This is an archive of past discussions about Census of Quirinius. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Greetings,

I created this article out of a perceived need. This is specifically to explain the problems surrounding the census of Quirinius as described by Luke, Josephus, and also the relation to the Gospel of Matthew. Both the Chronology of Jesus and several other pages on Jesus, as well as the Gospels, took up this matter piecemeal and briefly. This, I think, it a helpful outlet for them. Lostcaesar 01:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Great article! You think we could move it to just Census of Quirinius?--Andrew c 02:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew - yes I think the title is poor, this being my first article creation and all. Lostcaesar 08:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Did the census include Syria? I personally don't know, so I'm asking. Josephus would be the source.

Nevermind, answered my own question:

Antiquities 18

HOW CYRENIUS WAS SENT BY CAESAR TO MAKE A TAXATION OF SYRIA AND JUDEA; AND HOW COPONIUS WAS SENT TO BE PROCURATOR OF JUDEA; CONCERNING JUDAS OF GALILEE AND CONCERNING THE SECTS THAT WERE AMONG THE JEWS.

I translated "proconsul asiam provinciam op… divi augusti iterum syriam" myself, but I could use someone who is expert in reading inscriptions to check this out; inscription, with their missing letters and shorthand script at notoriously hard to read. Particularly, I wonder if my rendering of asiam as the adjective modifying syriam is a mistake, and if it should just be the noun, meaning Asia Minor; I think there is room for interpretation here but if so I could at least use a scholarly source for this. Lostcaesar 08:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there an image of the inscription somewhere? It would help to know how much is missing..."op" could be a lot of things. Adam Bishop 15:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.harrington-sites.com/Carrier.htm - This contains an image purporting to be the inscription, and a translation. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/ramsay/bethlehem.vi.i.html - has no image but a rendering of the words; they take "op" to be "optinuit". I get a library card here in September, and I'll look in the dusty old books then. You know, come to think of it an image would be pretty cool for this article. Lostcaesar 19:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think asia can be used as an adjective, and doubt that the words asiam provinciam and syriam belong together. It is "the province Asia" and later "(the province) Syria". Both are in the accusative case, which means we need verbs of which they can be the objects, or prepositions like in, indicating motion towards. This does not evidently fit with the current translation in the article. The missing part is usually assumed to be op[tinuit legatus pr(o) pr(aetore)]; see CIL 14, 03613 on [1]. It is quite possible that divi is the first word of a new sentence. Optinuit would be a variant spelling of obtinuit, "held", "occupied"; see [2]. --Lambiam^Talk 19:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes supplying a verb makes more sense out of it all. There is an adjective, asius, a, um; though I thought this was dubious enough to ask for aid. We should work this into the article I think. Lostcaesar 19:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What is our source that Herod died in March / April - the only info on this I could find was another wiki article (and that one didn't reference this). Lostcaesar 09:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Antiquities 17.188

17.190 When he had done these things, he died, the fifth day after he had caused Antipater to be slain; having reigned, since he had procured Antigonus to be slain, thirty-four years; but since he had been declared king by the Romans, thirty-seven. Translator's Note: These numbers of years for Herod's reign, 34 and 37, are the very same with those, Of the War, B. I. ch. 33. sect. 8, and are among the principal chronological characters belonging to the reign or death of Herod. See Harm. p. 150--155.

Antiquities 17.146

17.167 And that very night there was an eclipse of the moon. Translator's Note: This eclipse of the moon (which is the only eclipse of either of the luminaries mentioned by our Josephus in any of his writings) is of the greatest consequence for the determination of the time for the death of Herod and Antipater, and for the birth and entire chronology of Jesus Christ. It happened March 13th, in the year of the Julian period 4710, and the 4th year before the Christian era. See its calculation by the rules of astronomy, at the end of the Astronomical Lectures, edit. Lat. p. 451, 452.

Two other sites for Antiquities: Antiquties 17, Antiquities 18—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.14.221.195 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 3 August 2006.

Thanks for adding the ref to the article. Please remember to sign all comments on talk pages by typing 4 tidles (-~~~~). Also, if you would like to contribute on a regular basis, you may want to consider registering a username. It's free and easy. Anyway, thanks for this information on Josephus and Herod's death.--Andrew c 19:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so this comes from astrological calculations of an eclipse two thousand years ago? I had hoped for something less speculative than that; sigh – we should probably work this into the article. Lostcaesar 19:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Google search—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.14.221.195 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 3 August 2006.

Does anyone have a picture of the Grotto in Bethelhem? That might be a nice addition. Likewise, and images of the inscriptions or stones mentioned in the article, or maybe old papyri with census info on them. Lostcaesar 20:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

My objective here is to get this article up to first rate standards by November or so. There is, of course, much interest in this around Christmas, and there happens to be a major movie coming out about the Nativity this Christmas. So I suspect there will be all sorts of TV documentaries and inquiries about this subject. Having a first class scholarly and unbiased view of the material in question would be a bit of a media coup for Wikipedia, I think, silently expanding the good reputation of the entire encyclopedia. Lostcaesar 22:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.ctsfw.edu/events/symposia/papers/sym2006steinmann.pdf

Proposes:

• Late 39 B.C. Herod appointed king by the Romans
• Tishri 38 B.C. Beginning of Herod’s first regnal year
• 10 Tishri 36 B.C. Herod conquers Jerusalem; Antigonus executed
• Tishri 35 B.C. Beginning of Herod’s first regnal year in Jerusalem
• 20 B.C. Herod begins work on the temple in Jerusalem (Herod's Temple)
• Late 19 or early 20 B.C. Work on Temple building completed (probably meant to be late 20 early 19)
• 12 B.C. Work on Temple precincts completed (like Antonia Fortress)
• 11 or 10 B.C. Work on Caesarea Sebaste completed (Caesarea Palaestina)
• 4 B.C. Murder of Herod’s brother Pheroras; Antipater deposed as Herod’s heir; Archelaus named Herod’s heir
• 2 B.C. Jesus born
• First quarter of 1 B.C. Antipater executed; Herod dies

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.14.221.214 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 4 August 2006.

This reference is of very little value. It is merely a paper which quotes a book which refers to an article in which a researcher mentions that a majority of pre-sixteenth century texts of Josephus in the British Library give a date of death of Herod's son which is two years earlier than the currently accepted version. All the versions from the eighteenth century on are based on far better scholarship, technique, and availability of manuscripts and for that reason there is no reason to doubt their superiority on details like this. Rbreen 04:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I put the one sentence in about this article because I saw it on another page (historical Jesus) and though it was clogging up things there, and was better mentioned here. Even so, it only gets one sentence. If it has value, to me, it does remind the reader of just how much transmission we are dealing with, the difficulties involved, and it perhaps reminds us to be a little humble in regards to just what we expect to say conclusivly from just 2 sources (Josephus, Luke) who give the matter all of 4 sentences at most. Lostcaesar 09:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It turns out that a copying error was a primary cause of the confusion about the date of Herod's death. A printer typesetting the manuscript of Josephus' Antiquities messed up in the year 1544. Every single Josephus manuscript in these libraries dating from before 1544 supports the inference that Herod passed in 1 BC. Ernest L. Martin, The Star That Astonished the World (Second Edition; Portland, Oregon: ASK Publications, 1996) ISBN 0-94-5657-87-0. ^rossnixon 10:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

So the argument is that more recent editors of Josephus have been working from a faulty transcription of the manuscripts? That seems to require that no editor since the sixteenth century has actually examined the manuscripts. Is that really the case? EALacey 10:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The reference at the top of this section explains that the sources in question are printed sources, not manuscripts. There are no manuscripts from after 1544; all later editors used the same set of manuscripts dating from about 11th century to 15th century, and these scholars (eg William Whiston in 1737), using these sources and adopting methods of scientific textual criticism that were unavailable to their earlier counterparts, agreed that the date that was consistent with a date for Herod's death of 4 AD. Somewhere along the way, this account has become garbled, possibly because not everyone is aware of the process by which ancient documents are edited and published in the modern era.Rbreen 11:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I need help understanding what this source says also. Here is how I take his argument. In the 16th century a printer misinterpreted the manuscript he had and rendered something incorrectly which, if corrected, changes the chronology of Herod. Also, later editors working with the manuscripts made the same mistake, essentially following the printer (directly or indirectly, its not clear but the latter seems more likely since there is no reason for an editor to diretly follow a printed text if a manuscript exists). Thus these two authors, having reedited the manuscripts, render the passage in question differently, correcting these mistakes of printers and other editors, and changing Herod's chronology. Is that a fair understanding of the reference? Lostcaesar 13:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I tried to keep this short, but that only seems to have complicated matters!

This revolves around a reference in the Antiquities that is commonly taken to refer to the death of Herod's son Herod Philip I in the "twentieth year of Tiberius" (34 AD), which would suggest that he became Tetrarch in 4 BC (since Josephus says Philip ruled for 37 years).

It has been suggested that this is a false reading, and that it should read the "twenty-second" year of Tiberius. Nobody seems to have taken this seriously until a man named David Beyer reported in 1995 on a visit to the British Library in London. He claimed that 27 of their 46 editions of the Antiquities, mainly published before 1544, read "twenty-second", and that none before that date reads "twentieth". The reference (quoted here) is clearly to printed editions. He seems to be implying that the earlier printed editions are more reliable, although this doesn't make much sense (it would of course be a good argument in the case of manuscripts).

Beyer claimed to have found similar examples in the Library of Congress.

The important translations produced since 1544, such as those of William Whiston in 1737 and the modern Loeb Classical Library edition, all use the "twentieth year" reading (Whiston refers specifically to this in a note) and will have been based on a close study of the available manuscripts (mainly from French and Italian archives[3]) with the additional benefit of modern techniques of textual criticism aiming to establish the most authentic text. It is reasonable therefore to assume that the reason modern versions differ is that they are based on better knowledge and scholarship. None of this has anything to do with printers - a scholar like Whiston would certainly have proof-read his text!

Somewhere along the line, this perfectly clear account became hopelessly garbled. The account in the self-published book quoted above available online, by Ernest Martin, is confused. He says that Beyer "made a survey of all the major manuscripts of Josephus in the British Museum", when they were not manuscripts, it was the British Library (an easy mistake, admittedly), and there are no major manuscripts of Josephus either in the British Library or the Library of Congress.

Further along from this comes the bizarre suggestion that the "error" has come about because a printer in 1544 misread the text, and every edition since then simply copied the error. Of course this is not what happened, because later editions such as Whiston and Loeb were based on the best available original manuscripts, not on copying earlier printed books. This has, I am sorry to say, all the elements of an urban myth. Please can we slay it here and now, before it does any more damage to common sense?

Rbreen 14:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Since Beyer's specific argument isn't very relevant to the article, I've replaced it with other citations supporting dates other than 4 B.C. I've also cited Schürer for support of the consensus date. EALacey 15:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That seems much better, and the end result is a far better coverage than we started out with. I note that your reference to Filmer shows that my comment that "nobody seems to have taken this seriously" was not strictly true. Also, looking at the page on Josephus manuscripts I noted that the Loeb Classical version is based on a printed transcript by Benedikt Niese in 1886, based on a study and evaluation of the original manuscripts - so, no dodgy printers then ...Rbreen 15:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like we can put it to rest then. Lostcaesar 16:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC) P.S., the only thing useful out of this might be including Whiston's footnote discussion somewhere. Lostcaesar 16:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"Varus did show ineptitude as a governor later, in A.D. 9, when he suffered a devastating defeat in the Teutoberg forest": I am not aware of any evidence that Varus ever showed ineptitude as a governor (i.e. an administrator). The massacre of his legions in the forest was a purely military tactical error. If Varus had a reputation for general stupidity and incompetence before this, it seems unlikely that he would have been given command of three legions. Apparently the Germanic tribes were offended by his "arrogance": but if Varus was significantly more "arrogant" than other Roman governors, this makes it even less likely that he would have been sharing power with Quirinius earlier. --Robert Stevens 13:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The passage is not intended to show that Varus was inept, indeed I think it consistent with the point that he was a good bureaucrat and administrator, but that he was a poor military leader. A Roman governor had military and diplomatic capacities that we today would not readily associate with such an office. The point of the passage is to convey that he might have needed a military man to assist him in the martial duties of his post. In Germany, the tribes were suppose to have been suppressed already by a different military commander – Varus was sent there to set up Roman administration and taxation, but he pushed too hard on taxation and sparked a revolt. That the previously crushed Germanic tribes could snuff three legions was unthinkable, and Augustus is said to have roamed around the Palatine cursing Varus’s spirit and demanding his three legions back.

In other words, the point of the passage is that the theory, that Varus had a distinguished ability as an administrator, but not as a commander, is witnessed by the later events in Germany. Why would such a fellow be sent to Germany? Because it wasn’t suppose to be a scene of active campaign, like the East was in the time of his governorship there. It was suppose to have been already subdued; and besides, he wasn’t necessarily thought of as a worthless commander, just a mediocre one.

Maybe the passage should be edited to reflect this.

Lostcaesar 08:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to Varus. This is overly speculative - IF he was considered militarily incompetent, and IF he was nevertheless appointed as a governor, and IF he was made to share power with Quirinius, this might be true. In the absence of any positive evidence, that's too many 'ifs'. Rbreen 11:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the title to this section is problematic. The fact of the matter is most biblical scholars accept that the two nativity accounts have a chronological inconsistency. They don't attempt to "solve" this "problem". They acknowledge it as an error and move on. This section deals with attempts to reconcile the contradiction. I believe this is called apologetics, or biblical inerrancy or some other theological concept. All that said, I cannot think of a better title. Maybe "Christian attempts to reconcile the inconsistencies"? Or "Conservative view" or something like that? --Andrew c 03:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this analysis. We are dealing with attempts to use historical methods to understand two sources. Even if we point to an error, we would then have to see the extent of the error and to say with whom the error rests, and these are other matters. I personaly did not include some of the more apologetic arguments; besides the section in this article is merely to describe what arguments have been put forth. I don't see what's wrong with "possible solutions". I understand the point of adding a qualifier to "solutions", but honestly what is wrong with "possible solutions". That most biblical scholars consider them lacking (and I don't think this claim works unless one rather arbitrarily decides to classify some people as scholars and others as apologists) does not make them impossible; it makes them, in the view of the majority, improbable. I suppose my point is qualifying these arguments as merely apologetic one the one hand mischaracterizes them and on the other it allows them to be easily dismissed as polemical, which they are not. Lostcaesar 12:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

p.s., "attempts at solutions" sounds reasonable to me also.

I may be a bit sensitive, but there are people who believe that the Lapis Tiburtinus explains everything and who would be quite happy to have Wikipedia support that belief. As it happens, I am in the possession of a stone fragment that carries a glyph which might well be part of a letter "I", which could be part of an inscription "I, CAESAR AVGVSTVS, REAPPOINT QVIRINIVS TO GOVERNOR OF SYRIA". That is an equally satisfactory solution for the whole conundrum. The point is that (in my opinion) the words "possible solutions" imply a value judgment as to the viability of the supposed solutions. By the way, I dont understand this edit: [4]. Why is this not new information? I don't see how it can be deduced from the extant text that the scholars of the Jesus Seminar, who presumably scrutinized all available evidence and material, reached such an outspoken conclusion. --Lambiam^Talk 16:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"Possible solutions" is merely descriptive, and the most minimal value judgement I can imagine; originally it just said "solutions" and frankly I never thought about it, as I assume that our readers are intelligent enough to discern that then various facts mentioned are open to interpretation (after all, the article says this). What I wanted to do was to just describe the "problem" (various historical texts that, if read in one way, seem to contradict one another) and various attempted explinations of how to deal with this (obviously, saying one is right and the other wrong is a first step, so are the attempts at reconciliation). For the record, saying "Luke is wrong" is a solution. I think that is what people don't understand here. The problem is not merely Biblical infailability, but a discrepancy in historical texts. That's why solutions seems ok to me, and why possible is certainly ok. Whatever the case, the structure of the article is flexibile and allow for other additions for various solutions to the problem (ways of explaining how to read the different texts). Lostcaesar 16:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The part from the JS had is that it claims the following: Quirinius was gov in AD 6 (already discussed in full), Herod died 4 BC (already discussed in full), and that the problem "has defied solution", what does that mean? I guess it means that the people accepting their invitation to the JS reject whatever previous solutions had been published prior to that edition's notation. I would like something more meaty, with names and specific points, rather than a general summary valuation. Lostcaesar 16:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with the "Solutions" section heading - there's a problem (the fact that the governorship of Q and the reign of H don't match up on the basis of known historical records), the problem has been recognised for centuries, and there have been various solutions put forward. But I do see a gaping hole in the section, which is the absence of the theory that Luke is wrong. This theory runs along these lines: Luke, writing decades after the events he describes, has a problem, which is that according to prophesy the messiah is to come from Bethlehem, while according to tradition Jesus is from Nazareth. Somehow he has to get Jesus born in Bethlehem. So he seizes on the well-known census of Qurinius and constructs a story around it. Problem solved - except that Luke is no historian, and gets his dates wrong. That's a very crude summary, and it does a disservice to Luke (more likely he was recording an oral tradition, one which he found personally appealing because of the way it brought in the prophesy), but it's certainly one that's advanced by scholars. Alas, I have no books, but if someone else would like to find the proper references it could go into this section. PiCo 10:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a reelvant pov if it can be said neutrally and with a source (and I am sure there is one). I would drop the buisness about Luke "not being a historian" - Acts is a history of the early church, after all, and the gospel is a biography based on sources. The point is, Luke claims to be a historian and we have no reason to think otherwise. Some think he was a bad historian, but that's a different point. I think changing the title back to Solutions, and including the solution that the texts cannot be reconciled and that Luke is wrong and Josephus is right would be ok. Lostcaesar 10:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was a quick response! Unfortunately I have no books and no access to books, all I can do is make suggestions that others might act on. But yes, this is a genuine scholarly position, and there sources out there...somewhere. (As for the section title, I don't much care what it is, so long as it's reasonable). PiCo 10:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The Historical Jesus article says this:

Based in Josephus' Antiquities it has been traditionally inferred that Herod died at the end of March, or early April of 4 BC/E. However, David W. Beyer argued for a date of 1 BC/E based on a reinterpretation of Josephus' manuscripts.^[1] The primary one is that a printer typesetting of the manuscript Antiquities made a mistake in the year 1544.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} According to some scholars, every single Josephus manuscript, held by the British Library in London and the American Library of Congress, dating from before before 1544 supports the inference that Herod passed in 1 BC/E. ^[2] Knowing this, and since Herod according to the Gospels supposedly died shortly after Jesus' birth, a recent research study, gathering different available sources and acknowledged by leading scholars of the scientific and theological community, presents 3 to 2 BC/E as the probable time of Jesus' birth.^[3]

This sounds like useful Josephus info for us here, does anyone know a text for this info?Lostcaesar 17:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I found this ref, E.Ernest L. Martin, The Star That Astonished the World (Second Edition; Portland, Oregon: ASK Publications, 1996) ISBN 0-945657-87-0 on http://www.omnipelagos.com/entry?n=historical_Jesus ^rossnixon 09:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the adjective 'specific' from the phrase saying there is no ((specific) evidence that the Lapis Tiburtinus erfers to Quirinius. The paragraph originally read as follows: :An inscription, known as the Lapis Tiburtinus, reads: "proconsul asiam provinciam opti… divi augusti iterum syriam et pho…" [2] Translated it reads: "Proconsul obtained the province Asia Minor… of the divine Augustus a second time in Syria…" This text, which is damaged (missing section represented above by "…"), could mean either that an individual held office in Syria twice, or simply that he held office twice in two different provinces. The stone bearing the inscription was found near the villa of Quintillus Varus, leading to speculation that he is the intended subject. In any case, there is no specific evidence that the text refers to Quirinius. My problem with this is the meaning of the word 'specific'. Or more precisely, my problem is that has no meaning. To say that there's no specific evidence linking the inscription to Quirinius implies that there's some other kind of evidedence. What other kind? Non-specific evidence? What's that, exactly? If there's any evidence linking the inscription to Quirinius, state it; if there's none, don't add qualifiers implying that that there is. PiCo 10:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you prefer "direct" ? Lostcaesar 10:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer any evidence linking the inscription to Q to be identified. So far as I can gather, the thinking behind the qualifier is: "Ok, we don't know that this relates to Q, but it was found near the villa of Varus, and Varus might have been a co-governor with Q, although there's no proof of that either..." You can see how tenuous this line of thinking is. If you can think of a sentence to enunciate the reasoning that connects the inscription to Q, put it in; otherwise, drop the qualifier. PiCo 10:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

As the one who introduced this wording, I must say that I actually agree with PiCo. I phrased it that way because it sounded less harsh, but I agree that the blunt truth is that there is no evidence of any kind linking the Lapis Tiburtinus with Quirinius. If such evidence, however tenuous, existed, the defenders of Biblical inerrancy would indubitably have flaunted it.  --Lambiam^Talk 11:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is no direct evidence, but there does exist arguments based on indirect, i.e. circumstantial evidence already mentioned in the article, thus I think "direct" is a fair qualifier. Lostcaesar 11:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not see any circumstantial evidence mentioned in the article that supports a connection between the inscription and the person.  --Lambiam^Talk 15:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

According to one argument, Luke and Josephus attest, together, that Q had two governorships in Asia Minor. A stone mentions someone who had two governorships in Asia Minor. The only figure we know to have had two governorships in Asia Minor is Q. Thus, this circumstantial evidence connects Q with the stone. You don't have to like the argument (I don't know if I like it myself), but our personal opinions are aside. The stone is indirect evidence. Other arguments explain away this correspondence, and that's fine. But it doesn't change the case. Its just one word, "directly", and doesn't change the truth of the statement radically, it just allows us not to absolutely reject one argument, which is something I think we should avoid doing. Lostcaesar 18:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

We don't "know" that Quirinius had two governorships in Syria. We know that he was sent as legatus to Pamphylia-Galatia in 6 or 5 BC, which is in Asia Minor but had no administrative involvement with Judaea, at the time a protectorate. We further know that he is mentioned as governor/legatus of Syria by two sources: the gospel of Luke and Josephus. Both sources refer to him as if he held that position once. If Q had been governor twice, and the author of Luke had wanted to fix the time of an event by reference to the then governor Q, he would have written something like: while Quirinius was governing Syria for the first time. It was only in 6 AD that Iudaea Provincia (which included Judea) came under the direct administration of Rome, which was the reason why August ordered then that a census be taken. This 6 AD census led to the revolt of Judas of Galilee, who is mentioned by the author of the Acts of the Apostles, generally assumed to be the same person as the author of Luke, in the text Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census. If there had been an earlier census, one that the same author had mentioned in the gospel, and which must have been quite significant to him, would he then have written "the census" here, just like that? All this does not suggest at all that Q held two governorships of Syria and conducted a census twice, or even that the author of Luke thought so, mistakenly or not.

On the other hand, we know that Varus was governor of Syria from 6 BC until April of 4 BC or later, but we also know that he was still governor at the time of death of Herod the Great (because we know the revolt he quenched in 4 BC took place afrer Herod's death). In the timeline of Matthew this death is after the birth of Jesus; in fact while the holy family is in Egypt. Unless we assume that the author of Matthew was mistaken in his timeline, Varus was governor of Syria at the time of the birth of the infant. Conclusion: at least one of the gospels has its timeline wrong (unless we assume that Jesus was born twice).

Then the text of the Tiburtine inscription. It does not mention "someone who had two governorships in Asia Minor". It says, essentially: "As proconsul he obt[ained] Asia Provincia [mumble mumble] of the divine Augustus another time Syria and Ph[oenicia]". So we have one (1) position in Asia Provincia, and one (1) position in Syria Provincia. We don't know what the missing [mumble mumble] text is; but there is not enough room for it to say something like "[and then as legatus propraetore Syria Provincia, and as legatus]", which would be needed to reach the count of two. So whoever this text refers to (there are many possible candidates), it does in fact not at all support the thesis that that person was twice governor of Syria.

As far as we know, Q was never proconsul of Asia Provincia. No such thing has been recorded. Although the records on Quirinius are not (known to be) complete, and we do not have a complete list of proconsuls of Asia, Q was a well known figure and one would expect such a high position to have been mentioned by Tacitus in recounting Tiberius' praise. This makes it quite unlikely (along to other ill-fitting aspects of the inscription) that it refers to Q.

Conclusions. (1) There is no "internal" evidence that the inscription refers to Quirinius; on the contrary, there is evidence that it does not. (2) If we assume (on other grounds) that Q was twice legatus pr.pr. of Syria, then the evidence that the Tiburtine inscription does not refer to Q gets even stronger, because it apparently refers to someone who held that position only once. (3) To save the timeline of Luke we furthermore have to sacrifice the timeline of Matthew.

The problem of the identity of Jack the Ripper would be solved if we could show that he was none other than Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. The latter certainly had a keen interest in crime and as a medical practioner would have known how to kill someone. This theory requires that we put Doyle in London at the time of the murders. A ticket from the second half of the 19th century has been found holding a reservation on a train from Portsmouth to London; unfortunately, we cannot decipher the name of the passenger. But we know that Doyle, in 1888, was a resident of Portsmouth, and that he, if he was indeed Jack the Ripper, would have needed transportation to London. Can we now reasonably say: "There is indirect evidence that the passenger was Dr. A. C. Doyle"?  --Lambiam^Talk 22:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to get into your personal analysis of the material, and I did not mean to suggest that I had forward any argument of myown above. Instead I merely meant to articulate one relevant position, and your own position, even if right, does not negate that other relevant position. As for your overload argument, I don't think it is analogous, because he is not the only (or one of the few) individual who meets the necessary criteria, many are possible, whereaas with Q he is indeed one of the few possible individuals who meet the criteria. (PS, if you would like to know my personal ideas, or what I think of your position, message me and we can talk of this privately in a relevant setting). Lostcaesar 23:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

LC, Luke and Josephus do not 'attest' that Q held 2 governorships in Asia Minor. Luke refers to one governorship only. Plus there's no reason at all to believe that the inscription is about Q. Plus there's no reason to satte definitively that the inscription is about someone holding the governorship of Syria twice. The speculation that all this is not so and that the inscription is really about Q and about someone being governor of Syria twice is just that - speculation. By all means put this in, but be careful with words and with how you construct arguments. PiCo 01:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

PiCo, I agree with what you said. My argument construction comes from by experience with philosophy where arguments are just phrased directly and it is assumed that one will analyze the assumptions (the "attestation" that we "know") and the logical flow of the argument seperatly. My apologies. Lostcaesar 08:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I noticed a few days ago, LC removed the information from the Jesus Seminar, saying that a bible translation was not a good source. Although disagreeing with that assessment, I more importantly think we need to represent the majority view of historians/scholars: that is that Luke just got it wrong. It isn't necessarily his fault, keeping track of years was a lot harder back then, but still most people recognize that Josephus and Luke DO conflict, and that scholars side with Josephus over Luke. I put in 3 sources, but I can easily get more if necessary. I think we spend WAY too much space going over possibly reconciliations, when this is just a minority view. Thus we are giving undue weight and space to a minority position. I would support making that section more concise. I am also concerned about citing Nigel Turner and tectonics.org. I'm currently doing more research, but these things seem to be NN and non-RS.--Andrew c 21:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough; the impression I have from my reading is that most scholars do think Luke made a mistake. But the article as it stands is obviously the product of some work, and some of its contents are of interest outside the debate over Luke's accuracy. Maybe parts could be edited or moved rather than cut entirely? For example, I'm not sure that the Aemilius Secundus inscription is good evidence for an early governorship of Quirinius, but it deserves a mention in the article if only because it provides one of the very few population figures we have from a provincial census. Similarly, some of the material under "Roman Censuses" could be incorporated into an article on Roman provincial censuses in general; at the moment, all I can find about this topic on Wikipedia is a brief section of the Censor article. EALacey 21:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

A few days ago I removed three references. Two were footnotes to a biblical translation (that of the JS), another was a blog. These I found to be inappropriate sources. Obviously, if we let footnotes to biblical translations in, the article will swell with less-than-desirable information. If someone wants to quote Borg or Crossan that's different. As for tectonics.org, I am in favor of removing that source. I myself did not add any material from strictly apologetical sources exactly because I did not want this to become a dumping ground for such material.

I really do not like the new lead, which contrasts "mainstream" scholars (like Meier and Brown) with "apologists". First of all, it is not fair whatsoever to call Ramsay, Wallace, or Mommsen an apologists in this context. They are working as historians of Rome in the East in this matter. They are very respected historians whose work continually appears in historical texts (just the other day I was researching Theodore of Tarsus, and Ramsay's great work on Cilicia was used a good bit). Also, I know that guys like Meier and Brown love to style themselves as centrist and representing the mainstream, and while that may be the case here in regards to biblical scholars in this matter, we need to always keep in mind that their position is not gospel; we should relativise their points into the proper context. I will rework the lead a little and see what those here think. Let me say that I think we need to move carefully here, with a good deal of examination of the material and editorial collaboration, and this is something I am quite willing to do myself.

As for undue weight, the solution is to add more information rather than remove it, in my opinion. The information presented here is very laconic in how it goes about. Each relevant issue is described neutrally and briskly. If someone would like to add extensive arguments as to just why Luke and Josephus cannot be reconciled, that would be a positive step, and I left the door open for that in the intro by saying: " If, however, the texts are understood as conflicting, then the remaining question is which to consider in error: Luke, Josephus, or both." That is a potential topic sentence for an entirely new subsection. [edit: I created the subsection and added the stub template]

Lostcaesar 01:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

PS, if I recall, Sherwin-White, though finding many problems, did vindicate Luke in key ways, and I am not sure if we are properly representing that source; I'll have to get the text from the library though before I can make sure. Lostcaesar 01:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I must add my disagreement on the matter of "undue weight." The attempt to establish two governorships of Quirinius is almost wholly unsupported (the inscriptions cited establish nothing: if that's your evidentiary standard I can prove all sorts of funky things to you), and yet the article drones on and on and on about the matter. The section should be taken out, perhaps to be replaced by a more objective discussion of why the dating of the Census of Quirinius is important for certain Christians and only then goes on to show how they have attempted to reconcile their beliefs in the inerrancy of Luke's text with the historical record. Such a discussion would have the added benefit of letting the reader know why some people are so interested in the matter. I also really don't like the last section of this article, on "Roman Censuses," which reads like a quiet argument for the priority of Luke's date over that in Josephus and cites mostly apologists (and yes, they are apologists) to do so. We should act like proper encyclopedists and state the mainstream position: that Luke's date is wrong. If we've got to have the apologist positions, which exist far outside the scholarly mainstream, they should be properly marked and discussed as such. As it stands now, this entire article is nothing but an indirectly apologetic text that attempts, unreasonably, to uphold the accuracy of Luke against better sources. ECKnibbs 10:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue of weight should be approached differently. Each point in the reconciliation section seems relevant and briefly addressed (and I don't personally like all of them, fyi). The solution is to increase the material in the "Luke in error" section. Right now it is just a collection of summary quotes. The weakness you identify here is with the lack of info in that section. Better to add than to cut, especially when the article is this short anyway. Lostcaesar 09:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

LC, what is this article about? Is it about the Census of Quirinius, or is it about the problems caused by Luke's implied dating of the Census of Quirinius? I know the name has been changed at some point; perhaps this accounts for its lack of focus. But if the article is meant to fulfill the promise of its title, then too much space is devoted to the dating, and all the speculation about the three inscriptions is off topic. At best, this material belongs in another article, perhaps one on apologetic arguments for biblical inerrancy or something; at worst, it should simply be axed, because much of the inscription stuff looks like original speculation anyway. Except for Ramsay's rather peculiar arguments about the Aemilius inscription (and Ramsay's old book hardly constitutes any kind of mainstream position, so whether and how he should be cited are matters of debate in themselves), the only citations in the "two governorships of Quirinius" section are to primary sources.

A serious and objective article on the Census of Quirinius would say succinctly what the census was, would cite the three sources which reference it, and would articulate mainstream scholarly interpretations. It would provide context by discussing what we know about other Roman censuses, and it would do so, unlike the "Roman Censuses" section of this article, without constantly attempting to prop up Luke's account and citing Stauffer and Ramsay. There is better, modern scholarship that readers would do better to consult. It would also, of course, include a discussion of Christian thought on the issue, and in this context it would perhaps cite the apologists. But instead of this we have a rather uneven article which spends nearly half of its words straying into the realm of original speculation, discussing probably-irrelevant inscriptions, and giving a selective account of Roman censuses in an attempt to make Luke's account seem less improbable.

All of these problems are not to be fixed by building up the "Luke in Error" section.84.172.239.130 17:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)ECKnibbs 17:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is about the Census of Quirinius. Now there were a great many censuses conducted by the Empire, and none of them are even close to being interesting enough as to warrant an article save this one, and that's because of its interaction with Luke. We all know why people care about this census and why it is the subject of study. Now there is not section in the article dedicated to apologists, no strictly apologetically works are quoted, and there is no grant discussion of biblical inerrancy, so it is important not to exaggerate. But I think the article need not apologize for spending some space on the relevant issues of dating and the like. Now you and I agree that the article can be improved, and I'm not stopping that by any means. But where we differ is that I don't think cutting sections is the way to go, especially when each point is treated as briefly as one could imagine, and each point is relevant. As for the sources, I have no prejudice in using sources that are "old", and whatever the case I don't see any good reason to disregard the opinions of Stauffer, Ramsay, or anyone else the article quotes. I have removed sources that were unscholarly myself, some pro Luke and some against (blogs, biblical verse commentaries, &c). And not that my opinions of Ramsay count for much, but I have found his writings on Tarsus to be great historical work in my own research about the history of Archbishop Theodore's hometown (as does M. Lapidge, whose opinion does count for a good deal). So I think we can move forward, but I would like us to be cautious about cutting information. We are always tempted to see views that disagree with our own as worthy of omission, but we have good reason to be on guard against this. Lostcaesar 21:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ramsay's work on Tarsus may be a monument of scholarship, but Was Christ Born in Bethlehem is Christian apology as surely as the relevant entries in the Catholic Encyclopedia. This doesn't mean it's worthless, but it DOES mean that it should be cited as such, and that it should not be cited alone. And I reiterate that the argument about the inscriptions needs to be sourced to a secondary work or axed. Again, encyclopedias are not the place for original work. I know Ramsay cites all of these inscriptions, but I haven't the patience to read through his book to work out what argument he uses them to support. Is the argument about two governorships of Quirinius based on the Tiburtine stone an original one? If so, then it needs to go. If not, at the very least, cite Ramsay or wherever this stuff came from. This would have the added benefit of allowing us to cut back on the whole inscription section, which even you must admit is only of possible relevance to the Census, as the inscriptions themselves are so ambiguous. Just say "Ramsay cited X inscriptions and argued bla bla bla," end of story. Set up a separate article on the Tiburtine stone if you like. But I will never agree that this section, which most bothers me and which seems most unprofessional, is "treated as briefly as one could imagine."

I don't have anything against using "old" sources either; I happen to believe that Mabillon's De re diplomatica is one of the richest and most intelligent studies ever written on medieval documents. But I would never write an article that cited only Mabillon, or even that cited mostly Mabillon. There is too much modern scholarship. Yet this article's "Roman Censuses" section sources key assertions to two relatively early apologetic texts. This needs to be fixed. And, now that I reread it, the two opening sentences of the final paragraph need to be reworked. I see that someone has already asked for a citation, but that doesn't seem to go far enough. What are "Jewish administrative customs" with respect to censuses really? I don't think there are any, to be honest. And I see no relationship between instances in which Roman citizens were enrolled according to tribe (could we cite these?), and the story in Luke, which says that enrollment was based on ancestry.

Finally, I do not complain about the present article because it cites views that I disagree with it; I complain about it because it is badly sourced, it wanders off topic, and it risks being disingenuous, for reasons I've gone on about at length. More is not always better, and sometimes the careful cutting of material brings needed clarity and can even make certain texts (especially reference works) easier to use. ECKnibbs 10:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I like the article a lot better now, after Lacey's edits. ECKnibbs 18:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

While I think the info provided under "Roman Censuses" is worthwhile, I have to agree that much of it reads like an attempt to defend Luke. It seems to me that there are essentially two questions that have to be addressed for assessing Luke's accuracy: (a) Could there have been a Roman census in Judaea under Herod the Great? (b) What does Luke mean by his mention of Quirinius, and is it compatible with a nativity under Herod? At the moment the "Solutions" section covers only (b), while (a) is treated under "Roman Censuses". Wouldn't it be preferable to cover (a) and (b) as separate subsections of "Solutions", with a general "Roman Censuses" section treating only undisputed facts? EALacey 22:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sherwin-White is indeed generally sympathetic towards Luke as a historian. His position on the issues raised in the article is:

(a) With regard to an earlier governorship of Syria for Quirinius, "It is difficult to convince oneself of its truth, though the case is not as improbable as many assume" (164-5).

(b) "a provinicial census in Judaea in the time of the kingdom is an impossibility" (163 n. 4) and Braunert "disproves conclusively" this theory (167 n. 2).

(c) Luke intended to date the birth of Christ to A.D. 6. "The taking of the Roman census in Judaea made a tremendous impact in Jewish history. ... The author of Luke cannot have been under any doubt or confusion when he selected that date. But its selection was a deliberate rejection of the tradition of Matthew..." (167) However, Luke "managed to include, or failed to exclude, from his long version of the nativity of John, the setting of the story 'in the days of Herod the king'." (167)

(d) Luke's "all the world was to be taxed" is accurate. It does not indicate a single census of the whole empire (which would be erroneous), but a general policy of census-taking (168-9).

(e) Tertullian's reference to Sentius Saturninus does not help solve the chronological problem (169-70).

So Sherwin-White does defend Luke against one common charge of error relating to the census ((d) above); this can certainly be mentioned in the article. Sherwin-White also makes positive judgements about Luke's writings elsewhere in the book. However, he does hold that the census described by Luke can only be the census of A.D. 6, and that this is inconsistent with Luke's reference to Herod the Great. But if you think the quotations I added don't fairly represent his views, feel free to alter. EALacey 09:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I earlier interpreted "ante militiem" in the Aemilius Secundus inscription as showing that some posts were listed out of chronological sequence. This is in line with Sherk's translation ("before service (in my equestrian officer posts)"), but I now see that Braund translates "by accelerated promotion". Still, it's not obvious from reading the inscription that it's placing the census before the campaign against the Ituraeans (neither to me nor to Sherk, who gives the date as AD 6 in his heading), which means a citation is needed. We also need a citation to establish that the campaign must be dated before AD 6.

I hope it doesn't seem that I'm raising problems needlessly. EALacey 13:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well its something to look in to. We dont need a citation to establish that the campaign must be pre-AD 6, only that it could be. Lostcaesar 16:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Moved from main article space:

Augustus sent out a decree in 3 BC, requiring “the entire Roman people” throughout the empire to register their approval of the bestowal of the title Pater Patriae by the Senate upon him at his upcoming silver jubilee (T. Lewin, Fasti Sacri [1865] 135). Josephus substantiates that such an oath of allegiance was required in Judea at this time. Josephus mentions that at this time “all the people of the Jews gave assurance of their good will to Caesar, and to the king’s government.” (Antiquities 17). [5]

While the two points may very well be sourced in ancient sources, it is original research to make the jump that this historic oath has anthing to do with the Census of Quirinius or Luke's narrative. Citing a blog, again, is not a reliable source. We need to cite a scholar who makes this connection. If not, this information is simply off topic.-Andrew c 17:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Another reason to seek a scholarly opinion is that Josephus becomes a difficult source when he mentions such things, owing to his pro-Roman sensibilities. One must be careful before taking such claims of Josephus at face value. Lostcaesar 17:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here is a more recent reference. Paul W. Barnett, Expository Times, 85 {1973-74}, pps. 377-380]. This can be downloaded (PDF file) from this site (free subscription)[6]. Barnett is Anglican Bishop of North Sydney[7], and is an author of scholastic works. Regarding Josephus; yes I've heard he is a bit flakey, but this registration that he mentioned is also mentioned by several other ancient historians. It is not "original research" to make the "jump/connection" to Luke's narrative. It is an obvious possibility; the right place, the right time. Let the reader decide. Other writers are concluding that Luke was a liar. This article needs to show there are other solutions. And I have just found this more extensive and easier to follow reference [8] ^rossnixon 03:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ross, I think we need to make some corrections here. First, the article does not cite scholars calling Luke a liar (perhaps Millar is the only one who could be thought to come close). It cites scholars who think that Luke made a mistake. And the article does give other solutions to the matter besides simply discarding Luke. The previous section on the oath of allegiance also needed some work before it could be included, besides needing references, because it is not clear how it reconciles the sources. One would need to explain that the oath apparently happened after Herod was dead, and also one would have to explain how this could be under the governing of Quirinius. Now, Ross, you and I, I believe, have the same view that Luke must needs not be thought in error, but that we agree doesn't mean that we should fill the article with every whimsy that favors Luke's accuracy. I will not stand in the way of the inclusion of this solution in any way so long as the text is applicable and sourced, and all I mean to say here is that it needs a little bit of polishing before it gets to that point. Lostcaesar 08:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed from Two governorships of Quirinius:

Two other inscription stones, commemorating the career of another Roman politician, both mention that this Roman held office as a duovir or dual magistrate, along with Quirinius in Antioch, Pisidia.^[4] Dating the inscriptions is difficult, but the time in question is plausible. However, the city in question likely was beyond the domain of a Syrian provincial governor. The more general application of hegemon could account for a wider range of authority.

Antioch, Pisidia was located in the province of Galatia and was several hundred kilometres from Syria. The paragraph provides no explanation of how Quirinius' duovirate there has any relevance to any position in Syria. One of the pro-Luke external links mentions the inscription, but doesn't explain its relevance. I don't think the inscriptions should be discussed in that section of the article unless we can cite a scholar who actually argues that they support the "two governorships" theory. EALacey 10:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like finding some secondary sources here is a good idea. The issue of the duovir does seem relevant though, since on theory had Quirinius co-governing (or something like that) with Varus, and co-rule seems an issue worth discussing - but I agree we need secondary litterature here. Lostcaesar 16:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've realised that the paragraph's account of the inscriptions isn't quite accurate; their subject, one Gaius Caristanius, wasn't co-duovir with Quirinius, but rather Quirinius' deputy (praefectus) during Quirinius' duovirate. G. L. Cheesman, "The Family of the Caristanii at Antioch in Pisidia", JRS 3 (1913), 253-266, which seems to be the original publication of the inscriptions, suggests that Quirinius received the duovirate as an honorary position (thus his job had to be done by a "deputy") because of his campaign against the Homonadenses. Following Ramsay and Mommsen, Cheesman believes that this campaign took place during an earlier legateship of Quirinius in Syria, but he doesn't actually bring the inscriptions into service in support of that position. (It seems to me that if anything, the inscriptions would be evidence for a Galatian base for the campaign, but that's getting into original research.)

If Quirinius did hold a co-governorship of Syria, I don't think that can be the position referred to by the Antioch inscriptions. The title of duovir usually refers to a municipial office, not a provincial one, and when it occurs on an inscription set up by a municipal council without any location being specified, the assumption has to be that the office was held in that municipality. Cheesman assumes that Quirinius' duovirate was a municipal office at Antioch without mentioning any other possibility, even though he thinks it's possible on other grounds that Quirinius was a co-governor of Syria. EALacey 16:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, there is a difference between being a co-governor, and co-governoring. I think we should alwaly keep on top of the difference. Lostcaesar 17:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. EALacey 17:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

By searching JSTOR, I've turned up an article which does use the Antioch inscriptions as evidence for Luke's accuracy: Canon Egbert C. Hudson, "The Principal Family at Pisidian Antioch", Journal of Near Eastern Studies 15 (1956), 103-107. Hudson, apparently following Ramsay's Trustworthiness of the New Testament, gives a rather concise argument that I hope I've grasped: (a) The Antioch inscriptions imply that Antioch played a role in the war against the Homonadenses (since that would provide a motive for honouring Quirinius). (b) This, in conjunction with the foundation of new colonies around Antioch in 6 B.C., suggests that the war ended at about that date. (c) If Quirinius fought the Homonadenses as legate of Syria, this indicates he held that position before 6 B.C.

So Hudson doesn't use the inscriptions as evidence that Quirinius did hold a position in Syria before 6 B.C.; he seems to take it for granted that Quirinius must have fought the Homonadenses from Syria. Instead he simply uses the inscriptions to argue that this campaign was within the reign of Herod the Great (and even then, his argument depends on several conjectures). Do you think his argument is worth adding to the article? EALacey 17:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

To state my opinion, I think that the dating of the campaign against the Homonadenses, although it could perhaps go into Quirinius, is too tangential to be part of this article. Here, it seems sufficient to note the evidence that Quirinius held a position in Syria before that mentioned by Josephus; establishing that would be enough to allow Luke's mention of Quirinius a good chance of being accurate. EALacey 17:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to think about it a bit. We are in no hurry. Thanks for all the great work. Lostcaesar 17:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I fear I might be missing something. What is the evidence that Quirinius held a position in Syria prior to that mentioned by Josephus? There doesn't seem to be any evidence; Cheesman's claims are just speculation. I also think that points (b) and (c) of Hudson's argument (as summarized by Lacey, above) are problematic. This has to do with changing ideas about the date of the Homonadensian campaign, which is now generally placed between 6 and 3 B.C. (Cf. B. Levick, Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor (Oxford, 1967), pp. 203-14; and Sir Ronald Syme, "Galatia and Pamphylia under Augustus: The Governorship of Piso, Quirinius and Silvanus," Klio: Beitraege zur Alten Geschichte, 1934, pp. 122ff). If we accept the assumption that Quirinius became duumvir in Antioch during or after the Homonadensian campaigns (which is also unproven, but anyway), this would seem to date the Antioch stones to sometime after 6 B.C. This campaign against the Homonadensians probably took some years, by the way (cf. the Syme cited above, and another article by Syme in Akten des VI. Internationalen Kongresses für Griechische und Lateinische Epigraphik,which is published as a volume of Vestigia 17, 1973, at pp. 585-601). Together, these sources suggest that Quirinius built the Via Sabaste (completed in 6 B.C.--date from arhcaeological evidence) to support his campaign, and then was perhaps using one of Varus' legions from Syria in 4 B.C., and perhaps another legion from Egypt by around 2 B.C., to starve out the Homonadensian fortresses. I wonder, by the way, if this does not do some violence to the notion that Quirinius was somehow "co-ruler" (not sure what that means) or "co-governor" (a position for which there is no precedent, as far as I know) of Syria in the few years before Herod's death. What little evidence there is suggests that he was fighting in Galatia during this period. Of course the possibility that he used a legion from Syria does not suggest that he held any position in that province, anymore than the possibility that he used a legion from Egypt suggests he had any position there. At any rate, to come back to the topic, I don't think any discussion of the Antioch stones belongs here. They don't have any bearing on the Census, but they are interesting for the biography of Quirinius and for the Homonadensian war. ECKnibbs 14:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the info; that's extremely helpful. I think it would be appropriate to mention the Homonadensian war in the article, and mention (even if only as a historical position) that some scholars have theorised that Quirinius held an extraordinary command in Syria to conduct the campaign, while obviously citing the contrary opinion too. But your remarks confirm my opinion that there's no need to mention the Antioch inscriptions. EALacey 17:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; Cheesman should be mentioned of course. I'm still digesting various articles--will find out what Syme et al. think of Quirinius' administrative status while he was beating up the Homonadensians (I assume the thinking is that he was governor of Galatia, but will look further tomorrow). ECKnibbs 19:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The Luke in error section currently only quotes the conclusions of various authors. It would be possible to expand it to include the arguments for Luke's account as inaccurate, but I'm wondering whether that's the best way to structure the article. The "pro-" and "anti-accuracy" sections of the article would have to interact with evidence presented on the opposing side; if adhered to rigidly, the division would require us to mention the attribution of the Lapis Tiburtinus to Quirinius in the "pro-" section, and then bring it up again in the "anti-" section to note that it has also been attributed to other senators. This would be needlessly confusing, and as the article stands multiple views on the inscription are discussed in a single paragraph under Two governorships of Quirinius.

It seems to me that there's a good case for using this section to set out all the arguments, both for and against, relating to the "two governorships" theory. Other issues could be treated similarly in their own sections.

Another potential problem with the accurate/inaccurate divison is that some may conclude that Luke was correct on some details but not on others; for example, Sherwin-White thinks it conceivable that Quirinius held office in the time of Herod, but denies that there could have been a Roman census in Judaea at this time. If we discuss each issue separately, it becomes easier to represent the views of such authors.

Thoughts? EALacey 19:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The intro to the "Problems and Solutions" section ends with the statement that the mainstream position is that Luke is in error. I propose killing the "Luke in Error" section, taking the quotes collected there, and inserting a representative quote after the concluding statement of the "Problems and Solutions" intro. This would back up the early statement that the mainstream position finds Luke inaccurate. We could then footnote the other quoted "Luke in error" positions. Then, instead of maintaining the accurate/inaccurate organization (which may actually set up a false dichotomoy--a lot of opinions aren't that simple), we can insert opposing "inaccurate" views into the discussion of the various proposed solutions, as approrpiate. (Sorry if this isn't clear, am getting a little tired.) ECKnibbs 20:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It's clear, and I think we're essentially in agreement. If the quotations currently in "Luke in error" are moved to a footnote in the "Problems and solutions" intro, we should probably find a similar pro-accuracy soundbite to footnote in the same paragraph. EALacey 20:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I think this sounds like a fair approach, but I think there is some contradiction here. On the one hand, the complexity of each position, and the danger of oversimplifying scholarly views, has been identified. Yet, on the other hand, there is the suggestions that we should firm up the statement that the "mainstream" holds Luke in error. That latter point is, obviously, an oversimplification (take the example of White above). This seems inconsistent, unless I misunderstand the suggestions. Lostcaesar 20:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't my intent to firm up the "mainstream" position statement--I actually thought this scheme would be easier on the "accurate" positions (as it stands now, these arguments are bracketed by "innacurate" positions--and the stacked quotes in the "Luke in error" section seem like a bit much). So quote something for the "accurate" position early on too. ECKnibbs 20:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we could fill a library with the number of solutions various people have proposed for the chronology problem (I have been reading them all day)--but most of them are slight variations upon the solutions already listed. One rather original position, though, is proposed by J. Duncan M. Derrett, "Further Light on the Narratives of the Nativity," Novum Testamentum 17.2 (April, 1975), pp. 81-108. For what it's worth I think the article is just a bit foolish (not that this matters), but if we can work out whether it's gained any traction in subsequent authors, we might want to stick it in. Derrett thinks the main problem is that "Scholars have been confused by Matthew and have fallen into a pre-critical harmonisation of the two Gospels" (p. 83). He argues that Luke meant to date the nativity to A.D. 6, though this conflicts with Matthew; and that the Herod Luke refers to is not Herod the Great, but Herod Archelaus (thus eliminating the difficulties caused by the fact that Herod the Great died in 4 B.C.). Luke dates the beginning of Jesus' ministry to A.D. 28 or 29, which would make Jesus 24 years old under Derrett's scheme. This brings Jesus' age out of alignment with the prophecy in II Sam. 5.4, and I think it's worth asking whether the author of Luke would have been willing to do such a thing, but that's just me. Derrett also has a strange bit on the significance of Quirinius' name (which I will just pass over in silence) and fills the rest of his article with all manner of speculation. ECKnibbs 20:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

What does he say about the fact that, for Luke, Mary's pregnancy is contemporanous with Elizabeth's? Lostcaesar 20:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

He argues that Luke's "Herod of Judea" is Herod Archelaus. So Jesus and John are contemporaries, and their mothers become pregnant under the later Herod. He's not interested in reconciling any conflicts this creates with Matthew of course. ECKnibbs 20:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Does Luke actually say that the pregnancies were contemporaneous? The Annunciation is placed in the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy (1:36), but it's not clear to me that the conception of Jesus follows immediately. And Herod Archelaus is only described as ruling when Elizabeth is introduced (1:5), before her pregnancy. So I think that in theory, Luke's narrative does leave time for the "Herod" of 1:5, whoever that is, to lose power before the census described in chapter 2. EALacey 20:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Does Luke actually say that the pregnancies were contemporaneous? - yes, that is the visitation. Lostcaesar 21:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

But the conception of Jesus is still future at the time of the angel's speech (1:35). I can't see anywhere Mary is actually described as pregnant until 2:5, which is after the birth of John has been narrated. One could possibly infer that Mary is pregnant from Elizabeth's reference to her as "mother of my Lord" (1:43), but she has received this knowledge from the Holy Spirit (1:41), so it could be in advance of the pregnancy. John is said to jump in Elizabeth's womb when she meets Mary (1:41, 44), but there's no reference to a baby in Mary's womb. Am I missing something? EALacey 22:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with EALacey. There is no explicit statement in Luke that Mary and Elisabeth were pregnant at the same time. There are three points suggesting (but not implying this):

• Elisabeth says to Mary (while pregnant with John) "blessed is the fruit of thy womb" and describes her as "the mother of my Lord". However, as has been pointed out, this may come from some sort of divine foreknowledge of Mary's motherhood of Jesus.
• Mary is betrothed to Joseph at the time of the visitation by Gabriel, which is during the 5-6th month of Elisabeth's pregnancy. She is still betrothed to Joseph at the time of Jesus's birth. Presumably a betrothal could not last for ever, so this sets some kind of time limit between the two births.
• Luke says, after describing John's birth, that "in those days" Augustus decreed a census (during which Jesus was born).

On the other hand, there are some indications that a period of time passed between the two births:

• Gabriel visits Mary 5-6 months after Elisabeth conceived. He tells her that "thou shalt conceive" -- implying that at the very least she was not already pregnant.
• The final verse of Luke appears after the description of John's circumcision and naming, but before his description of the birth of Jesus. It says that "[John] grew, and was strengthened in spirit" -- suggesting that some time passed. If the pregnancies and births had been close together, Luke could have moved this verse to after the birth of Jesus.

At the very least, we need some kind of citation for the notion that Luke claims the two pregnancies to be contemporaneous. Otherwise we should remove the claim. Grover cleveland 22:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

A source will be quite easy; I've never heard the matter disputed. Luke's structure parallels the two pregnancies. An angel tells Zack that Eliz. will become pregnant at the temple. Then she concieves. Next section, six months later, an angel tells Mary she will become pregnant. Then she goes to Eliz, who is still pregnant but well on (the baby jumps). Eliz says "you are the mother of my Lord" &c. Next section, Mary is giving birth. Seems clear enough - one has to be pretty creative to see otherwise. Matthew also says Jesus was born while Herod the Great was king. Lostcaesar 22:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see how the reader could infer that the pregnancies overlapped and occurred under the Herod mentioned, and I do recognise that a nativity in A.D. 6 requires Matthew to be mistaken (or deliberately unhistorical). I don't think any of this disqualifies the theory from being mentioned. After all, the article already discusses the possibility that Luke was mistaken or meant something most readers have misunderstood. The Derrett/Smith theory seems no more improbable to me. 23:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this does not disqualify the theory from being mentioned. Lostcaesar 23:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

One more recent article that supports a very similar theory (without mentioning or citing Derrett): Mark Smith, "Of Jesus and Quirinius", Catholic Biblical Quarterly 62 (2000), 278-293. Smith argues that Luke intentionally and correctly places the nativity in Bethlehem in A.D. 6. He identifies Luke's "Herod" with Archelaus, and explains the journey to Bethlehem as being because Joseph owned property there, or because he could qualify for a tax discount there but not in Nazareth. He thinks that Matthew unhistorically placed the nativity under Herod the Great because the Slaughter of the Innocents (which Matthew wanted to include to support his Moses typology for Jesus) was more in character for the earlier Herod.

I'm not sure I want to endorse this theory, but the only part of the article that really raises alarm bells for me is the "tax discount" suggestion. If Joseph owned property in Nazareth, wouldn't he have been paying taxes to Antipas, regardless of any registration or taxation in the province of Iudaea? But this isn't very important to Smith's chronological argument. EALacey 21:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the tax discount suggestion either. To my mind, the census story in Luke demands two explanations: why does the date look funny, and why does Joseph travel to Bethlehem. Now I am satisfied that we hear about the traveling because of Micah 5.2. Other explanations seem superfluous. The chronology of the census is another matter. I think that the Derrett/Smith theories are interesting because they illustrate why Luke might have made such a chronological error: there were two Herods, and the Census of Quirinius happened under one of them. At the distance of 70 years or more, confusing the two becomes understandable. Of course I also see advantages in taking Luke at his word, though this seems to make Jesus a little too young to fulfill the prophecies in 2 Samuel. Anyhow, none of this matters, as it's just my opinion. ECKnibbs 09:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it seems I'm beating this topic to death, but I'm procrastinating, and I think it's important for the 'two governorships' theory.

As it turns out, the entire issue is dealt with in a short article by J.G.C. Anderson, "The Position Held by Quirinius for the Homanadensian War' in The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. X: The Augustan Empire (44 B.C. - A.D. 70), ed. S.A. Cook, F.E. Adcock, M.P. Charlesworth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1934, repr. with corrections 1989), pp. 877-8 (in the 'Notes' section). A big change of opinion happened around 1933-4, when Syme published a few articles, culminating in the Klio article I cited above. Before Syme, the prevailing opinion was that Quirinius conducted the Homanadensian War as governor of Syria, "for Syria was the only consular province in the East with an army and it was from Syria that troops were normally drawn for service in Asia Minor" (Anderson, p. 878). Luke was considered part of the evidence, along with the Tiburtine stone and a few other bits, for Quirinius' first governorship of Syria.

Syme pretty much put an end to this way of thinking. He argued that Quirinius conducted the Homanadensian war as governor of Galatia and Pamphylia. Before Q., he thinks Piso was governor of Galatia; when Q. went of to Syria in A.D. 6, he argues that Plautius Silvanus took over. What are the problems with Q. as governor of Syria during the Homanadensian campaign? They are "1) A second tenure of Syria or indeed any other consular province under one and the same emperor by a senator who was not a member of the imperial house is unparalleled, and the Tiburtine inscription speaks, not of a second tenure, but of a second legateship with Syria as the province assigned: the words are [legatus pr.pr.] divi Augusti [i]terum Syriam et Ph[oenicen optinuit...]. 2) The statement of St Luke is in conflict with several undoubted facts and disaccords with his reference in Acts V, 37 to 'the census,' which, when compared with the evidence of Josephus, is seen to imply the census of A.D. 6/7, taken when Judaea became a Roman privince."

A lot of the argument against identifying the Tiburtine inscription with Quirinius was developed by someone named Groag, in an unnamed article in Jahreshefte des österreichischen archäologischen Instituts in Wien , 21-22 (1924), pp. 448ff. Syme put this to work in hammering out the sequence of early governors of Galatia, which is now accepted basically everywhere. See, for example, the B.M. Levick, "Greece and Asia Minor from 43 B.C. to A.D. 69" in the updated Cambridge Ancient History (Cambridge, 1996: 2nd ed.), vol. X, p. 650, writing about the Homanadensian war which she dates after 6 B.C.: "the forty-four castella of the Homanadenses were captured by the distinguished governor of Galatia P. Sulpicius Quirinius..." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ECKnibbs (talk • contribs) 15:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC). P.S. Sorry, forgot to sign. ECKnibbs 16:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC) P.S.S. Have since corrected a misquote since first posting.ECKnibbs 17:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This sentence needs to go: "Josephus also mentioned a dual-governing of Volumnius and Sentius Saturninus in Syria from 9 to 6 B.C., although certain interpretations dispute this." "Certain interpretations" do not "dispute" this. It is simply wrong. The Josephus passage cited reads simply that both Volumnius and Saturninus were in charge of Syria (or words to that effect: I fear I cannot read Greek, but none of the translations have anything more specific). That hardly implies a dual governorship. And in The Wars of the Jews 1.538 (just a year or two later) we read that Volumnius was either a prefect or a procurator : i.e., that he was an equestrian, and certainly not governor. But which secondary source does this whole assertion come from anyway? ECKnibbs 19:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The following is a list of further statements I would like to remove, unless they can be clarified and/or sourced:

--"Varus did show martial ineptitude as a governor later, in A.D. 9, when he suffered a devastating defeat in the Teutoberg forest. There is mention of Quirinius in the East on military functions." The first sentence argues by innuendo. Has any secondary source argued that Varus was an inept soldier and thus had to share the governorship with Quirinius in Syria before 4 B.C.? If not, this sentence should go. The second sentence is irrelevant to the two governorships theory.

I added this back for the time being. It is true and it is sourced &c, the problem is we need a source that mentions the event in the context here. That seems mild enough to leave in utill a source is found. If in a bit of time one is not then we can move accordingly. Lostcaesar 20:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

--"Though rare, the use of two governing authorities occurred in Africa under Caligula, and also in Palestine during Vespasian's campaigns." What are our sources for these assertions? What was the administrative status of these "governing authorities"? Has anyone used this argument to support the two governorships theory? Unless we can be more specific and link this argument to a secondary source, it needs to go.

Have found the source of the assertion about the two governors of Africa under Caligula; this is ultimately from Cheesman's article, as cited above, p. 257. The phrasing from Catholic Encyclopedia is more than a little disingenuous, I fear: the inscription reads that some monument was erected "per Rutilium Gallicum cos. pont. et Sentium Caecilianum praetorem legatos Aug." That is, it references the governor and praetor, who are, in another sence of the term, both legati of Augustus. But they are not both governors, and in fact nothing beyond the usual administrative apparatus attached to a province. ECKnibbs 23:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Or am I wrong? The dates are funny. Yes I am indeed; the Cheesman claim is erroneous, but unrelated to the bit on Caligula. Sorry, will keep looking. ECKnibbs 23:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

--"Whatever the case, the census only mentions "citizens" (i.e. Romans, not Jews), but it is consistent with the hypothesis that Quirinius conducted censuses while militarily governing in Syria before his provincial governorship." This is argumentative and smells like POV. We have already said that Ramsay made this argument and I think that is sufficient. The cited inscriptions are "consistent" with the hypothesis only in the sense that they do not contradict it (remember, these inscriptions are not internally dated, and Millar's standard book identifies them with the A.D. 6). In this sense, almost all of recorded history is "consistent" with this hypothesis.

--"Generally an imperial census was not conducted in a Roman client kingdom, though it did infrequently occur." When did this occur? Where? What are our sources? Has any secondary source argued that this constitutes a precedent for a census during the reign of Herod the Great? Unless all these questions can be answered, this needs to go.

It doesn't quite support the quoted sentence, but there is this suggestion in Lily Ross Taylor, "Quirinius and the Census of Judaea", American Journal of Philology 54 (1933), 120-133, p. 131: "For the activity of a client king in taking a census in his realm one may cite again the case of the Clitae, a people of Cilicia Tracheia (Tac. Ann., VI, 41). In 36 A. D. their king, Archelaos, who owed his kingdom to the Romans, tried unsuccessfully to carry out a census in the Roman manner among his people. It is possible that Herod acted similarly in his realm. In that case the opposition to the census of 6 A. D. would have been aroused less by the enrolment itself than by the fact that the officials conducting it were not native but Roman." Of course, this is an instance of a Roman-style census conducted in a client kingdom by the king, so we still need a source for the claim about "an imperial census". But if that doesn't turn up, we could mention this theory instead. EALacey 17:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That is pretty darn close, I think. Best to keep looking, but that is good. Lostcaesar 21:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have looked, and I'm satisfied there's nothing else. There can't have been any imperially-conducted censuses within client kingdoms, almost by definition (because client kings paid tribute to the empire, in place of taxation of residents). Our sources for a lot of these client kingdoms look pretty thin. I've rephrased the relevant paragraph, inserting EALacey's reference (I hope this is all right). Taylor talks about citing the Archelaos census "again," suggesting this argument originated with others. Maybe Mommsen? ECKnibbs 19:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the "again" is a reference to earlier in Taylor's own paper. On p. 125, while discussing the position of Quirinius during his Homonodensian campaign, she examines evidence from Tacitus for the jurisdiction of the legate of Syria, including Annals 6.41. There are no footnotes to the paragraph I quoted from p. 131. EALacey 20:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, alles klar. Thanks. ECKnibbs 20:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

--"A Zealots tax revolt accompanied the taxation of Judea in A.D. 6, which drew the attention of Josephus. This has given rise to the speculation that, if there were an earlier enrolment in 4 B.C., it would likely have evoked the same response and subsequent attention of Josephus, unless this enrolment did not involve immediate taxation (such as implied by the enrolment papers mentioned above)." We should at least cite the loci in Josephus for this revolt. Who generated the "speculation" referenced in the second sentence? If this cannot be sourced it needs to go.

There's an argument to this effect in the revised edition of Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, vol. 1 (1973), p. 418: "It is almost inconceivable that [Josephus] would have ignored a measure such as a Roman census of that time, which would have offended the people to the quick, whilst faithfully describing the census of A.D. 6/7, which occurred in a period of which he reports very much less. It should be borne in mind that a Roman census left behind it an effect; like that of A.D. 6/7, it would have provoked a revolt."

The relevant passage of Josephus is cited under Census of Quirinius#Josephus; perhaps a cross-reference would be appropriate. EALacey 16:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

ECKnibbs 12:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I've placed a brief paragraph on the issue under Details of census practice. EALacey 10:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

eh, I missed this addition when I tried to avoid the matter of translation and so on, my apologies. PS. the Greek, in my understanding, means "inhabited world", no? Lostcaesar 10:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you're one set ahead of me EALacey =D, Lostcaesar 10:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Something that's puzzled me about this "all the world" business: in English the phrase means just what it says, the inhabitants of the entire globe, all of them. But in French and Arabic "tout le monde" and "kul il-alam" mean simply "everyone". I gather ti's the same in several other languages, but we, being Angloglots, don't realise this. So what about Greek and Aramaic? Could Luke just be saying that "everyone" (in Syria-Judea) had to be counted, not making a claim about the entire Roman Empire? PiCo 09:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

ECKnibbs has removed a statement from the article that a Roman census in a client kingdom "did infrequently occur". I think that this was the right think to do, at least until it can be sourced. However, its removal has called attention to a problem with the entire "A Roman census under Herod" section.

The article is no longer making an argument for the possibility of a Roman census of a client kingdom in general, but most of the section in question (especially the paragraph beginning "Augustus had an interest...") is devoted to arguments for the plausibility of such a census in Herodian Judaea specifically. These surely have no point unless one allows for the general possibility. It seems to me we need either to remove those arguments to Talk as well, or find a source for the original statement. EALacey 20:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the sentence, added a fact tag, and requested a bit of time for us. I think we need a bit more looking myself. Lostcaesar 20:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to vote for removing the sentence, and emphasize that imperially-conducted censuses in client kingdoms do not make any sense. By definition, client kingdoms paid tribute, but their residents were not directly taxed by the empire. I decided to remove the link after reading H. Braunert, "Der römische Provinzialzensus und der Schätzungsbericht des Lukas-Evangeliums," Historia: Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte 6 (1957), pp. 192-214 (an influential article: cited later by Sherwin-White). Braunert mentions not a single imperially-mandated census in a client kingdom. In fact, he does not even raise the possibility. Rather, he argues that a census like that of Quirinius in A.D. 6 was a standard part of extending the government of provincial Syria to encompass Judaea. The absence of any mention in Braunert's study is highly significant.

Another place I would expect to see precedents for a census under Herod cited: Ramsay's Was Christ Born in Bethlehem? And yet Ramsay acknowledges, in response to an argument, that "...the application of the Roman census by Roman officials to Herod's kingdom could not be accepted as credible...." (He attempts to save Luke, in this case, by arguing that, properly understood, "Luke does not speak of any such application.") I would give page numbers for this but I my only access to Ramsay is an etext ( [9] )

As far as the other matter rasied by EALacey: I think that the entire "Roman Census under Herod" section is argumentative and not really what the article needs to be telling readers. ECKnibbs 22:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with the position above about imperial censuses. I tend to move slower and more cautiously, and I wanted to see the matter reflected upon a bit, and to have a look into the sources &c. The above references are a good movement forward (of the nice, slow, scholarly sort, you see). I think if we look at all the improvements to the article of late we should see the reward for this kind of development. Lostcaesar 00:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Right now, the article makes a positive statement (that imperial censuses in client kingdoms "did infrequently occur") without any substantiation. Apparently slow and cautious movement were not required to arrive at this assertion in the first place; it has been present since the article was created, always without a citation. Could you perhaps say where it came from? If it did not come from any source that is worth citing, why can't we remove it? That censuses were occasionally conducted in client kingdoms is hardly a default position that we must work to overturn. In fact, the very nature of client kingdoms suggests that the opposite is true: it would make no sense for the empire to conduct a census within one. Why does the inertia of scholarship favor the text as it stands now, and reject the phrasing I proposed? ECKnibbs 00:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

And while I'm on the subject, why can't we get rid of that statement about Varus? It argues by innuendo and should at least be rephrased (if that can be done without turning it into open argument). Where did this argument come from, and if it's original or didn't come from a worthwhile source, why can't we kill it? I worry about arguments that feel simplistic, and this one has that feel. And of what relevance is the Florus citation? It doesn't suggest a dual governorship anymore than the Tacitus passage does, as far as I can tell. ECKnibbs 00:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The positive statement with a fact tag has been removed; the statement you wished added has in essence been employed. The inertia was not too bad I hope. I too was worried about overly simplistic presentations, as I tried to add a little detail when I made the aforementioned change. The independence of client kingdoms can be misleading if not done with proper nuance, and the average reader may not realize that a tribute often entailed, indirectly, the collection of taxes on a local level. I also repaired another sentence that had a fact tag for a while, making it a less positive statement and adding a ref. I prefer to add tags rather than delete text, and give some time for them to be fixed. If we delete the text, then no new contributor knows, and the passage is oft forgot. If we leave the sentence with a tag, it is a reminder, and a flag to any new contributor that may have information to contribute. The Varus statement I see no harm in retaining for a time so that a source may be searched for. It doesn't seem too objectionable anyway – Varus was not martially skilled, as evidenced by the Teutoburg forest incident. Lostcaesar 09:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I propose the following revision for the "Roman census under Herod" and the "details of census practice" sections, which I'd like to merge (again). I have revised both sections so that each paragraph introduces an argument which has been advanced against the account of Luke, and then describes a counter-argument. Obviously some of this (especially the last paragraph) can be exapnded, but if this is unobjectionable I'd like to stick it in:

Suggested section title: "Plausibility" (or "The Plausibility of Luke's Account" or something similar)

Evidence for Roman censuses is given by narrative histories, papyri records preserved in arid regions like Egypt, and inscriptions. Augustus is known to have taken a census of Roman citizens at least three times, in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and A.D. 14.^[5] Orosius mentioned another census in 3 B.C.^[6] Provincial censuses in Egypt and Sicily also occurred at regular intervals during his reign. Both provinces were important because of their wealthy estates and supply of grain.^[7]

There is also the census in Judea mentioned by Josephus in A.D. 6 (see above), which occured after Judaea was annexed to the province of Syria. According to Josephus, the taxation associated with this census prompted a revolt. Schürer argued that an earlier enrolment would have evoked the same response, and that this would have been noted by Josephus,^[8] The German theologian Ethelbert Stauffer countered by referencing the evidence of Egyptian papyri.^[9] These show a Roman census could be conducted in stages, first with an enrollment done in person, and with the taxes enforced subsequently.^[10] Sometimes the collection of data took a long time; in an extreme example, a census in Gaul begun by Augustus took some 40 years to complete.^[11] Stauffer thus argued that a similarly delayed census, conducted in Palestine, could account for the enrollment mentioned by Luke only. Under this interpretation, the later revolt in A.D. 6 would have been caused by the much-delayed enforcement of taxation mentioned in Josephus.

There is no known occurrence of a Roman census conducted by Roman officials in an "independent" client kingdom. Client kingdoms did pay tribute to Rome, and taxed their own subjects, often for the paying of the tribute, but their residents were not directly taxed by the empire. Archelaos, king of the Clitae in Cilicia Tracheia, is known to have attempted a Roman-style census in service of his own taxation; L.R. Taylor supposes that Herod may have acted similarly.^[12] Herod was also required to pay tribute^[13], and he raised the money for this tribute through taxation of his subjects.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} Thus, after his death, Josephus mentions that some pleaded with his son and successor Herod Archelaus for their "taxes to be reduced." ^[14] Ramsay conceded that it is not credible to accept that a Roman styled census conducted by Roman officials occurred in Herod's kingdom, but argues that Luke's text does not necessarily suggest such a census.^[15]

Luke describes a decree of Augustus requiring registration of the whole [οἰκουμένη] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help). This word literally means the "inhabited [world]", but was frequently used to indicate the Roman Empire.^[16] No simultaneous census of the entire Empire in Augustus' time is known.^[17] One suggestion is that Luke means only that Augustus introduced a policy of universal registration, and that this was first implemented in Judaea under Quirinius.^[18]

Luke also describes a census that required enrollment by descent or ancestral tribe. Though Roman citizens were occasionally enrolled by tribe,‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} this is not how censuses were typically conducted.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} It has been suggested that the census as recorded by Luke is in accord with Jewish customs instead.^[19] There is evidence that the Roman Empire did retain certain local tax enrolment customs for non-citizens at times, for example in Sicily.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} There is also a hint in Josephus that Herod was required to give a tally of his populace by local groupings.^{[20][original research?]}

Finally, there is the objection that the requirement that Joseph and his family travel to Bethlehem makes no sense in terms of census practice.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} Yet some censuses did apparently require travel^[21] and at least one precept of Roman law also prescribed travel for those who held land in regions distinct from their place of residence.^[22]

This revision eliminates these statements, for reasons stated:

Often, a census will only be mentioned in one ancient text (for example, only Josephus mentioned directly the census of A.D. 6).

It is unclear whether the A.D. 6 census is mentioned by Luke or not, it appears to be referenced by the Aemilius inscription, and I'm not sure what this gets us anyhow.

Perhaps another example, then. What this gets us is that it informs the reader, not familiar with the reconstruction of history, that sources are thin and our knowledge of censuses fragmentary. Unlike modern history (journalism), we should not be surprised by a census mentioned in only one source, nor should we expect every census to be represented in the sources. Lostcaesar 16:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the censuses in Egypt were based on the Egyptian, rather than Roman, calendar.

Again, I don't know what this gets us. The arguments about the fourteen-year cycle may be important, but this statement is just confusing in context. If we want to replace it, could we state a little more clearly how this relates to the question of a Roman-style census conducted by Herod?

It is an example of a Roman census following local practice rather than stock imperial models. Lostcaesar 16:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

...and Josephus records a mandatory "oath of obedience" to Augustus required in Judea at a similar time, which involved the erecting of statues to the emperor.

I've seen arguments that this "oath of obedience" could somehow account for Luke, but it's NOT a census, and I don't think it belongs in a section about Roman censuses. Again, confusing, unless we can cite somebody who argued that Luke meant to refer to an oath of obedience.

I think I can agree here. We should find a source that identifies Luke's reference with this and move it to the proper section. Lostcaesar 16:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Certain official enrolment papers have been discovered in Palestine, regularly taken from no later than A.D. 20 to the time of Emperor Constantine, which includes information on each family based on the testimony of the head of household. These are unknown to the historical sources.

I don't know how this relates to the matter of a census under Herod; it seems simpler if we leave it out. If we want to include it, we should expand and cite Ramsay or whoever more fully, so readers know how the Palestine papers make Luke's account more or less plausible.

This seems important, related to a previous point, that some information on censuses comes to us in ways besides, well, Josephus in particular, but written sources in general. The artice at present does not mention Ramsay's argument about a regular cycle of enrollments. If you want that could be included (I have seen others follow Ramsay, so its not just him) and this could be moved there. But at present, it is a fact about our knowledge of Roman censuses &c. Lostcaesar 16:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Palestine had been subject to many Roman military campaigns and tribute payment, beginning with Pompey in 48 B.C., and it is not unfair to characterize Herod largely as a Roman puppet. Herod, who likewise was required to pay tribute, had been established as king by Marc Anthony and the Roman Senate.

I think what this passage is trying to convey is already communicated by the Taylor citation and the discussion surrounding it. It just seems a little redundant to keep it.

This passage shows that tribute payment occured in Palastine, which was more or less subject to Roman rule, king or no, and it helps clarify that Herod did not rule a wholly independant kingdom, but that his power went only so far as he did what Rome willed. In other words, it helps provide important context. Lostcaesar 16:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

ECKnibbs 11:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I added some comments above. I think you seem to see this section as a "pro-Luke" argument or something. It was intended to be a passage giving information about Roman censuses relevant to the topic at hand, which would thus give the ordinary reader a basic knowledge of what we are dealing with, and to put the events in their proper context. I think it is only after changing the point of the passage that one could then see the above sentences are unimportant. As I said, I don't like to see information cut, especially when it is both true and relevant to the matter at hand. Some of the rewriting I think could be worked in. Lostcaesar 16:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. The trouble is not so much that I see the section as pro-Luke. It's that I'm not sure what the "Roman censuses" section as it stands is doing for the article. Some of this information, particularly the pieces that I propose cutting, appears to belong in a separate article on "Roman censuses" in general, but I have significant trouble working it into the section on the "plausibility" of the census mentioned by Luke, as I revised it above. I think section does need to be revised, and I'm open to trying to work these passages into my proposed revision, provided they don't result in excessive redundancy or the introduction of original research. ECKnibbs 17:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you have some fine points. I have taken a small step of introducing a few of the rewordings you proposed that seem wholly better &c. Like I said about the section, the idea was to give the layman some context and the necessary knowledge to be able to understand the rest of the article. I am open to changes and all - just saying what the original point was. Lostcaesar 17:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

-I'm sorry, Lostcaesar, but after sleeping on it I'm going to go ahead with the edits I proposed. You haven't complained about my general revision of the two sections, and your implementation of a few of my rewordings appears to miss the overall point. For what it's worth, I ask that you not revert my revisions; it would be better for the article if you could instead try to re-incorporate the passages above. A few remarks that I would like you to take into account when and if you do:

--About the paucity of sources for censuses: You need to cite a source for this or it is original research. In fact as it stands the statement is misleading; we have good sources for a lot of censues. The real problem here is the decade or so from 6 B.C. to A.D. 4, which is very thinly attested in the sources for a number of fortuitous reasons. The article talks a lot about the uncertainty of various sources and varying interpretations, and I think it is overkill to keep assuring the reader that everything is uncertain.

--By pointing out that the censuses in Egypt were based on an Egyptian, and not a Roman calender, you want to show that censuses often followed local custom. That is original research, per Wikipedia editorial policies. You need to cite someone who makes this argument with respect to the census of Quirinius, or this needs to go. Ditto the bit about the Palestine enrollment papers.

--And about the passage on tribute payment in Palestine: The article already acknowledges that Herod paid tribute and even mentions that he taxed his own citizens (without citing a secondary source, which troubles me, but anyhow). The statement that "Herod is a puppet" needs a source or it is POV.

--And finally, I don't understand your arguments for keeping the bit about Varus until we can search the sources, because you wrote that passage. You must know whether it is original or not. If it is original, it needs to go; the policies of Wikipedia do not support the contribution of original research on the hope that it may happen to coincide with a published position. If it is not original, could you please cite the source? Thanks. ECKnibbs 12:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did revert the section for a few reasons. (1) I do not think that we have come to a resolution here on talk, and see no need to move ahead without that. (2) More importantly, the changes are extensive. As I said, I think you have good points, but I would prefer if we make one change, then another, and on, rather than a major overhaul, because it is easier to keep track. I tried to put some of your requested changes in, just as a start, a first step. I only made a few because, since the matter was still up for discussion on talk, I wanted to add in only the uncontroversial changes. You said that this missed the overall point. (3) If there are problems with my adding of that text I would like to discuss it. If you noticed, I added the text with careful changes that I thought important. With your recent edit, you used your text unmodified. I would like to know if you intended to remove the modifications for certain reasons, which we should then discuss, or if this was just an oversite. (4) The restructuring is a seperate issue. I think you are right to want to restructure the sections, but it would be helpful, I think if we did this as a seperate part of the process, at least a seperate edit, so that the particular non-structural changes can be easily seen. (5) Now as for sources we have three issues I think. A sentence need be source if it is challenged or likely to be challenged. Now there seem to be three important elements of this: the material must be (1) true, (2) relevant, and (3) not OR, that is "published by a reliable source". I think is certain cases if we satisfy (1) and (2), so long as the material is unchallenged, we are ok. I am not advancing that concerning any of your observations, but what I do mean is that it seems ok to me, for example, when we say that Augustus took a census at least three times, and cite the Res Gestae. Now, I will also say that I am not in a hurry to remove information if it adheres to (1) and (2) but (3) is lacking. I agree that it is grounds for removal, in time, but I think it is not very harmful to give the passage a tag, and give editors time to find the source. I am the first to remove information quickly if it violates (1), but the other two, especially (3), seem to be something we can take just a little time with &c. Now, as to the specifics, I will work on that in a bit. I have to look at your positions in more detail, and I would need to reflect on your points above. But I felt the need to explain the reversion, especially since you were very kind as to give details above, and, since I was regretably going against the request you made, I thought I needed to give prompt reasons. This matter will develop, and we will move the article in the direction you want, just, perhaps, in a bit more slowly of a process. Lostcaesar 16:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As to your points: 1) I don't understand what we are resolving, or need to resolve, here on talk. 2) The revisions are not extensive. They are a restructuring of material, nothing more, and they are in response to the post of EALacey. Earlier, he felt (and I agreed with him: this would be at least some consensus) that these sections of the article were attempting to make room for (I will not say 'argue for') the possibility of the census in general and in particular. The restructuring is intended to change the force and remedy at least part of the problem he notices. It lists specific objections that authors have raised to Luke's account, and defenses against these objections, in more or less systematic fashion. The previous (and now current) version does not treat of anything systematically, it presents arguments against unstated positions, it contains a lot of OR, and is generally confusing. You have not offered any substantial criticisms of this revision; you just resist it because it is "substantial". That is not legitimate criticism. I wish you would say what bothers you about it. 3) You demand that I discuss every single change I make to the article, which I do. You make "careful changes" to the text that I proposed, which you do not discuss, and complain that I did not take them into account. I looked at the modifications and, for the most part, I don't understand them. If you want them understood, could you explain them? 4) There is no way to separate the re-structuring from the re-wording. Part of the point of the editing is to get rid of redundancies, which become apparent only after re-structuring. To be especially clear about what changes the restructuring involves, I added the long talk piece above. As for the sources, 5). I understand your argument, but it is not Wikipedia policy. Information which is true and relevant, but which is advanced in service of an argument that is not sourced to a secondary work, is a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position [[10]]

and this is clearly not permitted. The policies are very clear about this; such passages are not "permitted for a time" until a secondary source can be found. They are simply not part of an encyclopedia. You do not respond to the specifics of any of my arguments. You say that "this matter will develop." It will not develop because you keep reverting edits, and in doing so you concentrate all energy on the talk page, where it does no good. In fact you have reverted my edit without advancing a single specific argument against it. If you merely found some of the phrasings troubling, why not talk about them? Or better, edit them? Why revert? ECKnibbs 19:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I will now, as I said above, move to the point of your specific comments. I suppose, however, that I should first respond to the text you gave above briefly. I do request that we discuss disputed changes on talk and attempt to come to an agreement, and I don't think that is very unreasonable. As for the structuring, you certainly could separate the restructuring from the other edits. Simply make two edits. In the first, you only move the text around. In the second, you then change the places in the text you wish. This is courteous to other editors like myself because it is easier to compare the changes (otherwise, with all the moving, everything appears red in a comparison, not just the revised text). As for (5), the point of the tag is to give editors the opportunity and time to determine whether something is "a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" or whether instead it is in accord with policy. You have jumped to a conclusion in regards to some passages. Now for my last point I will perhaps be a little more harsh. There were two posts recently, one where various comments were asked to be sourced, and another where various changes were propose, including the renaming of a title, the restructuring of a section, the rewording of existing lines, and the removal of others. I then found three sources to help with the first request, gave a comment for each sentence proposed to be removed, and imported some of the text I could easily agree with. Then, you implemented the whole of the changes proposed. I think it is rather fair to ask for a bit slower of a process and a bit more discussion, and it is rather unfair for you to say it will not develop because you keep reverting edits – clearly things are developing, and I only reverted once, and only because they were moving too fast for me (or, anyone but you) to participate in the editing. Lastly, I also object to the statement: …in doing so you concentrate all energy on the talk page, where it does no good – this is the purpose of the talk page, and I make no apology for concentrating energy here, though the history of the article hardly shows that I concentrate all my energy here. That is just false; I have worked to make your proposals happen, at least to an extent.

Now for the specifics. (1) You agree that there is a paucity of sources, and your only objetion is that the article spends too much time on the matter. But your edits did not reduce the text; all they did, instead, was to rephrase things so as the paucity is concealed. As such, I do not understand this edit. (2) As for the Egyptian censuses, I believe that the Catholic Encyclopedia article mentions them in regards to the matter at hand. I will have a look when I get a moment. It (and many others) certainly do about enrollment papers (do you dispute this?). I haven't been able to grab a bunch of sources for this from the library yet , hopefully soon. (3) As for the characterization of Herod as a puppet, it is quite standard (as I am sure you well know), and I imagine that Grant gives such a characterization in his biography. Again, when I get a moment, I shall look. I wish this could be tagged until then to help me (or anyone else) remember to look. (4) As for Varus. I did write that comment. Such was the teaching of one of my history profs. Now this is not an acceptable source unless he has published that opinion (and he is well published) or got that opinion from a published source, in which case it is acceptable. I had hope to have some time to look, but I understand the removal of this passage. If I did not have to look up 10 sentences in 2 days I might have determined whether or not this was present in a proper source. Lostcaesar 20:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Lostcaesar: I have been very clear about my changes and I have not actually removed any content beyond the passages noted (some of which should probably be revised and reincorporated). I have no problem with edits of my revision and adjustments to the phrasing; I object to its outright reversion. At the moment there are only two of us quibbling over these matters, and I don't know why your ability to attend to the article at any given point should when and how revisions are conducted. I waited a day, you presented no arguments against the revision as a whole (just against the removal of phrases, which I am open to restoring in accordance with guidelines), and I implemented it. Constant insistence on discussion of every matter, especially the removal of material which violates Wikipedia editorial standards, is overly conservative, and unreasonably favors the text as it stands (whatever its integrity). I see no reason to seek your approval for every change. I disagree about the direction of energy. There is a now a back-up of material on the talk page which needs to be incorporated, and instead I am here pounding out arguments for a clean-up (admittedly, an extensive one, but not nearly so substantive as to warrant all this).

Once more, on the paucity of sources: As it stands the text does not conceal anything; we have an entire section on "sources" which describes every ancient source for the Census of Quirinius. The problem may be that the article devotes too many words to the matter, but it is mainly that the previous version is problematic: The assertion that our sources for censuses in general are thin is either OR or it needs to be sourced. Moreover, our sources for this census may be thin, but so are our sources for a lot of things from 6 B.C. to A.D. 4; it is an awkward period. We don't have good information about the governors in Syria and Galatia during this time either. The dates of the Homonadensian war are mostly obscure and have to be inferred from archaeological evidence. In fact most of the debate about the Census of Quirinius centers around matters that are uniquely uncertain in this specific period. I think this is the point we should be making. So cite someone who says that our sources for Roman censuses are thin (and I'm not sure this is true), or let the reader get his own idea of the source situation from the preceding sections of the article. I would be happy to cite Syme on source problems with the decade in question, but for purposes of organization I'd rather stick this point in the "sources" section, where it would look more at home. We can cross-reference later on.

By all means, cite some source for the Egyptian censuses which makes arguments relevant to the Census of Quirinius. The text, as revised away, did not cite any source and did not even explain the relevance of the Egyptian calendar to the matter at hand. It was thus confusing. I would like to introduce information about the 14-year cycle in Egypt (and those scholars who argue that it is relevant for our census); this position is all over the place in the literature, especially the articles and reviews from the early 20th c. (it seems to be the most original point of Ramsay's book, or at least that's how one contemporary reviewed it).

I personally agree that Herod may be called puppet, but I don't want to say that without citing someone who says so, or who says something equivalent. In this way we can direct readers to a source which will explain the matter more fully and with more nuance than we can afford to here. Simply saying that it is "not unfair" to call him a puppet, without saying why or citing anything, is not good practice.

I still think that Varus needs to go until we can find a source. I disagree strongly that the default position should be to leave OR comments in the work until we can find a source that happens to support them. This stuff should go and return when it is sourced. It is easy to re-insert sourced material afterwards, but the article may presumably be used in the meantime. It should thus meet basic editorial standards all the time. Why does the article have to contain dubious material until you give up trying to source it? By the way, after all the reading I have done on censuses--I think I've already mentioned that I'm procrastinating--I could insert an absolute raft of possibly-OR material that I may have read in some footnote or that I can imagine is probably argued somewhere or that I found on someone's website. If I were to do so, I would expect you to eliminate that material until I could come up with a decent source.

ECKnibbs 01:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Forgot one bit: after all of this, you want to dump the restructuring why exactly? Because it leaves out the statements we have discussed? That's hardly a reason to dump the whole thing; at most it's a reason to refine the edit (within OR guidelines, as I have demanded ad nauseum). The thing has to be reworked somehow, and breaking it down into little bitty steps will just take ages (you won't believe this, but it took a few hours to come up with the revision in the first place), and I'm not willing to do that. Whatever courtesy should be, it should not be prohibitively tedious, and I have been extremely open about all of this. And I have so far encountered no Wikipedia policies which require one to make substantial changes as a series of very small edits. :ECKnibbs 01:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added a section for those authors who want to solve the problem by taking Luke at his word and dating Jesus's birth to A.D. 6 (problems with Matthew be damned). Among the three sources I have for this position is an online essay I just found, at infidels.org ( [11] ). I wanted to head off any controversy about this right now: the essay is decent and balanced, and though I suppose written for the polemical purpose of finding contradictions in the Gospels, it is not itself overly polemical, it cites the same standard literature that we do (nothing but scholarly articles in the footnotes), it defends Luke from many of the overly skeptical attacks, and in my opinion it is a pretty decent piece of work and worthy of citation. Certainly, if we can cite the Catholic Encyclopedia, I think we can cite this. I am willing to remove it later if we find better source for this specific variation on the argument (Carrier argues the position as if it were his own, though); but right now, I think citing him allows us to articulate one way out of at least some of the conflicts with Matthew. So let's keep him. ECKnibbs 10:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Section 2.1 is not really about the role of Quirinius; it is about the hypothesis that Luke describes a second, earlier census than that mentioned by Josephus. Accordingly, I propose retitling this section "Earlier census" or something. Then I'd like to bump up "Alternative translation of Luke" to 2.1.1 (some argue that Luke explicitly calls it the first census--a nice short intro to the whole section), leaving "Two governorships of Quirinius" as 2.1.2. Then I'd like to move the disputed 2.3 "Plausibility" bit, in whatever form it ultimately assumes, up under this heading, as section 2.1.3, and perhaps retitle it again ("Plausibility of earlier census," or something similar). All of these pieces assume an earlier census distinct from that recounted in Josephus, and I think this is the real 'solution' on offer here.

Then we should take 'Luke in error' and incorporate it within the introduction of the section, as we resolved above.

Any agreement for this? It will make further expansions and incorporations of other material, from Braunert et al., a bit easier and more straightforward.

ECKnibbs 14:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I will be brief, taking the advice above. I made some structural changes which seem an improvement. I made the plausibility analysis of a census under herod into a subgroup of the dual-governing hypothesis. The alt trans of Luke, and the reinterpretation of his text (conta-Matthew) were elevated to maingroup status. Material about the details of luke, aside from the dual-governing, were moved to its own section. I also added some references and the like. Lastly, I cut the text by Carrier - who is he? Lostcaesar 15:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Oh yeah, and I didn't like the rearrangement of the sources section, where Josephus had been put first. If we do that then we skip Herod and go straight past his reign, then go back in time - its confusing. Lostcaesar 15:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As before, I wish you could respond to my reasoning, articulated just above your post, instead of cutting Carrier outright. I'm not trying to bias the article you know, just attempting to reference all the works I have found so far that articulate the given theory. I've also done a Google search on the relevant terms and found that the Carrier and our Wikipedia article are generally among the first hits, side-by-side. It is thus conceivable that readers would like to see where Carrier fits into the debate. Why is this problematic? I'm open to removing him if we can find a better source that makes a similar argument, but otherwise I think Carrier's perspective carries enough water to at least warrant a citation.

Anyhow, to answer your question: Richard Carrier appears to be (or to have been, around 2000) a graduate student in classics or philosophy at Columbia University. He has written a few scholarly essays and encyclopedia articles on classical figures (like many graduate students) and also, of course, contributed heavily to various publications whose objectivity both of us would doubt (not so much like many grad students). Yet we do cite the Catholic Encyclopedia, a useful though frequently polemical reference work (especially when discussing the Census), and Ramsay as well, and I would ask you to read Carrier's monograph before rejecting it. It is actually not especially biased and his arguments parallel those of Derrett and Smith. If we cannot cite Carrier, please explain why we can cite the Catholic Encyclopedia. The latter, like many encyclopedias, does not even footnote key statements (the bit about "co-governing" under Vespasian, for example.

I see what you mean about the confusing "sources" bit. I really don't care in which order the sources are introduced, but I think the confusion can only be reduced by stating right from the beginning, explicitly, that much of the debate surrounds whether Luke and Josephus refer to the same census, or to two different censuses. As it stands now, the reader encounters a statement that seems to imply they all reference the same census, and moves to arguments that they talk about different censues.

ECKnibbs 11:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If Carrier has published then we should quote from his publishings. An internet atricle essentially a self published work. The Catholic Encyclopedia is obviously quite different, and our citations of it are (for what its worth) generally "it has been argued..." - i.e. we use it to show a certain notable published argument &c. What point does Carrier make that is unique to the section? Lastly, I think our readers would like to have access to the article and that is a good reason to put it in the offsite links section below (but not enough to cite it). As for the sources section, I think the clearest way to express it would be to go first with Luke and his (likely) citing of two censuses, and then to give Joseph's citing of one census; thereafter, we inquire the plausability of the first census mentioned by Luke, and also cite the unusual position that Luke only really means to mention one after all. Lostcaesar 12:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait. Sorry to just butt in. It is likely that Luke cited two censuses and it is an unusual position that Luke mentioned one? As for Carrier meets a number of our reliable source criteria, and comes close to failing a few. There can be cases made for bias, lack of editorial oversight, and possibly self-publishing. But he is an acedemic expert and cites his sources meticulously. While a good source of information, it probably isn't a good idea to site Carrier extensively, but I do not see a reason to simply ban citing the article. (we should just ask Carrier to review this article and contribute). What I think is a better source of information, and representative of mainstream NT scholarship is the VII Appendix to Raymond E. Brown's Birth of the Messiah. It's what Meier's refers his readers to for a fuller discussion on the subject in his first volumn of A Marginal Jew. -Andrew c 15:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have made some changes which I think will help to keep this to a neutral point of view. First, let's focus on the positive references to the census - there are two, Josephus and Luke. The others are secondary if we are looking at evidence. Secondly, if it is not clear that Luke is referring to the same census as Josephus, neither is it clear that he is referring to Herod the Great when discussing the pregnancies of Elizabeth and Mary. Either would produce consistency in Luke's report, and if that is what you want to do, it makes sense to consider either possibility. Thirdly, surely an account of the Census of Quirinius as it relates to the birth of Jesus needs to refer to the point that the Matthew Gospel account of the birth makes no mention of the census at all (and appears to imply the Joseph and Mary actually lived there, and moved to Nazareth after the return from Egypt). Finally, this ought not to read as if consistency of the Luke account, or the suggestion that there was more than one census, is the most probable situation - this question is the object of the whole discussion. Rbreen 15:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Rbreen, your changes look good in my view, thanks for the help. Aside, Luke calls one Herod "King", the other he does not, so Luke makes a distinction.

Andrew, the first question with Carrier is what he adds, we already have that basic position. I don't know why he would be an expert, either, but if he is I am sure he would have some published material. If we start quoting (otherwise unpublished) website I think we let the barn doors open. I have made no arguments against his scholarship, but if he is an expert then he will have a book or journal article and we should use that. As for Brown, I have looked for that book in my uni library but its gone, sad to say, so its up to another lest I can find it. Lostcaesar 16:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Carrier's monograph is published by the website of an organization (infidels.org) separate from himself. It is a polemical website, but then one could call the newadvent people polemical as well. You see where the Catholic Encyclopedia similarities come in. In any case, there is no question of self publishing with the Carrier monograph. I will not speak to the website's editorial review process, but as a) the piece is not self-published, b) the piece cites scholarly articles and primary sources and is mostly reasonable, and c) the piece advances a significant variation upon a position advocated by other published sources (I am happy to elaborate on how Carrier varies from Darrett and Smith: you seem not to be aware of this), I think it is worth citing. I don't want to cite him more than once, or make him into the whole point of the section; but I think he's worth mentioning outside of our external links, as the internet site his work appears on is highly ranked by Google and I would bet that his work has actually been rather widely read.

How does Luke cite two censuses? I only see one mentioned in Luke 2, and in Acts of the Apostles Luke talks about "the census." Still only one. How do we get up to two? At most, according to certain theories, he mentions an earlier census and Josephus mentions a later one; but these theories are actually considered rather unlikely in the present day and age (cf. Syme and especially Braunert for details). And though this is mostly beside the point, I don't follow your reasoning about the Herod references. Maybe I'm missing something. Luke does make a distinction between Herods, but he would have to whether or not he is referencing Archelaus or Herod the Great. Archelaus took possession of most of the client kingdom after his father's death; he was thus "King of Judea," and could well be the guy Luke mentions in 1:5. Archelaus was removed by A.D. 6 and replaced by a procurator, because he was incompetent and prone to massacres. "Herod the tetrarch," who crops up in Luke 3, is by nobody's reckoning the same guy; Luke dates this to the fifteenth year of Tiberius, so this must be Antipas. So Luke DOES make a distinction, but the distinction would have to exist in either scenario.ECKnibbs 16:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Oh, I see where you're coming from about the two censuses; I just looked at our article. Acts 5 does seem to pretty clearly reference the Josephus census, but the argument that Luke 2 talks about the same census is neither a strange nor a minority position. I'm not sure quite how you acquired that impression. That both passages are intended to refer to the same census would appear to be the obvious interpretation, and it is clearly how we would read them if we weren't trying to solve the dating problem. In fact, Acts 5 is one of the points that scholars writing in the wake of Syme's articles in 1933/4 use to show that Luke does not in fact provide evidence for two governorships of Quirinius. (The logic goes that because Acts later talks about "the census," without distinguishing, the author is unlikely to be referring to two censuses.) I can cite this if necessary, of course. ECKnibbs 16:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out, Carrier is Editor-in-Chief of infidels.org. So that's basically self-publishing.-Andrew c 18:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh right, didn't know that. Thanks. ECKnibbs 19:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The current reordering of the sources as it now reads assumes that Luke mentions the same census as Josephus and is also not chronological insofar as most would agree that Luke's date for the census he mentions is a decade before Josephus's date. That seems confusing to me. Lostcaesar 12:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point, I have amended this to allow for the theory that Luke may have been referring to an earlier event.Rbreen 12:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

With that clarification it should be fine to have Josephus first. I made some minor additions for clarification, and added headers. Because of this, and the merging of some dangling sentences, an edit synopsis will look more dramatic than it should, so the edits are best reviewed as individual changes rather than in full. I also added back one little bit of info that somehow got lost in the shufflings. Lostcaesar 08:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have already tried to eliminate the article's thinly sourced statements about the possibility of co-governorships (or "co-governing"). I am going to take them out again. These are sourced only to a polemical article in the Catholic Encyclopedia, which cites no source at all and discusses these supposed instances of "co-governing" so vaguely as to make the assertions meaningless. The possibility that Quirinius is "co-governor" is not raised in any other serious, academic literature, as far as I can tell.

ECKnibbs 17:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that the Catholic Encylopedia is available online and therefore accessible usefully to readers, but we should remember that it dates from 1913. So much has changed in the world of scholarship since then, that the articles must be very out of date.

Rbreen 20:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, in this very article we cite Emil Schürer's work from 1890, without too much worry about its antiquity. Likewise, above a three hundred year old edition of Josephus was cited as an authority. So I see some problems with this argumentation. The CE fits wikipedia criteria as a reliable source in this context, being used as a representative of a particular position. I would like more justification for the removal. Lostcaesar 23:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have already given justification. The CE article in question is a polemical piece, full of overstatements about the efficacy of Ramsay's arguments and the "extreme accuracy" of Luke as an historian, as well as some factual mistakes. The passage in the CE article that is supposed to demonstrate precedence for dual governing authorities reads as follows:

But in turbulent provinces there were sometimes times two Roman officials of equal standing. In the time of Caligula the administration of Africa was divided in such a way that the military power, with the foreign policy, was under the control of the lieutenant of the emperor, who could be called a hegemon (as in St. Luke), while the internal affairs were under the ordinary proconsul. The same position was held by Vespasian when he conducted the war in Palestine, which belonged to the province of Syria--a province governed by an officer of equal rank.

First of all, the author cites no primary sources for these assertions, so it's difficult to know what he's talking about. There is no such position in Roman administration as "lieutenant of the emperor," and the article doesn't even give us a name for the guy operating in Africa under Caligula. It is also unable to back up the statement that this "lieutenant" could be called a "hegemon." It only asserts this.

But let's be credulous and assume that the CE article is right and isn't eliding any facts (as it does in the case of Saturninus and Volumnius in the very next sentence). Even if we take the CE author at his word, Palestine and Africa provide precedents in exactly the opposite direction. We are talking about a census--a matter of "internal affairs" (if tax collection is not an internal affair I don't know what is)--which, according to both examples, would have been a matter for the ordinary proconsul. In other words, these supposed precedents only seem to underline the problem with Luke--that Quirinius, to order a census before 4 B.C., would've had to be the official governor of Syria, not some military official brought in to conduct a war. Both examples suggest that even if we squeeze Q. into the province before 4 B.C. for some military reason, any census would have occurred at the order of either Saturninus or Varus, depending upon how you date the census. It is disingenuous to tell our readers that precedent shows that Quirinius could have conducted the census as a "co-governing authority" under Varus, when in fact the only source we can find to make this assertion is the CE, and this source cites only two precedents, without any substantiation, that demonstrate exactly the opposite.

And on top of all of this, the CE position on dual authorities is not taken seriously in the scholarly literature at all. Neither Syme, nor Braunert (not even Mommsen) even raise the possibility that Quirinius could have somehow been a co-governor. It's not a credible way to solve the problem.

ECKnibbs 12:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The question is not over two governors but of Quirinius wielding some authority in the East in such a way that it would cause pressure on Herod to conduct an enrollment-taxation, perhaps to pay tribute, if I understand matters correctly. Lostcaesar 12:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that Quirinius wielded 'some authority in the east in such a way that it would cause pressure'? That's highly speculative and vague. Until we have not a clearer argument from a stronger source, I suggest it should go.Rbreen 13:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Lostcaesar: The sentence immediately preceding the passage I quoted above reads as follows:

"It is said there was no room for Quirinius, in Syria, before the death of Herod in 4 B.C. C. Sentius Saturninus was governor there from 9-6 B.C.; and Quintilius Varus, from 6 B.C. till after the death of Herod.

If you're saying that you want to use the assertions in the CE article in service of another argument, that's OR, and inadmissable in any case. But it is quite obvious that the CE article is trying to get around a purely chronological problem. It is not speculating about the rationale for an earlier census. Luke calls Quirinius hegemon in Syria, yet the list of Syrian governors is without gaps until 4 B.C., which is just too late to save Luke from conflict with Matthew. Thus, we have to squeeze Quirinius into a governorship alongside either Saturninus or Varus, both official governors of the province in 4 B.C. and earlier.

But Quirinius could not have ordered a census before that date, because he was not the official governor of the province, and there was no such thing as an official co-governorship. Perhaps you mean to counter that Luke nowhere says that Quirinius ordered the census, but that Luke merely dates it to his (completely unofficial and unrecorded) tenure in Syria ? But this is very weak argument: Why would Luke date a census in Judaea, which was actually conducted during the tenure of either Saturninus or Varus, to the command of some military figure on campaign in Galatia (the Homanadensian war is presumably the "turbulence" which the author of the CE implies)? The very suggestion is frustrating given the fact that the CE elsewhere has nothing but praise for Luke's credentials as an historian. Now it was the practice of ancient historians, and Luke as well (3:1 ff, for example), to date events by the regnal years of kings, governors, and other ruling officials. This is a much-discussed aspect of ancient historical narratives. But unless he was either very confused or completely unfamiliar with his genre, no ancient historian would ever date a census conducted by Herod in the client kingdom of Judaea, which took place during the tenure of either Saturninus or Varus in Syria, by associating it with a military figure on campaign in another province. ECKnibbs 13:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, in respect to my coeditors I will not withstand the removal of the sentence in question. My understanding is that the matter is not of Quirinius being a governor, as I don't understand that to be explicit in Luke. Nor do I understand that Luke claims Quirinius ordered or administered a census. I believe the position here is simply that Luke associates an enrollment in Syria during Herod's rule in the context of the influence of Quirinius. Why he would do so is not spelled out - hence the questions and solutions. I did not mean to support factual errors, but I do find the ambiguity of it all to be worth expressing, and did enjoy that the treatment of this source (the CE) was in line with that. Perhaps there are other sources that better put this. Lostcaesar 13:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You're not responding to any of the arguments that I've outlined. Luke associates a census in Judaea with the governorship of Quirinius in Syria. This is how everybody reads Luke, including all of the scholarly sources cited. The arguments about the word hegemon denoting something other than a governor are unsourced; the CE article we are talking about gives the issue only casual treatment. We need to cite some source showing how Greek texts normally express the Latin office of governor before we can even open the door to these speculations. Neither the CE article nor anything else you cite does this. None of the supposed precedents cited by the CE have any significance for the position of Quirinius: if anything, they demonstrate the opposite of what the article claims that they show. Moreover, the CE is not a suitable source to cite on this particular matter, for the reasons outlined at length above (none of which you have responded to). Finally, as I just wrote, it is original research to use the CE material in order to advance the position (not explicitly advocated in the CE) that Luke cited Quirinius only to explain why the census was undertaken. That needs a credible source, because the CE article is only dealing with the chronological issues raised by Luke. ECKnibbs 13:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. (Yet again): It doesn't matter what you "understand" or "believe" Luke 2 is saying, Lostcaesar. The only thing that matters is what our secondary sources say. If you want this position in the article, it is original research unless you can cite a good secondary source that advocates it. It is not enough that the problematic CE article is "in line" with your understanding. ECKnibbs 13:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not directly respond to many of the points because I have little issue with them. I dislike the rejection of a source because it is "old", and I don't see the CE is too polemical for inclusion given the right context. But I wish only to observe those general points. As for the rest, I have little to say, except to clarify that Luke says [ἡγεμονεύοντος] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help), not speficically [ἡγεμον] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help). I am not intending to make an argument or propose a solution (and that would be OR), but just to point out that, in general, there is a certain vagueness (as with all ancient history) that should be properly expressed. And, PS, I would appreciate it if you would avoid the temptation to patronize me. Lostcaesar 14:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have no issue with my arguments, why do you want to keep the citation and the argument about two governors in the article? The CE piece on the Gospel of Luke is quite polemical when it comes to defending Luke's accuracy; I have already pointed this out. I can provide more examples of polemical statements if you want. The polemicism is a far better reason to reject it than its age. Still better reasons are 1) it has not formed a part of the scholarly debate about the census (its claims about co-governors are wholly unsupported by the secondary literature), 2) the article does not cite its own sources with respect to the supposed precedents, and 3) the article is misleading in a number of respects, in part because it predates the archeological investigations and the arguments of Syme. We do need to be careful about our citations of literature from before the 1930s, because it was at this point that scholarly opinion on the matter shifted. (And for this reason, some of the Ramsay citations should probably also be reviewed, and either backed up with more modern work, or moved to an historiographical section discussing the development of arguments on the census.)

My discussion of the term "hegemon" comes straight out of the CE article; I am arguing on its terms, not on my own. If the CE article is inaccurate with respect to the Greek, something I suspect you are in a better position to determine than I am, this is another case in which it is misleading, and another reason not to cite it. And it is not patronization to point out that that there is a difference between how you understand Luke, and how our sources interpret his statements. ECKnibbs 14:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for all the postscripts, but another issue: I suspect that most ancient historians (if not all of them) would disagree that all ancient historical sources are vague. If you want to point out that Luke's terminology is vague, we need to cite someone who says this, or that statement is itself OR. The CE article does not talk about the vagueness of Luke's terminology, and so using it to illustrate that point would also be OR. ECKnibbs 14:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

ECKnibbs, I understand all your points. I quote myself from above, incase it was missed: Well, in respect to my coeditors I will not withstand the removal of the sentence in question. I apologize if I did not express this properly. I had a problem in principle with certain elements of the reasons for removal, but not all your points, and on the matters which I did not speak I do not disagree. I may also have been confused about the material in the CE for this given section or have made a misunderstanding. I agree that, if the information is significant, it will be in later sources as well. As for the vagueness, I would say Luke is more laconic than vague, but in general its important not to push points beyond the evidence. If I had to locate myself somewhere in the mix of thing I would be with Hendrickx: "The available evidence is insufficient to form any firm solution". My own opinion, which is irrelevant other than to muse, is that the knee-jerk reaction that one has, to see Luke in error, on further inspection has its own set of problems and difficulties that make such a solution not wholly satisfactory in the final analysis, but likewise apologetic arguments suffer from the same ultimate insufficency of evidence, perhaps moreso than other arguments. Of course, I am no expert. Lostcaesar 14:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case, my apologies: I assumed your use of "withstand" meant the opposite of what you intended. ECKnibbs 14:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and if you want my own opinion, it's that Luke is internally consistent and we're borrowing trouble by comparing him to Matthew. Luke's dating of the nativity to A.D. 6 in fact creates no internal chronological problems. Whether the date is right or wrong is another matter. I don't buy wholesale into the arguments of the "Jesus born in A.D. 6" crowd, but I think they're on the right track. I also noticed, while rereading Luke, that the gospel is very specific about the dates for John the Baptist, but aside from the "census under Quirinius" statement, not so specific on the dates for Jesus. One can't take this anywhere, as it amounts to nothing more than an argument from silence, but I have the suspicion that Luke lacks specificity because he wasn't sure about some of Jesus' dates (particularly, about when he started his ministry). In any case, if we're going to suspect some gospel of error, I don't know why the tendency is always to say it was Luke who got it wrong; why isn't Matthew just as likely to have misdated the nativity? It's not a very big difference anyway, plenty of sources conflict about the dates for ancient events by more than ten years. ECKnibbs 14:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The hedging about an imperial census is unnecessary and risks being incorrect. What is unprecedented is an imperially ordered census in a client kingdom--however we imagine it was conducted. So I am going to take it out again.

ECKnibbs 17:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I attempted something more akin to your wishes, I think - have a look. Lostcaesar 23:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Two things here: first, we have another quote from a very old (1913) Catholic Encylopedia - do we have any more up to date statement of this argument? Secondly, Sherwin-White is quoted as suggesting that a policy of universal registration was first implemented by Quirinius in Judea - presumably this would only be possible after 6AD when he was in charge of the census Josephus mentions, in which case this point would surely undermine the 'two-census' theory? Can anyone confirm what he is implying here? Rbreen 21:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe I added that reference to Sherwin-White. S-W doesn't accept the two-census theory, and thinks that by mentioning Quirinius' census Luke intended to date the birth of Jesus to A.D. 6. His conclusion with regard to what Luke says about the edict of Augustus is: "His whole statement means that the general policy of Augustus was carried out piecemeal in Judaea in A.D. 6 by Quirinius." (p. 169)

That said, if one believes that Herodian Judaea could be treated as a Roman province for census purposes, I think one can still accept Sherwin-White's view that the relevant edict of Augustus was a declaration of policy rather than an order for a simultaneous universal census. That particular issue seems independent of the dating problem. EALacey 22:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the Catholic Encyclopedia reference here. Firstly, it is a very dated source, and if such an important argument can be made, there ought to be a more up to date reference to back it up. Secondly, the CE reference appears to offer no source for this argument. Thirdly, the entry here referred to "Jewish custom", implying that some customs in relation to censuses existed, although it has never been established that there was any Jewish custom in relation to censuses, because the existence of any Jewish census is itself highly speculative, and it has been argued that the very idea of a census was itself objectionable to many Jews (which is one of the reasons which has been offered as to why the revolt of Theudas took place in the first place). Finally, the reference by J Thorley quoted in the same section claims that this was an extension to Judea of existing Roman practice, and the defenders of Luke really need to decide whether they want to have their cake, or eat it. Rbreen 20:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The article spends a paragraph discussing Stauffer's strange argument about a delayed census, and I am going to take it out. This material is 1) written by a theologian for apologetic purposes, and 2) also completely unsupported by the scholarly literature on the census, and this is most likely because 3) it conflicts with any reasonable reading Josephus. Josephus not only says that Quirinius finished the census in A.D. 6, but his narrative earlier shows that the census was begun only after the removal of Archelaus, which itself must have taken place in A.D. 6, or "the tenth year" of Archelaus' reign (cf. Antiquities 17.342ff, 18.1-2, and probably other places too). The revolt happened directly afterwards. In other words, according to Josephus, there were no delays, and even if there were, they would simply push the date of taxation later than A.D. 6, by Josephus' own dating scheme. So Stauffer's argument is in open conflict with our main source for the census and it is unreasonable and misleading as well. ECKnibbs 10:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The passage I've excised contains a few useful references soemone may want to reincorporate, independently of Stauffer's argument. So I cut and paste it here:

The German theologian Ethelbert Stauffer countered by referencing the evidence of Egyptian papyri.^[23] These show a Roman census could be conducted in stages, first with an enrollment done in person, and with the taxes enforced subsequently.^[24] Sometimes the collection of data took a long time; in an extreme example, a census in Gaul begun by Augustus took some 40 years to complete.^[25] Stauffer thus argued that such a structuring of a census, conducted in Palestine, could account for the enrollment mentioned by Luke only, and the later revolt following the delayed enforcement of taxation mentioned by Josephus and Luke.^[26] According to M. Grant, organized periodical censuses, as per the fourteen-year cycle in Egypt, and the five year cycle in Rome, were perhaps implemented by Herod in his kingdom on a six year cycle.^[27]

ECKnibbs 10:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The argument, which is not particular to Stauffer, is that a census was ordered 8-6 BC and an enrollment occured about this time (say 4 bc), but that the actual collection of revenues did not occur until later, hence it aims to refute the position that a census in 4bc would have caused a revolt. I don't see how it conflicts with Josephus. I am also a little worried that you seem so quick to judge just what counts as scholarly lit. in the area. At present I am inclinde to put it back in. Lostcaesar 11:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is it aside from Stauffer? Right now, my judgments as to what constitute scholarly literature center upon Braunert and his own citations, and scholars who in turn cite his work. His seems to be the standard study on provincial censuses as they relate to the census conducted by Quirinius. I don't understand how Stauffer can avoid a conflict with Josephus--unless he is arguing that there were two censuses. Josephus makes it clear that both enrollment and census occured under Quirinius, after Archelaus was sent packing, in A.D. 6. According to Josephus, Archelaus was dumped in the tenth year of his reign--he assumed power in 4 B.C. (no challenges to this standard of Herod's death have proven credible), so this dates the annexation of Judaea to A.D. 6. Josephus also says that, after the exile of Archelaus (in A.D. 6), Quirinius was sent to conduct a census, and then later he says that this census was finished in the 37th year after the battle Actium (still A.D. 6). If Quirinius was sent by Caesar to take a census (N.B.: not to collect revenues, but to administer the enrollment) in A.D. 6, antedating the ernollment to 4 B.C. looks like a contradiction to me. Unless Stauffer means there are two censuses. But then we still have a problem, because Josephus connects the revolt in A.D. 6 to the census of Quirinius, which Josephus is very clear did not antedate A.D. 6. 129.143.4.65 14:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember the exact details of Stauffer; I'll have to go back and look when I get the oppertunity (and see if I can find other texts). If I recall, what he says is that the census was ordered of Quirinius back in 8 bc or so, and that he began an enrollment while in the East around that time, but that he completed the census-taxation in AD 6, which is what prompted the revolt. I don't doubt Braunert but the bibliography on this census, I imagine, is quite large, considering it, unlike the others, has much wider implications (e.g. for theologians). Lostcaesar 14:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're right in your characterization of Stauffer's argument, then it is certainly in conflict with Josephus. Until we can source it better, I'm taking it out. As far as I'm concerned, it's an apologist position without a lot of significance, and it contradicts Josephus on top of it all.

The bibliography on the census is of course large, but I don't think that we need to give every last theory space in our article. A lot of them are foolish, inconsistent, or simply outside the debate. Braunert articulates the mainstream position, based on a straightforward reading of the sources: there could have been no census before A.D. 6, because the kingdom of Judaea was only annexed in that year. Quirinius conducted the census in the year of annexation, both because he had just assumed the governorship and needed to work out the resources at his disposal (a backhanded argument against the two governorships theory), and because he needed to assess the new territory (i.e., Judaea). ECKnibbs 14:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Shall we remove the comments of Funk et al. also, then? Lostcaesar 14:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a connection, and I'm not sure what you mean by "et al." Everybody who says Luke is in error? There is a difference between advancing a theory that contradicts a central source (without even appearing to notice--unless Stauffer argues that Josephus is wrong), and explicitly deciding that one source is more reliable than another (as the Luke in error people do). Moreover, the position of Funk is not isolated, while Stauffer's appears to be. The entire "Luke in Error" section cites many scholars who have similar opinions. If the Jesus Seminar and/or its founder were the only people coming out with the "Luke in Error" hypothesis, I agree that we would need to reexamine our treatment of the position. In fact they are not; consensus has been heading in this direction independent of Funk et al. for a long time, ever since Syme came out against Mommsen in the 1930s. So I think we need a better source for the Stauffer theory before we can include it. A whole paragraph on what appears to be the isolated (and problematic) hypothesis of one Christian apologist is too much. ECKnibbs 15:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

One thing that has puzzled me about this article is why the option that Luke has simply got his facts wrong is the last one considered. Not only is it the simplest - and therefore, by the principle of parsimony, the most likely to be correct - but is also (to judge by the somewhat tortuous discussion of the alternatives) the least problematic. I believe it is probably the most widely held, especially by classical historians. I have moved it to the top.

Some of the other options need to be clarified as well are they compatible or contradictory. If Quirinius was governing Syria before 6 AD but after Herod, does that not still clash with the Matthew account which is still pre-Herod?

Rbreen 13:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The move seems to me to be a matter of taste. Whether "Luke in error" really is the simplest solution or not, and certainly whether it is the most likely to be correct, are matters of opinion, i.e. points of view. I am pondering whether we should so frankly put that "Luke in error" is the simplest, as it creates its own set of problems. But your other point, that it is probably the most widely held, seems to be a point with a bit more meat on it. I don't know if it is or not but it may be, and whatever the case I don't suppose there is an essential difficulty with this section comming first.

The matter of Luke being internally consistent if we interpret him as stating that Jesus was born (i.e. the census happened) in AD 6 is something we need more material on. It would, if I understand things correctly, make Luke wrong in another way, namely his use of "king" and "tetrarch" in regards to the different Herods. Furthermore, it creates issues with the entire chronology of Jesus life and also the tenure of Pilate. In my understanding this remains very much a minority view. And yes, it would clearly clash with Matthew. Lostcaesar 13:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What problems does the "Luke in Error" theory raise? I can't think of any. And saying that Luke is wrong certainly seems a simpler solution than, say, the second governorship theory. But the best argument for sticking "Luke in Error" first is that it is the mainstream position, whatever its merits.

Not that this matters much, but as I tried to explain earlier, if we assume that Luke was born in A.D. 6 there are no problems with Luke calling one Herod "king" and the other "tetrarch." Archelaus might indeed have been called king (as was his father, Herod the Great): Antipas was the "tetrarch" who is mentioned in Luke 3. I don't see any issues with the chronology of Jesus' life: Luke is vague about Jesus' dates. I am less familiar with the chronology of Pontius Pilate, but wasn't he governor until A.D. 36? Surely late enough in any case, I would think. Conflicts with Matthew aren't really troubling; if I had to guess, I would say that Matthew has confused his Herods, and that he really means to talk about Archelaus as the threat to Jesus all along. Archelaus was, after all, a pretty nasty guy, known for massacres and such. The whole story of the innocents feels like it was supposed to be attached to Archelaus. Matthew even says explicitly, later on, that Archelaus posed a danger to the child Jesus; it's how he gets everyone to the right town.

Of course I understand that Jesus born in A.D. 6 is a minority view, these are just my opinions. ECKnibbs 14:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The 'Luke in error' option requires only that Luke has got his facts wrong, which is not unreasonable given his vagueness about the actual age of Jesus.

The Quirinius governing twice option, on the other hand, requires that Quirinius was ruling before this (for which there is no positive evidence), AND that there was a previous census (for which there is, again, no positive evidence), AND that Quirinius was ruling in Syria when Herod was King and Varus was provincial governor of Syria (which doesn't make sense except with the added speculation of a co-governorship for which there is not the slightest evidence available, and little by way of precedent) or after the death of Herod, in which case Matthew is still wrong.

The 'before Quirinius' theory is less complicated, in that it requires only an earlier, unrecorded census, ordered by the Roman Emperor in a client state AND a controversial translation.

The 'Luke meant the 6AD census' theory of course avoids these but then Matthew is again wrong, and when Luke implied that Jesus was 'about thirty' in 29AD, he was actually 23.

Rbreen 14:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"In 1938, F.M. Heichelheim proposed an alternate translation of Luke 2:2, suggesting that it might be rendered: This census was the first before the census taken when Quirinius was governor." Shouldn't it be, "This census was before the census taken when Q was gov."? The word that used to mean "first" now is being translated as "before". Lostcaesar 13:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you correcting a supposedly quoted translation? What is the source for this translation? 75.14.213.41 08:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I am changing the supposedly referenced translation (the translation actually predates the inclusion of that reference, if I recall) because it cannot be right - what I mean is, it cannot be a fair representation of the proposed alternate translation. I think someone just made a simple mistake, misunderstanding the argument, which take the word translated as "first" and retranslates it as "before" (hence the alt translation cannot mean both "first" and "before"). I decided to be bold and fix what can only be a simple error. Lostcaesar 10:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The word "protos" means either "first" or "before" - not both. "...was the first before that under the prefecturate of Quirinius in Syria" - ? See the note in ESV (Bible Gateway), alsoNew Testament Chronology. 86.141.9.225 17:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes but it is always dangerous to second-guess quotations because it is never safe to assume that the simple error has not been made by the original author (apart from trivial spelling errors, and even then I would be cautious). And in fact, in this case it appears to be so: I can't find the original, but Feldman (quoted in the footnote) says: 'Heichelheim ... translates Luke as follows: "This census was the first before that under the prefecture of Quirinius in Syria" ... the correct translation should be "This census took place earlier than when Quirinius was governor of Syria"'. Since he is making a point about the phrasing it is reasonable to assume that he is quoting correctly. Rbreen 10:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

In Anne Rice's book "Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt" she has Joseph going to Bethlehem for the tax because he owned a small plot of land in the environs, and so had to go for the tax... I presume that she took this from one of her many listed sources, but don't have access to them to cite the correct one. But it is at least a reasonable theory. Maybe someone has a source that could add this to the "Details" section (citing a work of historical fiction doesn't quite seem right...) 62.101.102.226 09:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that Ulpian, in his Digest, mentions that some censuses required a registration to be held where someone owned property, rather than where he lived (if they were different). I’m not sure about the use of this fact in the secondary sources and its relation to Joseph. Since he was a carpenter, I suppose Rice limited the hypothetical plot of land to a small portion, in keeping with his economic status. I would look in A. N. Sherwin-White’s book, referenced in the article, for a discussion, as I imagine he talks about this (my university library, surprisingly, does not have this text, or I would look). Lostcaesar 10:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

In this edit, the summary of Josephus' account was changed to remove references to Joazar and Zadok on the grounds that their inclusion "takes away from the topic and might be confusing". I can only guess that "the topic" means the issue of Luke's accuracy with which most of the article is concerned. While this article was created at "The Census of Quirinius and the Gospels", it is now titled "Census of Quirinius", and I can't see a basis for excluding material relevant to Quirinius' census(es) which doesn't bear on Luke. Issues relating to the Lukan account are the topic of most relevant scholarly discussion, and so it's reasonable that they occupy most of the article, but the details of Josephus' account are of interest to scholars of Roman and Jewish history. EALacey 18:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the details from Josephus belong here. We may want to consider making it clear who the source of this information is, but because there is so little ancient sources on the Census, and because Josephus is one of the main ones, there is no reason to exclude information. If it is confusing, then we should present it more clearly, or make it clear that the source itself is confusing, but no need to omit.-Andrew c 20:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's my impression (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that the vast majority of scholars who are not doctrinally committed to biblical inerrancy consider the "Luke in error" theory to be correct. Yet that section takes up less than 10% of this article. This seems like a violation of WP:WEIGHT. I guess the way to rectify this would be to have more material in this section, yet it already covers most of their arguments. Maybe put some of the rebuttals to the other theories in this section? Any comments? Grover cleveland 14:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the article is very much focused on attempts to reconcile the Gospel account, and while there are those who maintain this view it is very much a minority one. Some of the theories are interesting, but it clearly ought to show that the majority view is that Luke is in error. Rbreen 14:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I good source for this would be VII Appendix to Raymond E. Brown's Birth of the Messiah (p. 547-556). Meier, in his A Marginal Jew notes that "Attempts to reconcile Luke 2:1 with the facts of ancient history are hopelessly contrived" (which we quote in the article). His citation for his statement is Brown. The only other info in Meier is "Mary would not have had to accompany Joseph to register, and her advanced pregnancy would have positively argued against accompanying him when there was no obligation to do so." which we may want to add to the section. I guess this is a matter of Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation doesn't require as much space as 'contrived' explanations. All that said, it is a little confusing the way we present things. We do make it clear in words what the majority view is. It wouldn't hurt to expand that section (I don't have Brown's book, but I can check to see if its in my local university library). And we may want to consider cutting non-notable views, or making other explanations more concise.-Andrew c 14:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted to restore balance to the article with a number of changes, but there are still a number of problems. One is that, while there are several leading scholars who present the simple mainstream view - that Luke was in error, probably to provide a reason for the trip to Bethlehem - there does not seem to be a scholar who presents a single, clear, alternative view - instead, there are individual picky observations, which are speculative and not connected (as far as I can see) to a unified thesis. An excellent recent source on this is Geza Vermes, The Nativity (2006). The other point which does not I think come out of the present article is that the various 'reconciliations' are based on multiple speculation - for instance, the idea that Quirinius was governing earlier not only requires Quirinius to have been in charge earlier (which is speculative, as there is no practical evidence of this), but also was ruling at a time when there already was a governor or Syria (again, there is no practical evidence that this was the case); whereas the idea that the reference in Luke is to an earlier census requires speculation not only that the commonly used translation is wrong but also that, against all precedent and without mention by Josephus, King Herod held a census of his own.

Rbreen 15:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It occurs to me also that there is way too much information in this article to be of use to general readers, and some of the details (eg Greek words) are offputting and not apparently necessary. Yes, we should cut non-notable views (do we really need references to those who are unable to come to a conclusion?) and make the rest more concise. Rbreen 15:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don’t see how any of the views expressed could be considered “non-notable”. I’m sure there are non-notable views about this matter afloat, but all those stated in the article (and how many are there, really?) seem worth saying. Each view seems to take the necessary amount of space needed to express itself, with perhaps the exception of the “Luke in error” section, which takes (though perhaps fairly) far more space than it needs just to say what it wants to say. But “weight”, of course, doesn’t have to mean just physical space, and the words themselves certainly weight heavily in favour of the “Luke in error” section. It should also be observed that it is almost impossible to separate one’s own point of view from what one considers to be notable. I am wholly convinced that, if some of the arguments are removed or substantially reduced, that someone will later come along and reinsert them, only in a worse way (less researched, etc), exactly because belief that Luke did not err is widespread (and I think the number of scholars who believe this has been underestimated here, perhaps because disbelief in inerrancy is being tacitly considered a prerequisite for qualifying as a scholar, or at least a “notable scholar”). Nor should we downplay the speculative or fractured nature of some of the objections, such as the guess that Joseph wouldn’t have brought Mary along, or that Herod (who did conduct all sorts of censuses-taxations) wouldn’t have felt pressure to tax from Augustus. Lastly, there is an inherent bias that should be observed in statements that claim “no evidence” for something that is evidenced by Luke. It would be unfortunate, and a real loss, for wikipedia to impose a point of view to the exclusion of others (and the researched supporting sources) simply because that point of view is the favoured one by contributors and the group of scholars they consider notable. No one is removing information concerning "Luke in error", or even suggesting that more should not be added. 86.141.9.225 14:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The group of scholars who are quoted in support of the view that Luke is in error includes Dunn, Vermes, Sanders, Brown, Meier, Sherwin-White, and Millar. N T Wright also expresses this view. These are surely the preeminent Bible / Classical scholars of the era and they represent a very wide range of viewpoints (and leaving aside the Jesus Seminar and others like them). As editor Grover cleveland pointed out, this is clearly the majority scholarly view, and we should reflect that in order to avoid violating WP:WEIGHT. Certainly, the Luke in error section is longer than ideally it should, but as you say, fairly, because it does need to make clear that this view is very widely held. If there is a substantial scholar who puts forward a coherent alternative view, then of course that should be reflected. But the suggestion that we ought to include these views simply because otherwise someone else will do so "only in a worse way" seems a pretty strange way to create an encyclopedia. I believe this represents a consensus view here - we could do with more opinions expressed about this issue.Rbreen 15:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

We also, by the way, need to consider the reader here. The article is very wordy and full of details which seem more concerned with scoring points than with providing a usable perspective on the issue. Do we really need to have Greek text here when the only people likely to find this useful will be most likely to find it out for themselves by reading the books referred to? At the moment, I'm not sure this article is either welcoming or useful for the average reader. Rbreen 15:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So scholars like F. F. Bruce, Nigel Turner, Ben Witherington III, Norman Geisler, Brook Pearson, Thomas Howe, Craig Bloomberg, John McRay, etc., dont make your list of "preeminent" scholars, and you don't consider them "substantial" or able to forward "coherent" views? That really says more about your own position than about them, now doesn't it? You seem to have ignored my statements above, picking out (uncharitably) the one you found easiest to mock. I would hope that I am mistaken in taking from this the impression that you are disinterested in taking seriously views other than your own. 86.141.9.225 15:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that any of these are not eminent, substantial or coherent. I am arguing simply that none of them appear to present a substantial or coherent alternative thesis to the view that Luke is in error. All I can see from the sources referred to here, is a selection of theories that maybe Quirinius was governor earlier, maybe Herod held a census, etc. Bruce says: "an earlier enrolment, as described in Luke ii. i ff., (a) may have taken place in the reign of Herod the Great, (b) may have involved the return of everyone to his family home, (c) may have formed part of an Empirewide census, and (d) may have been held during a previous governorship of Quirinius over Syria." That's four 'may's in a row - not exactly a confident thesis. Rbreen 15:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is unbalance on the matter of 2 gov's of Quirinius. Its almost a dead hypothesis that, though it should be mentioned, does not need as much discussion. However, the matter of the alternate translation of Luke is the real deal - it is a viable hypothesis supported my a lot of NT scholars, perhaps as many as support Luke in error, and it should be discussed properly. If one wants a coherent view of Luke 2:2 et al., he should see Brook W. R. Pearson, "The Lucan censuses, revisited" in Catholic Biblical Quarterly 1999, a good recent articulation of this view, with other arguments about the relevant points (a census under Herod, the historicity of Luke's details, etc.). PS - the Luke in error section is internally free from criticism, unlike every other section. 129.11.76.215 12:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been reflecting more on the comments above concerning balance. I would like to make a few points. First, I would repeat my statement that “due weight” is not necessarily reducible to “number of words” – there are many ways to weigh points and arguments besides length. Nonetheless, concerning the number of words I would say the following. On the one hand, the section ‘Luke in error’ is smaller than the overall reconciliations. However, when this section is compared with each individual alternate hypothesis, it seems to be equally lengthy (with the 2 governorship section being admittedly too bulky in comparison). The “census under Herod” section is a necessary corollary. The section, “historicity of Luke’s details” is quite independent of any of the hypothesis.

I think the matter is in part one of perspective. If “Luke in error” is seen as one hypothesis, the one supported by the majority of scholars, then it seems to be relatively balanced in regards to the other sections (concerning length), and given the most weight based on the phrasing of the section. The only difficulty is if one sees “Luke in error” as an “all encompassing” or “master” view, whereby the reconciliations are then seen as a “united front”. I don’t think such a view is sustainable. First, “Luke in error” is not monolithic, with the various proponents finding errors with each other on certain points (one need only see R. E. Brown for this), whilst the reconciliations are hardly united – proponents of the “Jesus born AD 6” position are hardly any more allied with the “Alternate Translation” as with any other hypothesis. And I would like to say that the Alternate Translation view has a good number of scholars behind it, respected and notable scholars, and, even if a minority position, it is certainly substantial and well represented. Hence, the only problem seems to be if one assumes, inappropriately, that “Luke in error” is a monolithic position, and that it is “the truth”, whilst the other positions are collectively and futilely assailing it. The truth is that it is an internally diverse hypothesis, among many competing hypothesis (granted the more accepted one) that attempts to deal with the problem.

Furthermore, it should not be assumed, as has been stated before, that “Luke in error” is a solution “without difficulties”, whilst the others have difficulties. I need not say how blatantly PoV this is, and how proponents of the other positions surely think differently. The reasonableness of assuming that Luke would be wrong here or that he would invent the story has been questioned and is considered a genuine difficulty be worthy scholars. Once this obvious editorial bias is set aside, alone with the aforementioned point, I think much of the matter at hand vanishes.

A final point, which is well observed, is that the prose of the article is more than choppy and should be cleaned up. I wholly agree that such a point is well founded. However, previous attempts to do this have generally resulted in the unexcusable deletion of relevant sourced and reliable information. Style and prose are not in any way incompatible with through investigation, diverse points of view, and numerous sources!

86.141.9.225 14:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a way forward for everyone involved here. Originally, there was an article called "Bible Census" or something like that, with almost no information. I created an article, "The Census of Quirinius and the Gospels", with the aim of providing a useful discussion of the problems between the relations amongst Luke, Matthew, and Josephus. The name was eventually shortened to "Census of Quirinius".

The difficulty is that there are two issues here; that is, two reasons to care about this topic. One is the point I just mentioned, the relations amongst the sources and, especially, the impact on biblical inerrancy. The other is a more purely historical interest in just the census of AD 6 by Quirinius, its impact on the history of Zealotry, and its place in the career of a remarkable man. Now between these two issues I think we can fairly say that, for an audience of educated English-speaking readers, the one most people are interested in is the first.

Far more people will care about the impact on biblical inerrancy (including those who want to disprove it), than about an otherwise dry and rather obscure enrollment that happened a long time ago in a backwater province of the empire. And I think the contributions here have shown that, since everyone involved has only sought to discuss the Biblical issue (and honestly, ask yourself why you are interested, and I think you'll find it true). But the shifting of the title has created a tension between the two issues which, though related (and religious questions are always historical in nature when revelation is involved), can be separated to the mutual benefit of all.

But I think the solution here is to make this article about the undisputed census of AD 6 and its place in the history of zealotry and to move the detailed information about Luke (etc) to another article, perhaps "Luke 2" or perhaps its own, with links there from "Luke 2", the "Nativity", etc. As far as I know historians in general do not take up the question of an earlier census of Quirinius, and so that could be left aside. The issue of an alternate translation argues in such a way as to free Quirinius from any necessary earlier involvement in Syria; in other words, it makes a pro-Luke case without changing the otherwise known facts or expanding of Quirinius's career. The same could be said for "Jesus born AD6". Thus, these two matters need not be mentioned.

Now let me say that there is only one way this will work, and that is if we do not add snide or petty comments about St. Luke in this article — and you know what I'm talking about. It seems like every article, from the Nativity, to Luke 2, to the main article on Quirinius, has some comment the purpose of which is to make the reader think that Luke got things wrong. We don't need to get into the validity of this statement. We only need to observe, and we can all agree to this, that it is just one PoV and on this question there are others which are noteworthy and, frankly, not advanced by fools (as the snide comments would imply).

So I think this is the way forward. It will allow us to preserve all the information we have gathered (and we should be careful to preserve it when moving text). And it will be a good compromise. But please, when working on articles that affect the issue of inerrancy, be respectful of the position that Luke isn't wrong and don't word things in a way so as to gab the reader with the contrary point of view. And you know what I mean: they end up saying by implication "real scholars who are not biased know Luke is wrong and thus the Bible is in error." I know you probably belive that statement is true with all your heart, but please realise that its a pov statement contested by people who are allowed a place in the world of scholarship, and whose argument ought to be heard if for no other reason than because its the argument of nearly 2 billion people.

If we manage to do this, I might actually be able to retire from editing for good.

86.141.9.225 14:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I cannot agree that that would be an adequate solution. The danger is that this is simply content forking, avoiding the essential issue.

I can see no point in addressing the points you make here; if you can seriously characterise the simple historical argument (which is, as I have said and believe, the majority one) that Luke has got his facts wrong as "real scholars who are not biased know Luke is wrong and thus the Bible is in error", there is nothing more I can say. It is unfair, unreasonable and emotive.

We have here an article which is much too long, weighed down with the debris of a prolonged citation war, often confusing and unreadable, something more like a private obsession than an encylopedic article. I and others have tried to produce something readable and balanced, which reflects both sides without giving undue weight to a minority position that appears driven by a need to make the facts fit the interpretation, and not the other way round. I could add more citations but the point where that is useful has clearly passed.

What this article desperately needs is the opinion of people who are not involved. I had hoped others might comment, but I suspect many are put off by the sheer level of detail. We clearly need some sort of dispute resolution process - I suggest an approach to the Mediation Cabal. Will you accept mediation?Rbreen 22:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You need to explain more your statement about content forking and articulate what is wrong with the above proposal, which I considered to be a real attempt on my part to compromise and improve the situation. We would be reallocating content by distinguishing two different subjects, not pov forking. I think your just being a difficult now, not even considering it. 86.141.9.225 23:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:POVFORK. The only possible way in which an article can be created is if the title is Attempts to reconcile the Gospel of Luke with Records of the Census of Quirinius or something. Otherwise it's inappropriate. Hornplease 22:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is titled "Census of Quirinius" but the majority of the content focuses on the sources, not the subject of the article. I see no problem making a separate article about the veracity of the sources, as long as what the sources actually say about the census remain in this article. They're two different topics, not a POV fork.

In other words, I recommend scrapping the "Problems and solutions" section and everything that follows. Put that material elsewhere if you want. In my opinion a debate about the arcane details in each historical source has no place in this article about the census. -Amatulic 16:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted everyone who watches this page to know about Crucifixion eclipse. It is another article about a possibly historical event described in the gospels, like the Census. Editors have raised concerns about the tone, and whether this event actually occurred as described in the gospels. I feel like we've done a decent job tangling with similar issues here, and invite anyones interested to take a look. Thanks.-Andrew c 20:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Luke is cited at times of being in error because his references seem to be at variance with Josephus. However, Luke's writings were widely read at a time and in a location in which many living people could dispute the information based on personal knowledge. Leading Jews in the community would have good reason to make much of any inaccuracy in Luke’s recitation of history, and Jews are notorious for their nitpicking in that area. Are there any writings which reflect disputes of that nature written during that period of time? Anything written after the death of eye witnesses is second hand and not useful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikimeadows (talk • contribs) 15:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC).

I think your request is unreasonable for two reasons. First of all, we don't even have a single manuscript of Luke from within the lifetime of the person who wrote it. The earliest fragments (not even complete copies) of Luke date to the 3rd century. So why would we expect to see responses to Luke from the author's lifetime when we don't even have copies of Luke from the author's lifetime. The second reason is that your assertions would then apply that Josephus, not Luke, was in error. And then we could make the exact same requirements for Josephus as you are of Luke. Do we have any contemporary writings that are responding to Josephus that claim he is in error? In both cases, it is unreasonable to assume that these texts were significant enough, that someone that was literate would not only know these texts, but respond to them, and that that reply would either be significant enough to be copied and past down over the years, or that we would be lucky enough to find an original copy 2000 years later. It's an unreasonable assumption.-Andrew c 16:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Today, these sentences are removed: "But it is important that the Bible never calls Quirinius "the governor" (New King James Version). It says that Quirinius was "governing" in Syria. And we know that he was indeed governing in some capacity in this region at this time, perhaps in 8 B.C. or 7 B.C." In combination with the next sentence it could be most important: "According to Austrian Professor Konradin Ferrari d'Occhieppo — in many books between 1965 and 2003 —, the star of Bethlehem was not only a triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in 7 BC. The astronomer had interpreted the words "stood over" as a term that refer the retrogradation and stationing of the royal star Jupiter or Saturn in the sign of Pisces (=land in the west) in 12 November 7 BC since 854 (!) years. In the astronomer’s opinion this rare event was certainly important for everyone." Also it is said Quirinius had the power of three legions in Syria in 8/7 B.C. --- Dietmar 19:52, 18 June 2007

This is an archive of past discussions about Census of Quirinius. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4