Changes

Counterarguments specific to the revised translation, proposed by Heichelheim, have been few.  Most objectors have simply taken the position, expressed by A. N. Sherwin-White, that the proposed translation was implausible and could not be accepted without another such usage elsewhere in Luke's writings.<ref>A. N. Sherwin-White, ''Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press), p. 171, n. 1.</ref> But all would agree that, grammatically, the proposed translation is a possibility, and the grammatical construction proposed was common in the context of the Hellenistic Greek in which Luke wrote.  B. W. R. Pearson observed this high degree of attestation, even pointing to two examples in the New Testament (John 5:36, 1 Corinthians 1:25).<ref>Brook W. R. Pearson, "The Lucan censuses, revisited" in ''Catholic Biblical Quarterly'' (April 1999).</ref>  Given the relatively limited sample of writings from Luke (his Gospel and the Book of Acts), it is overly ambitious to expect to establish a regular linguistic usage that would exclude the possibility of a grammatical construction well known to his literary context.

Counterarguments specific to the revised translation, proposed by Heichelheim, have been few.  Most objectors have simply taken the position, expressed by A. N. Sherwin-White, that the proposed translation was implausible and could not be accepted without another such usage elsewhere in Luke's writings.<ref>A. N. Sherwin-White, ''Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press), p. 171, n. 1.</ref> But all would agree that, grammatically, the proposed translation is a possibility, and the grammatical construction proposed was common in the context of the Hellenistic Greek in which Luke wrote.  B. W. R. Pearson observed this high degree of attestation, even pointing to two examples in the New Testament (John 5:36, 1 Corinthians 1:25).<ref>Brook W. R. Pearson, "The Lucan censuses, revisited" in ''Catholic Biblical Quarterly'' (April 1999).</ref>  Given the relatively limited sample of writings from Luke (his Gospel and the Book of Acts), it is overly ambitious to expect to establish a regular linguistic usage that would exclude the possibility of a grammatical construction well known to his literary context.

More general objections include the argument that no such census prior to that taken by Quirinius occurred.  This criticism does not itself reject the alternate translation, but instead argues that, even accepting it, the account in Luke’s Gospel presents a historical impossibility.  Of course it is certain that Herod taxed his own subjects, in part to gather sums for the required tribute payment to Rome, and that this process that required the collection of census data.<ref>Michael Grant, ''Herod the Great'' (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1971) p. 171; cf. Josephus, ''Jewish War'' 1.14.14</ref> But the criticism is made that a ''Roman'' census, which would be different than simply one conducted by Herod, could not, and did not, occur before that conducted by Quirinius.  Cited in support is the fact that the Roman census of Quirinius in A.D. 6 inspired a revolt, and it is argued that any previous one would have likewise done so, and thus would be attested in the writing of Josephus (since, after all, he paid special attention to the A.D. 6 revolt).   

More general objections include the argument that no such census prior to that taken by Quirinius occurred.  This criticism does not itself reject the alternate translation, but instead argues that, even accepting it, the account in Luke’s Gospel presents a historical impossibility.  Of course it is certain that Herod taxed his own subjects, in part to gather sums for the required tribute payment to Rome, and that this process required the collection of census data.<ref>Michael Grant, ''Herod the Great'' (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1971) p. 171; cf. Josephus, ''Jewish War'' 1.14.14</ref> But the criticism is made that a ''Roman'' census, which would be different than simply one conducted by Herod, could not, and did not, occur before that conducted by Quirinius.  Cited in support is the fact that the Roman census of Quirinius in A.D. 6 inspired a revolt, and it is argued that any previous one would have likewise done so, and thus would be attested in the writing of Josephus (since, after all, he paid special attention to the A.D. 6 revolt).   

To begin with, the highly speculative nature of this line of argumentation should be noted.  It depends on assuming certain knowledge what various people, from the Jewish peasantry to Josephus, would or would not do.  And it also neglects the differences between the rule of Herod and the state of dominion a decade later.  But more specific problems present themselves.  One must ask, in what sense does Luke’s account present us with a “Roman” census?  Once the reference to Quirinius’s governing has been properly understood as not applying to a census under the reign of Herod and during Jesus’ birth, then the only implication of the census being “Roman” is the connection with a decree from Emperor Augustus.   

To begin with, the highly speculative nature of this line of argumentation should be noted.  It depends on assuming certain knowledge what various people, from the Jewish peasantry to Josephus, would or would not do.  And it also neglects the differences between the rule of Herod and the state of dominion a decade later.  But more specific problems present themselves.  One must ask, in what sense does Luke’s account present us with a “Roman” census?  Once the reference to Quirinius’s governing has been properly understood as not applying to a census under the reign of Herod and during Jesus’ birth, then the only implication of the census being “Roman” is the connection with a decree from Emperor Augustus.