Luke 2:2

Previous Verse < Luke 2 > Next Verse

This was the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria. (ASV)

Pro

JW: The Pro argument as it stands is primarily a Defensive argument. It's mainly a Reaction to CTT's argument which is itself a Reaction to a Pro argument. Offensive arguments directly explain Why there is error. Too much Interaction with the related Con argument can distract from the effectiveness of the Pro argument.

Pro arguments at ErrancyWiki should primarily be Offensive. Let's construct an Offensive argument in the Pro section here and use Richard Carrier's related detailed article:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html

as a Source to first create an Outline of an Offensive argument.

--JoeWallack 09:58, 24 Jun 2006 (CDT)

Offensive Argument For Error

DATING

LUKE

TEXT

Luke 2:

1 "Now it came to pass in those days, there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be enrolled.

2 This was the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria.

3 And all went to enrol themselves, every one to his own city.

4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David;

5 to enrol himself with Mary, who was betrothed to him, being great with child.

6 And it came to pass, while they were there, the days were fulfilled that she should be delivered.

7 And she brought forth her firstborn son; and she wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

8 And there were shepherds in the same country abiding in the field, and keeping watch by night over their flock.

9 And an angel of the Lord stood by them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.

10 And the angel said unto them, Be not afraid; for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all the people:

11 for there is born to you this day in the city of David a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord."

JOSEPHUS

Antiquities of the Jews

14.389

" Antony also feasted Herod the first day of his reign. And thus did this man receive the kingdom, having obtained it on the hundred and eighty-fourth olympiad, when Caius Domitius Calvinus was consul the second time, and Caius Asinius Pollio [the first time]."

14.487

"[487] This destruction befell the city of Jerusalem when Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus were consuls of Rome 1 on the hundred eighty and fifth olympiad, on the third month, on the solemnity of the fast, as if a periodical revolution of calamities had returned since that which befell the Jews under Pompey; for the Jews were taken by him on the same day, and this was after twenty-seven years' time. So when Sosius had dedicated a crown of gold to God, he marched away from Jerusalem, and carried Antigonus with him in bonds to Antony; but Herod was afraid lest Antigonus should be kept in prison [only] by Antony, and that when he was carried to Rome by him, he might get his cause to be heard by the senate, and might demonstrate, as he was himself of the royal blood, and Herod but a private man, that therefore it belonged to his sons however to have the kingdom, on account of the family they were of, in case he had himself offended the Romans by what he had done. Out of Herod's fear of this it was that he, by giving Antony a great deal of money, endeavored to persuade him to have Antigonus slain, which if it were once done, he should be free from that fear. And thus did the government of the Asamoneans cease, a hundred twenty and six years after it was first set up. This family was a splendid and an illustrious one, both on account of the nobility of their stock, and of the dignity of the high priesthood, as also for the glorious actions their ancestors had performed for our nation; but these men lost the government by their dissensions one with another, and it came to Herod, the son of Antipater, who was of no more than a vulgar family, and of no eminent extraction, but one that was subject to other kings. And this is what history tells us was the end of the Asamonean family."

15.174

"[174] And this account we give the reader, as it is contained in the commentaries of king Herod: but other historians do not agree with them,"

17.191

"CONCERNING HEROD'S DEATH, AND TESTAMENT, AND BURIAL.

[188] AND now Herod altered his testament upon the alteration of his mind; for he appointed Antipas, to whom he had before left the kingdom, to be tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, and granted the kingdom to Archclaus. He also gave Gaulonitis, and Trachonitis, and Paneas to Philip, who was his son, but own brother to Archclaus 1 by the name of a tetrarchy; and bequeathed Jarnnia, and Ashdod, and Phasaelis to Salome his sister, with five hundred thousand [drachmae] of silver that was coined. He also made provision for all the rest of his kindred, by giving them sums of money and annual revenues, and so left them all in a wealthy condition. He bequeathed also to Caesar ten millions [of drachmae] of coined money, besides both vessels of gold and silver, and garments exceeding costly, to Julia, Caesar's wife; and to certain others, five millions. When he had done these things, he died, the fifth day after he had caused Antipater to be slain; having reigned, since he had procured Antigonus to be slain, thirty-four years; but since he had been declared king by the Romans, thirty-seven. 2"

17.342

"[342] But in the tenth year of Archelaus's government, both his brethren, and the principal men of Judea and Samaria, not being able to bear his barbarous and tyrannical usage of them, accused him before Caesar, and that especially because they knew he had broken the commands of Caesar, which obliged him to behave himself with moderation among them. Whereupon Caesar, when he heard it, was very angry, and called for Archelaus's steward, who took care of his affairs at Rome, and whose name was Archelaus also; and thinking it beneath him to write to Archelaus, he bid him sail away as soon as possible, and bring him to us: so the man made haste in his voyage, and when he came into Judea, he found Archelaus feasting with his friends; so he told him what Caesar had sent him about, and hastened him away. And when he was come [to Rome], Caesar, upon hearing what certain accusers of his had to say, and what reply he could make, both banished him, and appointed Vienna, a city of Gaul, to be the place of his habitation, and took his money away from him."

18.26

"[26] WHEN Cyrenius had now disposed of Archelaus's money, and when the taxings were come to a conclusion, which were made in the thirty-seventh year of Caesar's victory over Antony at Actium, he deprived Joazar of the high priesthood, which dignity had been conferred on him by the multitude, and he appointed Ananus, the son of Seth, to be high priest; while Herod and Philip had each of them received their own tetrarchy, and settled the affairs thereof."

Wars Of The Jews

1.1665

"[665] So Herod, having survived the slaughter of his son five days, died, having reigned thirty-four years since he had caused Antigonus to be slain, and obtained his kingdom; but thirty-seven years since he had been made king by the Romans. Now as for his fortune, it was prosperous in all other respects, if ever any other man could be so, since, from a private man, he obtained the kingdom, and kept it so long, and left it to his own sons; but still in his domestic affairs he was a most unfortunate man. Now, before the soldiers knew of his death, Salome and her husband came out and dismissed those that were in bonds, whom the king had commanded to be slain, and told them that he had altered his mind, and would have every one of them sent to their own homes. When these men were gone, Salome, told the soldiers [the king was dead], and got them and the rest of the multitude together to an assembly, in the amphitheater at Jericho, where Ptolemy, who was intrusted by the king with his signet ring, came before them, and spake of the happiness the king had attained, and comforted the multitude, and read the epistle which had been left for the soldiers, wherein he earnestly exhorted them to bear good-will to his successor; and after he had read the epistle, he opened and read his testament, wherein Philip was to inherit Trachonitis, and the neighboring countries, and Antipas was to be tetrarch, as we said before, and Archelaus was made king."

CASSIUS DIO

"[3.5] Roman History 55.27 (begun in 202 and completed around 235 A.D.). Dio's history is annalistic (it covers events year by year), and for the year 6 he reports that Archelaus' brothers accused him before Augustus who then deposed him and annexed his territory to Syria. He clearly does not have his account from Josephus because Dio says he does not know why Archelaus was deposed (though he should if he had read Josephus), does not call him Archelaus but Herod the Palestinian (his political name; Josephus uses only his real name), and implicates his brothers as his accusers even though Josephus only mentions "leading men in Judaea and Samaria."

APPIAN

Appian, BC 5.75

Coins

"For corroboration, coins minted in Judaea by Roman officials begin in A.D. 6 (Burnett, Roman Provincial Coinage, 1992, no. 4954: note that his supplemental volume corrects a typographical error: the coin in fact reads "Year 36 of Caesar," i.e. the 36th year after Actium or A.D. 5/6)."

MATTHEW

TEXT

Matthew 2:

1 "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, Wise-men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying,

2 Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we saw his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

3 And when Herod the king heard it, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

4 And gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ should be born.

5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written through the prophet,

6 And thou Bethlehem, land of Judah, Art in no wise least among the princes of Judah: For out of thee shall come forth a governor, Who shall be shepherd of my people Israel.

7 Then Herod privily called the Wise-men, and learned of them exactly what time the star appeared.

8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search out exactly concerning the young child; and when ye have found [him,] bring me word, that I also may come and worship him.

9 And they, having heard the king, went their way; and lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.

10 And when they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.

11 And they came into the house and saw the young child with Mary his mother; and they fell down and worshipped him; and opening their treasures they offered unto him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.

12 And being warned [of God] in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.

13 Now when they were departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I tell thee: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.

14 And he arose and took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt;

15 and was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt did I call my son.

16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the Wise-men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the male children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the borders thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had exactly learned of the Wise-men.

17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying,

18 A voice was heard in Ramah, Weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children; And she would not be comforted, because they are not.

19 But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying,

20 Arise and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead that sought the young child`s life.

21 And he arose and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.

22 But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither; and being warned [of God] in a dream, he withdrew into the parts of Galilee,"

See also Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth.

Quirinius did not become governor until 6 CE. His census occurred ten years after the death of Herod the Great, who died in 4BCE. This contradicts Matthew's claim that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html

Conclusion "There is no way to rescue the Gospels of Matthew and Luke from contradicting each other on this one point of historical fact. The contradiction is plain and irrefutable, and stands as proof of the fallibility of the Bible, as well as the falsehood of one of the two New Testament accounts of the Nativity."

Opercularis 16:32, 26 Jan 2006 (CST)

The CTT article in closer look

The CTT web-site is owned by Glenn M. Miller , a "committed evangelical disciple of Jesus Christ", which certainly is no crime, but does of course give us some info on his stance.

The article in question is (as of this writing) latest updated September 1 1999, and is formed as quotations from the book The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible by Robin Lane Fox, an Oxford New College teacher of classical literature and history. Two other books of his, The Search for Alexander and Alexander the Great: A Biography, formed the background history of Oliver Stone's film Alexander.

The quotations are followed by Glenn Miller's comments/rebuttals, and I won't go into all of it here, but limit myself to a few highlights.

Were king Herod and Quirinius contemporaries?

Fox: The Gospel, therefore, assumes that Quirinius and King Herod were contemporaries, when they were separated by ten years or more.

Miller: I assume you mean contemporaries in office--they were certainly contemporaries in life...Quirinius, at the time of King Herod's death was doing military expeditions in the eastern provinces of the Roman empire (Tacitus , Annals 3:48; Florus, Roman History 2:31), with some evidence indicating that he either was a co-ruler with the governor of Syria (the somewhat inept Quintilius Varus) or at least placed in charge of the 14-year census in Palestine. Varus was famous for the later fiasco at the Teutoburger forest in Germany (9 ad) and at his appointment as Gov.. of Syria in 7 BC was largely 'untested'. The census was due in 8-7 BC, and Augustus could easily have ordered his trusted Quirinius (fresh from subduing the Pisidian highlanders) to assist in this volatile project. Herod I had recently lost favor of the emperor and was probably dragging his feet on taking the census--a process with always enraged the difficult Jews! This would have pushed the timeframe into the 5 BC mark, which fits the general data.

Note that Richard Carrier does not come to the coclusion that Herod (the Great or possibly Archelaus) were "contemporaries in office", both Fox and Miller might be wrong here. Carrier's interpretation is that Mary was mot yet pregnant when she visited Elisabeth, actually as much as 12 years might separate the bith of John the Baptist and the birth of Jesus, see Luke.

Also the "military expeditions in the eastern provinces of the Roman empire" refer to the campaign against the Homanadenses ("the Pisidian highlanders"), see The Date of Quirinius' Duumvirate in Pisidian Antioch, a campaign in Galatia, north of the Taurus mountains. As Carrier argues, it is unlikely that Quirinius should at the same time have been co-ruler of Syria south of that mountain range, and that he should have somehow been involved with a census in Palestine.

Also there was no "14-year census in Palestine", this is a misunderstanding of an Egyptian census that was made in support of a special Egyptian capitation tax on all Egyptian citizens aged 14 or above, see How Often Was the Census Held?.

It is not known exactly when the campaign against the Homanadenses was, so it is not known, if it was finished just prior to 8-7 bce. Also the censuses that Miller refers to might have been the oaths of allegiance to Herod and Augustus, where we only know (from Flavius Josephus) that the Pharisees refused. In the paragraph just before his Conclusion Conclusion, Richard Carriers writes this:

Carrier: And we have no record of such an oath in Judaea in that year or any year near it, despite the fact that Josephus usually records them: the last such oaths commanded by Herod were in 20 B.C. and in 8 or 7 B.C. Worse, this thesis is inherently implausible: Luke does not use the vocabulary of oath-swearing, nor does he describe such a process. For example, Joseph would not travel to Bethlehem if all he had to do was swear an oath of allegiance--that had to be done where he lived.

Did someone serve twice as legate of Syria?.

Fox: Luke's Gospel, therefore, assumes that King Herod and the governor Quirinius were contemporaries, but they were separated by over ten years or more. The incoherent dating is only the start of the problem.

Miller's response to this is covered on the "discussion" page in the section Did someone serve twice as legate of Syria?.

Was it a census conducted by Herod the Great?

Fox: Luke's Nativity story hinges on its `decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.' `Caesar Augustus' was the Roman Emperor, but if the Nativity took place in the reign of the King Herod the Great, the Jews were still Herod's subjects, members of a client kingdom, not a province under direct Roman rule.

Miller: You are somewhat mistaken here. It is true that Judea did not technically become a Roman province until 6 AD, but the facts prior to that indicate much tighter authority and control than your statement might lead one to believe. Rome did a military conquest before Herod the Great was even born. Pompey attacked Jerusalem and even invaded the Temple. was made a tributary (read: PAID TRIBUTE$) to Rome until Caesar defeated Pompey in Egypt around 48 BC. Herod the Great's dad had aided Caesar in that endeavor and so won the favor of Julius Caesar (and with it a procuratorship of, plus Roman citizenship and exemption from taxes.) Then in 47 BC, the daddy Herod appointed the son Herod to be governor of Galilee...still completely under Roman rule. He still had to be appointed tetrarch by Antony-- still a thrall, eh?!. He was also proclaimed 'king' by the Roman leaders (Octavius and Antony) in 40 bc--but he had to re-conquer the land from the Parthians, which he did in 37bc. As a 'client kingdom', they were still under the authority of Rome (all of the rulers, for example, were appointed--including ALL the Herods--and ratified by Rome.)

Miller: Actually, when I keep reading your paragraph, it sounds like you are calling Luke mistaken in referring to Rome as 'driving the issue' of the census. He is INDEED making that point, but HE is correct in that...The client-kings WERE still subject to Roman enrollment decrees. [see Blaiklock, The Century of the New Testament,(1962) and The Archeology of the New Testament (1970)]

It is true that Judea became a Roman province in 63 bce - the king and the high priest, who were brothers, were quarreling, the king wanting to be high priest as well. Both of them sent a letter to Pompei who had conquered Syria in 64 bce, and Pompei sided with the high priest - had he sided with the king, Judea would have become a client kingdom instead. Now, the high priest had a supporter, the self-styled king of Idumaea (Edom), Antipatros, who was made Roman representative after the matter was settled, and he was the father of Herod the Great. Anyway, the tribute paid would be an agreed upon sum paid by Antipatros, who in return himself had to figure out how to raise it in the first round. No Roman censuses would be required for that, why should the Romans bother with something that wasn't their headache? But also see Was it a Census Conducted by Herod the Great?.

Does taxation imply registration?

Fox: The status of client-kings in the Roman Empire left them responsibility for their subjects' taxation.

Miller: Not decision-making authority--they couldn't say 'no', but local execution of the enrollment process-"yes".

Miller here continues in the assumption that taxation implies enrollment, that is registration, but it doesn't, see same link as above.

Taxation or oath-swearing?

Fox: In AD 6 we do know that Augustus was enacting a new tax on inheritance to help pay for his armies;

Miller: BTW, the taxation to support his army, is the main reason it is believed that Quirinius assisted in the taxing of 8-5 BC...his extended military maneuvers on the Pisidian highlands (dating from around 12 BC) would have required additional financing...

Which wasn't a taxing, but an oath-swearing, see above.

When was the census?

Fox: however, the tax affected only Roman citizens, not Jews of Nazareth, and there was no need for a worldwide census to register their names.

Miller: Remember, the census in AD 6 is NOT the one of Luke 2.2 (of 8-6 BC.)...but the census of AD 6 DID hit the Jews pretty heavily...at least 600 talents as a nation acc. to Josephus (Antiq. 17.320; Jewish War 2.97--cited in Jeremias' Jerusalem in the Times of Jesus: An investigation into the economic and social conditions during the New Testament period,Fortress: 1969). As a national tax, it DID effect the Jewish folk--loads like this are ALWAYS 'distributed to the people'(!) in addition to the already oppressive tax structure of the Herods...

Miller: And Luke does NOT place the 'worldwide census' at the time of the AD 6 tax...but rather puts it some time BEFORE the Syrian-based one in 7-5 BC...

Miller: But more accurately, Luke was probably not referring to a taxation census at all--simply a "registration". Registrations were normally associated with (1) taxation (above discussion); (2) military service (Jews were exempt) and (3) special government "ballots". We have conclusive evidence that an empire-wide (in decree, not necessarily execution, of course) registration occurred in the time frame described by Luke! Martin [CKC:89-90] summarizes the literary, archeological, and iconographic evidence for this:

Miller: " A sixth reason for placing the nativity of Jesus in 3 or 2 B.C. isthe coincidence of this date with the New Testament account that Jesus was born at the time when a Roman census was being conducted: "There went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the IRoman] world should be registered" (Luke 2:1). Historians have not been able to find any empire-wide census or registration in the years 7-5 B.C., but there is a reference to such a registration of all the Roman people not long before 5 February 2 B.C. written by Caesar Augustus himself: "While I was administering my thirteenth consulship [2 B.C.] the senate and the equestrian order and the entire Roman people gave me the title Father of my Country" (Res Gestae 35, italics added). This award was given to Augustus on 5 February 2 B.C., therefore the registration of citizen approval must have taken place in 3 B.C. Orosius, in the fifth century, also said that Roman records of his time revealed that a census was indeed held when Augustus was made "the first of men"--an apt description of his award "Father of the Country"--at a time when all the great nations gave an oath of obedience to Augustus (6:22, 7:2). Orosius dated the census to 3 B.C. And besides that, Josephus substantiates that an oath of obedience to Augustus was required in Judea not long before the death of Herod (Antiquities I7:4I-45). This agrees nicely in a chronological sense with what Luke records. But more than that, an inscription found in Paphlagonia (eastern Turkey), also dated to 3 B.C., mentions an "oath sworn by all the people in the land at the altars of Augustus in the temples of Augustus in the various districts." And dovetailing precisely with this inscription, the early (fifth century) Armenian historian, Moses of Khoren, said the census that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem was conducted by Roman agents in Armenia where they set up "the image of Augustus Caesar in every temple.. The similarity of this language is strikingly akin to the wording on the Paphlagonian inscription describing the oath taken in 3 B.C. These indications can allow us to reasonably conclude that the oath (of Josephus, the Paphlagonian inscription, and Orosius) and the census (mentioned by Luke, Orosius, and Moses of Khoren) were one and the same. All of these things happened in 3 B.C."

Miller: What this means is that we have very, very clear evidence of an empire-wide registration in the time frame required! (How much more data do you need?!)

Now, there are two obvious problems here. Miller has previous to this operated with a census in 8-7 bce (where there happened to be an oath of allegiance), but now he wants us to have that be in 2 bce! Also Jews were not Roman citizens, obviously only Roman citizens could declare Augustus father of the (Roman) country! Being a citizen in a client kingdom does not make you a Roman citizen, not by itself at least. But see again Carrier's paragraph before his Conclusion.

First or before?

Fox: In Judea under Quirinius, we know from Josephus's histories of something more appropriate, not a worldwide decree but a local census in AD 6 to assess Judea when the province passed from rule by Herod's family to direct rule by Rome. Although this census was local, it caused a notorious outcry, not least because some of the Jews argued that the innovation was contrary to scripture and the will of God. According to the third Gospel, the census which took Joseph to Bethlehem was `the first while Quirinius was governor of Syria.'

Miller: I have already pointed out that 'first while' is probably a mistranslation of the text -- 'before' is more in line with koine idiom (see the reference of N. Turner, above)

Not complete agreement here. See Did Luke Mean "Before" Quirinius?.

--FreezBee 05:30, 7 Feb 2006 (CST)

Con

See CTT.

This article seems to be fully rebuttet by what it states in the PRO section. See : The Date of the Nativity in Luke by Richard Carrier

Opercularis 12:24, 31 Jan 2006 (CST)

External links

• RSV
• NIV
• NAB
• Zhubert
• Perseus
• HTML Bible
• BibleWiki
• The Date of the Nativity in Luke by Richard Carrier