Two things: we don’t know of an Augustan census as described by Luke, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Additionally, πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην which the AV translates as the “all the world” may have the rather looser meaning of “everyone”. It’s hard to see why Luke would invent a census which his contemporaries would have known hadn’t happened.
and
This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.
could equally be translated
This census took place before Quirinius was governor of Syria.
which resolves one historical anomaly. We don’t know if there was another census, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
If:
a. Jesus was not born in Bethlehem;
and
b. Birth in Bethlehem was considered so critical to a person's claim to being the Messiah that both Matthew and Luke were forced to pretend he was, with the latter inventing an entirely novel census process in order to explain it,
Then how did Jesus convince himself that he was the Messiah? Surely he would have known he wasn't, because he was born in the wrong place. (Your view seems to be that he genuinely considered himself to be the Messiah, and was wrong.)
_________________
Excellent question, Ricardo. Let's perform a little thought experiment:
Suppose an ancient questioner had said to Jesus,
Q: "You can't be the Messiah, for you were born in Nazareth, and there's a prophecy that clearly states you had to be born in Bethlehem."
YESHU: Does it say that? Quote it for me.
Q: "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah...out of you will come forth for me one who will be ruler over Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, from ancient times.."
YESHU: That applies to me.
Q: How so?
YESHU: My ancestor David came out of Bethlehem and I, through my father Yosef, came forth from the loins of David. So I too came out of Bethlehem.
______________
I'm not being cute. I really don't think the historical Jesus would have had any problem with that prophecy.
______________
Note too John 7:41-44 where the charge that Jesus cannot be the Messiah because he is not from Bethlehem is not given any kind of answer.
If the problem of Jesus' birth in Nazareth could be explained away so easily, then why did Luke in particular feel the need to invent the whole rigmarole about the census? Couldn't Luke just use the same argument?
I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, I'm just sceptical about reconstructions that are based on speculation about what we think people would do.
Here is my alternative explanation for the census narrative. Luke got the account of the journey to Bethlehem either directly or indirectly from Mary. Mary knew they were going to Bethlehem for some bureaucratic reason involving her husband, but didn't know what exactly, because a.) it was a long time ago, b.) she was very young at the time, c.) she had other things on her mind at the time, d.) Joseph sorted the details because it was his problem, not hers. Luke put together the best account he could from the garbled details available to him. Matthew, on the other hand, was a civil servant and familiar enough with Roman bureaucracy to know Luke's account made no sense, but didn't have a better explanation, so just stated baldly that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
Why do I think this is plausible? Because if Luke's account was purely and intentionally fictional, I think he'd make something up that made a bit more sense. I write stories as well, and sometimes the hardest problem can be getting one character from A to B in order for C to happen when there's no sensible reason to them to be in B. But if I do need to make up a reason, I'll make up something that makes sense; if I need to get Joe from Glasgow to Pembroke, I'll invent a legacy or something, I won't say 'In 1948, when Neville Chamberlain was prime minister, a census went out through all the British Empire, and so Joe went to Pembroke because he was a descendant of Henry VII.'
There, an explanation which is consistent both internally and with my subjective impressions of how people behave. And which is therefore, I submit, about as likely to be true as any other reconstruction that comes out of New Testament scholarship.
That's actually really interesting, and makes a lot of sense. For whatever reason I'd not considered the possibility of fuzzy recall being a source of error in the infancy narrative.
Ah, but he might have been, if WW2 hadn't happened...
As regards fuzzy recall, that might be the explanation for a good number of apparent inconsistencies in the Bible, or anywhere else for that matter.
/tangent alert/
It does, however, imply the naughty thought that (*gasp!*) Our Lady might not have been as perfect as she is sometimes depicted, i.e. Immaculate, Sinless, Assumed into Heaven, and all that sort of thing. If she could be mistaken, or inaccurate in her remembrance of her youth, then she must have been a Normal Human Bean!
@BroJames - All of that is a fair comment about the dating of the census. The other problem with the census, as it seems to me, is that it makes no sense for Joseph to register in Bethlehem just because he was descended from David. It can be argued, of course, that the text doesn't say that, but it's not clear what it actually does say, which is one reason why it seems to me to be a garbled account rather than a completely invented account.
@Firenze - Not sure if it was obvious, but I was referencing the fact that Luke says, or at least is translating as saying, that the census happened when Quirinius was governor of Syria, when the dates of his governorship don't quite seem to line up with the other events in the story. Although there are ways of getting round that, as BroJames points out.
What a lot of rigamarole! (sp?). I am genuinely surprised that there are still some who will try to find historical truth in the birth stories of Matthew and Luke (though theological truth might be another matter). Those stories are quite simply and obviously LEGENDARY, both with regard to Jesus' birth and with regard to the birth of John the Baptizer.
That has been so well demonstrated by Bart Ehrman, John P. Meier (a Catholic!) and numerous others going back a long time that I will simply direct your attention to them.
But do pay attention to my next Brass Tacks installments which, simply by by sticking to the earliest New Testament source strata (Paul, Q, and Mark) will make this clear without even having to take on those birth stories -- and without a lot of rigamarole.
But of course the birth stories are beautiful and theologically profound, even if the author/final redactor of Luke has to find some way of getting Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem for Jesus' birth, and knows nothing of an escape into Egypt, and the author/final redactor of Matthew knows nothing of Mary and Joseph being originally from Nazareth and has to find some way of getting them there.
At the risk of my incurring a Hostly admonition, will you PLEASE stop referring us to other sources, or your own 'Brass Tacks' stuff, and will you PLEASE stop lecturing us as though we're all inky-fingered Third Form oiks.
Rigmarole is in the eye (or mind) of the beholder (or reader).
<snip>Those stories are quite simply and obviously LEGENDARY, both with regard to Jesus' birth and with regard to the birth of John the Baptizer.
That has been so well demonstrated by Bart Ehrman, John P. Meier (a Catholic!) and numerous others going back a long time <snip>
On what grounds are they “simply and obviously legendary”? If it were so simple and obvious it wouldn’t need to be argued.
It certainly has been argued by the scholars you name, and by others. Your use of ‘demonstrated’ to describe their position implies a level of acceptance which their arguments simply have not attained.
What a lot of rigamarole! (sp?). I am genuinely surprised that there are still some who will try to find historical truth in the birth stories of Matthew and Luke (though theological truth might be another matter). Those stories are quite simply and obviously LEGENDARY, both with regard to Jesus' birth and with regard to the birth of John the Baptizer.
Who is looking for historical truth, as distinct from putting alternatives? You are the only one I can see on this thread who is interested in the Quest for the Historical Jesus, the modern Holy Grail. Its a spiritual and intellectual dead end James. Its only use is to give people academic click-bait, and to sell books to an unsuspecting public.
Why won't you engage with people here, in the forums, rather than just giving two or three word dismissals?
Further, why aren't the birth narratives just as legitimately a part of those Gospels as Mark? Why is earlier better? What is it better for? What is the point of the Gospels, in your view?
But of course the birth stories are beautiful and theologically profound, even if the author/final redactor of Luke has to find some way of getting Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem for Jesus' birth, and knows nothing of an escape into Egypt, and the author/final redactor of Matthew knows nothing of Mary and Joseph being originally from Nazareth and has to find some way of getting them there.
What are the grounds for the assumption that if something is not mentioned it is not known about.
If you asked me what I had eaten today and I said I’d had a boiled egg for breakfast, and sandwiches for lunch, would you say I knew nothing of the toast I ate alongside my boiled egg, the biscuit I’d had for elevenses, the Polo mint I ate when I took the dog for a walk, the cherry tomatoes I’d had with my sandwiches, or the nectarine I’d eaten afterwards. You wouldn’t even say my account was in error, just that it was not complete.
Too often, ISTM, people make assumptions about how the Gospels ought to have been written if such and such were true, and then when the reality does not match the assumption, conclude that events did not happen, or that the gospel writers were inventing.
Let me just throw in here one "cold shower" comment:
When I was a young teenager and first began studying the gospels, I was prepared to believe in the Virgin Birth as a miracle. What I was not prepared to believe, however, is that Mary (according to Luke) and Joseph (according to Matthew) could both be told by angels exactly who and what Jesus was destined to be, and yet when he began his ministry his own family thought he had lost his mind (Mark 3:20) and his mother and brothers* went over to Capernaum to try to seize him and bring him home, but he refused (3:31-34).
I take that last to rest on non legendary historical bedrock.
_________
*Joseph is never mentioned as being alive during Jesus' ministry.
That's a big fat so what from me. How many thieves were crucified next to Jesus (rhetorical)?
You are setting up your own straw men. Answer the questions you have been asked and stop posting stupid shit that people knew about 200 bloody years ago.
There are of course translational issues with Mark 3.20. Does οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ mean ‘family’ or ‘associates’/‘friends’, and who are the ‘they’ who were saying ‘he is out of his mind’. But even if we decide that it was Jesus mother and brothers who though he was out of his mind, why should that surprise us given that Jesus’ own disciples are consistently portrayed as misunderstanding the nature of Jesus’ messiah-ship?
He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end… the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God.
- nothing that would preclude her from misunderstanding his ministry.
It is indeed possible, I submit, that both Mary and Joseph didn't quite cotton on to the importance of Jesus' nature and ministry until fairly late in the day. I have heard it posited that Our Lady, in fact, prompted Our Lord - at the Wedding at Cana - to begin his ministry, being led by the Holy Spirit to do so, there and then.
As has been pointed out, Joseph appears to have dropped off the tree before Jesus began his ministry.
I think it would preclude her and surely his brothers from thinking that Jesus had taken leave of his senses just because over there in Capernaum he and his followers were being kept so busy teaching and healing and exorcising that they could not find time to eat.
What utter bull! Why should I have to do search? If your point is worth making, then make it. You said you wanted a dialogue, but that’s not possible if you’re going to dismiss questions with “go search.”
Is this place a hotbed of fundamentalists? I thought not, but I'm becoming unsure.
That’s because you seem to have little willingness to engage with others here—to listen to them, not just enlighten them. If you were to engage, you might learn things from the people you’re making assumptions about.
This is a place where people have little patience with being lectured or treated like the students of The Wise One here to teach us all (even if some of us think he or she is right about some things).
And this is a place where people expect those participating in a discussion to be able to explain their position cogently and then back it up.
LOL
Ship of fools indeed.
At this point I am going to ask everyone to review my last Brass Tacks installment (Sorry Bishop's Finger, if I think I should have my own day in court) and wait with bated breath for my next Brass Tacks installment.
LOL
LOL
Ship of fools indeed.
At this point I am going to ask everyone to review my last Brass Tacks installment (Sorry Bishop's Finger, if I think I should have my own day in court) and wait with bated breath for my next Brass Tacks installment.
LOL
Sorry, but my breath is not bated...
You can post whatever you like on these boards - within the parameters set by the Crew - but please don't expect everyone to engage with you if you can't engage with us in a meaningful manner.
I rather suspect we haven't much time before the hosts/admins come along, so...
I asked if you thought Jesus was dead or alive right now, and you got coy with me. Repeatedly. And you want to know why it matters.
It matters because his resurrection (or not) has a direct impact on the question of who he is. If he's just some dead and gone guy, well, I may not see the point of your fascination with him, but to each his own, knock yourself out, whatever. I suppose you'd find my academic interests similarly stupefying.
But if he is in fact alive. If, if, if...
Then we have to deal with the question of WHY he is alive, which is pretty obviously miracle territory, and that reserved to the power of God. Because the resurrection (if it happened) is clearly God's judgment on Jesus. His opinion of Jesus is broadcast loud and clear by the resurrection.
Which means that we suddenly need to pay attention to what Jesus said, and who he is, and now all the questions you've been considering take on significance--not just for dusty academics burrowing in a library somewhere, but for every human being. They matter. They matter intensely--if Jesus is who he claims to be. If God has endorsed those claims by raising him from the dead. Then your subject actually matters.
This is completely leaving aside the question of how such an event as the resurrection would impact our personal lives. But as you can see from the train of logic above, it clearly impacts your beloved topic.
Does your topic matter, or not? You insist that we should all be paying rapt attention. To which I reply, is Jesus truly, really, crassly, physically risen, or not?
Then you will know whether your topic is worth our rapt attention.
I take your question, Lamb Chopped, to be very sincere and important, and I will answer it I hope to your satisfaction,* but not just now. I want to lay some more groundwork first.
_______
*Indeed, I thought I did answer it, if somewhat paradoxically.
what installment? What are you talking about? Is this something on your website? If so, put it here. Copy/paste or just summarise in your own words.
It is already to be found on page 4 about halfway down and is titled
A FEW BRASS TACKS
May I point out, Firenze, that I am not engaging in nasty comments. But some people seem to think that it is nasty to espouse a different view from theirs.
A FEW BRASS TACKS
Let’s begin by trying to establish a few Jesus “facts” that most historical researchers can agree on, for they are found in the earliest available strata of New Testament writings, Paul’s letters and/or Q and/or Mark. (I will simply state all this without giving evidence for it, because that has been abundantly done by others – and I fear that much of this will despite that already seem somewhat “dry”.)
Yeshu (Jesus) was probably born in Nazareth of Galilee (not Bethlehem of Judea), the Jewish son of a construction worker tekton (Gk, often translated carpenter) named Yosef and a mother named Miryam. He had four brothers, Yakob (James), Yudah (Jude or Judas), Yoshe (Joses) and Shimon (Simon). He also had at least two sisters whose names and number are never mentioned.
If anyone had asked the people of Nazareth if there was anything special about the family of Yosef, they might have said, No. Or, they might have remembered that Yosef did claim to be descended from King David, a claim he may have based either on archival evidence or simply on a family tradition.
Davidic descent, however, was probably not considered all that important because David had produced numerous progeny and there may have been hundreds if not thousands of Jewish males in the time of Yosef who could claim descent one way or another from King David (such descent being passed on paternally.) Still, descent from David did suggest one significant possibility: In David’s lifetime, a prophet named Nathan had allegedly told him that a son of his body would always sit ruling from his throne. In other words, David was promised by Yahweh an eternal earthly kingdom(!), a promise which, however, came to an end with the defeat of Judah and their ruling class’s exile to Babylonia. After that, there were no more royal sons of David on the throne, and that held true through numerous subjugations to other nations, the Babylonians, Persians, Medes, Greeks (Ptolemies, then the Seleucids), and in Jesus’ day, the Romans.
However, because it was believed that a divine promise could not simply be set aside, the expectation had emerged among the Jewish people that a future “son of David” would yet appear, one who would be anointed, not with the mere oil of a royal coronation, but with the Spirit of God itself, in order that he might free them from all their enemies and rule with righteousness over a reconstituted Israel. And that specially anointed (“messiah-ed”) one, it was believed, would ultimately rule the world. Moreover, according to Nathan, Yahweh had promised that “I will be a father to him and he will be a son to me.”
Against that background, the boy Yeshu grew up in Nazareth.
To be continued. (I'm hoping this will soon get more interesting.)
Comments
Come on man (JBII)! Never mind the modern toss. What do you believe? 'strewth, you make me look transparent!
and
could equally be translated which resolves one historical anomaly. We don’t know if there was another census, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
That's actually really interesting, and makes a lot of sense. For whatever reason I'd not considered the possibility of fuzzy recall being a source of error in the infancy narrative.
Even now Ricardusian scholars are tying themselves in knots to explain this apparent error.
As regards fuzzy recall, that might be the explanation for a good number of apparent inconsistencies in the Bible, or anywhere else for that matter.
/tangent alert/
It does, however, imply the naughty thought that (*gasp!*) Our Lady might not have been as perfect as she is sometimes depicted, i.e. Immaculate, Sinless, Assumed into Heaven, and all that sort of thing. If she could be mistaken, or inaccurate in her remembrance of her youth, then she must have been a Normal Human Bean!
@Firenze - Not sure if it was obvious, but I was referencing the fact that Luke says, or at least is translating as saying, that the census happened when Quirinius was governor of Syria, when the dates of his governorship don't quite seem to line up with the other events in the story. Although there are ways of getting round that, as BroJames points out.
And, as I have asked the OPer before on more than one occasion (with no satisfactory reply AFAICS), does any of it really MATTER?
That has been so well demonstrated by Bart Ehrman, John P. Meier (a Catholic!) and numerous others going back a long time that I will simply direct your attention to them.
But do pay attention to my next Brass Tacks installments which, simply by by sticking to the earliest New Testament source strata (Paul, Q, and Mark) will make this clear without even having to take on those birth stories -- and without a lot of rigamarole.
Rigmarole is in the eye (or mind) of the beholder (or reader).
On what grounds are they “simply and obviously legendary”? If it were so simple and obvious it wouldn’t need to be argued.
It certainly has been argued by the scholars you name, and by others. Your use of ‘demonstrated’ to describe their position implies a level of acceptance which their arguments simply have not attained.
Who is looking for historical truth, as distinct from putting alternatives? You are the only one I can see on this thread who is interested in the Quest for the Historical Jesus, the modern Holy Grail. Its a spiritual and intellectual dead end James. Its only use is to give people academic click-bait, and to sell books to an unsuspecting public.
Why won't you engage with people here, in the forums, rather than just giving two or three word dismissals?
Further, why aren't the birth narratives just as legitimately a part of those Gospels as Mark? Why is earlier better? What is it better for? What is the point of the Gospels, in your view?
The OPer clearly has no intention of engaging in debate or discussion.
I shall go and have lunch.
If you asked me what I had eaten today and I said I’d had a boiled egg for breakfast, and sandwiches for lunch, would you say I knew nothing of the toast I ate alongside my boiled egg, the biscuit I’d had for elevenses, the Polo mint I ate when I took the dog for a walk, the cherry tomatoes I’d had with my sandwiches, or the nectarine I’d eaten afterwards. You wouldn’t even say my account was in error, just that it was not complete.
Too often, ISTM, people make assumptions about how the Gospels ought to have been written if such and such were true, and then when the reality does not match the assumption, conclude that events did not happen, or that the gospel writers were inventing.
When I was a young teenager and first began studying the gospels, I was prepared to believe in the Virgin Birth as a miracle. What I was not prepared to believe, however, is that Mary (according to Luke) and Joseph (according to Matthew) could both be told by angels exactly who and what Jesus was destined to be, and yet when he began his ministry his own family thought he had lost his mind (Mark 3:20) and his mother and brothers* went over to Capernaum to try to seize him and bring him home, but he refused (3:31-34).
I take that last to rest on non legendary historical bedrock.
_________
*Joseph is never mentioned as being alive during Jesus' ministry.
You are setting up your own straw men. Answer the questions you have been asked and stop posting stupid shit that people knew about 200 bloody years ago.
Mary had been told - nothing that would preclude her from misunderstanding his ministry.
Is that a trolling attempt?
As has been pointed out, Joseph appears to have dropped off the tree before Jesus began his ministry.
Could we try to get real here? I guess not.
That’s because you seem to have little willingness to engage with others here—to listen to them, not just enlighten them. If you were to engage, you might learn things from the people you’re making assumptions about.
This is a place where people have little patience with being lectured or treated like the students of The Wise One here to teach us all (even if some of us think he or she is right about some things).
And this is a place where people expect those participating in a discussion to be able to explain their position cogently and then back it up.
That ball has been in your court from the start. We’re still waiting for you.
Ship of fools indeed.
At this point I am going to ask everyone to review my last Brass Tacks installment (Sorry Bishop's Finger, if I think I should have my own day in court) and wait with bated breath for my next Brass Tacks installment.
LOL
Sorry, but my breath is not bated...
You can post whatever you like on these boards - within the parameters set by the Crew - but please don't expect everyone to engage with you if you can't engage with us in a meaningful manner.
BTW, insults don't help your case.
A little cooling off is always a good thing.
Or take it to a hotter place.
/Hostly Slurp
I'm sure I'll not be so lucky with my next installment.
May I, too, have a slurp of Lemonade?
I asked if you thought Jesus was dead or alive right now, and you got coy with me. Repeatedly. And you want to know why it matters.
It matters because his resurrection (or not) has a direct impact on the question of who he is. If he's just some dead and gone guy, well, I may not see the point of your fascination with him, but to each his own, knock yourself out, whatever. I suppose you'd find my academic interests similarly stupefying.
But if he is in fact alive. If, if, if...
Then we have to deal with the question of WHY he is alive, which is pretty obviously miracle territory, and that reserved to the power of God. Because the resurrection (if it happened) is clearly God's judgment on Jesus. His opinion of Jesus is broadcast loud and clear by the resurrection.
Which means that we suddenly need to pay attention to what Jesus said, and who he is, and now all the questions you've been considering take on significance--not just for dusty academics burrowing in a library somewhere, but for every human being. They matter. They matter intensely--if Jesus is who he claims to be. If God has endorsed those claims by raising him from the dead. Then your subject actually matters.
This is completely leaving aside the question of how such an event as the resurrection would impact our personal lives. But as you can see from the train of logic above, it clearly impacts your beloved topic.
Does your topic matter, or not? You insist that we should all be paying rapt attention. To which I reply, is Jesus truly, really, crassly, physically risen, or not?
Then you will know whether your topic is worth our rapt attention.
_______
*Indeed, I thought I did answer it, if somewhat paradoxically.
It is already to be found on page 4 about halfway down and is titled
A FEW BRASS TACKS
May I point out, Firenze, that I am not engaging in nasty comments. But some people seem to think that it is nasty to espouse a different view from theirs.
I don't give a shit about sincerity. This is not the point to be bringing in emotional considerations, or vague so-called spirituality.
Is the man alive, or not?
Let’s begin by trying to establish a few Jesus “facts” that most historical researchers can agree on, for they are found in the earliest available strata of New Testament writings, Paul’s letters and/or Q and/or Mark. (I will simply state all this without giving evidence for it, because that has been abundantly done by others – and I fear that much of this will despite that already seem somewhat “dry”.)
Yeshu (Jesus) was probably born in Nazareth of Galilee (not Bethlehem of Judea), the Jewish son of a construction worker tekton (Gk, often translated carpenter) named Yosef and a mother named Miryam. He had four brothers, Yakob (James), Yudah (Jude or Judas), Yoshe (Joses) and Shimon (Simon). He also had at least two sisters whose names and number are never mentioned.
If anyone had asked the people of Nazareth if there was anything special about the family of Yosef, they might have said, No. Or, they might have remembered that Yosef did claim to be descended from King David, a claim he may have based either on archival evidence or simply on a family tradition.
Davidic descent, however, was probably not considered all that important because David had produced numerous progeny and there may have been hundreds if not thousands of Jewish males in the time of Yosef who could claim descent one way or another from King David (such descent being passed on paternally.) Still, descent from David did suggest one significant possibility: In David’s lifetime, a prophet named Nathan had allegedly told him that a son of his body would always sit ruling from his throne. In other words, David was promised by Yahweh an eternal earthly kingdom(!), a promise which, however, came to an end with the defeat of Judah and their ruling class’s exile to Babylonia. After that, there were no more royal sons of David on the throne, and that held true through numerous subjugations to other nations, the Babylonians, Persians, Medes, Greeks (Ptolemies, then the Seleucids), and in Jesus’ day, the Romans.
However, because it was believed that a divine promise could not simply be set aside, the expectation had emerged among the Jewish people that a future “son of David” would yet appear, one who would be anointed, not with the mere oil of a royal coronation, but with the Spirit of God itself, in order that he might free them from all their enemies and rule with righteousness over a reconstituted Israel. And that specially anointed (“messiah-ed”) one, it was believed, would ultimately rule the world. Moreover, according to Nathan, Yahweh had promised that “I will be a father to him and he will be a son to me.”
Against that background, the boy Yeshu grew up in Nazareth.
To be continued. (I'm hoping this will soon get more interesting.)