Current Biblical Archaeology

[Minimalist]

you could be surprised as your penchent for disproving the Bible and for making statements inthe finality tend to lead you astray.

History is what it is. One can argue about human motivations but facts are facts.

Judea was an independent kingdom until 6 AD when they applied to become a Roman prefecture.

The Romans would not have wanted or needed any sort of minute contol over the kingdom as long as the tribute was paid and the peace was kept. Failure to deliver on either of those would be a cause of trouble but Herod the Great was a loyal Roman vassal, first of Julius Caesar, later of Marcus Antonius and finally of Augustus. Despite the calumnies heaped on him by Jewish sources, there is no indication that the Roman authorities were anything but satisfied with his performance as king and he was an extraordinary engineer and builder. Rome was not about upsetting the status quo within their own borders. They would have had no reason to interfere in the internal workings of Herod's kingdom.

[Guest]

before you gloat or think you won anything i have done some quick research which may shed light on the census and i have written Dr. McRay, though i wouldn't know when or if i will get a response.

Here is a good look at the words and this author makes better sense than Vardaman :

http://www.orlutheran.com/html/census.html

Does this mean that Luke is in error? Not at all, especially when he shows himself to be such a careful historian throughout both his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, his other historical work. Besides, we believe Luke's Gospel to be inspired by the Holy Spirit!

The key to solving this alleged puzzle, is in the phrase "first census" in the sentence, "This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governing Syria." What does Luke mean by a first census? One theory offered is that the Greek word for "first" (prote) is sometimes translated "prior to" or "before." This is a viable solution because the Greek text of Luke 2:2 can indeed be translated, "This census was before Quirinius was governing Syria."

this possibility is more sound and makes more sense than what minimalist or vardaman propose.

so my position is still intact and credible.

surely you knew that

kind of hard to say before Christ, when he was born 4 years or so earlier than the start of the dating system isn't it?

[Minimalist]

Not at all, especially when he shows himself to be such a careful historian throughout both his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, his other historical work. Besides, we believe Luke's Gospel to be inspired by the Holy Spirit!

Oh, yeah! THAT's convincing!

[Guest]

look at the issue and not what you want to see-- i could have used this one instead:

http://www.biblehistory.net/Chap2.htm

And as for Quirinius being the governor of Syria during this census, it is worth noting that the Bible never calls him the governor, at least the New King James Version doesn't. It says he was governing in Syria. And we know that Quirinius was indeed governing in some capacity in this region at this time.

[marduk]

did i get this right
you are now claiming that the NKJV is a valid source

[Minimalist]

And as for Quirinius being the governor of Syria during this census, it is worth noting that the Bible never calls him the governor

It does not matter what the bible called him. What matters is that Caesar Augustus called him Governor of Syria and appointed his fanny in 6 AD. He served until 9 AD.

This is exactly your problem, arch. You think that there is no other book in the world except your damned bible. The Romans did not give a shit about the bible. They ran their empire the way they wanted without it.

[marduk]

the romans didn't have Arch's bible as he's using the new adapted for the gullible versions and not the original hebrew version

[Guest]

i believe minimalist said the census was only for military service well i found this tidbit to show that the Bible was correct again in saying it was for taxes as well.

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=194&

The census figures for the Roman Empire are all estimates. The Roman census was mainly designed to register people for paying of taxes. Mostly the census counted male heads of households for just this purpose, but Augustus seems to have added women, children and perhaps non-citizens. The census of Rome in 70 BC was recorded at about 900,000, but Augustus' figures place it at over 4 million, less than 50 years later in 28 BC.

(it is found inthe second post.)

let's stay away from the accusations as i am just showing support for the Biblical record and doing it archaeologically.

[Minimalist]

believe minimalist said the census was only for military service

If you would read closely, you would see that the annual enrolment of Roman Legions ended in 105 BC. That's BC...before your boy jesus was allegedly born.

The Roman army was divided into 3 classes of heavy infanty, hastati, principes and triarii. Each had differing equipment and armor requirements and membership in each class was determined by the censor's determination of their wealth. The census therefore was much more than a mere head count,

The heavy infantry being the backbone of the Roman army the censor would determine the value of the citizen's property and assign him to a specific class. Once so assigned, he was expected to obtain his own arms and armor suited to that class. Some who did not meet the requirements for the legions were classified as velites which was a kind of skirmishing screen of javelin throwers. The wealthy who could afford a horse were classified as equites. They got to ride.

As stated, once Gaius Marius converted the army into a professional force this function of the census of Roman citizens evaporated.

As noted, direct taxation on Roman citizens ended in the second century BC. In the provinces, tax farming was used until Augustus reformed the practice which had proven to be highly corrupt.

This, of course, had no effect on Herod's kingdom as he paid his tribute and how he gathered the money was his affair....not Rome's, until such time as Judea became a Roman prefecture....in 6 AD under the governorship of Publius Sulpicius Quirinius.

Do you understand now?

[Minimalist]

BTW, here is a translation of the Res Gestae of the Dinive Augustus.

http://classics.mit.edu/Augustus/deeds.html


Note in Sec. 8 that Augustus himself recounts his three census efforts.

The Romans had, by this time, learned the value of granting citizenship to army recruits as a reward for their service, in addition to land in a Roman colony. It was an effective recruiting tool.

[Guest]

I conducted a lustrum alone when Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius were consuls (8 B.C.E.), in which lustrum were counted 4,233,000 heads

lays out evidence for an earlier date for Jesus' birth doesn't it. and you haven't convinced me that herod's realm was exempt. nothing in that that says it was and all i have all your statements which aren't going to convince me at all.

a census would not interupt any ruler's reign nor interfere with such matters as it would benefit his country as well. i believe i read that monetary rewards were given for certain amounts of population, so what would stop a greedy man like Herod from participating to gain some finacial infusion?

your point of view comes from a hatred of the Bible and what guarentees do i have that you are going to be honest when talking about biblical matters?

[Guest]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_census_(Bible)

just to show that there is a record of roman census being done inthose kingdoms minimalist says did not happen...

Generally an imperial census was not conducted in a Roman client kingdom, though it did infrequently occur.

so again it is possible that it did happen in Herod's time.

the following is interesting:

The census as recorded by Luke is in accord with Jewish, rather than Roman administrative customs, requiring enrolment based on ancestral tribe rather than current location (Luke 2:3-4). Although, even Roman citizens enrolled according to tribe at times. It is known that the Roman Empire did retain certain local tax enrolment customs for non-citizens at times, for example in Sicily. There is also a hint in Josephus that Herod was required to give a tally of his populace by local groupings.[10] Lastly, that a census could require travel is known from certain papyri.[11]

[Minimalist]

lays out evidence for an earlier date for Jesus' birth doesn't it. and you haven't convinced me that herod's realm was exempt.

Only if you are ready to forget the Quirinius thing...which makes that gospel false.

Oops....if it was done under Quirinius that makes the other gospel false.


Here's a hint, Arch. One of them (although I think both) must be full of shit.

You cannot have it both ways.

[Minimalist]

Generally an imperial census was not conducted in a Roman client kingdom, though it did infrequently occur.


so again it is possible that it did happen in Herod's time.

You'll notice that they give no examples of this phenomenon? Why am I not surprised.

Another thing, you are willing to accept Josephus, even though his lauding of jesus is an apparent forgery, when it suits you but you are not willing to accept his account as something so mundane as a census. You are very selective in what you accept. It's a failing of all you people!

the following is interesting:

Quote:
The census as recorded by Luke is in accord with Jewish, rather than Roman administrative customs, requiring enrolment based on ancestral tribe rather than current location (Luke 2:3-4). Although, even Roman citizens enrolled according to tribe at times. It is known that the Roman Empire did retain certain local tax enrolment customs for non-citizens at times, for example in Sicily. There is also a hint in Josephus that Herod was required to give a tally of his populace by local groupings.[10] Lastly, that a census could require travel is known from certain papyri.[11]

Except there were riots in Jerusalem...again those inconvenient facts pop up....which would indicate that this was a Roman initiative and not a Jewish one. BTW, I thought you didn't like Wikipedia, either? Another example of your selective acceptance.
[/quote]

[Minimalist]

a census would not interupt any ruler's reign nor interfere with such matters as it would benefit his country as well. i believe i read that monetary rewards were given for certain amounts of population, so what would stop a greedy man like Herod from participating to gain some finacial infusion?

your point of view comes from a hatred of the Bible and what guarentees do i have that you are going to be honest when talking about biblical matters?

You are mistaken, as usual. The insertion of Roman troops and officials into an independent kingdom would most assuredly cause a problem.
The Romans collected tribute from such kingdoms....they did not pay them bonuses. Where does you fertile mind invent such shit? You are so desperate to pass over the fact that your precious gospels are horseshit that you engage in fantasy.

Again, Josephus gives a full explanation of the transition of power and the taking of the census and the problems that arose in Judea as a result. These little fictions that later gospel writers dreamed up to sell their vision of jesus are exposed for the utter falsehoods they are.