Luke's account on Quirinius and the census

[miguel]

Here is an article on allaboutthejourney.org

 

The opening to the Christmas story in the Gospel of Luke is familiar to many of us...

 

And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city.

In this passage from the Gospel of Luke, we learn of a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world will be taxed and everyone must return to their home city for a formal census. We also read that this concept of registration and taxation was first decreed when Quirinius (also known as Cyrenius) was governing Syria. Well, for centuries, this whole text was considered a fabrication, since there was no secular record of such a Roman census or that people had to return to their home cities. Also, the only record of Quirinius (Cyrenius) being "governor" of Syria was 6-7 AD (Josephus), much too late to coincide with the biblical record.

 

Guess what? Recent discoveries reveal that the Romans did have a regular enrollment of taxpayers and held a formal census every 14 years, beginning with the reign of Caesar Augustus. In addition, an inscription and other archaeological evidence reveal that Quirinius was indeed "governing" Syria around 7 BC (although not with the official title of "governor", he was the military leader in the territory). Finally, a papyrus discovered in Egypt generally discusses the system of Roman taxation, declaring the following: "Because of the approaching census it is necessary that all those residing for any cause away from their home should at once prepare to return to their own governments in order that they may complete the family registration of the enrollment..."

 

I would like to ask is there any sources concerning the 'recent discoveries' mentioned in the article that prove Luke's account to be true?

Edited June 1, 2007 by miguel

[Nephele]

I would like to ask is there any sources concerning the 'recent discoveries' mentioned in the article that prove Luke's account to be true?

 

Evangelist and creationist Randall Niles (apparent author of that piece you quoted), co-founder of All About God Ministries, cites these sources on his website for his conclusions:

 

"Recent discoveries reveal that the Romans did have a regular enrollment of taxpayers and held a formal census every 14 years, beginning with the reign of Caesar Augustus."

E. M. Blaiklock, "Quirinius," The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, vol. 5, Zondervan Publishing House, 1976, 6. See also, http://users.rcn.com/tlclcms/census.html#Anchor4.

 

"In addition, an inscription and other archaeological evidence reveal that Quirinius was indeed

[Primus Pilus]

We know of the census at least from Augustus' own Res Gestae. Line 8.

 

A more detailed account of the census in question and the involvement of Quirinius is provided by Josephus in the "Antiquities". His account conflicts slightly with the gospels of Matthew and Luke, but the basic concepts are the same as far as I can remember. The problem seems to be with dates.

 

Josephus' account in antiquities (Quirinius is called by the Greek version of his name Cyrenius)...

Antiquities book 17 chap 13.5

Antiquities book 18, chap 1 & 2

 

The wiki actually provides a nice account of the issues in reconciling the Gospels with Josephus..

Census of Quirinius

[miguel]

Evangelist and creationist Randall Niles (apparent author of that piece you quoted), co-founder of All About God Ministries, cites these sources on his website for his conclusions

 

Didn't realize that . I have problems in browsing the links given.

 

We know of the census at least from Augustus' own Res Gestae. Line 8.

 

A more detailed account of the census in question and the involvement of Quirinius is provided by Josephus in the "Antiquities". His account conflicts slightly with the gospels of Matthew and Luke, but the basic concepts are the same as far as I can remember. The problem seems to be with dates.

 

Josephus' account in antiquities (Quirinius is called by the Greek version of his name Cyrenius)...

Antiquities book 17 chap 13.5

Antiquities book 18, chap 1 & 2

 

The wiki actually provides a nice account of the issues in reconciling the Gospels with Josephus..

Census of Quirinius

 

Yea I could see the problem with dates. Is there any other accounts on Quirinius governing Syria but in the name of military leader in 7 BC? Can I say that Josephus or Luke (or maybe Matthew) was wrong, or was there actually two 'Quirinius', perhaps?

[guy]

Made by mistake

Edited August 6, 2020 by guy

[Andrew Dalby]

The wiki actually provides a nice account of the issues in reconciling the Gospels with Josephus..

Census of Quirinius

Yea I could see the problem with dates. Is there any other accounts on Quirinius governing Syria but in the name of military leader in 7 BC? Can I say that Josephus or Luke (or maybe Matthew) was wrong, or was there actually two 'Quirinius', perhaps?

Although Wikipedia is, let's say, variable in its reliability, I agree with Nephele that this particular article gives a very good survey of the "census" issue. If you work through it, you find that it does reference some (probably all) of the documents that Niles was talking about.

 

You can say "wrong" if you like. Historians generally would expect sources written long after the event and based on oral tradition among people who weren't ever involved with government (except to their disadvantage) to show some differences from what the documents say, sometimes "misunderstandings", sometimes "mistakes".

 

Take it out of the religious context for a minute. You expect that an official history of the Second World War will have some differences in detail from a memoir written down by a friend of a private soldier, long after the events. That memoir will include misunderstandings about what led to a particular battle, what troops were in which location, how many were killed, etc. But it might include many crucial details about ineffective planning, poor communications, lack of supplies, that the official history will surely omit. It might even include a detail (involving a non-combatant, a child maybe) that will turn out, years later, to have had real significance.

 

That's why we need all kinds of sources, and we needn't be too eager to say that one source or another is "wrong".

[Nephele]

Although Wikipedia is, let's say, variable in its reliability, I agree with Nephele that this particular article gives a very good survey of the "census" issue. If you work through it, you find that it does reference some (probably all) of the documents that Niles was talking about.

 

Thanks, AD, but I think something must have gone wonky with the quote function, because it was actually Primus Pilus who dug up the Wiki source. But I found it interesting, too.

 

-- Nephele

[miguel]

This biblical inaccuracy doesn’t make my faith any less. It only confirms man’s fallibility.

 

You can say "wrong" if you like. Historians generally would expect sources written long after the event and based on oral tradition among people who weren't ever involved with government (except to their disadvantage) to show some differences from what the documents say, sometimes "misunderstandings", sometimes "mistakes".

 

Take it out of the religious context for a minute. You expect that an official history of the Second World War will have some differences in detail from a memoir written down by a friend of a private soldier, long after the events. That memoir will include misunderstandings about what led to a particular battle, what troops were in which location, how many were killed, etc. But it might include many crucial details about ineffective planning, poor communications, lack of supplies, that the official history will surely omit. It might even include a detail (involving a non-combatant, a child maybe) that will turn out, years later, to have had real significance.

 

That's why we need all kinds of sources, and we needn't be too eager to say that one source or another is "wrong".

 

That comes a question: is the Bible a religious book based only on Christian belief, or a historical record? In another words are biblical facts = historical facts? Let us consider the bible as a historical source. The four Gospel writers and Josephus described Jesus Christ as a real person; Matthew and John were two of the followers of Jesus, i.e. they did have involved. Can I say that there are no 'misunderstandings" or "mistakes"? And so, according to the Gospels, did Jesus performed miracles or even rised from death? (btw did Josephus mention about Jesus' Resurrection?)

 

I believe historians would write their accounts in different aspect, in different words, sometimes with errors, but the above five writers (maybe there are more, I don't know much about others) wrote about Jesus. It can't be wrong, can it?

 

Seem to be a bit out of topic... Guy, can you prove the biblical sources to be inaccurate? And I find myself not being able to understand the scenario of "Ronald Reagan’s being President at the same time that Arnold Schwarzenegger is the Governor of California. " Perhaps it's because I am not an American.

 

AD, do you have other sources concerning my question? 'cause I seemed to have problems in browsing the links in Niles' article. Thanks

Edited June 2, 2007 by miguel

[Marcus Caelius]

Guy, can you prove the biblical sources to be inaccurate?

 

Clarification: Is it being claimed that the Bible is accurate, or inaccurate? Whatever, it is up to the claimant to provide the evidence. "The Bible is accurate(or inaccurate, depending on your stance) unless you can prove otherwise," is arguing from ignorance and carries no weight.

 

The simple fact is that the Bible is replete with internal contradictions and inconsistencies. The question is, how much weight should be given them? If you are going to claim that the Bible is accurate, period, it's up to you to resolve those disagreements. If you are going to allow for differing versions of the same story, then your resulting claims as to the actual facts are going to be tentative, at best.

 

There are plenty of people who demonize the Bible, saying it's all hogwash, and there are plenty of others who claim it's all absolutely true, as written. Myself, I'm in the "Maybe" category, and any claimant is going to have to prove his case, using evidence and not rhetoric.

[Ingsoc]

The main problem with the gospels account is that at this time Judea wasn't under direct Roman rule, so the romans would have no authority to conduct a census and I don't think it's was needed since the taxes to Rome was payed indirectly by the vassal ruler (in this case Herod or one of his sons). also I think the Herodians would have preffered to avoid a census since it would likely to bring strong opposition from their Jewish subjects.

 

Now Josephus dating is more logical, since a census (for taxing purposes) was an ordinery part of the organisation of a new province (in this case Judea was annexed in 6 AD).

 

I think it's very simple to solve this difficulty by accepting that the writers of the bible simple made a mistake as their didn't write a history book and most likely had no access to historic sources (unlike Josephus).

[Primus Pilus]

If one leaves out the divine story elements and looks simply at the background history, the 'new testament' can easily be viewed as historical source material. Is it 100% accurate? No, probably not, but it's also highly unlikely that Tacitus and others are 100% accurate either. We accept those sources as general fact while understanding the potential for biases, personal agendas, or what have you. The difference is that Tacitus, Cassius Dio, etc. were attempting to write history, not recount the story of the birth of a religion. The gospel writers were more interested in that story than verifying the historical source material that may have been available to them.

 

It's probably unfair to judge the history of the bible when that wasn't the purpose. Those of a more religious bent may disagree with me, but I liken it a bit to a historical novel. It holds a familiar but ancillary historical setting as what matters is the main character and how he interacts with that setting.

[miguel]

Clarification: Is it being claimed that the Bible is accurate, or inaccurate? Whatever, it is up to the claimant to provide the evidence. "The Bible is accurate(or inaccurate, depending on your stance) unless you can prove otherwise," is arguing from ignorance and carries no weight.

 

I asked the question as Guy said "This biblical inaccuracy doesn’t make my faith any less. It only confirms man’s fallibility."

 

The main problem with the gospels account is that at this time Judea wasn't under direct Roman rule, so the romans would have no authority to conduct a census and I don't think it's was needed since the taxes to Rome was payed indirectly by the vassal ruler (in this case Herod or one of his sons). also I think the Herodians would have preffered to avoid a census since it would likely to bring strong opposition from their Jewish subjects.

 

Now Josephus dating is more logical, since a census (for taxing purposes) was an ordinery part of the organisation of a new province (in this case Judea was annexed in 6 AD).

 

I think it's very simple to solve this difficulty by accepting that the writers of the bible simple made a mistake as their didn't write a history book and most likely had no access to historic sources (unlike Josephus).

 

Luke 2:1 (New International Version) In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. That means the census was to be taken throughout the entire Roman Empire. I doubt if the census was practical since the primitive transportation systems of the Roman Empire would have been totally inadequate to handle the flow of people. The entire empire would be largely shut down for many months while people were returning to their home towns. But it was possible that the census was Herod's own, to tax his people, or the Romans ordered Herod to adopt a census.

 

The problem is that there are no direct mentions other than Luke's Gospel of the census under Quirinius. But we could see Luke was knowledgeable about the political situation between Rome and Judea and Galilee (as we can see his historic accounts in Luke and Acts), it was unlikely that Luke would incorrectly make such a big blunder as to confuse the Quirinius census as having occurred during the time of King Herod.

 

If one leaves out the divine story elements and looks simply at the background history, the 'new testament' can easily be viewed as historical source material. Is it 100% accurate? No, probably not, but it's also highly unlikely that Tacitus and others are 100% accurate either. We accept those sources as general fact while understanding the potential for biases, personal agendas, or what have you. The difference is that Tacitus, Cassius Dio, etc. were attempting to write history, not recount the story of the birth of a religion. The gospel writers were more interested in that story than verifying the historical source material that may have been available to them.

 

It's probably unfair to judge the history of the bible when that wasn't the purpose. Those of a more religious bent may disagree with me, but I liken it a bit to a historical novel. It holds a familiar but ancillary historical setting as what matters is the main character and how he interacts with that setting.

 

True, it is doubtlessly that historical sources cannot be 100% accurate. If the Bible is considered to be a historical novel, why is Josephus regconized as a historian instead of a novel writer? He, too, wrote about some of the things mentioned in the Bible such as God's creation and story of Moses.

Edited June 3, 2007 by miguel

[guy]

miguel said:

True, it is doubtlessly that historical sources cannot be 100% accurate. If the Bible is considered to be a historical novel, why is Josephus regconized as a historian instead of a novel writer? He, too, wrote about some of the things mentioned in the Bible such as God's creation and story of Moses.

 

Error

Edited August 6, 2020 by guy

[miguel]

Remember, through the ages, the writings of Josephus have been tampered with by many people, including religious monks with a possible agenda. His writings, in their purest original form, do not exist.

 

I recommend Michael Babcock

[Ingsoc]

Having been tampered, I believe, is not the reason of considering Josephus' work a historical source instead of religious. I don't mean to challenge the concept of regconizing Josephus as a historian; but I just do not understand how to differentiate between 'historical' and 'religious'.

 

Actually the only part that been tempered in Josephus books are his mentions of Jesus, John the Baptist and James the brother of Jesus.