.

Judaea was in fact subject to taxation by Rome, albeit in one context only, from the middle of the first century BCE.


All up - some uncertainty must be admitted regarding a census conducted at the time of Christ's birth. No evidence strong enough to allow the conclusion that Luke WAS BEYOND DOUBT mistaken has been advanced.

If the previously ceded point that some uncertainty attends Luke 2:2 fails to satisfy, so be it. You have provided nothing by way of conclusive evidence - except to show what was already known: Luke was not referring to the census of 6CE.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You have evidence that I do not believe the Bible to be inerrant - I have already posted a copy of one discrepancy in the records.

Then recognise another discrepancy, namely that the two birth narratives contradict one another.

They cannot both be historically correct.

[tabibito]

And my point stands. No evidence will change your preconceived theological beliefs for which you have not one iota of attested historical evidence. Your entire contention is premised on the writings of the author of Luke and the unsupported assumptions made by Ramsay.

What you and others who hold to an inerrant bible will not accept is that the two birth narratives found in the New Testament cannot both be correct. Known history does does not support it.

You have evidence that I do not believe the Bible to be inerrant - I have already posted a copy of one discrepancy in the records. I have already posted acknowledgement that there are different textual streams for the New Testament - any mismatch between the documents in those streams shows that there is an error somewhere. Likewise, Rogue (I think it is) posted a comment about three different streams in the Old Testament records, together with a graphical presentation.

I will not make apology for dismissing the comments of authors who ignore the context and content of Biblical records.

The fact that you can insist that I believe the Biblical record to be inerrant after I have posted comments demonstrating that not to be the case is a testament to your self blinding prejudice, and nothing more.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Whatever else might be said, when he wrote of a census at the time of Christ's birth, Luke was not referring to the census of 6CE.

Luke 3:23 When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli...

Pretending that Luke was referring to the census of 6CE would have Jesus starting his ministry in the final year of Pilate's tenure.

Luke 3:1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene [(John the Baptist began his ministry)]

According to Luke, John the Baptist began his ministry in 29CE, the fifteenth year of Tiberius' reign. Had Luke been referring to the census of 6CE as the time of Jesus' birth, that would have put Jesus in his early twenties, not in his thirties.

And my point stands. No evidence will change your preconceived theological beliefs for which you have not one iota of attested historical evidence. Your entire contention is premised on the writings of the author of Luke and the unsupported assumptions made by Ramsay.

What you and others who hold to an inerrant bible will not accept is that the two birth narratives found in the New Testament cannot both be correct. Known history does not support it.

[tabibito]

That the census covered the whole of Syria is further attested by the inscription of Aemilius Secundus, who took the census in Apamea on Quirinius's order (iussu Quirini censum egi Apamenae civitatis millium homin(um) civium CXVII). The year AD 6/7 in which the census was undertaken in Judaea coincides approximately with the fourteen-year population-count cycle in Egypt. [...] objections to the Lucan narrative would still remain in full force, for a population count in the Roman province of Syria would not prove that a similar count took place in King Herod's territory, and in any case, a population count in the year 9/8 BC. would in no circumstances have occurred in the time of Quirinius, but in that of Sentius Saturninus. [...] the census of Quirinius was not based on a fixed cycle, but was a special mission, as Josephus's statements clearly show..

Josephus gives the precise date for this event and tells us it was 37 years after Actium, which places it [using our chronology] in 6 CE. Josephus also notes that this was a new and hitherto unknown procedure in that new province. We also know that Varus was governor of Syria at the end of the reign of Herod the Great. He put down the rebellion of Judas of Gamala [Galilee] and would die some three years later in the terrible military disaster in the Teutoburger Wald.

With regard to your apparent amusement over the Greek term ηγεμονευοντος [of being governor] I suggest you consult a Greek lexicon. You will find detailed information on this term in Liddell Scott. However, with regard to linguistic definitions, the Greek word ήγεμων used by Luke to describe Roman Legates, Procurators and Proconsuls, is a general term having a military connotation.

Josephus, however, is somewhat more precise, employing the words, πιτροπος for the Latin Procurator, andδικαιοδοτης and πρεσβευτης for the Latin Legatus. Josephus also uses ήγεμων and both Matthew [20:8] and Luke [8:3] employ επιτροπος.

The correct Roman title of Consular Governors of Imperial Provinces garrisoned by more than one legion [as was Syria] was Legatus Augusti Pro Praetore.

As you appear somewhat uninformed as to how Rome governed its empire I recommend you seek out a paper by Eric Burley “Senators in the Emperor’s Service”. In: Proceedings of the British Academy, Vol. 39. 1953. pp.197-214.

I would further remark that the early Christian writers were not overly au fait with history as evinced by Justin Martyr [c.100-165 CE] who regarded King Ptolemy, at whose insistence the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek, to be a contemporary of King Herod. [Apol.1: 31].[/I]

Whatever else might be said, when he wrote of a census at the time of Christ's birth, Luke was not referring to the census of 6CE.

Luke 3:23 When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli...

Pretending that Luke was referring to the census of 6CE would have Jesus starting his ministry in the final year of Pilate's tenure.

Luke 3:1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene [(John the Baptist began his ministry)]

According to Luke, John the Baptist began his ministry in 29CE, the fifteenth year of Tiberius' reign. Had Luke been referring to the census of 6CE as the time of Jesus' birth, that would have put Jesus in his early twenties, not in his thirties.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

From post #164 June 26:


From Schürer Vol 1 “Excursus I The Census of Quirinius Luke 2:1-5” which starts at p 399 with a detailed bibliography of related academic works.

On p.400 he writes “After the banishment of Archelaus, the imperial legate Quirinius went to Judaea and in AD 6 or 7 conducted a census, i.e. registration, of the inhabitants and their property for taxation purposes. The evangelist Luke (2:1-5) writes of a valuation census such as that made by Quirinius, but he appears to date it near the end of the reign of Herod the Great, some ten or twelve years earlier (the preceding story of the birth of John begins, 1:5: Ἐγένετο ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ἡρῴδου βασιλέως τῆς Ἰουδαίας [...] The question is, how is this report related to the similar one presented by Josephus? Were two different censuses conducted in Judaea by Quirinius, or has Luke mistakenly placed the census of A.D. 6/7 in the last two years of Herod the Great?

He then offers several pages explaining how Rome taxed its empire.

[pp.405-406]The task of Quirinius in AD 6/7 concerned not only Judaea but the whole of Syria. But in Judaea, a Roman 'valuation' [ άποτίμησις] was necessary at precisely that time because it was then, following the deposition of Archelaus, that the territory was transferred for the first time to direct Roman administration.2 2 That the census covered the whole of Syria is further attested by the inscription of Aemilius Secundus, who took the census in Apamea on Quirinius's order (iussu Quirini censum egi Apamenae civitatis millium homin(um) civium CXVII). The year AD 6/7 in which the census was undertaken in Judaea coincides approximately with the fourteen-year population-count cycle in Egypt. [...] objections to the Lucan narrative would still remain in full force, for a population count in the Roman province of Syria would not prove that a similar count took place in King Herod's territory, and in any case, a population count in the year 9/8 BC. would in no circumstances have occurred in the time of Quirinius, but in that of Sentius Saturninus. [...] the census of Quirinius was not based on a fixed cycle, but was a special mission, as Josephus's statements clearly show..

Josephus gives the precise date for this event and tells us it was 37 years after Actium, which places it [using our chronology] in 6 CE. Josephus also notes that this was a new and hitherto unknown procedure in that new province. We also know that Varus was governor of Syria at the end of the reign of Herod the Great. He put down the rebellion of Judas of Gamala [Galilee] and would die some three years later in the terrible military disaster in the Teutoburger Wald.

With regard to your apparent amusement over the Greek term ηγεμονευοντος [of being governor] I suggest you consult a Greek lexicon. You will find detailed information on this term in Liddell Scott. However, with regard to linguistic definitions, the Greek word ήγεμων used by Luke to describe Roman Legates, Procurators and Proconsuls, is a general term having a military connotation.

Josephus, however, is somewhat more precise, employing the words, πιτροπος for the Latin Procurator, andδικαιοδοτης and πρεσβευτης for the Latin Legatus. Josephus also uses ήγεμων and both Matthew [20:8] and Luke [8:3] employ επιτροπος.

The correct Roman title of Consular Governors of Imperial Provinces garrisoned by more than one legion [as was Syria] was Legatus Augusti Pro Praetore.

As you appear somewhat uninformed as to how Rome governed its empire I recommend you seek out a paper by Eric Burley “Senators in the Emperor’s Service”. In: Proceedings of the British Academy, Vol. 39. 1953. pp.197-214.

I would further remark that the early Christian writers were not overly au fait with history as evinced by Justin Martyr [c.100-165 CE] who regarded King Ptolemy, at whose insistence the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek, to be a contemporary of King Herod. [Apol.1: 31].

[tabibito]

as previously noted no historical or linguistic evidence [see josephus] will dissuade you from your preconceived notions. L leave you to them.

[/quote]

the word, ηγεμονευοντος, used by luke when referring to quirinius, is not restricted to the meaning of "governor," but can apply to anyone in a command position

the greek ηγεμονευοντος [of being governor] means exactly what it says and the word carries a strong military connotation.

"when i use a word," humpty dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what i choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

the verb ἡγεμονεύω is a general military term. Consult your complete liddell scott.

quirinius was not a ”prefect”. He was ex consular [a very senior position] not a praefectus[/color]

[rogue06]

As previously noted no historical or linguistic evidence [see Josephus] will dissuade you from your preconceived notions. l leave you to them.

Irony Meter3.gif

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

[QUOTE=tabibito;n1281953]

Luke 2:3-8 does not declare who actually conducted was charged with getting the census conducted in Judaea.



There is no textual evidence to demonstrate that "governor" is Luke's intended meaning.



Not in Herod the Great's time, to the best of my knowledge.

As previously noted no historical or linguistic evidence [see Josephus] will dissuade you from your preconceived notions. l leave you to them.

[tabibito]

[QUOTE=Hypatia_Alexandria;n1281943]

Well Quirinius was not the scribe taking down all the information from every individual.

However, as governor it was carried under his authority.

Luke 2:3-8 does not declare who actually conducted was charged with getting the census conducted in Judaea.

Luke 2:2 This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.

There is no textual evidence to demonstrate that "governor" is Luke's intended meaning.

I suppose you do know that Judaea as a province was included within the larger province of Syria?

Not in Herod the Great's time, to the best of my knowledge.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I bumped "send" by mistake and had to edit ... so while I was editing ---

Luke 2:3-8 does not declare who actually conducted the census in Judaea.

AFTER reading comprehension test - then interpret.

Well Quirinius was not the scribe taking down all the information from every individual.

However, as governor it was carried under his authority.

Luke 2:2 This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.

I suppose you do know that Judaea as a province was included within the larger province of Syria?

[tabibito]

You wrote at post #237



I am waiting for you to tell me how you interpret Luke 2:1-8.

I bumped "send" by mistake and had to edit ... so while I was editing ---

Luke 2:3-8 does not declare who actually conducted the census in Judaea.

AFTER reading comprehension test - then interpret.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You wrote at post #237

Who says anything about the census of 6CE? Who says anything about Quirinius actually conducting the census in Judaea at the time of Christ's birth? Luke doesn't.

I am waiting for you to tell me how you interpret Luke 2:1-8.

[tabibito]

How do you interpret Luke 2:1-8?

Reading Comprehension Test.
Cut and paste answers from the text as it is written.

Luke 2:1 Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. 2 This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governing in Syria.

1/ What happened "in those days?" - a decree went out.
2/ Who issued that decree? - Caesar Augustus.
3/ What did the decree require? - a census (to be taken of all the earth.)
4/ When did the census take place? - while Quirinius was governing in Syria.
5/ What was particular about this census? - it was the first while Quirinius was governing.

Additional:
5/ Examine "governing" for its possible connotations.