Talk:Census of Quirinius

However most Christian scholars

"most Christian scholars" is unsourced. A lot of Christian scholars kowtow to the mainstream academic view. So, unless the editor means that only fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals are Christians, there is no ground for their statement. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Some Christian scholars believe there is a contradiction, but by saying 'most' I am not implying that all Christians believe Luke did not make a mistake. So I am not saying only conservatives are Christians, but the majority of NT scholarship is done by theologically conservative Christians (see https://robertcliftonrobinson.com/a-list-of-conservative-and-liberal-bible-scholars/). The most prestigious Christian NT scholars are NT Wright, Darrel Bock and Richard Bauckham; none of whom believe that there is a contradiction in the Census.

Also if your problem is with the edit saying 'most Christian scholars', then I am fine taking that out but I don't see why you would revert it all. Samjmv003 (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The conditions for claiming something like "most Christian scholars" are defined at WP:RS/AC. So, it is your mere opinion that most Christian scholars agree with you. For a fact, liberal Christians (like the majority of Christian Bible scholars from the mainstream academia) don't have a problem with errors in the Bible (they gladly admit that the Bible is ridden with errors). Besides, you have also deleted long-standing sourced information, so the WP:ONUS is upon you on both counts. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

This shows https://robertcliftonrobinson.com/a-list-of-conservative-and-liberal-bible-scholars/ that most Christian scholars are conservative not liberal. I know liberal scholars admit the Bible has errors, but there are less liberal scholars than conservative and just because the Bible has errors it does not follow that Luke's nativity account is an error. I deleted an edit at the end since it was redundant to the topic, also it was not being unbiased it was trying to push an agenda.

If those are the only sections you take problem with I will revert my edit without those sections. Samjmv003 (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Samjmv003 Do you expect us to take Robinson seriously? The bio he wrote on Amazon gives him no credentials and all his books there are Kindle self-published.[1] Then see [2] and [3]. The guy's a bit of a nut, here's a quote from him:"After Jesus has completed the 1,000 year kingdom on earth, He will melt the universe with a great heat death and everything will collapse back upon itself. The destruction of earth and the universe will not happen until God says that it is time for it to happen. Man cannot destroy the earth or human life, because God has a plan that He has determined and no one can change what God has planned. During the seven year Tribulation described by the Book of Revelation, chapters 6-18, we see that the earth will be struck by Asteroid’s, and nuclear war will break out, as well as global warming will threaten the earth." Oh look, the tribulation is coming now.Russia Coming From The North: The Tribulation Begins If this is the level of source you expect us to accept, you don't belong here. One of the reasons I reverted you was the claim about "non-Christian scholars", probably based on Robinson. Doug Weller talk 15:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

"If this is the level of source you expect us to accept, you don't belong here." There is the question of competence here, but I would question whether Samjmv003 is simply trolling us. Dimadick (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Awery, just a bit of housekeeping. When you post new comments to this thread, the newest comments need to be put at the bottom of the thread. That's the only way others can easily keep track of how the conversation has flowed. The Harvard Theological Review probably is a prestigious forum. On the other hand, the paper on Daniel that you want us to use was not published by the Harvard Theological Review. It was published by JISCA, an outlet for advocating conservative religious views. This fits with the general trend we've already observed here -- the folks saying that Daniel was written in the sixth century don't publish in mainstream outlets, generally speaking. It's entirely possible that MacGregor has published all sorts of stuff in reliable outlets. JISCA, however, isn't what most editors here would treat as a WP:RS outlet. When a journal is dedicated to a particular religious view, that matters. Just as, for example, Wikipedia does not make use of articles published in Journal of Creation when dealing with the subject of creationism. The question I'd like to see answered is, have any defenses of a sixth-century date been published in mainstream academic outlets. And if they have been, are they the work of a tiny fringe group of scholars, or do they represent a significant number of scholars. So far, it looks as is the 2d-century date for Daniel assuming its present form is the scholarly consensus, although of course there are hold-outs in the religious world, just as there are hold-outs on creationism. Because of WP:FRINGE, Wikipedia generally doesn't make much use of those who hold out against academic consensus. I don't want to speak for Tgeorgescu here, but I don't think he's saying that Christian scholars are automatically disqualified due to their personal faith. Indeed, almost all biblical scholars that Wikipedia cites are either Christian or Jewish. There's only a handful of non-Christian, non-Jewish biblical scholars out there. We don't sideline the views of Christian scholars on Wikipedia, it's that we sideline the views of WP:FRINGE scholars, those whose views have been overwhelmingly rejected by the academic mainstream. Alephb (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Samjmv003: tgeorgescu (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Reference to Luke Gospel

After reading the article, I'm quite settled in my consideration that the reference in the gospel of Luke has been misapplied and mis-specified particularly with reference to the introductory discussion in the article.

The article says that Luke placed the timing of the Census but Quirinius in BC4 when it actually occurred in BC 6,..however a comparison of the following references using different bible versions paints a completely different picture:

Luke 2:2  (And thisG3778 taxingG582 was firstG4413 madeG1096 when CyreniusG2958 was governorG2230 of Syria.)G4947 [KJV STRONG] Luke 2:2  This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. [ESV] Luke 2:2  When this first census took place, Quirinius was the governor of Syria. [GNB] Luke 2:2  This was the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria. [ASV]

These texts shows clearly that Luke says this census was first made when Quirinius was governor, which could verily be in BC 6, and the reading of the texts shows reference to an earlier historical period as contrasted wit the time of the event of the Birth of Christ to which the primary focus of Luke is.

Furthermore, given that at this time the Roman Empire had reached what as come to be known as the Augustan Age [Height of Glory] and was a world empire in the actual sense. Taking logistics and planning, such a worldwide census would not have been possible within a year, but could have taken years.

I suggest that the census was started when Quirinius was governor in BC 6 and was continued to this time forcing Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem from Nazareth. Mcfaddent (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The census took place in 6 AD (a.k.a. CE, "current era") not 6 BC (or BCE, "before current era"). Luke's error is the smoking gun that the labels BC for "Before Christ" and AD for "Anno Domini" ('in the year of the lord') never made real sense. UpdateNerd (talk) 01:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Besides, the date is not the only thing Luke got wrong here. I'm not sure what is gained by the attempt to harmonize. Doric Loon (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

To do

Hi all. You'll notice I have just added a section on the funerary stele. I think it is important to give it this much detail, because the stele is not discussed anywhere else on the English Wikipedia, but I am aware that at the moment it looks like it is disproportionately long given the shortness of the article and the fact that the stele is a fairly minor element of the topic. However, I would like to expand the article in a couple of ways, and possibly go for GA status. Since I know other people are also writing here, let me get feedback before I go on.

First, I think this article should be laid out in a way that makes it clear that the historical census is the primary topic, and what Christians did with it comes second. (I raised this once before and I think there was agreement in principle.) So I've used the distinction between headings and subheadings to divide it into two main parts, first on the historical event, then on the Christian tradition. I'd like to expand the account of the historical event with more detail, and also add a subsection there on Josephus.

The discussion of Luke needs to go more into his use of the census as a literary motif, and focus less on whether he was historically accurate, though of course his inaccuracies need to be clearly stated - but they are not the most interesting thing here. It should also be mentioned that the census also appears in Acts.

The section on exegesis needs to go more into the theological aspects. At present it focusses only on refuting the silly arguments of fundamentalists, and again, while that needs to stay, it is not the most interesting thing.

And there needs to be some discussion of the census in European culture - we already have two excellent paintings, but the art history ought to have text too, and I suspect that if we look we will find studies of the census in literature.

I would be keen to put some more work into this, but not if it is going to be reverted by others who reject the concept, so I'd be glad of feedback and if possible consensus before I do anything more. Doric Loon (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

As someone who isn't deeply involved in this article and doesn't want to be, but who has sporadically edited and commented here, I think all your ideas sound good. A. Parrot (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Now that I’ve read them I agree. Doug Weller talk 18:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to undo some of your hard work, but per WP:NOTEVERYTHING I removed extraneous information on the stele. I tried to preserve as many useful details as possible. As far as your general observations about the article, seems like good thinking to guide the search for more sources. UpdateNerd (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd, WP:NOTEVERYTHING is a useful guidline when an article grows very long and wordy, but I've never seen it cited in an article as short as this one. At present this article is under a thousand words, so cutting details for the sake of brevity is really not where we are at here. To be honest, I can't think of any other motif which is as deeply rooted in our culture as the census at Bethlehem which has such a cursory article as this one. If we are going to fill this article out and aim for GA status, you are going to have to let it grow.

In particular, I can't believe you deleted the Breugel painting - if you think that is extraneous and off-topic, you have a very different understanding of the topic than I do, and we need to clarify that before we go on. To me it is clear that an article on the census is both about the original event and about the entire history of its cultural ramifications. Also, I'm seriously bothered that you have deleted the reference to the location of the stele in the museum in Venice - I do insist on proper scholarly documentation.

This is why I want consensus here before we continue. There is so much more we can do with this article, but there is no motivation for me to do the work if others are taking that approach. Doric Loon (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Moving onto trivial details, but WP:NOTEVERYTHING isn't about cutting things for brevity, but implies details should be curated based upon relevance. There's an important difference.

The Breugel painting could be put into a gallery or something but has nothing to do with the section it appears next to.

This isn't an art history article or about the stele or its subject, so which modern art museum it can be found in seems incredibly trivial, but I care little. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd, the problem, though, is deciding what is relevant, and you are taking a very narrow view of that. Your userpage suggests that that is a bit of an idée fixe for you. But fair dibs, it might be that my feelings about documenting images are also an idée fixe. The point is, though, I think this is (among other things) an art history article if we choose to include that aspect of the topic. Can we maybe hear from @A. Parrot and @Doug Weller on that point? Doric Loon (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

(To be clear, though: I'm not suggesting we write a lot about art history - just that we are willing to let this grow in whatever way the material leads.) Doric Loon (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any real disagreement, particularly the goal to "let this grow in whatever way the material leads". We might just differ on how much weight to give certain details as they stray from the census itself. I support the addition of all relevant, well-sourced information. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Cool. I love the Jan Luyken print, btw. Doric Loon (talk) 08:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

This article should be based on two legs - the factual history of the census, from Roman records, and the gospel story, which is well known to most Christian readers but is largely fiction. The associated art is fine for illustration, but is not notable enough to be a major section in itself and must pass the WP:UNDUE rule. Wdford (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Death date of Herod the Great

Currently the Lede states ". . . died between 5 BCE and 1 CE."

However, the following Section has "c. 72 – 4 BCE", and the linked article Herod the Great offers two scholarly estimates of 37–4 BCE (Schürer) and 36–1 BCE (Filmer).

Whence comes the Lede's 1 CE? It's only one year's difference, there being no historical Year 0 (although astronomers have to use one, because mathematics, so astronomical dates BCE differ from historical ones by -1), but in view of the sensitivity of dates in this context, precision or cited scholarly disagreements should be observed. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.101.197 (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The current range of 5 BCE to 1 CE was introduced by User:Springnuts in this edit: [4]. The edit summary mentions a range of scholarly opinions, but I don't see any explicit reference for these particular endpoints. --Amble (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe I took the range from Herod_the_Great - the section on his death. The key encyclopaedic point is not the exact range (though this is the range apparently) but that this article did not reflect scholarly uncertainty. Regards, Springnuts (talk) 07:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

From an earlier version of the linked article the earliest date (5BCE) comes from Barnes, Timothy David. "The Date of Herod's Death," Journal of Theological Studies ns 19 (1968), 204–219 07:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Springnuts (talk) 07:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Citing Liberty University

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Census of Quirinius. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not citing "Liberty University" but the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. If we're going to have a section on "Religious defenses" this is exactly the sort of article that needs to be referenced. StAnselm (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Should it be in a "Religious defenses" section tho? My reading of [5] is that we should be looking to cite Turner, Bruce[6], and/or Wright, but not confident i am getting the content issue correct. fiveby(zero) 18:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Divus303: What does it even mean based on the Greek translation of Luke 2:2? It does not seem to make sense. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Its argued that the adjective prötos used in Luke 2:2 should be read as "first" or "earlier" or "before," etc. Divus303 (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Divus303: Please read WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I am so sorry since religion is still bedrock of faith to many, people can get triggered at these topics. Kindly revoke my ban decision when I used JTES earlier. Thanks. Where can I submit an apology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.210.105 (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Have the census records survived?

Have the records of the Census of Quirinius survived? Were Joseph, Mary, and Jesus recorded in the census?

The story of the family travelling to be recorded in the census is widely known but I have never seen the follow-up detail mentioned, i.e. that the family was then actually inscribed in the census.

On the face of it, it seems highly unlikely that the census records bearing the names of the family threesome survived from ancient times, but is the fate of these census records known?

Did other censuses record the presence of the individuals, either before or after Jesus was born? Would a later census, if it had survived, throw light on the question of whether Jesus had siblings? Perhaps censuses were held much less frequently than in modern times. O'Dea (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

No, the Census records have not survived. They would have been kept in the Jerusalem Temple complex along with other centralised records, and were made for the purpose of taxing the population of Judea, and only Judea – the gospel claim of "all the world being taxed" was written some 75–105 years later, probably in Alexandria by someone ("Luke") who may never have set foot in Judea, and who was jumping through hoops to try to prove the fulfillment of a supposed prophesy regarding Bethlehem.

At the beginning of the First Jewish War in 66CE, which in part was fuelled by the onerous taxation of the Romans and their collaboraters the Temple priests, all the Temple records were deliberately destroyed by the rebels. Censuses (which were explicitly contrary to Jewish religious teaching) were not a regular institution, they occurred only when the authorities thought them necessary; most of the time they employed local tax gatherers who just extracted as much as they could from their locality.

If Jesus' family were in 6CE resident entirely in Galilee, which was under the direct jurisdiction of King Herod Antipas, they would not have appeared in Quirinus' Judean census unless Joseph actually owned taxable property in Judea – this is not impossible as other members of his and Mary's extended family may have lived near Jerusalem (such as Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptiser, whom Mary reportedly stayed with during part of their concurrent pregnancies), and the family's possible tomb was recently found in the area.

It's anyway quite possible that Joseph and Mary visited Jerusalem soon after Jesus' birth to offer the appropriate sacrifice at the Temple – pious Jews were also supposed to visit the Temple 3 times a year for Festivals, and doubtless many from Galilee regularly made the 3-day journey. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.245.32 (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The four canonical gospels could not get right the names of the twelve apostles. There is no reason to assume that they got right the names of Jesus's family. Even the names of Joseph and Mary should be considered owing to doubt. So, there is no reason to assume that Jesus's tomb has been found. Jesus himself has probably rotten on the cross, and he was then thrown to the garbage dump site.

And odd enough, at the indicated article there is absolutely no mention that the rebels have destroyed documents from the Temple.

According to Wallace, Catherine M. (2016). The Confrontational Wit of Jesus: Christian Humanism and the Moral Imagination. Confronting Fundamentalism. Cascade Books. p. 104. ISBN 978-1-4982-2890-9. Retrieved 2 December 2023. they destroyed debt records, not taxation records. Not the same thing. The difference: censuses were repeated after at least several years, while lending money happened permanently.

According to Swindoll, Charles R. (2020). Insights on Matthew 16--28. Swindoll's Living Insights New Testament Commentary. Tyndale House Publishers. p. 65. ISBN 978-1-4964-3617-7. Retrieved 2 December 2023. the Temple tax was more or less voluntary (i.e. not coerced). And probably they paid it only once in their lifetime, if at all. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

And no, Ancient Jews were not like Mormons, keeping lists of genealogies as a religious duty. For millions of Ancient Jews there were simply no genealogical records, and nobody would have kept genealogical records for a tekton like Joseph. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: That is not true. Flavius Josephus stated at the opening paragraph of his autobiography that he had his genealogy archived in the public records. Potatín5 (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@Potatín5:

Osuaggiefan November 9, 2023 at 8:25 amLog in to Reply

It seems to me that it is widely believed that in the era of the second temple Jewish people kept massive genealogical records in the temple. Why do people believe that? Is there any attestation for that either inside the canonical Bible or outside? Thank you so much for your time.

BDEhrman November 13, 2023 at 7:18 pmLog in to Reply

No, no attestation. Modern myth. Nothing to it.

BDEhrman November 27, 2023 at 12:03 pmLog in to Reply

1. There were no genealogical records in the Temple. If someone says there were, they’re makin’ stuff up. 2.Luke’s genealogy can’t be Mary’s. Read it closely: it goes to Joseph, not Mary, explicitly. The idea that it is comes from an attempt to reconcile the two by noting that the Infancy narrative in Matthew focuses on Joseph and the one in Luke on Mary so, hey, maybe they’re different genealogies. They are indeed different. But they are both of Joseph, not Mary.

Marc Lipshitz

Follow

I am an Orthodox Jew and have studied in Kollel and Yeshivah.5y

What happened to the Jewish genealogical records after AD 70?

There never were Jewish genealogical records. I don’t know who came up with the idea that all the records were stored in the Temple- the simple reality is that there were no genealogical records. Simply think about the impossibility of gathering and storing information in an era where travel between places took months or years….

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu:

The practice of recording the genealogies of Israel, especially the priests and the Levites, is evident in Second Temple Jewish texts, and they were used to authenticate proper pedigrees for marriage.

- Harrington (2022)

Quoted by Potatín5 (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Potatín5: JEWSISH GENEALOGY RECORDS? Were they lost when the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE? – Rabbi Skobac on YouTube

24:33 contrary to what people say ancient jews did not keep their genealogies 24:38 people tell you this all the time it's absolutely not true jews did not so some jew living in the 24:46 year you know 29 a.d he didn't know who his 24:51 great-great-grandfather was any more than you do they didn't do that but people think because they reading the 24:56 bible you've got all these genealogies this is what jews are doing the whole time no they absolutely did not do that 25:01 so they had two they had no sources of information they wanted to trace jesus 25:07 lying back to david because he's the son of david well what if you don't know who his great-great-great-great-grandfather 25:12 is well you got to make something up and so they came up with something 25:18 whether you agree with that explanation or not it's a contradiction

Are the Gospels Historically Reliable? The Problem of Contradictions on YouTube tgeorgescu (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Do we really need sources to specify that the Gospel writers were making stuff up? They were fiction writers, and they present a highly fictionalized version of Jesus. Basically, a fairy tale. Dimadick (talk) 12:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Academic consensus

This is an encyclopedia article about an event in history, not a Sunday school lesson. The stuff you quote is exactly what I meant when I referred to "desperate attempts of Christian fundamentalists to make the Luke story seem accurate". I have read it all before many times and it is all a load of tosh. The Luke story is objectively historically false. The dating is wrong, end of story, and even the sources you quote do not attempt to defend "Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David. " People did have to return to their homes for certain Roman censuses, yes, but the idea that someone had to go to a city of a supposed ancestor from a thousand years earlier for a census is absurd. Actual historians of Roman history, as opposed to "theologically conservative" propagandists, dismiss this story as laughable. However I do not believe in one person trying to force their view onto a WP article, if I were the only person saying these things I would accept consensus but I am not.Smeat75 (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Please obey WP:RS/AC. If you don't, then bona fide Wikipedians will have to revert your edits.

An article about a historical census should not give equal validity to mainstream history and religious apologetics; these two are simply not in the same league. If the IP calls that "POV" and "biased": Yes. We are biased. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: The historian Sabine Huebner disagrees; see [1]. Potatín5 (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Potatín5: Consensus isn't unanimity. According to Peter Enns, "You should also know that in virtually any academic discipline there is always a voice of dissent. This is good, but for the few names you list here, many more could be listed voicing the opposite view."

This version has now become widely accepted by the majority of New Testament scholars pursuing historical-critical approaches.¹⁰ [...] I turn to the question of the dating of the birth of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke not because I wish to claim that I have found the definitive solution to this puzzle, which has occupied the minds of New Testament theologians for centuries.

— from the horse's mouth

"This version"=Luke is in error. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

What is the point the point of discussing all the errors and outright fabrications in the New Testament, a collection known for constant contradictions and improbable narratives? Finding factual truths in these fables would be much harder. Dimadick (talk) 10:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Try to remember to keep a neutral POV. 2605:A601:A0CB:CD00:19B6:B42A:9E0F:F0B7 (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

"Neutral POV" means telling what they teach at the Ivy League, it does not mean halfway between WP:SCHOLARSHIP and true believers. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

This conversation is pointless. The article clearly labels the views of religious apologetics as such and doesn't attempt to justify them. WP:NOTAFORUM UpdateNerd (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Stele of Quintus Aemilius Secundus

I was disappointed to see that the reference to the Stele of Quintus Aemilius Secundus was deleted. The reason given in the edit summary was that the Syrian census was a separate census and thus "tangential at best". However, the title of this article is "Census of Quirinius", not "Census of Quirinius in Judea", and thus the Syrian part of his census-taking work seems to me to be entirely relevant here. Rather than getting into revert conflicts about this, I have created a new article on the stele, which you will find at Stele of Quintus Aemilius Secundus - I think it deserves that. However, I do think that readers searching for information on the census in Luke may find that interesting and helpful, and so there should be a link to it from here. I will start by making a "see also". Doric Loon (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)