JFJ Forums

In order to show just how ridiculous the New Testament’s account of the Census is, I am creating rules for a mock census to be taken in 2010 in the United States.

1. A Census of The United States of America will be taken in the year 2010 C.E., in the month of March.
2. For the purpose of this census, The United States will consist of the fifty states, The District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, The U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam.
3. At any time during the month of March, all persons living in the United States or holding citizenship thereof must report to the Census office in the city of his oldest known ancestor to have lived in the United States.
4. Persons sixty-five years of age or over as of March 1, 2010 may register in the office nearest their residences.
5. Persons who are “severely disabled” (according to guidelines that shall be published under separate cover), may register in the office nearest their residences.
6. Persons descended from enslaved persons may register in the office nearest their residences.
7. Persons of indigenous origins (I.E. “Indians” or Inuits), may register in the office nearest their residences, whether they live on reservations or not.
8. Penalties for non-compliance will be severe and will be published under separate cover.

Anybody with half a brain can see how ludicrous this is now, and how much more so it would have been in the first century B.C.E.

In case, you can’t see it, here are some of the problems.
1. People would be traveling every which way during the entire month of March, overburdening highways, railways, airports and air routes, and all other means of transportation.  Commerce would be severely disrupted by this without even taking into account that everybody must take time off from work to do this.
2. Emergency Services, which would already be stretched to the breaking point, would be further burdened by the fact that all emergency service workers must also participate in the census, thus taking several days off during the month of March.
3. Ordinary services needed by travelers, such as hotel service, food service, airline service, train service, bus service, etc. would similarly be burdened by people having to take off during March.
4. Crime would be rampant as police, who would already be burdened by traffic control and other crowd management tasks, would not be able to deal with crime.  The requirement of police to participate in the census would make it even worse.
5. In the first century B.C.E, if you did not know your place of origin, you could not contact far off relations by telephone or internet to try to get family information.
6. In the first century B.C.E, transportation was much more primitive, and took much longer.  Not only did they not have busses, trains, planes, or automobiles, but it was not possible to make advance reservations.  Nor was it possible to make hotel reservations far from home.
7. Having a census of this nature would create a national security nightmare of untold proportions. We would be subject to terrorist attacks, attacks with WMD’s and even conventional military attacks.  We couldn’t possibly respond given the chaos.  Similar exposures would have existed in the first century B.C.E.
8. If somebody misrepresented his origin to avoid traveling, there would have been no way to check in the first century B.C.E.  In the twenty-first century, it might be possible to check, if the computer and telephone networks were not incapacitated by the census lunacy.
9. As we saw in New Orleans, even one city could not be evacuated on a timely basis.  Such a census would entail two-way traffic into and out of every city.    

Shlomo says:
"Anybody with half a brain can see how ludicrous this is ...."

Really?  Which half?

I ask this, because as the Romans primarily taxed though land and poll (end-destination) taxes.  The first widespread Roman Census took place in Italy, Greece, Egypt, and the Turkish provinces in or about 20 B.C.  If I am not mistaken, this was in the wake of a successful subjugation and polling of Spain and the province of Galatia in 23 B.C.  after the 20 B.C. success, thereafter in 14 year cycles, adjustments were made to poll and land tax rates, based on Census figures.
   In 6 B.C., the Roman Senate under Augustus had the decree go forth when or  "hegemoneuontos tes Syrias Kyreniou"  -- while Cyrenius was in charge of the Presidency of Syria after the manner of a procurator ... and not a legatus.  In other words, he was like an Inspector general of the Census in all the territories under the jurisdiction of the defatco Syrian President.  At the time, Cyrenius (having no Q in the Greek alphabet, hence Cy to the Greeks instead of Qui)  was already running Cyrene of Libya and Crete (which he continued to do until 2 B.C.)  That is, for much of the rest of the Empire, the records were already caught up, and a matter of formality and adjustments...except in the East, and in his own province.

So, with half a brain, we can artistically show a map of the Middle East sector of the Roman Empire, measuring a territory of about 400 by 500 miles, and then make selective little pock marks around the Empire...perhaps whole sectors Illyricum, and parts of North Africa as well.  When the first census after many decades (if I remember correctly) was made to reduce the post-civil war Roman Senate in circa 27 B.C. from 1000 to 600, to which Gaul reacted by going into riot and revolts.

In the Gospel account, it says that the decree went forth (Luke 2:1).  It does NOT say, in all parts of the Empire - the decree was entirely carried out in x-number of days or weeks.  It was a decree that took months of organized logistics to perform, and fill this or that map in as being complete.  You would have it done in a day, or as Augustus might say, "As fast as you can cook asparagus.'

In fact, the first census of 27 B.C. led into an on-going process which Augustus almost immediately instituted as a means of evolving the Roman Government in successive orders, especially between 23 and 15 B.C.   In these years, you basically had an extention of the First Census of Augustus working and reworking in stages.  Augustus was reforming and readministrating the system of Government toward greater efficiency from top to bottom.   It would have gradually had the kinks worked out over a number of years.  

When Augustus had the Great Census of Rome in 6 B.C., the one Luke mentions, the superstar or golden boy, the whiz of administration  was "Cyrenius", who appears to have acted almost as if a co-Caesar for the purposes ONLY of the Census in the East.  When Augustus was reordering the Eastern half of the Empire in 21 B.C., he did so from Samos in the Aegean, while in recuperation from a combination of not being able to be in the sun, and allergies. This may have been a reaction to a massive plague that devastated central Italy in 23 B.C. (the next came in 65, then 79 A.D.); but we don't know. Having contracted and survived the plague is a likely scenario, and there are medical arguements over whether Syphillis came at this time or a few decades later in the First Century A.D.

A few years later, in 17-16 B.C., Augustus chose to reorder the Western half of the Empire from Tarroco, Spain.  Therefore, by 6 B.C., Caesar was organized in what he wanted, and what parts of his map of the Roman World needed to be organized, and colored in, and how.  He did this super-administration through the super census, which actual made Rome profitable, and reduced tax rates on the Imperial level (not neccesarily the provincial).

Or we can use the other half of the brain, and reason.  The Jew in Diaspora naturally sent finances to Jerusalem about every 5 years any way.  So already we know the Diaspora was organized.  In fact, Ephesus of Asia was joined with Cyrene of Africa and Cilicia (of ancient Turkey) in having their own synagogue in Jerusalem.  Out of 500 that existed in Jerusalem,  why couldn't Corinth have had a synagogue with the Jews of Rome in Jerusalem, for example?  And instead of sending some one who was a resident Jew of Rome, have sent back only those who refused to immediately join themselves to the Diaspora city or province they now resided?    Hence, Jews who became part of Alexandria, stayed there if they joined as citizens; and only those who chose not to be of Egypt since the last regional census there, had to return to Israel.  

So again, now we are down to a 400 by 500 square mile territory, roughly speaking.  In that area, more than 90% would not have moved more than 100 miles (or 3 days journey) from where they were born.  Segregation was a norm, and you tended to stay among your own kind, even if you were a merchant or trader abroad.  If you settled elsewhere, you created segregated communities and stuck together whenever possible.  

Did the Jews of Babylonia return to Israel?  No.  They joined to the territories in Babylonia, and registered there.   Luke 2:3 not only implies Joseph, but a great number of those who had settled in Galilee (the house of Shammai / Saducees) also had to make the pilgrimmage to this tribal designation point.  Was it hard for the sons of Israel?  No.  Every high festival, 3,000,000 plus gathered to their banners in an around the small city of Jerusalem to offer up sacrifice.  These guys would laugh on how short a 6 hour line at the airport is in our day.  So to go to a tribal territory when the average Israeli already did something similar up to 8 times a year...big deal.

And if we look more closely at Gaul, or Syria, it was easy in their day to act like Indians calling a gathering of the clans than in our day.  Most of us are so mixed up in genealogy, we have 4 or 5 bloods in us, even if we are labeled Caucasian or some other ethnicity.  We no longer are Irish living in Irish only neighborhoods...we're virtually all mixed in with English, German, Swedish, Italian, or some from this continent, some from that continent, and so on.

If you really understood the gradual progress of governmental development, be it in Rome's First Century B.C. era, or how Colonial America began and grew its progress and governments out into the West, you wouldn't scoff at this Roman Census mentioned by Luke  so loudly.  

Hi,

Happy new year 2007 to everyone on this board.

Shlomo,


Your arguments are invalid because your premise itself is flawed. Where does it say in Luke that all this had to happen within one month or where do you  mention the census cycle timeline required to complete all of this? In your premise by inserting timelines, like the month of march, you have in essense created a logical basis for a true conclusion stemming from a valid argument, but with a false comparative premise- A classic case of a logical fallacy( a fallacious reductio ad absurdum).


Now, was Luke talking about just one empire-wide census?
No, according to Roman historian A. N. Sherwin White,  The censuses were taken in different provinces over a period of time.

Luke uses the present tense to indicate that Augustus ordered censuses to be taken regularly throughout the empire rather than only one time.

Second, papyri collected in Egypt, have shown that the Romans undertook periodic censuses throughout their empire. In Roman Egypt, for example, from A.D. 33 until 257 A.D., 258 different censuses were taken at 14-year intervals. This evidence has been known for a number of years, and substantiates Luke’s reference to Augustus’ census. Even if this is disputed, Roman census cycles were atleast 5 years many times subject to constant disruptions due to the unwieldy size of the empire.

For proof outside of the bible, The famous Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus says that Quirinius was conducting a census in Syria at the time Judaea was annexed which incidentally is the census of 6AD that Luke was talking about.


Thanks,
Nick

Well, that may be the case, but they certainly did not want to endanger the empire militarily, or disrupt the Roman imperial system!  Taking a census as described in Luke surely would have done that, even in limited to a small portion of the empire.  

Furthermore, if they were so callous as to do it anyhow, there would be many stories of hardship in many places, not just a single manger story.  There would have been such a major disruption of everyday life that the stories would not have all been lost to history.

Also, people living in all different places would have been able to compare notes; surely the powers there were would not have wanted that!  

I’m not saying that there was no census.  I’m only saying that it could not have happened the way they said in Luke.  It would be so much easier for the census takers and the census “takees’ to register in the place that they live.   The census takers would not have created such an overhead for themselves, even if they didn’t care about the general public!

  how do you know it would be easier?  you are thinking in the twenty-first century knowledge when all this occurred in the around the 6th century.

they had to register in the town they were born because thats where their records were. they didnt have computers or other modern communications ya know.

The author of Luke writes: "Now it came about in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all were proceeding to register for the census, everyone to his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, in order to register, along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was pregnant" (Luke 2:1-5).


Note that it says "all the inhabited earth."  Of course, this really only mean what's under Roman control.  Certainly this wording clearly is talking about doing the entire empire in a limited amount of time.

Furthermore, a census taken in this manner would be notriously inaccurate!  I'm sure that the census takers wanted an accurate census!

Shlomo writes:
"... a census taken in this manner would be notriously inaccurate!  I'm sure that the census takers wanted an accurate census!"


  

       
 

& all that




Since Shlomo ignored an above historical refresher, I'll repeat it here:

the Romans primarily taxed though land and poll (end-destination) taxes.  The first widespread Roman Census took place in Italy, Greece, Egypt, and the Turkish provinces in or about 20 B.C.  If I am not mistaken, this was in the wake of a successful subjugation and polling of Spain and the province of Galatia in 23 B.C.  after the 20 B.C. success, thereafter in 14 year cycles, adjustments were made to poll and land tax rates, based on Census figures.
   In 6 B.C., the Roman Senate under Augustus had the decree go forth when or  "hegemoneuontos tes Syrias Kyreniou"  -- while Cyrenius was in charge of the Presidency of Syria after the manner of a procurator ... and not a legatus.  In other words, he was like an Inspector general of the Census in all the territories under the jurisdiction of the defatco Syrian President.  At the time, Cyrenius (having no Q in the Greek alphabet, hence Cy to the Greeks instead of Qui)  was already running Cyrene of Libya and Crete (which he continued to do until 2 B.C.)  That is, for much of the rest of the Empire, the records were already caught up, and a matter of formality and adjustments...except in the East, and in his own province.

So, with half a brain, we can artistically show a map of the Middle East sector of the Roman Empire, measuring a territory of about 400 by 500 miles, and then make selective little pock marks around the Empire...perhaps whole sectors Illyricum, and parts of North Africa as well.  When the first census after many decades (if I remember correctly) was made to reduce the post-civil war Roman Senate in circa 27 B.C. from 1000 to 600, to which Gaul reacted by going into riot and revolts.

In the Gospel account, it says that the decree went forth (Luke 2:1).  It does NOT say, in all parts of the Empire - the decree was entirely carried out in x-number of days or weeks.  It was a decree that took months of organized logistics to perform, and fill this or that map in as being complete.  You would have it done in a day, or as Augustus might say, "As fast as you can cook asparagus.'

In fact, the first census of 27 B.C. led into an on-going process which Augustus almost immediately instituted as a means of evolving the Roman Government in successive orders, especially between 23 and 15 B.C.

In these years, you basically had an extention of the First Census of Augustus working and reworking in stages.  Augustus was reforming and readministrating the system of Government toward greater efficiency from top to bottom.   It would have gradually had the kinks worked out over a number of years.