The census in Luke a historical absurdity?

[RobbyS]

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.

The literary form of the stories does not diminish with the plausibility of the infancy stories. The different writers have at their disposal different information and developed different storis to fit that information. Given the short distance between Galilee and Judea,of the several journeys of our Lord to Judea, it hardly unthinkable that Joseph. Mary/their families might have been recent immigrants to the North, that Joseph might have retained a claim In Bethlehem. Early stories not in the canon place out lady’s family in the vicinity of Jerusalem, which is supported by the story in Luke of Our Lady’s journey to the hill country of Judea.to see St. Elizabeth

 

[promethius]

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?

Well, there’s the rub. There aren’t exactly volumes upon volumes of source documents from the time frame. In other words, there IS a record of the governor, and of the Census. Your teacher is just not willing to accept the portions of the bible which are historical record of events. So what? I can look at any history book i want and say to myself “this isn’t what really happened”, but that doesn’t mean it’s not absurd of me to do so without specific reason to discredit a historical record.

Now, let’s add in that in the ancient times of egypt they had lobotomy procedures which were survivable… in other words, they could perform brain surgery THOUSANDS of years ago. Too often, modern people look through the historical “pity” lens, without realizing that MANY cultures from that time period enjoyed a HIGH level of sophistication.

 

[patg]

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

That’s going quite a bit overboard - taking the location of his birth as proof that everything in the stories is true. I suppose that proves the story of wise men, the flight into Egypt, the slaughter of the innocents, the strange celestial events, the angels appearing to shepherds, the mysterious cencus…?

I agree it is all true it is also mostly fiction (if one takes the time to understand Jewish midrash writing and the classical Infancy narrative).

 

[patg]

Yes, and in my observation, one dissenting fairly consistently against and one consistently faithful to the Authentic Magisterium teachings of The Catholic Church.

Apparantly your observation is a misunderstanding of the Authentic Magisterium teachings of The Catholic Church. That is, unless you can show us the doctrine of the wise men, the dogma of the strange celestial events, the infallible teachings on the flight into Egypt or the appearance of angels to shepherds.

The obvious problem, however, is that the church is not clear in these matters - we can post direct quotes from dogmatic and instructional documents that support either opinion, often from the same document. This is evidence that this is an evolving process of coming to understanding and points out that it is wrong to blindly reject new insights as well as wrong to blindly reject old understandings

The real difference between buffalo and me is that he speaks in generalities referencing internet documents of unknown origins and pedigree as if they were official while every word and idea I present comes from official church documents or from highly recognized church scholars writing under official church approval. It doesn’t matter what you think about me as these are not my teachings, they are the words of the church’s most emminent scripture scholars and they are the concepts that have been taught in adult catholic bible education classes for decades.

Since the church has not dogmatically spoken on these items, you and buffalo are entitled to your opinions, just as I am. I respect your opinions - I just respect the writings of the church’s scripture scholars more.

 

[Nita]

…
I also so a similar argument in the God Delusion. How does the Church or any good Catholic author refute this?

I’m not a good Catholic author, but for what it’s worth - this is my two cents.

1. To deny the census would be to accuse St. Luke of lying. It’s completely against what he says in his opening statements - which end with “that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed”. St. Luke says nothing in his gospel to indicate that the passage is not to be considered as literal truth - but instead is a ficitional idea that he imagines might have happened. He presents it as fact - and presumably knows that is how his readers will think of it.
2. St. Paul is not the only author of the Gospel. The primary one is the Holy Spirit.
   I find it difficult to believe the Holy Spirit would have inspired him to pen a fictional event (in a document openly stating it’s purpose is to hand on the truth) without inspiring him at the same time to write something insuring that his readers would recognize it as fictional. Keep in mind the Holy Spirit knows exactly how the members of the Church will interpret it in the years to come. And that brings me to my final point.
3. I find it hard to believe that God, who is truth, and promised to guide His Church in truth, would have allowed the leaders and members of His Church to be deceived for 2000 years by erroneously accepting the nativity accounts literally - when they were only fictional. (I recognize there are some who have challenged, but they in no way constitute anywhere near the bulk of Christian believers and leaders throughout the 2000 years.)

Nita

 

[buffalo]

The real difference between buffalo and me is that he speaks in generalities referencing internet documents of unknown origins and pedigree as if they were official while every word and idea I present comes from official church documents or from highly recognized church scholars writing under official church approval. It doesn’t matter what you think about me as these are not my teachings, they are the words of the church’s most emminent scripture scholars and they are the concepts that have been taught in adult catholic bible education classes for decades.

.

Uh no - I have quoted over the past few years many church documents. All one has to do is search the forums.

You quoted Dei Verbum many many times trying to squeeze out your position from a one paragraph ignoring the constant teaching and tradition of the church as if suddenly the revered scholars overturned it all.

And the final issue - scholars do not have teaching authority. That ends with the Bishops. They can write books and articles all they want. However, they eventually have to receive full endorsement of the Magisterium. Until they do I will hold my position.

 

[patrick457]

And the final issue - scholars do not have teaching authority. That ends with the Bishops. They can write books and articles all they want. However, they eventually have to receive full endorsement of the Magisterium. Until they do I will hold my position.

I agree. While scholars are very beneficial and help us understand some things (say, the political climate of the 1st century or how this or that place was originally like), they are not the final authorities on theological matters. The Holy Spirit did not descend on a bunch of scholars at Pentecost. Jesus did not entrust the keys of the kingdom on a guy with ‘Ph.D.’ or ‘Th.D.’ or ‘D.D.’ attached to his name.

 

[puzzleannie]

there is no written contemporary record for many events of the early Roman empire, for which we have anecdotal evidence or accounts by commentators writing long after the era in which events occured. so what?

 

[CWBetts]

Jist beacause one schlar calls it an absursity does not make it so. In my Early Roman Empire class at Ohio State, my professor did not indicate it was fiction. That is the nature of history–disagreement among scholars. I will say that I do not take anything in the Gospels as fiction. The Bible isn’t just a storybook.

 

[buffalo]

Jist beacause one schlar calls it an absursity does not make it so. In my Early Roman Empire class at Ohio State, my professor did not indicate it was fiction. That is the nature of history–disagreement among scholars. I will say that I do not take anything in the Gospels as fiction. The Bible isn’t just a storybook.

This is a thought excercise only -

Let’s for the sake of this argument believe the Bible is not inspired but a collection of writings that found the best way to live a good life here on earth.

When one analyzes the messages in totality the Bible is a sure guide on how to best live our life.

The Bible is solid Gold no matter how you look at it. It offers the collective wisdom of the past and so much more. We should heed it in any case.

 

[Eucharisted]

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?

Here is the footnote for Luke’s census (Lk 2:1-2) as found in the New American Bible:

Although universal registrations of Roman citizens are attested in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and A.D. 14 and enrollments in individual provinces of those who are not Roman citizens are also attested, such a universal census of the Roman world under Caesar Augustus is unknown outside the New Testament. Moreover, there are notorious historical problems connected with Luke’s dating the census when Quirinius was governor of Syria, and the various attempts to resolve the difficulties have proved unsuccessful. P. Sulpicius Quirinius became legate of the province of Syria in A.D. 6-7 when Judea was annexed to the province of Syria. At that time, a provincial census of Judea was taken up. If Quirinius had been legate of Syria previously, it would have to have been before 10 B.C. because the various legates of Syria from 10 B.C. to 4 B.C. (the death of Herod) are known, and such a dating for an earlier census under Quirinius would create additional problems for dating the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (⇒ Luke 3:1, ⇒ 23). A previous legateship after 4 B.C. (and before A.D. 6) would not fit with the dating of Jesus’ birth in the days of Herod (⇒ Luke 1:5; ⇒ Matthew 2:1). Luke may simply be combining Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem with his vague recollection of a census under Quirinius (see also ⇒ Acts 5:37) to underline the significance of this birth for the whole Roman world: through this child born in Bethlehem peace and salvation come to the empire.

 

[buffalo]

Here is the footnote for Luke’s census (Lk 2:1-2) as found in the New American Bible:

Although universal registrations of Roman citizens are attested in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and A.D. 14 and enrollments in individual provinces of those who are not Roman citizens are also attested, such a universal census of the Roman world under Caesar Augustus is unknown outside the New Testament. Moreover, there are notorious historical problems connected with Luke’s dating the census when Quirinius was governor of Syria, and the various attempts to resolve the difficulties have proved unsuccessful. P. Sulpicius Quirinius became legate of the province of Syria in A.D. 6-7 when Judea was annexed to the province of Syria. At that time, a provincial census of Judea was taken up. If Quirinius had been legate of Syria previously, it would have to have been before 10 B.C. because the various legates of Syria from 10 B.C. to 4 B.C. (the death of Herod) are known, and such a dating for an earlier census under Quirinius would create additional problems for dating the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (⇒ Luke 3:1, ⇒ 23). A previous legateship after 4 B.C. (and before A.D. 6) would not fit with the dating of Jesus’ birth in the days of Herod (⇒ Luke 1:5; ⇒ Matthew 2:1). Luke may simply be combining Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem with his vague recollection of a census under Quirinius (see also ⇒ Acts 5:37) to underline the significance of this birth for the whole Roman world: through this child born in Bethlehem peace and salvation come to the empire.

One more reason to be careful about using the Jerome Commentary.

 

[CWBetts]

This is a thought excercise only -

Let’s for the sake of this argument believe the Bible is not inspired but a collection of writings that found the best way to live a good life here on earth.

When one analyzes the messages in totality the Bible is a sure guide on how to best live our life.

The Bible is solid Gold no matter how you look at it. It offers the collective wisdom of the past and so much more. We should heed it in any case.

Should we participate in “thought execises” that have the potential of leading others away from Christ? I think not. By even supposing that the Bible is not the (name removed by moderator)ired Word of God is very dangerous indeed. Not only for your own soul, but for the souls of those who are weak in faith and may go astray. Their souls will be on your hands.

 

[buffalo]

Should we participate in “thought execises” that have the potential of leading others away from Christ? I think not. By even supposing that the Bible is not the (name removed by moderator)ired Word of God is very dangerous indeed. Not only for your own soul, but for the souls of those who are weak in faith and may go astray. Their souls will be on your hands.

I know.

I was thinking about it to lead souls to Christ, not away.

I stand corrected.

 

[patg]

Uh no - I have quoted over the past few years many church documents. All one has to do is search the forums.

Both of us have. In my comment I was mostly remembering the many references you have made to The ChurchinHistory Information Centre documents which have no stated connection to anything recognized as official.

You quoted Dei Verbum many many times trying to squeeze out your position from a one paragraph ignoring the constant teaching and tradition of the church as if suddenly the revered scholars overturned it all.

I quoted Dei Verbum many many times to clearly show that the interpretation I have presented (which has* always* come from the most eminent of the church’s scripture scholars) is fully supported by it.

And the final issue - scholars do not have teaching authority. That ends with the Bishops. They can write books and articles all they want. However, they eventually have to receive full endorsement of the Magisterium. Until they do I will hold my position.

And the writings and words of the eminent scholars who fully support what I have said are directly supported by members of the Magisterium in their official approvals and by Dei Verbum are also a perfectly valid position.

When Raymond Brown, John Meier, Ronald Witherup, Margaret Ralph, Joseph Fitzmyer, and the Pontifical Biblical Commission are officially declared heretics, THEN you will have a more solid leg to stand on than I do.

 

[jblake]

buffalo;:

When one analyzes the messages in totality the Bible is a sure guide on how to best live our life.

Under that scenario, it has at least one major competitor. That great work whose first line begins with:
“*The entrance is an exit, but it is only to be used in an emergency. *”. (Only one text has been translated into more languages, and had more translations that that text.)

jonathon

 

[jblake]

Eucharisted;:

would create additional problems for dating the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (⇒ Luke 3:1, ⇒ 23).

That dating would solve far more issues than it creates. (OTOH, the dating issues that an earlier time line solves, are ignored because they present problems that have major theological consequences. Consequences that make the issue of Quirinius;’ first census to be utterly irrelevant to the entire story.)

Bethlehem with his vague recollection of a census under Quirinius

The way that Luke dates it, provides a far greater degree of precision, that would otherwise be the case. The ambiguity occurs only because Luke didn’t explicitely mention Quirinius’ second time in political office.

jonathon

 

[Ruthie]

The Catechism, bolding mine:

[%between%](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/116.htm’)

[116](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/116.htm’) The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
[117](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/117.htm’) The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

This, it seems to me, indicates that we should always start with the literal meaning.

As for the “other gods and people had that birth myth,” that has been refuted by many scholars. The most recent summation is in Lee Strobeck’s new book, “The Case for the Real Jesus.” (It’s written from the Protestant viewpoint - but the scholarship looks good anyway.)

God bless us all,

Ruthie