Census of Roman citizens under Augustus

[stephan happy huller]

There are I believe no other references to Marcionite corrections in either Tertullian or Epiphanius but Jerome makes clear that Gal 1:1 was altered. Clearly Tertullian and Epiphanius were not developed from an accurate list of textual variants.

The heresy of Ebion and Photinus must be repelled because our Lord Jesus Christ is God: the Apostle, who was sent by Christ to preach the Gospel, denies that he was sent by man. Other heresies creep in the door and insinuate that Christ did not have a real body and that he is God but not man. There is also a new heresy that rips apart the incarnate humanity of Christ. The faith of the church, then, is trapped among formidable shipwrecks of false teaching. If it confesses that Christ is [only] man, then Ebion and Photinus gain ground. If it contends that he is [only] God, then Mani, Marcion, and the author of the new teaching all bubble up to the surface. Let each and every one of them hear that Christ is both God and man—not that one is God and the other man, but rather that he who is God from all eternity deigned to become man in order to save us.

We should be aware that the phrase “and through God the Father” is not found in Marcion's version of the Apostle. Marcion wished to present Christ as having been resurrected not by God the Father but through his own power, just as Christ says, “Tear down this temple and I shall raise it up on the third day,” and elsewhere, “No one takes my life from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." [Cain translation p. 65]

[MrMacSon]

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?

Cheers. It is interesting to delve into these until-now peripheral texts.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Gakusedon,

If we assume that Joseph lived in Bethlehem, and not that it was his ancestral home, then we have to wonder why he went to an inn to stay instead of his house. His failed attempt to get a room in the inn and Mary giving birth in a manger makes even less sense in this scenario.

The problem still remains that for tax purposes you need to know where someone is living now, not where someone lived before. Taxes had to be collected on a household every year. It is only important to know who lives in a household at the time that the tax is collected. Where they lived before is utterly irrelevant.

We can imagine several scenarios where one would return to another town to register for a tax census. One would be if you had two or more homes and you normally lived in one, but at the time of the census you were staying at another home. Another scenario would be if you lived in one place and were just visiting or working in another place.

The problem is again simply -- Why did not Joseph go to his own home instead of going to the Inn if he lived in Bethlehem? If he didn't have a home in Bethlehem, what was he doing there registering it as his home for tax purposes?

The best explanation is that the census is a badly thought out impromptu plot device. It is kind of like the "Mickey Finn" drug that is often introduced in detective fiction when someone has to be put to to sleep for a certain amount of time to further the plot. A few drops of the drug put surreptitiously in someone's drink seems to work perfectly and the unsuspecting person sleeps safely and soundly for as long as needed. In reality each person is different and a drug that puts one person to sleep safely, can kill or seriously affect the health of another person or might not have any effect at all.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

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]

So here is the original reference from Ephrem. In the case of the gospel we read:

But, in order that Marcion's lie be refuted, [the evangelist] said after this, He entered the synagogue as was his custom, on the Sabbath day.2 What was the custom of him who had come just now? He had come to Galilee and had begun to teach, not outside of the synagogue but within it. Since the matter was known through their cultic service, he [came] to talk to them about their God. Otherwise it would have been in order for him to proclaim to them outside their synagogue. He therefore entered Bethsaida3 among the Jews. [The evangelist] does not indicate that they said anything to him other than, Physician, heal yourself.4 They seized him and brought him out to the side of the mountain.5 It is not likely that the word they had spoken was leading them to anger.6 For, if he had been speaking to them concerning the Creator and [if] this was why they had given the response, They seized him that they might cast him down, why then did it not record in other places that it was like this too? That the people of the town hated him, there is this testimony: A prophet is not accepted in his home town. [Ephrem Commentary 23]

The context of the original Commentary on the Gospel of Concord [Diatessaron] is that Marcion's gospel resembles a Diatessaron. This is a conclusion drawn by Casey [not Maurice] from the wholly separate testimony of Eznik of Kolb. The claim that Marcion had a shorter version of Luke should come under serious review. Origen, Jerome and others all cast this into doubt (owing to the Marcionite gospel retaining elements wholly distinct from Luke). Why then do Tertullian and Epiphanius follow Irenaeus's lead? Could it be that he is there only source into the matter?

Think also about our other sources for anti-Marcionite statements - Justin, Theophilus of Antioch, Rhodo. What's the common denominator? All of these men are attached to the early Diatessaron. Just sayin'

[Diogenes the Cynic]

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"?

It doesn't say "Joseph went back to his city, it says:

ἀνέβη δὲ καὶ Ἰωσὴφ ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ἐκ πόλεως Ναζαρὲθ εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν εἰς πόλιν Δαυὶδ ἥτις καλεῖται Βηθλέεμ διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν ἐξ οἴκου καὶ πατριᾶς Δαυίδ

"[And] went up Joseph from the Galilee, out of the city Nazareth into Judea, into the city David, which was called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David."

It's obviously not meant to be read as Joseph's residence, nor is there any reason to think he was from there, or Luke would not have had to resort to saying he was a descendent of David. In verse 2:3, Luke does say "And all went to be taxed, everyone into his own city," but then he is immediately forced into a transparent contrivance for getting Joseph to Bethlehem all the way from some pissant village in a completely different Tetrarchy, completely out of the jurisdiction of the census in Judea. If Luke wanted his audience to think that Joseph was personally from Bethlehem, it would have been a lot easier just to say that (as Matthew essentially does) than to obfuscate with the "house and lineage of David" patch. There was no reason for Luke to do that if the sentence "Joseph was from Bethlehem" was available to him.

Plus, the addition of an inn to the story clearly marks Joseph as a non-resident of the town.

I just think the conventional view (that Luke used the census of Qurinius as a plot contrivance to get Mary down from Galilee so she could push that baby out where she was supposed to) is pretty solid here, and there really is no reason to assume that Luke meant to imply anything more than what he said. After all, we already know that he was making up everything else in the story. Bethlehem wasn't even inhabited at the time, and the existence of Nazareth is questionable as well.

[avi]

I just think the conventional view (that Luke used the census of Qurinius as a plot contrivance to get Mary down from Galilee so she could push that baby out where she was supposed to) is pretty solid here, and there really is no reason to assume that Luke meant to imply anything more than what he said. After all, we already know that he was making up everything else in the story. Bethlehem wasn't even inhabited at the time, and the existence of Nazareth is questionable as well.

Thank you. very nifty exchange with Philosopher Jay. Solid.

I am not writing here, to dispute your points, or challenge your narrative.

I simply wish to inquire, what does Joseph have to do with anything? Who cares where Joseph hails from? He is not the father of Jesus. So, what in the world does all this brouhaha about Joseph coming from or going to Bethlehem, have to do with anything? I don't disagree with your point about the paucity of inhabitants of Nazareth and Bethlehem. I disagree that it makes any sense to wonder about whether or not Joseph comes from timbuktu. Joseph is irrelevant to the Jesus myth.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Joseph is relevant to Luke's story only to the extent that he is needed as transportation for Mary.

[Bernard Muller]

Let's say someone called Romcitizenus lived (among non-Roman citizens) 80 miles away from Philippi, a Roman colony/city. The ancestors of that Roman citizen came from Philippi, including one called Romlegionnairus, a veteran Roman soldier who was given land close to Philippi in 42 BC or 30 BC.

From Wikipedia:

"The city reappears in the sources during the Roman civil war that followed the assassination of Julius Caesar. His heirs Mark Antony and Octavian confronted the assassins of Caesar, Marcus Junius Brutus and Cassius, at the Battle of Philippi in the plain to the west of the city during October in 42 BC. Antony and Octavian were victorious in this final battle against the partisans of the Republic. They released some of their veteran soldiers, probably from legion XXVIII and colonized them in the city, which was refounded as Colonia Victrix Philippensium. In 30 BC, Octavian became Roman emperor, reorganized the colony, and established more settlers there, veterans possibly from the Praetorian Guard and other Italians. The city was renamed Colonia Iulia Philippensis, and then Colonia Augusta Iulia Philippensis after January, 27 BC, when Octavian received the title Augustus from the Roman Senate.
Following this second renaming, and perhaps after the first, the territory of Philippi was centuriated (divided into squares of land) and distributed to the colonists."

Then replacing Joseph by Romcitizenus, David by Romlegionnairus and Bethlehem by Philippi, on Luke 2:1,3-4:
"And it came to pass in those days, there went forth a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world be enrolled --
-...
and all were going to be enrolled, each to his proper city,
and Romcitizenus also went up from XXXX, out of the town of YYYY, ... to the city of Romlegionnairus, that is called Philippi, because of his being of the house and family of Romlegionnairus,"

"Luke" might have thought census of Roman citizens just for statistics (and not taxation) was also done for all subjects of the Romans all over the empire.
Of course it was not the case, and Joseph was not a Roman citizen, nor Bethlehem a Roman colony, nor David a Roman soldier given land near Bethlehem. So "Luke" was wrong, if in my hypothesis, he/she transposed Roman procedures for census of Roman citizens for statistics purpose only to censuses of non-Romans in Israel or in "all the world".

PS: I am not sure "Luke" read (or remembered) the few lines in Josephus' Wars II, VII, 1. Anyway Quirinius is not mentioned here.
However he is mentioned in Wars, II, XVII, 8 & Wars, VII, VIII, 1, but did "Luke" see it? I wonder because "Luke" spelled Quirinius/Cyrenius differently than Josephus did: gLuke=> Κυρηνίου, Josephus=> Κυρινίου/Κυρίνιος

Cordially, Bernard

[GakuseiDon]

It doesn't say "Joseph went back to his city, it says:

ἀνέβη δὲ καὶ Ἰωσὴφ ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ἐκ πόλεως Ναζαρὲθ εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν εἰς πόλιν Δαυὶδ ἥτις καλεῖται Βηθλέεμ διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν ἐξ οἴκου καὶ πατριᾶς Δαυίδ

"[And] went up Joseph from the Galilee, out of the city Nazareth into Judea, into the city David, which was called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David."

It's obviously not meant to be read as Joseph's residence, nor is there any reason to think he was from there, or Luke would not have had to resort to saying he was a descendent of David. In verse 2:3, Luke does say "And all went to be taxed, everyone into his own city," but then he is immediately forced into a transparent contrivance for getting Joseph to Bethlehem all the way from some pissant village in a completely different Tetrarchy, completely out of the jurisdiction of the census in Judea. If Luke wanted his audience to think that Joseph was personally from Bethlehem, it would have been a lot easier just to say that (as Matthew essentially does) than to obfuscate with the "house and lineage of David" patch. There was no reason for Luke to do that if the sentence "Joseph was from Bethlehem" was available to him.

Plus, the addition of an inn to the story clearly marks Joseph as a non-resident of the town.

Really good points, especially the last! Thanks Diogenes.

[stephan happy huller]

spin,

Let's start with Schmid accepting the Galatians 1:1 reading as authentically Marcionite http://books.google.com/books?id=hneUeD ... 22&f=false

I am not sure that any of the 'variants' he cites for chapter 2 can be certainly established as such. They are minor variations which may well have been found in Tertullian's source. Interestingly all our sources converge on chapter 3:

3:6 - 9 missing
3:9 addition
3:14a - missing
3:15 - 18 missing

Schmid cites the 'detailed analysis' of Baarda (Tjitze Baarda, "Marcion's text of Gal 1:1: Concerning the Reconstruction of the first verse of the Marcionite Corpus Paulinum,” VC 42, no. 3 (1988): 236—2 56, esp. 251. Baarda, “Marcion's Text of Gal 1:1,” 240—242.

Baarda, “Marcion's Text of Gal 1:1,” 240—242. Hilgenfeld thought that Jerome utilized a Marcionite source, probably the Apostolikon, for his comments on Marcion's text. Baarda, concluded that the subsequent citations from John in the passage are much less polemical than would be expected from Jerome and are more in keeping with Origen's style of argumentation.