![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 |
Despite the B-class rating of the article, I notice this is essentially a very short stub with several problems.
I think this article should be re-rated. Dimadick ( talk) 12:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
GBRV, "alleged contradictions"? The two narratives feature different casts of characters (Luke lacks Herod the Great and the Magi, but includes shepherds, Simeon, and Anna the Prophetess), and largely different circumstances. Luke has Jesus' parents staying in Bethlehem for a while, then heading for Jerusalem, then returning to Nazareth with him. The narrative is a peaceful one and mentions no conflict or persecution. Matthew has Herod wanting to kill Jesus and going on to kill every child of similar age in the vicinity of Bethlehem, Jesus' parents fleeing to Egypt and staying there until the death of Herod, and then avoiding Judea entirely for fear of Herod Archelaus. They settle in Galilee (and Nazareth) precisely to avoid Archelaus. Matthew does not mention any visit in Jerusalem. The narrative is one of danger, persecution, and stresses the need of secrecy. Attempts to reconcile the two accounts have to ignore key differences between their authors.
Tgeorgescu, how exactly do you render the consensus view of scholarship without mentioning its methods, its arguments, its conclusions? The article and related articles should summarize the scholars' methodology, not only their conclusion. That is a difference between research and wild guesses.
As for Biblical inerrancy, that seems to be rather irrelevant in this case. While Biblical inerrancy is not a particularly logical position and there are cases where the Bible (an entire collection of disparate works) disagrees with established history, the Nativity of Jesus does not seem to be such a case. Here two books in the same canon simply do not match each other, it is not a case of "error". Basically these two accounts consist of our only sources on the event. Arguments about their historicity, or lack of it, do not exactly prove anything substantial about the event. Because even the scholars lack a better source. Dimadick ( talk) 16:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I am certainly not insisting that authors of Western Civilization texts for university classes should agree with the suggestions made about ancient Israel in recent decades by scholars such as those whom I have cited. What I am saying is that it is bad scholarship, and bad pedagogy, simply to ignore an important body of recent work, offering adult students a literalist-leaning account that is by scholarly standards probably twenty years out of date. At the very least, textbook authors should include more critical scholars' works and some minimalist works in their recommended readings, so that students would have a chance to confront such arguments on their own.
The Hebrew Bible is simply not a reliable source for the history of ancient Israel, and the authors of the textbooks surveyed seem largely unaware of this fact. Writers of textbooks for undergraduates need to ask themselves: If we are content to provide students with mythical, legendary, uncritical histories of ancient Israel, how can we have any legitimate grounds for complaint or criticism when others are willing to provide mythologized, fictionalized histories of other peoples and places?— Jack Cargill, "Ancient Israel in Western Civ Textbooks"
But, since most of Ehrman’s textual arguments are essentially the well-established and long-accepted consensus views of just about every worthwhile critical biblical scholar not teaching at a Christian university, seminary, or school with the word “Evangelical” in the title (Ehrman admits as much beginning at the 7:50 mark in the video here), the site is essentially little more than an online video version of Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ, where conservative scholars attempt to refute the biblical scholarship that is taught in every major university save the aforementioned conservative Christian schools.
— Robert Raymond Cargill, i stand with bart ehrman: a review of the ‘ehrman project’
The strong consensus is that there is at best sparse indirect evidence for these biblical episodes, and for the conquest there is considerable evidence against it. That doesn’t mean there isn’t more work to be done and people don’t need to keep an open mind. Who knows that the future will bring? But, my only point is this: at present to say that archaeology is a friend to the historical accuracy of the Bible may be true for some things, but not for the foundational story of Israel’s origins–slavery, exodus, and conquest. This has been and continues to be a big problem, and claiming otherwise just makes the matter worse.
— Peter Enns, 3 Things I Would Like to See Evangelical Leaders Stop Saying about Biblical Scholarship
The fact is that we are all minimalists -- at least, when it comes to the patriarchal period and the settlement. When I began my PhD studies more than three decades ago in the USA, the 'substantial historicity' of the patriarchs was widely accepted as was the unified conquest of the land. These days it is quite difficult to find anyone who takes this view.
In fact, until recently I could find no 'maximalist' history of Israel since Wellhausen. ... In fact, though, 'maximalist' has been widely defined as someone who accepts the the biblical text unless it can be proven wrong. If so, very few are willing to operate like this, not even John Bright (1980) whose history is not a maximalist one according to the definition just given.— Lester L. Grabbe, Some Recent Issues in the Study of the History of Israel
Again we see the straw-man argument about eyewitnesses. It is incredible that two authors writing 70 years later, somehow received such vastly different accounts of a momentous event. We are not talking here about "what color robe was Mary wearing at lunch that day", we are talking about foreign sages visiting from far-off lands, we are talking about homicidal kings carrying out massacres, we are talking about angels and divine visions, we are talking about a family fleeing into exile in a foreign country, and yet these momentous details all eluded Luke the Greatest Historian? Seriously? The suggestion that the two gospels record events that happened two years apart - and that neither gospel author was at all aware of the other event - also beggars belief. It would suggest that Joseph brought his pregnant wife from Nazareth to Bethlehem to register for a census which didn't apply to them to begin with, then he took them home to Nazareth in an uneventful manner, then they all RETURNED to Bethlehem two years later for an unspecified reason, received adoring magi and were threatened by a king, then they ran away to EGYPT when they actually lived in Nazareth, and they stayed in Egypt for years before finally going home to Nazareth, all because of why? It is no surprise that scholars think Luke was making it all up. You have to really suspend disbelief to buy into such obviously-ridiculous "harmonization's". Wdford ( talk) 08:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
GBRV, why do you assume that Luke's narrative is a summary of events? It seems to be rather detailed and covers an entire chapter of his work. The author depicts the birth of Jesus as a momentous event and has the newborn acknowledged as the Messiah.
As for Medieval chroniclers leaving out important events, this often has to do with the POV of the writers. Harold Harefoot died of a mysterious illness at the age of 24. One of our main sources on this illness is an Anglo-Saxon charter, which actually records a territorial dispute between two monasteries. "Harold is described as lying ill and in despair at Oxford. When monks came to him to settle the dispute over Sandwich, he "lay and grew black as they spoke". " The problem is that the source cares more about the dispute and covers it in detail, while devotes a few cryptic lines to the illness of the dying king.
Which is why I mentioned above that the agenda of the author has to be taken into account. The writers of the Gospels emphasize events that fit their distinctive theology and intended audience of the 1st century. Not what would later audiences and secular scholars want to find out. Dimadick ( talk) 09:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Wdford, while I generally agree with your summation of the events described, I have to disagree with the "Luke was making it all up". The Magi, a homicidal Herod, fleeing to Egypt, etc. are all Matthew claims and Luke mentions nothing of the sort. Compared to Matthew, Luke gives a rather low–key narrative.
The nativity narrative in Luke covers Chapter 2 of the book. It starts with the Census of Quirinius. Using the text from Wikisource, based on the World English Bible: "Now it happened in those days, that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. This was the first enrollment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria. All went to enroll themselves, everyone to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David; to enroll himself with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him as wife, being pregnant."
The text continues with Mary giving birth to Jesus while staying in Bethlehem. An "angel of the Lord" alerts a number of (unnamed) shepherds of the Messiah's birth. The shepherds come to Bethlehem and visit newborn Jesus and his parents, then apparently publicize the birth.: "When they saw it, they publicized widely the saying which was spoken to them about this child. All who heard it wondered at the things which were spoken to them by the shepherds. ... The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, just as it was told them."
The narrative continues with Jesus' circumcision. Then it mention staying in Bethlehem for a period of post-birth purification, before heading to Jerusalem to present him to the Temple and offer an animal sacrifice. In Jerusalem, they meet Simeon and Anna the Prophetess, who separately acknowledge the baby as the Messiah. The parents of Jesus then take him from Jerusalem to Nazareth: "they returned into Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth. The child was growing, and was becoming strong in spirit, being filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him. His parents went every year to Jerusalem at the feast of the Passover. When he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast..."
Which means that Luke skips about 12 years in the narrative, going from a baby Jesus to a 12-year-old Jesus. The implication seems to be that Jesus had an uneventful childhood, or that the author did not care about these years. Compare this to Matthew's melodramatic narrative of Jesus having to be hidden from the grasp of the Herodian dynasty.
But back to the actual topic, the census. Luke ties the birth of Jesus to a Roman census, not one taken in the Herodian kingdom. Matthew's Herod-related narrative is largely irrelevant here, unless one or more sources brings up the contradiction. Our personal beliefs matter little when it comes to writing an article. Dimadick ( talk) 19:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
The article has an undue weight tag, and quite rightly, since GVBH continues to flog his personal point of view, which is that there exists a scholarly debate over the reliability of Luke, regardless of the lack of reliable evidence for it. And so the section on Luke gets longer and longer and he cherry-picks and argues. To recall: the tag says that the article "may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies." The ideas, two of them, are that the word prote in Luke 2:1-7 can be read as "before", and that there exists evidence that Quirinius may have had a prior (prior to 6 AD) term as governor. Both these are fringe positions, according to our sources. If you, GVBH, believe otherwise, then produce a reliable source that says so. Otherwise, please leave the article alone. PiCo ( talk) 02:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
The mention of prote is a translation issue, but is not currently covered in the article. The historical record on Quirinius might be incomplete, we don't know what was his title during a lengthy campaign against the Homonadenses. But I don't see what would an earlier term of the man in Syria have to do with Judea. The Roman province of Judea was only established in AD 6, and a guy named Coponius was its first Prefect. Dimadick ( talk) 07:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
The fact that many people believe it, doesn't mean its not fringe. (For a thorough grounding on this concept, check out the Christ myth theory discussions.) However the fact that the majority of scholars believe the complete opposite view , means that this view could possibly be fringe. Many "minority" scholars believe that Luke was somehow still correct, just because they want to believe that this is the case - for them, no actual evidence is required. Some "minority" scholars believe the "prote = pre" story, because there is actually some faint sense to it, even though the majority make strong arguments to the contrary - so I would agree this is a valid minority opinion and should be stated as such. However the "undocumented first term" makes no sense - there are no names in the Tivoli inscription, and even if Quirinius was indeed present in Syria as a military commander in an earlier period (is there any actual evidence to support this?) then on what basis was he conducting a census in Herod's "independent" kingdom? This seems like a long long stretch indeed to clutch at a small and soggy straw. Where is the cut-off between a valid minority opinion, and a fringe opinion? Wdford ( talk) 07:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Maybe this source could help clarity some things or this one or [6]. — JudeccaXIII ( talk) 23:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
http://midseventiethweekrapture.blogspot.com/2014/11/cyrenius-does-not-mean-quirinius.html -- JaredMithrandir ( talk) 06:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
JaredMithrandir, please understand that Wikipedia doesn't really allow blogs as sources per WP:NOTBLOG. — JudeccaXIII ( talk) 16:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Recent edit-skirmishing on the word in the lead (or lede if you insist) raises what this word means in the context. My objection is foremost that of ambiguity: critical can either mean someone who argues against, or describe someone whose job it is to be a critic (as in theatre) and who will necessarily sometimes laud rather than criticise. So what sort of scholar is a 'critical scholar'? Should not all scholars be critical (in the theatre sense)?
I'm in over my head on this article as I don't have the referenced text (Brown 1978), but the disagreement smells of a proxy dispute over chronology, and perhaps religious orthodoxy. But putting that aside, what we need to do is establish what the book that is cited to support this statement actually says. Mcewan ( talk) 17:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Currently, the article in the very second paragraph provides a summary judgment on the scholarship regarding the Census of Quirinius that reads, "No satisfactory explanation has been put forward so far to resolve the contradiction"... quoting Professor Gruen's footnote in a 1996 book on a different subject and also something from 1975. I dug up a year 2000 paper in "Catholic Biblical Quarterly" which proposes an explanation for the alleged contradiction ( http://www.jstor.org/stable/43722645?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents), and therefore we Wikipedia editors now know our statement to be false: how can references from 1996 and 1975 evaluate whether a proposal from 2000 is satisfactory? Was Smith's proposal already known and part of the review by the other authors? Clearly not, in the case of Dr. Gruen's 1996 book, which offers no more than a few words in a footnote on the subject, and the other Wikipedia editors did not say that the proposal wasn't satisfactory but only, "who is this M. Smith? DELETE". In order to adequately satisfy WP:NPOV, I recommend that the article remove the comment about "satisfactory explanation" to a subparagraph, and include the update in the scholarship as of 2000. If the seriousness of the source is in question, look at the citing newer articles here in Google Scholar: ( http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=13589444918741178202&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en ) These articles do not simply dismiss M. Smith's proposal, as Wikipedia has done. 168.88.65.6 ( talk) 19:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Consider the actual wording of the gospel. Matthew 2:1 and Matthew 2:3 refer to "King Herod". Only Herod the Great was a King - his sons were not kings. Matthew 14:1 refers to "Herod the tetrarch", so as to distinguish him from the King Herod. Matthew 2:22 says "But when [Joseph] heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there." Archelaus was indeed a son of Herod the Great. Once again, there is no doubt that Matthew was referring to Herod the Great as the king of the nativity who tried to murder the infant Jesus. I don't know where Smith got his ideas from, but if he is postulating that the Matthew-author merely mixed up his Herod's when describing the circumstances of the nativity, how does he explain Matthew 2:22? Do you perhaps know? Wdford ( talk) 21:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Wdford, Mark Smith is in favor of the theory that Jesus was born following the death of Herod the Great. He says "Herod had already been dead some ten years when Jesus was born."
He makes his case that the only thing connecting Jesus to Herod the Great is "the infancy narrative unique to Matthew". And to quote an online source: "Smith himself did not accept the historical accuracy of the Gospel of Matthew". Smith made several arguments defending the historicity of Luke and rejecting the historicity of Matthew. Dimadick ( talk) 18:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I find Sir William Mitchell Ramsay's book, "Was Christ Born in Bethlehem?", particularly chapter 11 to be helpful in expanding perspectives on the chronology of the census; but if it is indeed not just me that thinks so, I feel that more seasoned users would do a better job at incorporating this source than I would. Here's a link so you can access chapter 11 of the book and possibly find a way to incorporate the perspectives shared on this article: http://biblehub.com/library/ramsay/was_christ_born_in_bethlehem/chapter_11_quirinius_the_governor.htm Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.8.13.225 ( talk • contribs)
This is about [9]. Christian Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals will only agree with historical facts which do not imply that the Bible has errors. So, they offer whatever ad hoc reasoning for asserting a theologically orthodox stance. Imho, we should say that such "scholars" do exist, even though they are minority/fringe. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Please do a little more research before deciding if bible authors are accurate or inaccurate. Thanks you. http://www.comereason.org/roman-census.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:401B:896D:651C:DF09:B612:441E ( talk) 09:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Herod the Great Wikipedia page has several verified references that Herod died 1 BCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoveldowns ( talk • contribs) 12:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
"no satisfactory explanation"; "most scholars" and "most most scholars" are not only weasel words but also untrue, you can check the Wikipedia's more definitive biography of King Herod to find there is significant scholarship relating to the date of King Herod's death being 1 CE. In addition, quoting an authors weasel words does not make them any less what they are. Thank you for your patience as I try to unravel the intricacies of this site Hoveldowns ( talk) 14:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
If it makes no difference, then why is it there. It is disingenuous to support a position that states that there are no other valid arguments AND it doesn't matter anyway! It appears the author you are quoting has a biased point of view and it is generally poor scholarship to claim that researchers that disagree either don't exist or have all been discredited. We can go over all of the references to a later date of death,if you wish, although it won't prove what date Herod died it will prove that there are other valid theories and that your citation is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoveldowns ( talk • contribs) 16:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC) Hoveldowns ( talk) 16:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC) adding tildes Hoveldowns ( talk) 16:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Would it be possible for you to stay on topic as to the date of Herod's death. I suggest that you re-read my posts and read the Herod the Great page. It is very simple. There is no consensus that Herod died in 4 BCE. Thank-you for your patience. Hoveldowns ( talk) 04:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
"The death of Herod is important because of dating when Jesus was born."
Why? Of the four canonical gospels, only the Gospel of Matthew features Herod the Great as a character and connects him to Jesus. The Gospel of Luke says that Zechariah lived in the days of Herod, but makes no other mention of the king: "There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the priestly division of Abijah. He had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. " Dimadick ( talk) 07:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Pico, The date of Herod's death is the topic I flagged, I don't believe that we are making any progress in that discussion. This page should agree with the more definitive Herod the Great page. I am ready to take it to the next level. BTW this has been a great learning experience and I appreciate what you have done. Hoveldowns ( talk) 20:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I will look into that, like I said this has been a wonderful learning experience and I don't want to short-cut the inevitable outcome. I have always hated "process" and because of that have missed many opportunities. I apologize for my lack of patience and I expect that Request for Comment is the next step forward but for now I need to step back and do the first things. Hoveldowns ( talk) 01:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry Tgeorgescu I didn't understand how this works. 4BC-1AD or BCE-1 CE is fine. Who makes the changes? How does this work? Is there a guardian or hierarchy to every page? How does one know who she is dealing with
I'm not sure why you are bringing Jesus into this. Hoveldowns ( talk) 02:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC) I understand. Hoveldowns ( talk) 02:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
got it Hoveldowns ( talk) 02:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
If I am understanding this correctly, when I change the date of death to mirror that on the Herod the Great page, it will be flagged as a fringe view. I find that very interesting. Hoveldowns 07:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoveldowns ( talk • contribs)
Curious, does more recent work generally carry greater weight here even if there are no new discoveries? Is this a wiki standard you can direct me to. I understand this is a dynamic field, but would be concerned if something is deemed weightier just because it's newerHoveldowns 17:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoveldowns ( talk • contribs)
Citation is from a book written by a priest for the layperson and published a religious publishing house. Reliable sources should published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. The author tells us that "most critical scholars have concluded"...if so then those should be cited. In addition I have been repeatedly informed in the TALK titled "There are several theories that describe the controversy" that the it is a consensus view, as such there should be better sources to cite.Hoveldowns 00:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoveldowns ( talk • contribs)
I am sure he is a wonderful Scholar, maybe you could find a better example of his work to use as a reference. Hoveldowns 04:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I respect the Priesthood. Tgeorgescu, This particular work does not meet the standard of scholarship and any religious leader published by their own church is by definition biased. That does not mean that he doesn't have scholarly work, but this one doesn't hit the mark and I'm sure you know thatHoveldowns 04:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
If this Page is important to you, then clean it up! I can't believe I have to tell you this.Hoveldowns 04:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
BTW, I think a reference from Justin Martyr would add some credibility and depth to the page, you know, so it looks like a serious work of history. Hoveldowns 05:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
So this makes history look like a kind of battleground. In other words “you have got my story and I have got mine”. As a matter of actual historical practice, when you read historians, I don’t think this is a bad description of the way they actually work. I don’t know why certain neo-conservatives like William Bennett find this to be relativism, when I see it as a just good description of the way historians actually practise their craft, and its not a simple minded thing like “everyone has an axe to grind”, it’s not like you don’t get surprised even based on your own interpretation and its also not the case that as you work through your interpretation you do not change it radically and change your mind and your prejudices, in fact, when you do that, that’s when you are doing your best work usually. So I don’t see this as outrageous as many other people do.
— Rick Roderick, The Self Under Siege, The Teaching Company
I know the early church fathers don't carry scholarly weight and can't be used as "proof" but isn't an Encyclopedia about history too. Hoveldowns 06:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think this would be considered original research, The Census of Quirinius was a census of Judaea taken by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, Roman governor of Syria, upon the imposition of direct Roman rule in AD 6.[1] Justin Martyr mentions the event "in which Jesus Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judaea." [X} The author of the Gospel of Luke uses it as the narrative means to establish the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:1-5),[2] but Luke places the census within the reign of Herod the Great, who died 10 years earlier in 4 BC.[3] No satisfactory explanation of the contradiction seems possible on the basis of present knowledge,[4] and most scholars think that the author of the gospel made a mistake.[5][unreliable so
[x]Justin Martyr -- THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN CHAPTER XXXIV
what are your thoughts, just a draft, I have to learn about wiki style first, for instance Cyrenius (sic). Idealy it should come after the quote in Luke because of the timeline but the would interfere with the flow as the article is really about Luke. Hoveldowns 16:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I should have looked at other pages first, does this work The Census of Quirinius was a census of Judaea taken by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, Roman governor of Syria, upon the imposition of direct Roman rule in AD 6.[1] Justin Martyr mentions the event in his early writings. The author of the Gospel of Luke... again for historical purposes, Josephus also mentions the event. I guess this conversation should have it's own Talk areaHoveldowns 17:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
That's what I thought originally, but then you run into continuity problems with Luke. Could go History: Luke, Josephus and J.M. new paragragh starting exposition of lukeHoveldowns 18:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Source is a book written for laymen by a religious leader published by his church publishing house. Not appropriate due to bias and Scholarship issues
Brown, R.E. (1978). An Adult Christ at Christmas: Essays on the Three Biblical Christmas Stories. Liturgical Press. ISBN 9780814609972. article:Census of Quirinius
and most scholars think that the author of the gospel made a mistake.
there was no single census of the entire empire under Augustus; no Roman census required people to travel from their own homes to those of distant ancestors; and the census of Judea would not have affected Joseph and his family, living in Galilee; most scholars have therefore concluded that the author of Luke's gospel made an error. Hoveldowns 03:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
"living in Galilee" The Gospel of Luke states that Joseph headed from Galilee to Bethlehem, but does not state whether he actually lived in Galilee. It states very little of Joseph's background. See: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Luke
"And all went to have themselves appraised, each man to his native city. Since Joseph was descended from king David, he traveled from Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem, the city of David, in Judea. There he would register, together with his betrothed wife Mary, "
Or if you prefer the King James version of the same passage: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(King_James)/Luke
"And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child."
The Greek text states: https://el.wikisource.org/wiki/Κατά_Λουκάν
"καὶ ἐπορεύοντο πάντες ἀπογράφεσθαι, ἕκαστος εἰς τὴν ἰδίαν πόλιν. 4 Ἀνέβη δὲ καὶ Ἰωσὴφ ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ἐκ πόλεως Ναζαρὲτ εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν εἰς πόλιν Δαυῒδ ἥτις καλεῖται Βηθλέεμ, διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν ἐξ οἴκου καὶ πατριᾶς Δαυῒδ, 5 ἀπογράψασθαι σὺν Μαριὰμ τῇ ἐμνηστευμένῃ αὐτῷ γυναικὶ, οὔσῃ ἐγκύῳ. "
Which roughly translates to "everyone moved for the census, each to his own city. And Joseph headed from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to the city of Judea. to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he has from the house and clan of David, to be enlisted, along with Mariam, the woman betrothed to him, who was pregnant. "
It is unclear from the text whether Joseph was a returning native of Judea, or even native to Bethlehem in his own right. (One of the reasons that outside Wikipedia, I always try to find the primary text for comparison). Dimadick ( talk) 22:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Brown does NOT support the historicity of the census as described by Luke. See 101 Questions and Answers on the Bible By Raymond E. Brown, pg 79, here [10] Wdford ( talk) 16:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Luke clearly states that the Census at the time of the birth of Jesus was the first census of Quirinius. This would imply that there were more than one. Is there a known second census of Quirinius? If not, this would suggest that Luke was asserting that there was another census unknown to us. Further, wouldn't the phrase "when Quinirius was governor of Syria" be odd for a description of historical events which happened when Quinirius governor of not only Syria, but of Galilee as well? Wouldn't it be reasonable to suppose that Luke means, "This was the FIRST census, taken while Quinirius was STILL in Syria (as opposed to the later census, when Quirinius was in Palestine)."
Alternatively, how much precedence is there for calling Cyrenius, "Quirinius?"
@ Ashleymcglone: Suppose your country would order you (and the rest of the citizens) to go for a census to the ancestral home from 1000 years ago, where would you go? Wouldn't you expect newspapers to write about it? Imagine masses of people from all parts of the Empire going thousands of miles away for the census, and no other writer noticed it? Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
This has been changed twice in the last 24 hours.
WP:ERA does not say we use the original style but that we shouldn't change the established style without discussion, and the era style was changed in 2009.
[11]
Doug Weller
talk 12:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
:Actually the era style has not been changed, some edits have been made that introduced a mixture of era styles. It is legitimate to make the era setting uniform throughout as per
WP:ERA. Since there has been no reason offered or discussed for introducing a different style in the first place it can be reset to what has been used right from the beginning, which is what I tried to do when Doug Weller reverted me--
CouncilConnect (
talk) 12:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Also the
WP:MOS says that a setting must be used consistently to be considered established. That never happened except with the original style, which again is why I think my edit was correct. And no discussion ever was held to justify a supposed change to the common era style either. Any discussion needs to be about why that style need be adopted so I am reinstating my edit--
CouncilConnect (
talk)
13:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
::So let me get this right - your point is that because an editor changed the setting (on 3rd Nov 2009) without discussing or giving reasons and nobody reverted that, then any reversions later on are invalid i.e. up to now, except the ones that you are carrying out. In addition subsequent editors have added material in keeping with the original style but their edits should be modified (as you have done) to conform with the altered era style not with the original one (which was no less established in state than the state that you support). That is highly subjective and it seems to me that you are using your position as an admin to enforce your POV over other people's. The appropriate policy is sometimes ignored when nobody pays heed to it but here it has not been followed and I am raising an objection and that is not an "unfounded argument".--
CouncilConnect (
talk)
17:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
::It seems to me that this article is not a BCE article if the Wikipedia policy is followed correctly. It should be reset.--
Runwayrollr (
talk)
09:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
On 3 JulyUser:Sjl197 altered the lead so that it read "The author of the Gospel of Luke uses it as the narrative means to establish the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:1-5, but in contrast Matthew (Matthew 2:1[3]) places the census within the reign of Herod the Great who died 10 years earlier[4] in 4 BCE.[5] No satisfactory explanation of the contradiction seems possible on the basis of present knowledge,[6] and most scholars think that one or both authors of these gospels made a mistake." Matthew 2:1 in the KJV says "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem", NIV says "After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem". Obviously that does not belong in this article as it is about the Census of Quirinius and that verse says nothing about a census. So I removed it with an edit summary,"Matthew 2:1 does not mention the census, only Luke"only for Editor2020 to put it back in with the edit summary "read it again." No matter how many times I read it, Matthew 2:1 does not say anything about the Census of Quirinius (an actual historic event, this is not an article about Bible stories). That verse of Matthew has exactly zero relevance to this article. Smeat75 ( talk) 00:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
OCR software produces spelling errors like in the text I have reverted. Notice the hyphen where it does not belong? Tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I eliminated erroneous statements and restored a more NPV regarding historical facts recorded in other Wikipedia entries. The article falsely claimed that "Herod" was not reigning in 6 AD, but as Wikipedia itself notes ( /info/en/?search=Herod_Antipas) the reigning official was indeed Herod Antipas or Antipater. This is not a controversial claim. The "Herod" who had died previously was Herod the Great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewCHoffman ( talk • contribs) 20:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
"Third, the Gospel of Matthew clearly refers to "King Herod", (Matt 2:1) while Archelaus was never a King."
The Greek text at this point mentions "Ἡρῴδου τοῦ βασιλέως", roughly translating to "of Herod the Basileus". Which is the same Greek title which Herod used in his coins, and the same title which Josephus uses for him in his writings. Dimadick ( talk) 08:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I want to add, by the way, that no one has responded to my other point, which is that a single 1978 journal article, one written forty years ago, cannot establish the existence of a "consensus" among scholars today. This is obviously true. The statement is inappropriate for the article MatthewCHoffman ( talk) 03:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
The article, as it stood until I corrected it, was highly misleading -- yet a user continues to revert my correction. It is a historical fact that Herod Antipater was the successor of Herod the Great and WAS in fact in power in 6 BC. So there was a "Herod" at this time in power. The article misleads the reader and contradicts Wikipedia's own entry on Herod Antipater. I stand by my correction. This article should not be used to push any agenda, religious or anti-religious, by denying or distorting historical facts that are not contested by anyone.
Here is the Wikipedia article: /info/en/?search=Herod_Antipas
I also corrected a statement claiming that a consensus exists among historians which seemed very polemical, and which cited a single 1978 journal article. No journal article that old can be used to even begin to establish a consensus among historians 40 years later. So that claim was removed.
MatthewCHoffman ( talk) 23:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
The addition I made:
However, some scholars have stated that such censuses did occur [1] [2] [3]
was deleted because my sources were supposedly not reliable. I included three sources: F.F. Bruce was elected a Fellow of the British Academy, Gregory Boyd got his PhD from Princeton, Gary Habermas has a PhD from Michigan State. What's the problem? 24.189.41.10 ( talk) 04:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I am distinguishing two related but different problems here. The contents of the classic books have become particularly difficult to defend in modern times, and the professors who teach them do not care to defend them, are not interested in their truth. One can most clearly see the latter in the case of the Bible. To include it in the humanities is already a blasphemy, a denial of its own claims. There it is almost inevitably treated in one of two ways: It is subjected to modern "scientific" analysis, called the Higher Criticism, where it is dismantled, to show how "sacred" books are put together, and they are not what they claim to be. It is useful as a mosaic in which one finds the footprints of many dead civilizations. Or else the Bible is used in courses of comparative religion as one expression of the need for the "sacred" and as a contribution to the very modern, very scientific study of the structure of "myths". (Here one can join up with the anthropologists and really be alive.) A teacher who treated the Bible naively, taking at its word, or Word, would be accused of scientific incompetence and lack of sophistication. Moreover, he might rock the boat and start the religious wars all over again, as well as a quarrel within the university between reason and revelation, which would upset comfortable arrangements and wind up by being humiliating to the humanities. Here one sees the traces of the Enlightenment's political project, which wanted precisely to render the Bible, and other old books, undangerous. This project is one of the underlying causes of the impotence of the humanities. The best that can be done, it appears, is to teach "The Bible as Literature," as opposed to "as Revelation," which it claims to be. In this way it can be read somewhat independently of deforming scholarly apparatus, as we read, for example, Pride and Prejudice. Thus the few professors who feel that there is something wrong with the other approaches tend to their consciences.
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
Tgeorgescu (
talk)
21:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)References
I'll add four footnotes showing that some theologically conservative scholars argue for the historicity of the Quirinius census. The article already mentions (twice!) that this is a minority view. 24.189.41.10 ( talk) 14:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
It is inappropriate to label certain scholars "fundamentalists" so we can dismiss their views. Why do you say all these scholars are fundamentalists? What is your evidence for this statement?
How about: Some theologically conservative scholars argue for the accuracy of Luke's nativity account. 24.189.41.10 ( talk) 10:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Here's N. T. Wright: The question of Quirinius and his census is an old chestnut, requiring a good knowledge of Greek. It depends on the meaning of the word protos, which usually means ‘first’. Thus most translations of Luke 2.2 read ‘this was the first [protos] census, when Quirinius was governor of Syria’, or something like that. But in the Greek of the time, as the standard major Greek lexicons point out, the word protos came sometimes to be used to mean ‘before’, when followed (as this is) by the genitive case (p. 89).
Here's Habermas: Several questions have been raised in the context of this taxation [1. See Bruce, Christian Origins, p. 192, for example]. Even if such a taxation actually did occur, would every person have to return to his home? Was Quirinius really the governor of Syria at this time (as in v.2)? Archeology has had a bearing on the answers to these questions.
It has been established that the taking of a census was quite common at about the time of Christ. An ancient Latin inscription called the Titulus Venetus indicates that a census took place in Syria and Judea about AD 5-6 and that this was typical of those held throughout the Roman Empire from the time of Augustus (23 BC-AD 14) until at least the third century AD. Indications are that this census took place every fourteen years. Other such evidence indicates that these procedures were widespread [2. Ibid., pp. 193-194]. Concerning persons returning to their home city for the taxation-census, an Egyptian papyrus dating from AD 104 reports just such a practice. This rule was enforced, as well [3. Ibid. p. 194].
The question concerning Quirinius also involves the date of the census described in Luke 2. It is known that Quirinius was made governor of Syria by Augustus in AD 6. Archaeologist Sir William Ramsay discovered several inscriptions that indicated that Quirinius was governor of Syria on two occasions, the first time several years prior to this date [4. Robert Boyd, Tells, Tombs, and Treasure (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1969), p. 175]. Within the cycle of taxation-censuses mentioned above, an earlier taxation would be dated from 10-4 BC [5. Cf. Bruce, Christian Origins, pp. 193-194 with Boyd, Tells, p. 175. Bruce prefers the date 10-9 BC for the empire-wide census, with that which took place in Judea occurring a few years later. Boyd places the date of the earlier census 6-5 BC, which coincides closely with the accepted dates for Jesus' birth]. Another possibility is Bruce's suggestion that the Greek in Luke 2.2 is equally translatable as "This enrollment (census) was before that made when Quirinius was governor of Syria" [6. Bruce, Christian Origins, p. 192]. This would mean that Luke was dating the taxation-census before Quirinius took over the governorship of Syria. Either possibility answers the question raised above [7. While ruling out the two-date approach to the governorship of Quirinius, Sherwin-White basically vindicates Luke's account, while still finding more problems that does Bruce (pp. 162-171)].
Therefore, while some questions have been raised concerning the events recorded in Luke 2.1-5, archaeology has provided some unexpected and supportive answers. Additionally, while supplying the background behind these events, archaeology also assists us in establishing several facts. (1) A taxation-census was a fairly common procedure in the Roman Empire and it did occur in Judea, in particular. (2) Persons were required to return to their home city in order to fulfill the requirements of the process. (3) These procedures were apparently employed during the reign of Augustus (37 BC-AD 14), placing it well within the general time frame of Jesus' birth. (4) The date of the specific taxation recounted by Luke could very possibly have been 6-5 BC, which would also be of service in attempting to find a more exact date for Jesus' birth.
I suggest we leave aside our personal views and just report on the findings of a diverse set of scholars. 24.189.41.10 ( talk) 10:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
This is very interesting information about your personal opinions, but it seems beside the point. The scholars I have mentioned defend the historicity of certain parts of Luke's nativity passage. We should not suppress their views. For you to say "The dating is wrong, end of story" is completely inappropriate. N. T. Wright mentions other scholars who agree with his translation and dating. You are in clear violation of Wikipedia rules when you exclude scholars because you personally disagree with them. 24.189.41.10 ( talk) 05:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Here's another scholar who argues for the "plausibility of Luke's census": http://www.academia.edu/26047721/The_Lucan_Censuses_Revisited 24.189.41.10 ( talk) 05:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Here's Raymond Brown: One cannot rule out the possibility that, since Romans often adapted their administration to local circumstances, a census conducted in Judea would respect the strong attachment of Jewish tribal and ancestral relationships. (The Birth of the Messiah: New York: Doubleday, 549) 24.189.41.10 ( talk) 06:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
To PiCo: Can you provide proof that an overwhelming majority of scholars agrees with you? Moreover, Wikipedia policy is to include minority views. 24.189.41.10 ( talk) 00:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
That's fine. 24.189.41.10 ( talk) 10:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I am honestly a little shocked to read what seems to me to be a clear bias by the editors. I guess religion is always a controversial topic, but to rely on one line in one book to dismiss an entire group of scholars, and not even to seem open to considering their arguments (or even acknowledging that they exist in the article!) is pretty surprising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.133.52 ( talk) 23:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
The bias from some users on this page is amazing. As was stated above, "I am honestly a little shocked to read what seems to me to be a clear bias by the editors." It is a clear violation of NPOV to exclude scholars because of their personal religious beliefs. If some scholars hold to X and that can be documented, it is perfectly reasonable to mention it. This page is clearly being used by people with agendas to exclude points of view they simply don't like. No one has a right to use Wikipedia that way.
MatthewCHoffman ( talk) 23:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
"Census of Quirinius" is a very misleading title - as the article is mostly a critique of some chronology in Luke's Gospel.
"Criticisms of Luke's Gospel" or "Chronological Errors in Luke's Gospel" would be much more accurate titles. Under such titles the criticisms could be explored fairly.
Note also that the Census of Quirinius is already better described in the article about Quirinius himself: /info/en/?search=Quirinius SelfOwnedCat ( talk) 09:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
There's one mainstream solution that the article doesn't mention, i.e. Paul Meier's.
"Nor is Luke exempt from charges of error, distortion, and inaccuracy. We now examine Lukan passages in which errors are claimed, aside from the charges of numbers inflation already discussed. Luke 2:2 is easily the most famous of these. In his Nativity narrative, Luke states that the Augustan census, which brought Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem, “... first took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria.” According to Josephus, however, that governorship occurred in CE 6, ten years later than the birth of Jesus (Ant. 17.354)... Still, there has never been a scholarly consensus that Luke did, in fact, get it wrong here, in view of the variant values of the πρτη in Luke2:2. As is well known, the Greek syntax here can also be translated, “This census was before that made when Quirinius was governor of Syria.” I also propose another alternative rendering: “This census was first completed when Quirinius was governor of Syria,” i.e., a decade later. Ten years to take a census? Yes. It took the Romans forty years to complete their census of Gaul. Accordingly, Luke may have been referring to a preliminary enrollment in Herod’s Judea, during which census data was collected and then used later for the complete assessment under Quirinius." ("Luke as a Hellenistic Historian," in Porter and Witts, Christian Origins and Greco-Roman Culture. Brill, 2013, 431.)
This is a minority interpretation but Meier is credible enough that it should be mentioned. Meier mentions two proposals -- that first be translated "before", which has been rejected more recently, but his second solution, that it should be translated completed has not to my knowledge.
I should also note that there's also Mark Smith ("Of Jesus and Quirinius." The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 62.2 (2000): 278-293.) who argues that Luke actually dates Jesus' birth to 6 AD and that Matthew is the one who inaccurately placed Jesus birth in the time of Herod the Great to model his story off of the Exodus. Wallingfordtoday ( talk) 03:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
no Roman census required people to travel from their own homes to those of distant ancestors; and the census of Judea would not have affected Joseph and his family, living in Galilee.[6]
Couldn't Yosef ostensibly have been a roman citizen? Does the greek for Luke 2:4 arguably provide, ie, οἴκου, the possibility for him to have grown up in Bethlehem with his family, been a roman citizen, traveled and lived "abroad" in the client state of Galilee? If when the taxation-census cycles first begin, if Quirinius isn't yet governor of greater Syrias, then Galilee is not yet a roman province. Were client-states be censused and taxed the same as roman provinces? Did roman citizens abroad have a legal obligation to go to a roman city, preferably their home town, and file their taxes? 63.77.24.102 ( talk) 22:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The background of Saint Joseph is unclear. Two of the Gospels (Matthew and Luke) mention him only in the context of Jesus' early life, one Gospel (John) only makes a single passing reference to him, and another Gospel (Mark) does not mention him at all. He is not one of their narrative's main characters.
Roman citizenship is not out of the question here. It could be extended to the citizens of Roman client states and to Rome's allies. However, Jesus is thought unlikely to have held citizenship rights, which he would be entitled to as a son of Joseph.
Galilee was part of the Herodian kingdom (37-4 BCE). After Herod the Great's death, it became part of the Herodian Tetrarchy (4 BCE-44 CE). The local Tetrach was Herod Antipas (reigned 4 BCE-39 CE). In 40 CE, Caligula granted control of Galilee to Herod Agrippa. From 41 to 44, Agrippa ruled over a restored Kingdom of Judea. Following his death, Galilee became part of the restored province of Judea. Dimadick ( talk) 23:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Here is the opening paragraph of the article:
"The Census of Quirinius was a census of Judea taken by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, Roman governor of Syria, upon the imposition of direct Roman rule in 6 CE.[1] The Gospel of Luke uses it as the narrative means to establish the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:1–5), but places it within the reign of Herod the Great, who died 10 years earlier.[2][3][4] No satisfactory explanation of the contradiction seems possible on the basis of present knowledge,[5] and most scholars think that the author of the gospel made a mistake.[6]"
1. Scholars do not agree that it was Herod the Great being referred to in Luke. Frank E.Dicken, in his PhD thesis for the Unversity of Edinburgh, states that it is Herod Antipater (see https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1842/9834/Dicken2014.pdf). Dicken also holds that multiple people are being referred to with the name "Herod" in different places in Scripture.
2. The statement, "No satisfactory explanation of the contradiction seems possible on the basis of present knowledge" is only attributed to a single author of one journal article, without reference to other scholars who do not agree with this conclusion. Dicken is just one. A single journal article cannot be used to make a sweeping statement that contradicts other scholars.
3. The statement, "and most scholars think that the author of the gospel made a mistake" gives a single journal article from 1978, forty years ago, to establish this consensus. This is obviously inadequate.
The opening and other similar statements within the article should be amended to state that some scholars hold these views, while also discussing other views by other scholars. Otherwise, this article clearly violates NPOV. MatthewCHoffman ( talk) 04:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I want to add another scholar who questions the narrative in this article (which again, is presented as a "consensus" without adequate proof), one who is very well known: Corrado Marucci, in his History and Roman Administration in the NT (Storia e amministrazione romana nel NT). He offers several alternative theories the problem of the census in Luke. MatthewCHoffman ( talk) 05:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
There are only two gaps in the list of known Roman governors of Syria, and they fall in the years 12-11 BC and 4/3-1 BCE. The latter period is after the death of Herod and can be ruled out.That leaves 12-11 BCE, but Quirinius was serving as Consul in Rome in 11 BCE, leaving only a single year. None of the Roman-era records suggest he served as a legate in that year. See Novak (link in the bibliography), p.296. PiCo ( talk) 23:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Considering his historical accuracy elsewhere
is a pretty inflated reputation of accuracy, see e.g.
Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles.
Tgeorgescu (
talk)
11:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
StarMountain has doctored WP:Verifiable statements, changing those to his own POV. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
TGeorgescu, you cannot use Novak 2001 as a commentary on Boyd 2007. I have now disconnected the Boyd2007 from the Novak 2001 sentence, as a stop-gap solution. Secondly, the highlighted text on the Novak2001 link is a statement on inerrancy. Clearly the link is wrong, as it does not link to any inerrancy statement by Novak2001. Please cite the precise page number where Novak2001 makes the statement on Biblical inerrancy. As a stop-gap measure, I have moved the inerrancy link to the Further Reading link section. When and if you can provide the correct page number in Novak 2001, I am happy to leave your inerrancy link in the Novak sentence if it is important to you. Please pause and reflect before making hasty deletions. 86.172.133.205 ( talk) 14:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Assumption of the inerrancymentioned verbatim at Ralph Martin Novak (1 February 2001). Christianity and the Roman Empire: Background Texts. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 297. ISBN 978-0-567-01840-3. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
@ PiCo:, you mention that Geza Vermes is mainstream scholarship, but reject Evans, Bock, and Porter as "non mainstream scholarship". Why? All are scholars and neither hold to fringe theories. To state that the writer of Luke, when the evidence, for example the text refers to the first census of Quirinius as a clarifier. Dr. Ryan E. ( talk) 06:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Karma1998: Your sources aren't WP:RS. By reliable sources we mean mainstream Bible scholarship. ABR is pseudohistory. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Alan. M. George: WP:CITE WP:RS by modern, mainstream Bible scholars or be gone from this article.
I found a source for your claims: Scott Hahn; Curtis Mitch (17 January 2019). The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament. Ignatius Press. p. 387. ISBN 978-1-68149-075-5. But I don't know in how far this source represents the majority view of Bible scholars. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Alan. M. George: At least you could cite a decent source, like the source above, not random websites written by true believers. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I have a slight problem with the balance this article. It is about a historical event, the census, but almost the entire article is taken up by a discussion of a different matter, the accuracy of Luke's reference to it. While I quite understand that the majority of people coming here are primarily interested in the implications for their understanding of the Bible, it is the secondary aspect of this topic. The article should start with a section about the historical census - what sources are there, how do we know its date, what significance did it have for the establishment of Roman rule, was it a typical census or something unusual, etc. All the obvious historians' questions. Then we can talk about significance for the New testament second. This would not only be a better way to do justice to the Roman history, it would also be beneficial for the theological argument - a fuller understanding of what the census was and how we know about it would provide a better basis for the Luke question too. -- Doric Loon ( talk) 09:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I think Scott Hahn's solution should be added. He says:
Despite Luke's intention to set the birth of Jesus on the timeline of world history, many scholars claim that Lk 2:1-2 are the most historically inaccurate verses of the entire Gospel! It is said that Caesar Augustus never ordered an empire-wide census (Lk 2:1) and that the census of the Roman governor of Syria, Quirinius, did not occur until A.D. 6, a full decade after what many accept as the date of Jesus' birth (c. 64 B.C.). If Caesar's decree is historically suspect and Quirinius' census is chronologically too late to have brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, how can Luke bind these events together to set the stage for the first Christmas? Various explanations for this have been proposed by scholars. Some think Luke was confused about his facts. Others suggest Luke was giving us a rough sketch of these early events without intending to be precise about chronological details. Still others rush to Luke's defense as a reliable historian but are forced to reconstruct the history of the period in ways that are not easily reconciled with the historical data currently available. Thankfully, recent research is beginning to shed more light on this issue. It involves a reinterpretation of three essential pieces of the historical puzzle: the year of Herod the Great's death, the nature of Caesar's decree, and the role of Quirinius. 1. A majority of scholars believe that Herod the Great, the ruler of Palestine, died in the spring of 4 B.C., soon after a lunar eclipse in March of that year. Widespread agreement on this date has led modern interpreters to place Jesus' birth a year or two earlier, between 6 and 4 B.C.—after all, Herod was still alive at the time of the Nativity (Mt 2:1-18). Objections are now being raised against this view. In fact, several scholars are favoring a date for Herod's death in the early spring of 1 B.C., soon after a lunar eclipse in January of that year. Interestingly, this alternative chronology would push the date of Christ's birth into full agreement with the testimony of the early Christians. By calculating the Nativity according to the years of Caesar Augustus' reign, several Church Fathers, such as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus of Rome, Eusebius, and Epiphanius, fix a date for Christ's birth between 3 and 2 B.C. If accepted, this chronological revision moves the Nativity closer to the end of the first century B.C. and opens new possibilities for understanding the circumstances described by Luke. 2. Caesar's decree has long been a problematic detail in Luke's narrative (Lk 2:1). There is clear evidence that Augustus initiated registrations of Roman citizens at different points during his career, but there is said to be no indication that any was taken in the closing years of the first century B.C. or that such a census would have embraced the entire empire. Since most registrations in the Roman world were taken for taxing purposes, it is further argued that Caesar would never have taken a census of Palestine while Herod the Great ruled the region as king and collected taxes of his own. These commonly accepted views are currently coming under fire. The Jewish historian Josephus recounts that during the last years of Herod's rule, Judea was required to swear an oath of loyalty to Caesar. Archeological evidence confirms that the same type of oath was sworn elsewhere in the empire around 3 B.C. This might well mean that the registration described in Lk 2:1 involved an oath of allegiance sworn to the emperor, not a census taken for the purpose of taxation. A later Christian historian named Orosius (fifth century A.D.) says explicitly that Augustus required every person in every Roman province to be enrolled with a public oath. His description of the event strongly suggests that this oath was required in the years just prior to 2 B.C., when the Roman people hailed Augustus as the first of all men. Even Caesar Augustus tells us in his personal writings that the whole Roman world had professed him to be the "Father" of the empire by the time this title was officially given to him in 2 B.C. These converging lines of evidence make it possible that the census of Luke 2 was not a registration of residents to be taxed but a public enrollment of subjects expressing their loyalty to the reigning emperor. 3. The role of Quirinius is perhaps the most difficult detail to interpret in Luke's narrative (Lk 2:2). It is well established that he initiated a taxation census soon after he was appointed the provincial legate of Syria in A.D. 6. Yet evidence is lacking that he held this position more than once or that he ever conducted more than one census. How, then, can Luke associate Quirinius with a census that occurred many years earlier, when Jesus was born? The most helpful clue might be found in Luke's own words. The Greek expression that he uses in Lk 2:2 for the governing role of Quirinius is the exact description he uses for Pontius Pilate's governing role in Lk 3:1. Since Pilate "governed" as a regional procurator and was not the legate of an entire Roman province (like Syria), it leaves open the possibility that Luke is referring to an administrative role assumed by Quirinius that had nothing to do with his later position as an imperial legate. This possibility is strengthened by the Church Father Justin Martyr, who states that Quirinius was a "procurator" in Judea (not Syria) at the time of Jesus' birth! It likewise enables us to make greater sense of the testimony of another early Christian writer, Tertullian, who says that Saturninus (not Quirinius) was the official legate of Syria at the time of the Nativity. It may be that Quirinius was an administrator of a Judean census (i.e., the 3 B.C. oath-registration) several years before conducting another census for taxation in A.D. 6. Although there are gaps in this reconstruction, and much remains uncertain, the cumulative force of the evidence is significant. Herod's death, Caesar's decree, and the governing position of Quirinius are all historical factors that, when reconsidered, yield a more coherent portrait of the events surrounding the Nativity. This would mean that Jesus was born between 3 and 2 B.C., the enrollment of Joseph and Mary was a registration of their loyalty to the Roman Caesar, and the documentation of this oath was organized and implemented in Judea by Quirinius several years before he was made the official governor of Syria. This reconstruction not only eases the chronological tensions in Lk 2:1-2, it helps to confirm Luke's reliability as a historian as well as the early Church's reliability as a channel of historical traditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardo T. Oliveira ( talk • contribs)
References
In research the original sources are first preferred, followed next by the oldest available documents. The page gives references, but mostly recently published work. Better references are suggested for the page, and a trail of older documents covering this rather old argument.
Astrojed ( talk) 06:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Thankyou for reply Tgeorgescu, Main stream historians are not in agreement about the dates on the page, and the page needs to be improved to show an impartial and accurate status of the ongoing debate. I hope the various experts will improve the page without me becoming one of the principle editors.
Graduate studies are always done with statistics in drawing conclusions. There is always a chance of being right, and a chance of being wrong. A percentage is attached to both outcomes. The statistical chances are found described when reading the scholarly documents. The page doesn't seem to have such considerations.
My years of residence overseas taught me that every country writes a different version of history and changes it from time to time for political gain. Our opinions about history come to us from analysis of many old documents all of which are questioned.
Christian writings are questioned mainly by Christians in graduate seminaries, where the candidates must discover something worthy of thesis to graduate. Every phrase has been dissected numerous times. Some passages have several different versions in use, and there is possibility the originals were different. Roman persecution of Christians began before the linguistically dated book of Luke.
When looking for original documents about Quirinius, not much is found other than the several versions of Josephus, which have always been recognized as political in purpose. first for Josephus to deny his guilt in the Jewish War, then to assist his Roman benefactors in their political struggles to control their territories in Asia. Josephus wrote the related Antiquities Of The Jews in old age (93-94 CE) about events he did not witness personally, but were told to him.
One of the oldest references I found other than Josephus is from the Vatican Museum, a grave stone for Quirinius [1] discovered at Tivoli in 1764, attesting that Quirinius was twice legate.
Another old Roman inscription is titulus Tiburtinus which is much studied by Jewish educators, [2] who gave better bibliographies than the page.
A mixed Jewish and Christian argument [3] can also be found with better references claiming that writing of Josephus does not lead to the proposed date (4 BC) for death of Herod the Great, because of the eclipse (4 BC) being too close to Start of Passover (29 days). Another eclipse (1 BC) agrees with the time sequence of Josephus (10 to 12 weeks before Passover). The argument is made that Jesus was born (2 BC) during a short first term of Quirinius as legate, and Herod the Great died the following year. The Wikipedia page for Herod the great presents the possibility of Herod's death at a later date (1 BC) as a prevailing historical opinion of many scholars, while the earlier date (4 BC) is a more recent claim.
The census being discussed was a taxation event, [4] better described in the Greek translation. Different places were taxed at different rates, while people were taxed differently based on their origins, giving cause for travel. Client states paid tribute to Rome under a formula different from direct taxation.
I will not try to say which view is correct if any, only that there is a long standing debate which still continues and is not well presented or referenced on the page. Something more scholarly is preferred and in better compliance with Wikipedia principles. Claims on the page are referenced but not well supported in the trail of documents.
Astrojed ( talk) 02:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
References
are these verses relevant? the first two say that John the Baptist was born in the time of Herod and the second says that six months later Jesus. the third I don't know what it means but it talks about the census. why also Lucas says the "first" census where are the others? What does this word mean to scholars? Tuxzos22 ( talk) 20:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
sorry the third verse talks about Judas of Galilee Tuxzos22 ( talk) 20:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
I just saw that in the "Mention of Lukes" in the article it affirms what I am affirming. Tuxzos22 ( talk) 15:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 |
Despite the B-class rating of the article, I notice this is essentially a very short stub with several problems.
I think this article should be re-rated. Dimadick ( talk) 12:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
GBRV, "alleged contradictions"? The two narratives feature different casts of characters (Luke lacks Herod the Great and the Magi, but includes shepherds, Simeon, and Anna the Prophetess), and largely different circumstances. Luke has Jesus' parents staying in Bethlehem for a while, then heading for Jerusalem, then returning to Nazareth with him. The narrative is a peaceful one and mentions no conflict or persecution. Matthew has Herod wanting to kill Jesus and going on to kill every child of similar age in the vicinity of Bethlehem, Jesus' parents fleeing to Egypt and staying there until the death of Herod, and then avoiding Judea entirely for fear of Herod Archelaus. They settle in Galilee (and Nazareth) precisely to avoid Archelaus. Matthew does not mention any visit in Jerusalem. The narrative is one of danger, persecution, and stresses the need of secrecy. Attempts to reconcile the two accounts have to ignore key differences between their authors.
Tgeorgescu, how exactly do you render the consensus view of scholarship without mentioning its methods, its arguments, its conclusions? The article and related articles should summarize the scholars' methodology, not only their conclusion. That is a difference between research and wild guesses.
As for Biblical inerrancy, that seems to be rather irrelevant in this case. While Biblical inerrancy is not a particularly logical position and there are cases where the Bible (an entire collection of disparate works) disagrees with established history, the Nativity of Jesus does not seem to be such a case. Here two books in the same canon simply do not match each other, it is not a case of "error". Basically these two accounts consist of our only sources on the event. Arguments about their historicity, or lack of it, do not exactly prove anything substantial about the event. Because even the scholars lack a better source. Dimadick ( talk) 16:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I am certainly not insisting that authors of Western Civilization texts for university classes should agree with the suggestions made about ancient Israel in recent decades by scholars such as those whom I have cited. What I am saying is that it is bad scholarship, and bad pedagogy, simply to ignore an important body of recent work, offering adult students a literalist-leaning account that is by scholarly standards probably twenty years out of date. At the very least, textbook authors should include more critical scholars' works and some minimalist works in their recommended readings, so that students would have a chance to confront such arguments on their own.
The Hebrew Bible is simply not a reliable source for the history of ancient Israel, and the authors of the textbooks surveyed seem largely unaware of this fact. Writers of textbooks for undergraduates need to ask themselves: If we are content to provide students with mythical, legendary, uncritical histories of ancient Israel, how can we have any legitimate grounds for complaint or criticism when others are willing to provide mythologized, fictionalized histories of other peoples and places?— Jack Cargill, "Ancient Israel in Western Civ Textbooks"
But, since most of Ehrman’s textual arguments are essentially the well-established and long-accepted consensus views of just about every worthwhile critical biblical scholar not teaching at a Christian university, seminary, or school with the word “Evangelical” in the title (Ehrman admits as much beginning at the 7:50 mark in the video here), the site is essentially little more than an online video version of Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ, where conservative scholars attempt to refute the biblical scholarship that is taught in every major university save the aforementioned conservative Christian schools.
— Robert Raymond Cargill, i stand with bart ehrman: a review of the ‘ehrman project’
The strong consensus is that there is at best sparse indirect evidence for these biblical episodes, and for the conquest there is considerable evidence against it. That doesn’t mean there isn’t more work to be done and people don’t need to keep an open mind. Who knows that the future will bring? But, my only point is this: at present to say that archaeology is a friend to the historical accuracy of the Bible may be true for some things, but not for the foundational story of Israel’s origins–slavery, exodus, and conquest. This has been and continues to be a big problem, and claiming otherwise just makes the matter worse.
— Peter Enns, 3 Things I Would Like to See Evangelical Leaders Stop Saying about Biblical Scholarship
The fact is that we are all minimalists -- at least, when it comes to the patriarchal period and the settlement. When I began my PhD studies more than three decades ago in the USA, the 'substantial historicity' of the patriarchs was widely accepted as was the unified conquest of the land. These days it is quite difficult to find anyone who takes this view.
In fact, until recently I could find no 'maximalist' history of Israel since Wellhausen. ... In fact, though, 'maximalist' has been widely defined as someone who accepts the the biblical text unless it can be proven wrong. If so, very few are willing to operate like this, not even John Bright (1980) whose history is not a maximalist one according to the definition just given.— Lester L. Grabbe, Some Recent Issues in the Study of the History of Israel
Again we see the straw-man argument about eyewitnesses. It is incredible that two authors writing 70 years later, somehow received such vastly different accounts of a momentous event. We are not talking here about "what color robe was Mary wearing at lunch that day", we are talking about foreign sages visiting from far-off lands, we are talking about homicidal kings carrying out massacres, we are talking about angels and divine visions, we are talking about a family fleeing into exile in a foreign country, and yet these momentous details all eluded Luke the Greatest Historian? Seriously? The suggestion that the two gospels record events that happened two years apart - and that neither gospel author was at all aware of the other event - also beggars belief. It would suggest that Joseph brought his pregnant wife from Nazareth to Bethlehem to register for a census which didn't apply to them to begin with, then he took them home to Nazareth in an uneventful manner, then they all RETURNED to Bethlehem two years later for an unspecified reason, received adoring magi and were threatened by a king, then they ran away to EGYPT when they actually lived in Nazareth, and they stayed in Egypt for years before finally going home to Nazareth, all because of why? It is no surprise that scholars think Luke was making it all up. You have to really suspend disbelief to buy into such obviously-ridiculous "harmonization's". Wdford ( talk) 08:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
GBRV, why do you assume that Luke's narrative is a summary of events? It seems to be rather detailed and covers an entire chapter of his work. The author depicts the birth of Jesus as a momentous event and has the newborn acknowledged as the Messiah.
As for Medieval chroniclers leaving out important events, this often has to do with the POV of the writers. Harold Harefoot died of a mysterious illness at the age of 24. One of our main sources on this illness is an Anglo-Saxon charter, which actually records a territorial dispute between two monasteries. "Harold is described as lying ill and in despair at Oxford. When monks came to him to settle the dispute over Sandwich, he "lay and grew black as they spoke". " The problem is that the source cares more about the dispute and covers it in detail, while devotes a few cryptic lines to the illness of the dying king.
Which is why I mentioned above that the agenda of the author has to be taken into account. The writers of the Gospels emphasize events that fit their distinctive theology and intended audience of the 1st century. Not what would later audiences and secular scholars want to find out. Dimadick ( talk) 09:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Wdford, while I generally agree with your summation of the events described, I have to disagree with the "Luke was making it all up". The Magi, a homicidal Herod, fleeing to Egypt, etc. are all Matthew claims and Luke mentions nothing of the sort. Compared to Matthew, Luke gives a rather low–key narrative.
The nativity narrative in Luke covers Chapter 2 of the book. It starts with the Census of Quirinius. Using the text from Wikisource, based on the World English Bible: "Now it happened in those days, that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. This was the first enrollment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria. All went to enroll themselves, everyone to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David; to enroll himself with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him as wife, being pregnant."
The text continues with Mary giving birth to Jesus while staying in Bethlehem. An "angel of the Lord" alerts a number of (unnamed) shepherds of the Messiah's birth. The shepherds come to Bethlehem and visit newborn Jesus and his parents, then apparently publicize the birth.: "When they saw it, they publicized widely the saying which was spoken to them about this child. All who heard it wondered at the things which were spoken to them by the shepherds. ... The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, just as it was told them."
The narrative continues with Jesus' circumcision. Then it mention staying in Bethlehem for a period of post-birth purification, before heading to Jerusalem to present him to the Temple and offer an animal sacrifice. In Jerusalem, they meet Simeon and Anna the Prophetess, who separately acknowledge the baby as the Messiah. The parents of Jesus then take him from Jerusalem to Nazareth: "they returned into Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth. The child was growing, and was becoming strong in spirit, being filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him. His parents went every year to Jerusalem at the feast of the Passover. When he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast..."
Which means that Luke skips about 12 years in the narrative, going from a baby Jesus to a 12-year-old Jesus. The implication seems to be that Jesus had an uneventful childhood, or that the author did not care about these years. Compare this to Matthew's melodramatic narrative of Jesus having to be hidden from the grasp of the Herodian dynasty.
But back to the actual topic, the census. Luke ties the birth of Jesus to a Roman census, not one taken in the Herodian kingdom. Matthew's Herod-related narrative is largely irrelevant here, unless one or more sources brings up the contradiction. Our personal beliefs matter little when it comes to writing an article. Dimadick ( talk) 19:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
The article has an undue weight tag, and quite rightly, since GVBH continues to flog his personal point of view, which is that there exists a scholarly debate over the reliability of Luke, regardless of the lack of reliable evidence for it. And so the section on Luke gets longer and longer and he cherry-picks and argues. To recall: the tag says that the article "may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies." The ideas, two of them, are that the word prote in Luke 2:1-7 can be read as "before", and that there exists evidence that Quirinius may have had a prior (prior to 6 AD) term as governor. Both these are fringe positions, according to our sources. If you, GVBH, believe otherwise, then produce a reliable source that says so. Otherwise, please leave the article alone. PiCo ( talk) 02:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
The mention of prote is a translation issue, but is not currently covered in the article. The historical record on Quirinius might be incomplete, we don't know what was his title during a lengthy campaign against the Homonadenses. But I don't see what would an earlier term of the man in Syria have to do with Judea. The Roman province of Judea was only established in AD 6, and a guy named Coponius was its first Prefect. Dimadick ( talk) 07:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
The fact that many people believe it, doesn't mean its not fringe. (For a thorough grounding on this concept, check out the Christ myth theory discussions.) However the fact that the majority of scholars believe the complete opposite view , means that this view could possibly be fringe. Many "minority" scholars believe that Luke was somehow still correct, just because they want to believe that this is the case - for them, no actual evidence is required. Some "minority" scholars believe the "prote = pre" story, because there is actually some faint sense to it, even though the majority make strong arguments to the contrary - so I would agree this is a valid minority opinion and should be stated as such. However the "undocumented first term" makes no sense - there are no names in the Tivoli inscription, and even if Quirinius was indeed present in Syria as a military commander in an earlier period (is there any actual evidence to support this?) then on what basis was he conducting a census in Herod's "independent" kingdom? This seems like a long long stretch indeed to clutch at a small and soggy straw. Where is the cut-off between a valid minority opinion, and a fringe opinion? Wdford ( talk) 07:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Maybe this source could help clarity some things or this one or [6]. — JudeccaXIII ( talk) 23:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
http://midseventiethweekrapture.blogspot.com/2014/11/cyrenius-does-not-mean-quirinius.html -- JaredMithrandir ( talk) 06:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
JaredMithrandir, please understand that Wikipedia doesn't really allow blogs as sources per WP:NOTBLOG. — JudeccaXIII ( talk) 16:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Recent edit-skirmishing on the word in the lead (or lede if you insist) raises what this word means in the context. My objection is foremost that of ambiguity: critical can either mean someone who argues against, or describe someone whose job it is to be a critic (as in theatre) and who will necessarily sometimes laud rather than criticise. So what sort of scholar is a 'critical scholar'? Should not all scholars be critical (in the theatre sense)?
I'm in over my head on this article as I don't have the referenced text (Brown 1978), but the disagreement smells of a proxy dispute over chronology, and perhaps religious orthodoxy. But putting that aside, what we need to do is establish what the book that is cited to support this statement actually says. Mcewan ( talk) 17:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Currently, the article in the very second paragraph provides a summary judgment on the scholarship regarding the Census of Quirinius that reads, "No satisfactory explanation has been put forward so far to resolve the contradiction"... quoting Professor Gruen's footnote in a 1996 book on a different subject and also something from 1975. I dug up a year 2000 paper in "Catholic Biblical Quarterly" which proposes an explanation for the alleged contradiction ( http://www.jstor.org/stable/43722645?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents), and therefore we Wikipedia editors now know our statement to be false: how can references from 1996 and 1975 evaluate whether a proposal from 2000 is satisfactory? Was Smith's proposal already known and part of the review by the other authors? Clearly not, in the case of Dr. Gruen's 1996 book, which offers no more than a few words in a footnote on the subject, and the other Wikipedia editors did not say that the proposal wasn't satisfactory but only, "who is this M. Smith? DELETE". In order to adequately satisfy WP:NPOV, I recommend that the article remove the comment about "satisfactory explanation" to a subparagraph, and include the update in the scholarship as of 2000. If the seriousness of the source is in question, look at the citing newer articles here in Google Scholar: ( http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=13589444918741178202&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en ) These articles do not simply dismiss M. Smith's proposal, as Wikipedia has done. 168.88.65.6 ( talk) 19:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Consider the actual wording of the gospel. Matthew 2:1 and Matthew 2:3 refer to "King Herod". Only Herod the Great was a King - his sons were not kings. Matthew 14:1 refers to "Herod the tetrarch", so as to distinguish him from the King Herod. Matthew 2:22 says "But when [Joseph] heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there." Archelaus was indeed a son of Herod the Great. Once again, there is no doubt that Matthew was referring to Herod the Great as the king of the nativity who tried to murder the infant Jesus. I don't know where Smith got his ideas from, but if he is postulating that the Matthew-author merely mixed up his Herod's when describing the circumstances of the nativity, how does he explain Matthew 2:22? Do you perhaps know? Wdford ( talk) 21:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Wdford, Mark Smith is in favor of the theory that Jesus was born following the death of Herod the Great. He says "Herod had already been dead some ten years when Jesus was born."
He makes his case that the only thing connecting Jesus to Herod the Great is "the infancy narrative unique to Matthew". And to quote an online source: "Smith himself did not accept the historical accuracy of the Gospel of Matthew". Smith made several arguments defending the historicity of Luke and rejecting the historicity of Matthew. Dimadick ( talk) 18:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I find Sir William Mitchell Ramsay's book, "Was Christ Born in Bethlehem?", particularly chapter 11 to be helpful in expanding perspectives on the chronology of the census; but if it is indeed not just me that thinks so, I feel that more seasoned users would do a better job at incorporating this source than I would. Here's a link so you can access chapter 11 of the book and possibly find a way to incorporate the perspectives shared on this article: http://biblehub.com/library/ramsay/was_christ_born_in_bethlehem/chapter_11_quirinius_the_governor.htm Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.8.13.225 ( talk • contribs)
This is about [9]. Christian Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals will only agree with historical facts which do not imply that the Bible has errors. So, they offer whatever ad hoc reasoning for asserting a theologically orthodox stance. Imho, we should say that such "scholars" do exist, even though they are minority/fringe. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Please do a little more research before deciding if bible authors are accurate or inaccurate. Thanks you. http://www.comereason.org/roman-census.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:401B:896D:651C:DF09:B612:441E ( talk) 09:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Herod the Great Wikipedia page has several verified references that Herod died 1 BCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoveldowns ( talk • contribs) 12:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
"no satisfactory explanation"; "most scholars" and "most most scholars" are not only weasel words but also untrue, you can check the Wikipedia's more definitive biography of King Herod to find there is significant scholarship relating to the date of King Herod's death being 1 CE. In addition, quoting an authors weasel words does not make them any less what they are. Thank you for your patience as I try to unravel the intricacies of this site Hoveldowns ( talk) 14:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
If it makes no difference, then why is it there. It is disingenuous to support a position that states that there are no other valid arguments AND it doesn't matter anyway! It appears the author you are quoting has a biased point of view and it is generally poor scholarship to claim that researchers that disagree either don't exist or have all been discredited. We can go over all of the references to a later date of death,if you wish, although it won't prove what date Herod died it will prove that there are other valid theories and that your citation is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoveldowns ( talk • contribs) 16:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC) Hoveldowns ( talk) 16:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC) adding tildes Hoveldowns ( talk) 16:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Would it be possible for you to stay on topic as to the date of Herod's death. I suggest that you re-read my posts and read the Herod the Great page. It is very simple. There is no consensus that Herod died in 4 BCE. Thank-you for your patience. Hoveldowns ( talk) 04:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
"The death of Herod is important because of dating when Jesus was born."
Why? Of the four canonical gospels, only the Gospel of Matthew features Herod the Great as a character and connects him to Jesus. The Gospel of Luke says that Zechariah lived in the days of Herod, but makes no other mention of the king: "There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the priestly division of Abijah. He had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. " Dimadick ( talk) 07:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Pico, The date of Herod's death is the topic I flagged, I don't believe that we are making any progress in that discussion. This page should agree with the more definitive Herod the Great page. I am ready to take it to the next level. BTW this has been a great learning experience and I appreciate what you have done. Hoveldowns ( talk) 20:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I will look into that, like I said this has been a wonderful learning experience and I don't want to short-cut the inevitable outcome. I have always hated "process" and because of that have missed many opportunities. I apologize for my lack of patience and I expect that Request for Comment is the next step forward but for now I need to step back and do the first things. Hoveldowns ( talk) 01:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry Tgeorgescu I didn't understand how this works. 4BC-1AD or BCE-1 CE is fine. Who makes the changes? How does this work? Is there a guardian or hierarchy to every page? How does one know who she is dealing with
I'm not sure why you are bringing Jesus into this. Hoveldowns ( talk) 02:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC) I understand. Hoveldowns ( talk) 02:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
got it Hoveldowns ( talk) 02:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
If I am understanding this correctly, when I change the date of death to mirror that on the Herod the Great page, it will be flagged as a fringe view. I find that very interesting. Hoveldowns 07:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoveldowns ( talk • contribs)
Curious, does more recent work generally carry greater weight here even if there are no new discoveries? Is this a wiki standard you can direct me to. I understand this is a dynamic field, but would be concerned if something is deemed weightier just because it's newerHoveldowns 17:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoveldowns ( talk • contribs)
Citation is from a book written by a priest for the layperson and published a religious publishing house. Reliable sources should published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. The author tells us that "most critical scholars have concluded"...if so then those should be cited. In addition I have been repeatedly informed in the TALK titled "There are several theories that describe the controversy" that the it is a consensus view, as such there should be better sources to cite.Hoveldowns 00:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoveldowns ( talk • contribs)
I am sure he is a wonderful Scholar, maybe you could find a better example of his work to use as a reference. Hoveldowns 04:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I respect the Priesthood. Tgeorgescu, This particular work does not meet the standard of scholarship and any religious leader published by their own church is by definition biased. That does not mean that he doesn't have scholarly work, but this one doesn't hit the mark and I'm sure you know thatHoveldowns 04:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
If this Page is important to you, then clean it up! I can't believe I have to tell you this.Hoveldowns 04:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
BTW, I think a reference from Justin Martyr would add some credibility and depth to the page, you know, so it looks like a serious work of history. Hoveldowns 05:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
So this makes history look like a kind of battleground. In other words “you have got my story and I have got mine”. As a matter of actual historical practice, when you read historians, I don’t think this is a bad description of the way they actually work. I don’t know why certain neo-conservatives like William Bennett find this to be relativism, when I see it as a just good description of the way historians actually practise their craft, and its not a simple minded thing like “everyone has an axe to grind”, it’s not like you don’t get surprised even based on your own interpretation and its also not the case that as you work through your interpretation you do not change it radically and change your mind and your prejudices, in fact, when you do that, that’s when you are doing your best work usually. So I don’t see this as outrageous as many other people do.
— Rick Roderick, The Self Under Siege, The Teaching Company
I know the early church fathers don't carry scholarly weight and can't be used as "proof" but isn't an Encyclopedia about history too. Hoveldowns 06:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think this would be considered original research, The Census of Quirinius was a census of Judaea taken by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, Roman governor of Syria, upon the imposition of direct Roman rule in AD 6.[1] Justin Martyr mentions the event "in which Jesus Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judaea." [X} The author of the Gospel of Luke uses it as the narrative means to establish the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:1-5),[2] but Luke places the census within the reign of Herod the Great, who died 10 years earlier in 4 BC.[3] No satisfactory explanation of the contradiction seems possible on the basis of present knowledge,[4] and most scholars think that the author of the gospel made a mistake.[5][unreliable so
[x]Justin Martyr -- THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN CHAPTER XXXIV
what are your thoughts, just a draft, I have to learn about wiki style first, for instance Cyrenius (sic). Idealy it should come after the quote in Luke because of the timeline but the would interfere with the flow as the article is really about Luke. Hoveldowns 16:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I should have looked at other pages first, does this work The Census of Quirinius was a census of Judaea taken by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, Roman governor of Syria, upon the imposition of direct Roman rule in AD 6.[1] Justin Martyr mentions the event in his early writings. The author of the Gospel of Luke... again for historical purposes, Josephus also mentions the event. I guess this conversation should have it's own Talk areaHoveldowns 17:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
That's what I thought originally, but then you run into continuity problems with Luke. Could go History: Luke, Josephus and J.M. new paragragh starting exposition of lukeHoveldowns 18:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Source is a book written for laymen by a religious leader published by his church publishing house. Not appropriate due to bias and Scholarship issues
Brown, R.E. (1978). An Adult Christ at Christmas: Essays on the Three Biblical Christmas Stories. Liturgical Press. ISBN 9780814609972. article:Census of Quirinius
and most scholars think that the author of the gospel made a mistake.
there was no single census of the entire empire under Augustus; no Roman census required people to travel from their own homes to those of distant ancestors; and the census of Judea would not have affected Joseph and his family, living in Galilee; most scholars have therefore concluded that the author of Luke's gospel made an error. Hoveldowns 03:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
"living in Galilee" The Gospel of Luke states that Joseph headed from Galilee to Bethlehem, but does not state whether he actually lived in Galilee. It states very little of Joseph's background. See: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Luke
"And all went to have themselves appraised, each man to his native city. Since Joseph was descended from king David, he traveled from Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem, the city of David, in Judea. There he would register, together with his betrothed wife Mary, "
Or if you prefer the King James version of the same passage: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(King_James)/Luke
"And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child."
The Greek text states: https://el.wikisource.org/wiki/Κατά_Λουκάν
"καὶ ἐπορεύοντο πάντες ἀπογράφεσθαι, ἕκαστος εἰς τὴν ἰδίαν πόλιν. 4 Ἀνέβη δὲ καὶ Ἰωσὴφ ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ἐκ πόλεως Ναζαρὲτ εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν εἰς πόλιν Δαυῒδ ἥτις καλεῖται Βηθλέεμ, διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν ἐξ οἴκου καὶ πατριᾶς Δαυῒδ, 5 ἀπογράψασθαι σὺν Μαριὰμ τῇ ἐμνηστευμένῃ αὐτῷ γυναικὶ, οὔσῃ ἐγκύῳ. "
Which roughly translates to "everyone moved for the census, each to his own city. And Joseph headed from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to the city of Judea. to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he has from the house and clan of David, to be enlisted, along with Mariam, the woman betrothed to him, who was pregnant. "
It is unclear from the text whether Joseph was a returning native of Judea, or even native to Bethlehem in his own right. (One of the reasons that outside Wikipedia, I always try to find the primary text for comparison). Dimadick ( talk) 22:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Brown does NOT support the historicity of the census as described by Luke. See 101 Questions and Answers on the Bible By Raymond E. Brown, pg 79, here [10] Wdford ( talk) 16:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Luke clearly states that the Census at the time of the birth of Jesus was the first census of Quirinius. This would imply that there were more than one. Is there a known second census of Quirinius? If not, this would suggest that Luke was asserting that there was another census unknown to us. Further, wouldn't the phrase "when Quinirius was governor of Syria" be odd for a description of historical events which happened when Quinirius governor of not only Syria, but of Galilee as well? Wouldn't it be reasonable to suppose that Luke means, "This was the FIRST census, taken while Quinirius was STILL in Syria (as opposed to the later census, when Quirinius was in Palestine)."
Alternatively, how much precedence is there for calling Cyrenius, "Quirinius?"
@ Ashleymcglone: Suppose your country would order you (and the rest of the citizens) to go for a census to the ancestral home from 1000 years ago, where would you go? Wouldn't you expect newspapers to write about it? Imagine masses of people from all parts of the Empire going thousands of miles away for the census, and no other writer noticed it? Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
This has been changed twice in the last 24 hours.
WP:ERA does not say we use the original style but that we shouldn't change the established style without discussion, and the era style was changed in 2009.
[11]
Doug Weller
talk 12:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
:Actually the era style has not been changed, some edits have been made that introduced a mixture of era styles. It is legitimate to make the era setting uniform throughout as per
WP:ERA. Since there has been no reason offered or discussed for introducing a different style in the first place it can be reset to what has been used right from the beginning, which is what I tried to do when Doug Weller reverted me--
CouncilConnect (
talk) 12:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Also the
WP:MOS says that a setting must be used consistently to be considered established. That never happened except with the original style, which again is why I think my edit was correct. And no discussion ever was held to justify a supposed change to the common era style either. Any discussion needs to be about why that style need be adopted so I am reinstating my edit--
CouncilConnect (
talk)
13:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
::So let me get this right - your point is that because an editor changed the setting (on 3rd Nov 2009) without discussing or giving reasons and nobody reverted that, then any reversions later on are invalid i.e. up to now, except the ones that you are carrying out. In addition subsequent editors have added material in keeping with the original style but their edits should be modified (as you have done) to conform with the altered era style not with the original one (which was no less established in state than the state that you support). That is highly subjective and it seems to me that you are using your position as an admin to enforce your POV over other people's. The appropriate policy is sometimes ignored when nobody pays heed to it but here it has not been followed and I am raising an objection and that is not an "unfounded argument".--
CouncilConnect (
talk)
17:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
::It seems to me that this article is not a BCE article if the Wikipedia policy is followed correctly. It should be reset.--
Runwayrollr (
talk)
09:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
On 3 JulyUser:Sjl197 altered the lead so that it read "The author of the Gospel of Luke uses it as the narrative means to establish the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:1-5, but in contrast Matthew (Matthew 2:1[3]) places the census within the reign of Herod the Great who died 10 years earlier[4] in 4 BCE.[5] No satisfactory explanation of the contradiction seems possible on the basis of present knowledge,[6] and most scholars think that one or both authors of these gospels made a mistake." Matthew 2:1 in the KJV says "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem", NIV says "After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem". Obviously that does not belong in this article as it is about the Census of Quirinius and that verse says nothing about a census. So I removed it with an edit summary,"Matthew 2:1 does not mention the census, only Luke"only for Editor2020 to put it back in with the edit summary "read it again." No matter how many times I read it, Matthew 2:1 does not say anything about the Census of Quirinius (an actual historic event, this is not an article about Bible stories). That verse of Matthew has exactly zero relevance to this article. Smeat75 ( talk) 00:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
OCR software produces spelling errors like in the text I have reverted. Notice the hyphen where it does not belong? Tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I eliminated erroneous statements and restored a more NPV regarding historical facts recorded in other Wikipedia entries. The article falsely claimed that "Herod" was not reigning in 6 AD, but as Wikipedia itself notes ( /info/en/?search=Herod_Antipas) the reigning official was indeed Herod Antipas or Antipater. This is not a controversial claim. The "Herod" who had died previously was Herod the Great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewCHoffman ( talk • contribs) 20:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
"Third, the Gospel of Matthew clearly refers to "King Herod", (Matt 2:1) while Archelaus was never a King."
The Greek text at this point mentions "Ἡρῴδου τοῦ βασιλέως", roughly translating to "of Herod the Basileus". Which is the same Greek title which Herod used in his coins, and the same title which Josephus uses for him in his writings. Dimadick ( talk) 08:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I want to add, by the way, that no one has responded to my other point, which is that a single 1978 journal article, one written forty years ago, cannot establish the existence of a "consensus" among scholars today. This is obviously true. The statement is inappropriate for the article MatthewCHoffman ( talk) 03:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
The article, as it stood until I corrected it, was highly misleading -- yet a user continues to revert my correction. It is a historical fact that Herod Antipater was the successor of Herod the Great and WAS in fact in power in 6 BC. So there was a "Herod" at this time in power. The article misleads the reader and contradicts Wikipedia's own entry on Herod Antipater. I stand by my correction. This article should not be used to push any agenda, religious or anti-religious, by denying or distorting historical facts that are not contested by anyone.
Here is the Wikipedia article: /info/en/?search=Herod_Antipas
I also corrected a statement claiming that a consensus exists among historians which seemed very polemical, and which cited a single 1978 journal article. No journal article that old can be used to even begin to establish a consensus among historians 40 years later. So that claim was removed.
MatthewCHoffman ( talk) 23:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
The addition I made:
However, some scholars have stated that such censuses did occur [1] [2] [3]
was deleted because my sources were supposedly not reliable. I included three sources: F.F. Bruce was elected a Fellow of the British Academy, Gregory Boyd got his PhD from Princeton, Gary Habermas has a PhD from Michigan State. What's the problem? 24.189.41.10 ( talk) 04:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I am distinguishing two related but different problems here. The contents of the classic books have become particularly difficult to defend in modern times, and the professors who teach them do not care to defend them, are not interested in their truth. One can most clearly see the latter in the case of the Bible. To include it in the humanities is already a blasphemy, a denial of its own claims. There it is almost inevitably treated in one of two ways: It is subjected to modern "scientific" analysis, called the Higher Criticism, where it is dismantled, to show how "sacred" books are put together, and they are not what they claim to be. It is useful as a mosaic in which one finds the footprints of many dead civilizations. Or else the Bible is used in courses of comparative religion as one expression of the need for the "sacred" and as a contribution to the very modern, very scientific study of the structure of "myths". (Here one can join up with the anthropologists and really be alive.) A teacher who treated the Bible naively, taking at its word, or Word, would be accused of scientific incompetence and lack of sophistication. Moreover, he might rock the boat and start the religious wars all over again, as well as a quarrel within the university between reason and revelation, which would upset comfortable arrangements and wind up by being humiliating to the humanities. Here one sees the traces of the Enlightenment's political project, which wanted precisely to render the Bible, and other old books, undangerous. This project is one of the underlying causes of the impotence of the humanities. The best that can be done, it appears, is to teach "The Bible as Literature," as opposed to "as Revelation," which it claims to be. In this way it can be read somewhat independently of deforming scholarly apparatus, as we read, for example, Pride and Prejudice. Thus the few professors who feel that there is something wrong with the other approaches tend to their consciences.
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
Tgeorgescu (
talk)
21:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)References
I'll add four footnotes showing that some theologically conservative scholars argue for the historicity of the Quirinius census. The article already mentions (twice!) that this is a minority view. 24.189.41.10 ( talk) 14:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
It is inappropriate to label certain scholars "fundamentalists" so we can dismiss their views. Why do you say all these scholars are fundamentalists? What is your evidence for this statement?
How about: Some theologically conservative scholars argue for the accuracy of Luke's nativity account. 24.189.41.10 ( talk) 10:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Here's N. T. Wright: The question of Quirinius and his census is an old chestnut, requiring a good knowledge of Greek. It depends on the meaning of the word protos, which usually means ‘first’. Thus most translations of Luke 2.2 read ‘this was the first [protos] census, when Quirinius was governor of Syria’, or something like that. But in the Greek of the time, as the standard major Greek lexicons point out, the word protos came sometimes to be used to mean ‘before’, when followed (as this is) by the genitive case (p. 89).
Here's Habermas: Several questions have been raised in the context of this taxation [1. See Bruce, Christian Origins, p. 192, for example]. Even if such a taxation actually did occur, would every person have to return to his home? Was Quirinius really the governor of Syria at this time (as in v.2)? Archeology has had a bearing on the answers to these questions.
It has been established that the taking of a census was quite common at about the time of Christ. An ancient Latin inscription called the Titulus Venetus indicates that a census took place in Syria and Judea about AD 5-6 and that this was typical of those held throughout the Roman Empire from the time of Augustus (23 BC-AD 14) until at least the third century AD. Indications are that this census took place every fourteen years. Other such evidence indicates that these procedures were widespread [2. Ibid., pp. 193-194]. Concerning persons returning to their home city for the taxation-census, an Egyptian papyrus dating from AD 104 reports just such a practice. This rule was enforced, as well [3. Ibid. p. 194].
The question concerning Quirinius also involves the date of the census described in Luke 2. It is known that Quirinius was made governor of Syria by Augustus in AD 6. Archaeologist Sir William Ramsay discovered several inscriptions that indicated that Quirinius was governor of Syria on two occasions, the first time several years prior to this date [4. Robert Boyd, Tells, Tombs, and Treasure (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1969), p. 175]. Within the cycle of taxation-censuses mentioned above, an earlier taxation would be dated from 10-4 BC [5. Cf. Bruce, Christian Origins, pp. 193-194 with Boyd, Tells, p. 175. Bruce prefers the date 10-9 BC for the empire-wide census, with that which took place in Judea occurring a few years later. Boyd places the date of the earlier census 6-5 BC, which coincides closely with the accepted dates for Jesus' birth]. Another possibility is Bruce's suggestion that the Greek in Luke 2.2 is equally translatable as "This enrollment (census) was before that made when Quirinius was governor of Syria" [6. Bruce, Christian Origins, p. 192]. This would mean that Luke was dating the taxation-census before Quirinius took over the governorship of Syria. Either possibility answers the question raised above [7. While ruling out the two-date approach to the governorship of Quirinius, Sherwin-White basically vindicates Luke's account, while still finding more problems that does Bruce (pp. 162-171)].
Therefore, while some questions have been raised concerning the events recorded in Luke 2.1-5, archaeology has provided some unexpected and supportive answers. Additionally, while supplying the background behind these events, archaeology also assists us in establishing several facts. (1) A taxation-census was a fairly common procedure in the Roman Empire and it did occur in Judea, in particular. (2) Persons were required to return to their home city in order to fulfill the requirements of the process. (3) These procedures were apparently employed during the reign of Augustus (37 BC-AD 14), placing it well within the general time frame of Jesus' birth. (4) The date of the specific taxation recounted by Luke could very possibly have been 6-5 BC, which would also be of service in attempting to find a more exact date for Jesus' birth.
I suggest we leave aside our personal views and just report on the findings of a diverse set of scholars. 24.189.41.10 ( talk) 10:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
This is very interesting information about your personal opinions, but it seems beside the point. The scholars I have mentioned defend the historicity of certain parts of Luke's nativity passage. We should not suppress their views. For you to say "The dating is wrong, end of story" is completely inappropriate. N. T. Wright mentions other scholars who agree with his translation and dating. You are in clear violation of Wikipedia rules when you exclude scholars because you personally disagree with them. 24.189.41.10 ( talk) 05:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Here's another scholar who argues for the "plausibility of Luke's census": http://www.academia.edu/26047721/The_Lucan_Censuses_Revisited 24.189.41.10 ( talk) 05:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Here's Raymond Brown: One cannot rule out the possibility that, since Romans often adapted their administration to local circumstances, a census conducted in Judea would respect the strong attachment of Jewish tribal and ancestral relationships. (The Birth of the Messiah: New York: Doubleday, 549) 24.189.41.10 ( talk) 06:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
To PiCo: Can you provide proof that an overwhelming majority of scholars agrees with you? Moreover, Wikipedia policy is to include minority views. 24.189.41.10 ( talk) 00:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
That's fine. 24.189.41.10 ( talk) 10:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I am honestly a little shocked to read what seems to me to be a clear bias by the editors. I guess religion is always a controversial topic, but to rely on one line in one book to dismiss an entire group of scholars, and not even to seem open to considering their arguments (or even acknowledging that they exist in the article!) is pretty surprising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.133.52 ( talk) 23:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
The bias from some users on this page is amazing. As was stated above, "I am honestly a little shocked to read what seems to me to be a clear bias by the editors." It is a clear violation of NPOV to exclude scholars because of their personal religious beliefs. If some scholars hold to X and that can be documented, it is perfectly reasonable to mention it. This page is clearly being used by people with agendas to exclude points of view they simply don't like. No one has a right to use Wikipedia that way.
MatthewCHoffman ( talk) 23:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
"Census of Quirinius" is a very misleading title - as the article is mostly a critique of some chronology in Luke's Gospel.
"Criticisms of Luke's Gospel" or "Chronological Errors in Luke's Gospel" would be much more accurate titles. Under such titles the criticisms could be explored fairly.
Note also that the Census of Quirinius is already better described in the article about Quirinius himself: /info/en/?search=Quirinius SelfOwnedCat ( talk) 09:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
There's one mainstream solution that the article doesn't mention, i.e. Paul Meier's.
"Nor is Luke exempt from charges of error, distortion, and inaccuracy. We now examine Lukan passages in which errors are claimed, aside from the charges of numbers inflation already discussed. Luke 2:2 is easily the most famous of these. In his Nativity narrative, Luke states that the Augustan census, which brought Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem, “... first took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria.” According to Josephus, however, that governorship occurred in CE 6, ten years later than the birth of Jesus (Ant. 17.354)... Still, there has never been a scholarly consensus that Luke did, in fact, get it wrong here, in view of the variant values of the πρτη in Luke2:2. As is well known, the Greek syntax here can also be translated, “This census was before that made when Quirinius was governor of Syria.” I also propose another alternative rendering: “This census was first completed when Quirinius was governor of Syria,” i.e., a decade later. Ten years to take a census? Yes. It took the Romans forty years to complete their census of Gaul. Accordingly, Luke may have been referring to a preliminary enrollment in Herod’s Judea, during which census data was collected and then used later for the complete assessment under Quirinius." ("Luke as a Hellenistic Historian," in Porter and Witts, Christian Origins and Greco-Roman Culture. Brill, 2013, 431.)
This is a minority interpretation but Meier is credible enough that it should be mentioned. Meier mentions two proposals -- that first be translated "before", which has been rejected more recently, but his second solution, that it should be translated completed has not to my knowledge.
I should also note that there's also Mark Smith ("Of Jesus and Quirinius." The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 62.2 (2000): 278-293.) who argues that Luke actually dates Jesus' birth to 6 AD and that Matthew is the one who inaccurately placed Jesus birth in the time of Herod the Great to model his story off of the Exodus. Wallingfordtoday ( talk) 03:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
no Roman census required people to travel from their own homes to those of distant ancestors; and the census of Judea would not have affected Joseph and his family, living in Galilee.[6]
Couldn't Yosef ostensibly have been a roman citizen? Does the greek for Luke 2:4 arguably provide, ie, οἴκου, the possibility for him to have grown up in Bethlehem with his family, been a roman citizen, traveled and lived "abroad" in the client state of Galilee? If when the taxation-census cycles first begin, if Quirinius isn't yet governor of greater Syrias, then Galilee is not yet a roman province. Were client-states be censused and taxed the same as roman provinces? Did roman citizens abroad have a legal obligation to go to a roman city, preferably their home town, and file their taxes? 63.77.24.102 ( talk) 22:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The background of Saint Joseph is unclear. Two of the Gospels (Matthew and Luke) mention him only in the context of Jesus' early life, one Gospel (John) only makes a single passing reference to him, and another Gospel (Mark) does not mention him at all. He is not one of their narrative's main characters.
Roman citizenship is not out of the question here. It could be extended to the citizens of Roman client states and to Rome's allies. However, Jesus is thought unlikely to have held citizenship rights, which he would be entitled to as a son of Joseph.
Galilee was part of the Herodian kingdom (37-4 BCE). After Herod the Great's death, it became part of the Herodian Tetrarchy (4 BCE-44 CE). The local Tetrach was Herod Antipas (reigned 4 BCE-39 CE). In 40 CE, Caligula granted control of Galilee to Herod Agrippa. From 41 to 44, Agrippa ruled over a restored Kingdom of Judea. Following his death, Galilee became part of the restored province of Judea. Dimadick ( talk) 23:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Here is the opening paragraph of the article:
"The Census of Quirinius was a census of Judea taken by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, Roman governor of Syria, upon the imposition of direct Roman rule in 6 CE.[1] The Gospel of Luke uses it as the narrative means to establish the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:1–5), but places it within the reign of Herod the Great, who died 10 years earlier.[2][3][4] No satisfactory explanation of the contradiction seems possible on the basis of present knowledge,[5] and most scholars think that the author of the gospel made a mistake.[6]"
1. Scholars do not agree that it was Herod the Great being referred to in Luke. Frank E.Dicken, in his PhD thesis for the Unversity of Edinburgh, states that it is Herod Antipater (see https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1842/9834/Dicken2014.pdf). Dicken also holds that multiple people are being referred to with the name "Herod" in different places in Scripture.
2. The statement, "No satisfactory explanation of the contradiction seems possible on the basis of present knowledge" is only attributed to a single author of one journal article, without reference to other scholars who do not agree with this conclusion. Dicken is just one. A single journal article cannot be used to make a sweeping statement that contradicts other scholars.
3. The statement, "and most scholars think that the author of the gospel made a mistake" gives a single journal article from 1978, forty years ago, to establish this consensus. This is obviously inadequate.
The opening and other similar statements within the article should be amended to state that some scholars hold these views, while also discussing other views by other scholars. Otherwise, this article clearly violates NPOV. MatthewCHoffman ( talk) 04:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I want to add another scholar who questions the narrative in this article (which again, is presented as a "consensus" without adequate proof), one who is very well known: Corrado Marucci, in his History and Roman Administration in the NT (Storia e amministrazione romana nel NT). He offers several alternative theories the problem of the census in Luke. MatthewCHoffman ( talk) 05:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
There are only two gaps in the list of known Roman governors of Syria, and they fall in the years 12-11 BC and 4/3-1 BCE. The latter period is after the death of Herod and can be ruled out.That leaves 12-11 BCE, but Quirinius was serving as Consul in Rome in 11 BCE, leaving only a single year. None of the Roman-era records suggest he served as a legate in that year. See Novak (link in the bibliography), p.296. PiCo ( talk) 23:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Considering his historical accuracy elsewhere
is a pretty inflated reputation of accuracy, see e.g.
Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles.
Tgeorgescu (
talk)
11:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
StarMountain has doctored WP:Verifiable statements, changing those to his own POV. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
TGeorgescu, you cannot use Novak 2001 as a commentary on Boyd 2007. I have now disconnected the Boyd2007 from the Novak 2001 sentence, as a stop-gap solution. Secondly, the highlighted text on the Novak2001 link is a statement on inerrancy. Clearly the link is wrong, as it does not link to any inerrancy statement by Novak2001. Please cite the precise page number where Novak2001 makes the statement on Biblical inerrancy. As a stop-gap measure, I have moved the inerrancy link to the Further Reading link section. When and if you can provide the correct page number in Novak 2001, I am happy to leave your inerrancy link in the Novak sentence if it is important to you. Please pause and reflect before making hasty deletions. 86.172.133.205 ( talk) 14:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Assumption of the inerrancymentioned verbatim at Ralph Martin Novak (1 February 2001). Christianity and the Roman Empire: Background Texts. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 297. ISBN 978-0-567-01840-3. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
@ PiCo:, you mention that Geza Vermes is mainstream scholarship, but reject Evans, Bock, and Porter as "non mainstream scholarship". Why? All are scholars and neither hold to fringe theories. To state that the writer of Luke, when the evidence, for example the text refers to the first census of Quirinius as a clarifier. Dr. Ryan E. ( talk) 06:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Karma1998: Your sources aren't WP:RS. By reliable sources we mean mainstream Bible scholarship. ABR is pseudohistory. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Alan. M. George: WP:CITE WP:RS by modern, mainstream Bible scholars or be gone from this article.
I found a source for your claims: Scott Hahn; Curtis Mitch (17 January 2019). The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament. Ignatius Press. p. 387. ISBN 978-1-68149-075-5. But I don't know in how far this source represents the majority view of Bible scholars. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Alan. M. George: At least you could cite a decent source, like the source above, not random websites written by true believers. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I have a slight problem with the balance this article. It is about a historical event, the census, but almost the entire article is taken up by a discussion of a different matter, the accuracy of Luke's reference to it. While I quite understand that the majority of people coming here are primarily interested in the implications for their understanding of the Bible, it is the secondary aspect of this topic. The article should start with a section about the historical census - what sources are there, how do we know its date, what significance did it have for the establishment of Roman rule, was it a typical census or something unusual, etc. All the obvious historians' questions. Then we can talk about significance for the New testament second. This would not only be a better way to do justice to the Roman history, it would also be beneficial for the theological argument - a fuller understanding of what the census was and how we know about it would provide a better basis for the Luke question too. -- Doric Loon ( talk) 09:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I think Scott Hahn's solution should be added. He says:
Despite Luke's intention to set the birth of Jesus on the timeline of world history, many scholars claim that Lk 2:1-2 are the most historically inaccurate verses of the entire Gospel! It is said that Caesar Augustus never ordered an empire-wide census (Lk 2:1) and that the census of the Roman governor of Syria, Quirinius, did not occur until A.D. 6, a full decade after what many accept as the date of Jesus' birth (c. 64 B.C.). If Caesar's decree is historically suspect and Quirinius' census is chronologically too late to have brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, how can Luke bind these events together to set the stage for the first Christmas? Various explanations for this have been proposed by scholars. Some think Luke was confused about his facts. Others suggest Luke was giving us a rough sketch of these early events without intending to be precise about chronological details. Still others rush to Luke's defense as a reliable historian but are forced to reconstruct the history of the period in ways that are not easily reconciled with the historical data currently available. Thankfully, recent research is beginning to shed more light on this issue. It involves a reinterpretation of three essential pieces of the historical puzzle: the year of Herod the Great's death, the nature of Caesar's decree, and the role of Quirinius. 1. A majority of scholars believe that Herod the Great, the ruler of Palestine, died in the spring of 4 B.C., soon after a lunar eclipse in March of that year. Widespread agreement on this date has led modern interpreters to place Jesus' birth a year or two earlier, between 6 and 4 B.C.—after all, Herod was still alive at the time of the Nativity (Mt 2:1-18). Objections are now being raised against this view. In fact, several scholars are favoring a date for Herod's death in the early spring of 1 B.C., soon after a lunar eclipse in January of that year. Interestingly, this alternative chronology would push the date of Christ's birth into full agreement with the testimony of the early Christians. By calculating the Nativity according to the years of Caesar Augustus' reign, several Church Fathers, such as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus of Rome, Eusebius, and Epiphanius, fix a date for Christ's birth between 3 and 2 B.C. If accepted, this chronological revision moves the Nativity closer to the end of the first century B.C. and opens new possibilities for understanding the circumstances described by Luke. 2. Caesar's decree has long been a problematic detail in Luke's narrative (Lk 2:1). There is clear evidence that Augustus initiated registrations of Roman citizens at different points during his career, but there is said to be no indication that any was taken in the closing years of the first century B.C. or that such a census would have embraced the entire empire. Since most registrations in the Roman world were taken for taxing purposes, it is further argued that Caesar would never have taken a census of Palestine while Herod the Great ruled the region as king and collected taxes of his own. These commonly accepted views are currently coming under fire. The Jewish historian Josephus recounts that during the last years of Herod's rule, Judea was required to swear an oath of loyalty to Caesar. Archeological evidence confirms that the same type of oath was sworn elsewhere in the empire around 3 B.C. This might well mean that the registration described in Lk 2:1 involved an oath of allegiance sworn to the emperor, not a census taken for the purpose of taxation. A later Christian historian named Orosius (fifth century A.D.) says explicitly that Augustus required every person in every Roman province to be enrolled with a public oath. His description of the event strongly suggests that this oath was required in the years just prior to 2 B.C., when the Roman people hailed Augustus as the first of all men. Even Caesar Augustus tells us in his personal writings that the whole Roman world had professed him to be the "Father" of the empire by the time this title was officially given to him in 2 B.C. These converging lines of evidence make it possible that the census of Luke 2 was not a registration of residents to be taxed but a public enrollment of subjects expressing their loyalty to the reigning emperor. 3. The role of Quirinius is perhaps the most difficult detail to interpret in Luke's narrative (Lk 2:2). It is well established that he initiated a taxation census soon after he was appointed the provincial legate of Syria in A.D. 6. Yet evidence is lacking that he held this position more than once or that he ever conducted more than one census. How, then, can Luke associate Quirinius with a census that occurred many years earlier, when Jesus was born? The most helpful clue might be found in Luke's own words. The Greek expression that he uses in Lk 2:2 for the governing role of Quirinius is the exact description he uses for Pontius Pilate's governing role in Lk 3:1. Since Pilate "governed" as a regional procurator and was not the legate of an entire Roman province (like Syria), it leaves open the possibility that Luke is referring to an administrative role assumed by Quirinius that had nothing to do with his later position as an imperial legate. This possibility is strengthened by the Church Father Justin Martyr, who states that Quirinius was a "procurator" in Judea (not Syria) at the time of Jesus' birth! It likewise enables us to make greater sense of the testimony of another early Christian writer, Tertullian, who says that Saturninus (not Quirinius) was the official legate of Syria at the time of the Nativity. It may be that Quirinius was an administrator of a Judean census (i.e., the 3 B.C. oath-registration) several years before conducting another census for taxation in A.D. 6. Although there are gaps in this reconstruction, and much remains uncertain, the cumulative force of the evidence is significant. Herod's death, Caesar's decree, and the governing position of Quirinius are all historical factors that, when reconsidered, yield a more coherent portrait of the events surrounding the Nativity. This would mean that Jesus was born between 3 and 2 B.C., the enrollment of Joseph and Mary was a registration of their loyalty to the Roman Caesar, and the documentation of this oath was organized and implemented in Judea by Quirinius several years before he was made the official governor of Syria. This reconstruction not only eases the chronological tensions in Lk 2:1-2, it helps to confirm Luke's reliability as a historian as well as the early Church's reliability as a channel of historical traditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardo T. Oliveira ( talk • contribs)
References
In research the original sources are first preferred, followed next by the oldest available documents. The page gives references, but mostly recently published work. Better references are suggested for the page, and a trail of older documents covering this rather old argument.
Astrojed ( talk) 06:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Thankyou for reply Tgeorgescu, Main stream historians are not in agreement about the dates on the page, and the page needs to be improved to show an impartial and accurate status of the ongoing debate. I hope the various experts will improve the page without me becoming one of the principle editors.
Graduate studies are always done with statistics in drawing conclusions. There is always a chance of being right, and a chance of being wrong. A percentage is attached to both outcomes. The statistical chances are found described when reading the scholarly documents. The page doesn't seem to have such considerations.
My years of residence overseas taught me that every country writes a different version of history and changes it from time to time for political gain. Our opinions about history come to us from analysis of many old documents all of which are questioned.
Christian writings are questioned mainly by Christians in graduate seminaries, where the candidates must discover something worthy of thesis to graduate. Every phrase has been dissected numerous times. Some passages have several different versions in use, and there is possibility the originals were different. Roman persecution of Christians began before the linguistically dated book of Luke.
When looking for original documents about Quirinius, not much is found other than the several versions of Josephus, which have always been recognized as political in purpose. first for Josephus to deny his guilt in the Jewish War, then to assist his Roman benefactors in their political struggles to control their territories in Asia. Josephus wrote the related Antiquities Of The Jews in old age (93-94 CE) about events he did not witness personally, but were told to him.
One of the oldest references I found other than Josephus is from the Vatican Museum, a grave stone for Quirinius [1] discovered at Tivoli in 1764, attesting that Quirinius was twice legate.
Another old Roman inscription is titulus Tiburtinus which is much studied by Jewish educators, [2] who gave better bibliographies than the page.
A mixed Jewish and Christian argument [3] can also be found with better references claiming that writing of Josephus does not lead to the proposed date (4 BC) for death of Herod the Great, because of the eclipse (4 BC) being too close to Start of Passover (29 days). Another eclipse (1 BC) agrees with the time sequence of Josephus (10 to 12 weeks before Passover). The argument is made that Jesus was born (2 BC) during a short first term of Quirinius as legate, and Herod the Great died the following year. The Wikipedia page for Herod the great presents the possibility of Herod's death at a later date (1 BC) as a prevailing historical opinion of many scholars, while the earlier date (4 BC) is a more recent claim.
The census being discussed was a taxation event, [4] better described in the Greek translation. Different places were taxed at different rates, while people were taxed differently based on their origins, giving cause for travel. Client states paid tribute to Rome under a formula different from direct taxation.
I will not try to say which view is correct if any, only that there is a long standing debate which still continues and is not well presented or referenced on the page. Something more scholarly is preferred and in better compliance with Wikipedia principles. Claims on the page are referenced but not well supported in the trail of documents.
Astrojed ( talk) 02:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
References
are these verses relevant? the first two say that John the Baptist was born in the time of Herod and the second says that six months later Jesus. the third I don't know what it means but it talks about the census. why also Lucas says the "first" census where are the others? What does this word mean to scholars? Tuxzos22 ( talk) 20:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
sorry the third verse talks about Judas of Galilee Tuxzos22 ( talk) 20:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
I just saw that in the "Mention of Lukes" in the article it affirms what I am affirming. Tuxzos22 ( talk) 15:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)