The census in Luke a historical absurdity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RCWarrior821
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RCWarrior821

Guest
In my college New Testament Literature course we went over the birth narratives in the Gospel of Matthew and Luke. He pointed out that one of the Messianic prophesies was that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. He claims the Luke attempted to created a scenario that would make it plausible for Mary and Joseph to go to Bethlehem even though the live in Galilee. He then stated that the census in Luke is a historical absurdity!

Because:
No record of a governor
No record of a census taking place
and
Who ever heard of going back, for a census, to the place of your 1000 year old ancestors.

I also so a similar argument in the God Delusion. How does the Church or any good Catholic author refute this?
 
Now, let us remember a few things about Luke’s account:
a) It is an account of a tribal people living over 2000 years ago.
b) The absence of historical records does not equal the absence of history.

With these two facts in mind, how can you say it is “absurd” that Joseph would have to go to the city of his tribe? While it seems odd to us, what historical context do you have to defend your claim?

Here is more information about your question, and the validity of scriptural accounts.

biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/10/A-Brief-Comment-on-the-Census-in-Luke-2.aspx
 
RCWarrior821 said:
In my college New Testament Literature course we went over the birth narratives in the Gospel of Matthew and Luke. He pointed out that one of the Messianic prophesies was that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. He claims the Luke attempted to created a scenario that would make it plausible for Mary and Joseph to go to Bethlehem even though the live in Galilee. He then stated that the census in Luke is a historical absurdity!

Because:
No record of a governor
No record of a census taking place
and
Who ever heard of going back, for a census, to the place of your 1000 year old ancestors.

I also so a similar argument in the God Delusion. How does the Church or any good Catholic author refute this?
Click to expand...
There is no need to refute it since there is no doctrinal requirement to believe it. It is wrong to call it “absurd” because even though these things have little or no historical basis, they do have important theological meanings in the author’s theme.

Numerous Catholic scripture scholars have discussed the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke as being mostly fiction used to teach theological truths. This has been done under the imprimatur and *nihil obstat *and is not at all against church teachings. Assuming any literalistic historical interpretation related to the gospels is not the required by the church. You might want to read a *real *church document related to this subject: The Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels by the Pontifical Biblical Commission and Pope Paul VI (available online).
 
I am eagerly awaiting Pope Benedict’s next book in which he states he will address the infancy narratives.
 
patg said:
There is no need to refute it since there is no doctrinal requirement to believe it. It is wrong to call it “absurd” because even though these things have little or no historical basis, they do have important theological meanings in the author’s theme.

Numerous Catholic scripture scholars have discussed the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke as being mostly fiction used to teach theological truths. This has been done under the imprimatur and *nihil obstat *and is not at all against church teachings. Assuming any literalistic historical interpretation related to the gospels is not the required by the church. You might want to read a *real *church document related to this subject: The Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels by the Pontifical Biblical Commission and Pope Paul VI (available online).
Click to expand...
To say the infancy narratives are fiction is most certainly contrary to Catholic truth despite imprimatur’s, etc.

The following decree came after the publication of that Instruction and if there were any conflict, superceded it (given it comes from the supreme teaching authority)

Vatican II said:
19. Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1).
Click to expand...

But there is no conflict at all. Here is that instruction for all to read:

bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/catholic/pbcgospels.htm

There is noting in there at all to say that any part of the Gospels are fiction. It says they used certain modes of speaking and wrote in the literary styles of their day and that they chose to include certain elements over others (not everything Jesus said or did is in the Gospels) or put them in different orders, but never once does the commission say or imply that facts such as the infancy narratives were fiction or that they didn’t actually happen.
 
Genesis315 said:
To say the infancy narratives are fiction is most certainly contrary to Catholic truth despite imprimatur’s, etc.

The following decree came after the publication of that Instruction and if there were any conflict, superceded it (given it comes from the supreme teaching authority)

But there is no conflict at all. Here is that instruction for all to read:

bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/catholic/pbcgospels.htm

There is noting in there at all to say that any part of the Gospels are fiction. It says they used certain modes of speaking and wrote in the literary styles of their day and that they chose to include certain elements over others (not everything Jesus said or did is in the Gospels) or put them in different orders, but never once does the commission say or imply that facts such as the infancy narratives were fiction or that they didn’t actually happen.
Click to expand...
patg consistently posts this type of view.
 
Per the OP:

There is written evidence of just such a census as has already been provided, but the Gospel texts themselves are evidence of it. As the document patg cited above states,
They refuse to admit the existence of a supernatural order and the intervention of a personal God in the world through strict revelation, and the possibility and existence of miracles and prophecies. Others begin with a false idea of faith, as if it had nothing to do with historical truth–or rather were incompatible with it. Others deny the historical value and nature of the documents of revelation almost a priori.
Click to expand...
People who just chuck out the historical significane of events related in the Gospels simply because they are incorporated into a religious tradition of others is what is actually absurd.
 
buffalo said:
patg consistently posts this type of view.
Click to expand...
and buffalo consistently posts the opposite…

and both of us can quote church documents which fully support our views…

and the church does not require belief in either.
 
patg said:
and buffalo consistently posts the opposite…

and both of us can quote church documents which fully support our views…

and the church does not require belief in either.
Click to expand...
and buffalo consistently posts the opposite…:yup:

and both of us can quote church documents which fully support our views… :nope:

and the church does not require belief in either - show me a church document that says we can believe either.
 
patg said:
I agree - at least we will have something new to disagree about!
Click to expand...
I believe (with smugness) that PBVI will assure us that the infancy narratives happened.

That would mean we would still be disagreeing, but that the Pope has spoken out on it and supported constant Catholic teaching.
 
buffalo said:
I believe (with smugness) that PBVI will assure us that the infancy narratives happened.

That would mean we would still be disagreeing, but that the Pope has spoken out on it and supported constant Catholic teaching.
Click to expand...
I doubt it, as that would require him to accept the historical truth of the same stories which were written about many of the other great leaders of the ancient world. It would also require him to ignore the literary form of the stories, and thus Dei Verbum.
 
patg said:
I doubt it, as that would require him to accept the historical truth of the same stories which were written about many of the other great leaders of the ancient world. It would also require him to ignore the literary form of the stories, and thus Dei Verbum.
Click to expand...
We will see.
 
patg said:
and buffalo consistently posts the opposite…

and both of us can quote church documents which fully support our views…
Click to expand...
Yes, and in my observation, one dissenting fairly consistently against and one consistently faithful to the Authentic Magisterium teachings of The Catholic Church.
 
patg said:
There is no need to refute it since there is no doctrinal requirement to believe it. It is wrong to call it “absurd” because even though these things have little or no historical basis, they do have important theological meanings in the author’s theme.

Numerous Catholic scripture scholars have discussed the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke as being mostly fiction used to teach theological truths. This has been done under the imprimatur and *nihil obstat *and is not at all against church teachings. Assuming any literalistic historical interpretation related to the gospels is not the required by the church. You might want to read a *real *church document related to this subject: The Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels by the Pontifical Biblical Commission and Pope Paul VI (available online).
Click to expand...
If the birth narratives are fiction then:

Jesus wasn’t born in Bethlehem
He didn’t fulfill the Messianic Prophesy
So then, Jesus wasn’t the Messiah

so they have to be true
 
RCWarrior821 said:
If the birth narratives are fiction then:

Jesus wasn’t born in Bethlehem
He didn’t fulfill the Messianic Prophesy
So then, Jesus wasn’t the Messiah

so they have to be true
Click to expand...
Ahhhh! There are many who would enjoy this scenario, that’s why they fight for it so much.
 
agreed that is why the explanation that they are false is ridiculous
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top