Census of Roman citizens under Augustus

[spin]

When the Lucan account cites the registration under Quirinius, while mentioning a census of all the world, it rather clear that the writer is confused. On the one hand there is mention of a universal "registration" by Augustus which involved Roman citizens throughout the empire, while on the other hand the "registration" under Quirinius involved the liquidation of the Judean state after the removal of Archelaus by assessing the all property in Judea. These are two different types of registration. Beside the fact that the two are in conflict, neither of them provide a serious context for the narrative of Luke. Jewish peasants are unlikely candidates for Roman citizens and the Lucan Joseph is an unlikely candidate for owning property in Judea, being an inhabitant in central Galilee.

We know that the writer was committed to the Nazareth home of the family, so had to devise a mechanism to justify the move from Nazareth to the prophesied birth of the messiah in Bethlehem. The writer of Matthew had a different commitment, which involved a settling of the competing hometowns of Jesus, starting with Bethlehem and the birth there, the family settling to Nazareth after the Egyptian vacation (2:23), and Jesus finally moving to Capernaum (4:13).

Luke instead opted for the one hometown, making Bethlehem a sojourn and totally downplaying Capernaum. This meant the need for a way to get Joseph et altri to Bethlehem, hence the artificial logic of the registration. The use of the assessment of Judea by Quirinius as a motivation for the journey can only work if we forget that Joseph lived in another state, that of Herod Antipas, and supposedly had to cross over into Judea to fullfill his obligation. One could of course invent a scenario that this Galilean peasant owned property in Bethlehem, but you need to keep a straight face suggesting it.

[stephan happy huller]

Since the Marcionite text 'substituted' Bethsaida for Nazareth at the beginning of the narrative (so Ephrem) and the Marcionites did not hold that Jesus have a hometown, the addition of the census can again be inferred to be a secondary development.

[spin]

Since the Marcionite text 'substituted' Bethsaida for Nazareth at the beginning of the narrative (so Ephrem) and the Marcionites did not hold that Jesus have a hometown, the addition of the census can again be inferred to be a secondary development.

That's interesting, considering Tertullian says Marcion's gospel starts with Christ going down to Capernaum. What's the exact reference?

[stephan happy huller]

Yes it is one of the key reasons I don't think Tertullian and Epiphanius had an actual copy of Marcion's canon. They were copying the same source (Irenaeus?) that first mentioned Capernaum in the treatment of the gospel and the section with Abraham being justified by faith in the Apostolikon (even though Origen/Justin mentions an important textual variant in Gal 1:1 ignored by both our sources). The reference is:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ad1JAA ... on&f=false

[MrMacSon]

Christ, going down to Capernaum? Jesus Christ? in what context?

[spin]

Christ, going down to Capernaum? Jesus Christ? in what context?

From Tertullian, Contra Marcion Bk 4, 7:

• In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius (for such is Marcion's proposition) he "came down to the Galilean city of Capernaum," of course meaning from the heaven of the Creator, to which he had previously descended from his own. What then had been his Course, for him to be described as first descending from his own heaven to the Creator's?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Anyway, just my 2 cents. I'd be interested to understand why people have taken the passage to mean that everyone had to go back to the place of their ancestors.

It's because that's what it says. "...because he was of the House and lineage of David." That's it.

Couple other things - Joseph was not a Roman citizen, so whatever the Romans required for Roman citizens had no application to local peasantry. Also, the census of Quirinius did not apply to Galilee, so Joseph would have never had to go anywhere. NOBODY in Galilee had to register for the census of 6-7 CE.

[spin]

Yes it is one of the key reasons I don't think Tertullian and Epiphanius had an actual copy of Marcion's canon. They were copying the same source (Irenaeus?) that first mentioned Capernaum in the treatment of the gospel and the section with Abraham being justified by faith in the Apostolikon (even though Origen/Justin mentions an important textual variant in Gal 1:1 ignored by both our sources).

I never hold out for much useful content from Epiphanius, but I'd think it hard for you to make your claim about what either author seem to be doing in presenting Marcion's gospel. I'd have to see the full argument for your claims on Abraham.

The reference is:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ad1JAA ... on&f=false

This is a secondary source on the issue. Too bad one has to find Mösinger's edition of Ephrem.

[GakuseiDon]

Anyway, just my 2 cents. I'd be interested to understand why people have taken the passage to mean that everyone had to go back to the place of their ancestors.

It's because that's what it says. "...because he was of the House and lineage of David." That's it.

Wow. Is that it? I always assumed that there was something in the NT that said everyone had to go back to the place of their ancestors for the census. But really, it just says "Joseph went back to HIS city which was Bethlehem". The "because he was of the lineage of David" part relates to Joseph alone. The inference that it applied to everyone else could be read into it of course; but I thought it was outrightly expressed. When I read the passage I thought "What if Joseph really was from Bethlehem"?

Couple other things - Joseph was not a Roman citizen, so whatever the Romans required for Roman citizens had no application to local peasantry. Also, the census of Quirinius did not apply to Galilee, so Joseph would have never had to go anywhere. NOBODY in Galilee had to register for the census of 6-7 CE.

Oh, I'm not trying to prove anything here. It's all fiction as far as I'm concerned. Just trying to understand the whole "Bible said that everyone had to go back to the place of their ancestors" thingy. Anyway, I'll leave off now. Thanks for the response Diogenes.

[stephan happy huller]

I never hold out for much useful content from Epiphanius, but I'd think it hard for you to make your claim about what either author seem to be doing in presenting Marcion's gospel. I'd have to see the full argument for your claims on Abraham.

stephan happy huller wrote:
The reference is:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ad1JAA ... on&f=false
This is a secondary source on the issue. Too bad one has to find Mösinger's edition of Ephrem.

Well I didn't have access to McCarthy right now. It's page 186.

A partial attempt on Galatians would be as follows. There are four references to the subject that I know offhand. The earliest:

Vain, too, is [the effort of] Marcion and his followers when they [seek to] exclude Abraham from the inheritance, to whom the Spirit through many men, and now by Paul, bears witness, that "he believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness." And the Lord [also bears witness to him,] in the first place, indeed, by raising up children to him from the stones, and making his seed as the stars of heaven, saying [Irenaeus Adv Haer 3.8.1]

But when he also adds, ".For ye are all the children of faith," it becomes dear that what the heretic's industry erased was the mention of Abraham's name; for by faith the apostle declares us to be "children of Abraham," and after mentioning him he expressly called us "children of faith" also. But how are we children of faith? and of whose faith, if not Abraham's? For since "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness;" since, also, he deserved for that reason to be called "the father of many nations," whilst we, who are even more like him in believing in God, are thereby justified as Abraham was, and thereby also obtain life--since the just lives by his faith,--it therefore happens that, as he in the previous passage called us "sons of Abraham," since he is in faith our (common) father, so here also he named us "children of faith," for it was owing to his faith that it was promised that Abraham should be the father of (many) nations. As to the fact itself of his calling off faith from circumcision, did he not seek thereby to constitute us the children of Abraham, who had believed previous to his circumcision in the flesh? In short, faith in one of two gods cannot possibly admit us to the dispensation of the other, so that it should impute righteousness to those who believe in him, and make the just live through him, and declare the Gentiles to be his children through faith. Such a dispensation as this belongs wholly to Him through whose appointment it was already made known by the call of this self-same Abraham, as is conclusively shown' by the natural meaning. [Tertullian Adv Marc 5.3]

From the Epistle to the Galatians, number one in Marcion's canon, but number four in ours.
1. 'Learn that the just shall live by faith. For as many as are under the Law are under a curse; but, The man that doeth them shall live by them.' ...
From the Epistle to the Galatians
Scholion 1. 'Learn that the just shall live by faith. For as many as are under the Law are under a curse; but, The man that doeth them shall live by them.' [Gal 3:11b; 10a; 12b]
(a) Elenchus 1. The saying, 'Learn that the just shall live by faith,' as the apostle gives it is reference to an ancient scripture. Such things have been taken over by the apostle for our salvation, as statements from the Law and prophets (which are) about a new covenant and are conjoined with our hope.
(b) And he says, 'They are under a curse,' because there was a threat in the Law against Adam's disobedience, until the One who had come from above arrived, clothed himself with a body made of Adam's clay, and changed the curse into a blessing.
Scholion 2. 'Cursed is everyone that hangeth upon a tree; but he that is of the promise is by the freewoman.' [Epiphanius Panarion]

Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. Marcion omitted from his version of the Apostle's epistle this and the next two verses, and he resumed with the verse, “Those who have faith will be blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith." But what was the point of doing this, seeing that the parts he left intact refute his madness? Abraham believed God and left his homeland for a land he did not know ... 3.13a. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us. Marcion creeps up here with his talk about the sovereignty of the Creator, whom he maligns as a cruel, bloodthirsty judge, and with his claim that we have been redeemed by Christ, the son of the other, good God. Had he understood the Now if [Marcion] wanted to bind us by the testimony of the Apostle who says, “All who rely on keeping the Law are under a curse, for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all of the things written in the book of the Law and do them,'”56 and if he wanted to assert that everyone under the Law had been cursed, let us ask him whether or not those who under the Gospel of Christ but do not keep his commandments are cursed. [Jerome Commentary on Galatians, trans. Cain p. 139]