"The census that called Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem never existed" - true?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LemonAndLime
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sometimes you must be charitable and cautious to those who not believe. I learned so much from my religion teachers at a Protestant college that had a seminary the head Honcho was the Pastor for the school and also my fraternity sponsor- I was protestant at the time. The other 4 teachers of religion were avowed atheists. Interesting that you would challenge the young men thinking about becoming a Pastor to the thinking of athiests.They knew the scripture as well or better than any believer, could quote chapter and verse but it was in the early to mid 1970’s where swtudents were still encouarged to think for themselves rather than what is taught now.
 
DaddyGirl said:
And how could such a thing even be imagined? Joesph returns to Bethlehem because his ancestor David was born there. But David lived a thousand years before Joseph.** Are we to imagine that everyone in the Roman Empire was required to return to the homes of their ancestors from a thousand years earlier? **
If we had a new worldwide census today and each of us had to return to the towns of our ancestors a thousand years back—where would you go?
Click to expand...
The Middle East is still tribal, and it undoubtedly was back then as well. Tribes are often distinguished by a notable ancestor. So I don’t find it at all odd that in the Middle EAst of the time, one would be directed to report to the center of his tribe’s ancestor, which was also probably where the highest tribal concentration still was, notwithstanding the passage of time.
 
There was a census.

The Gospels are Historical

A census was usually held so as to have a basis for taxation. It was therefore very important for those owning land to inform their children, who would inherit. The census would have been a subject of discussion for many years amongst villagers. Many of Lukes contemporaries would have been aware of the census through such family histories. Luke was writing at a time when records of the census would have been available in both Jerusalem and Rome. It is significant that there is no sign of the Roman, Pagan, Jewish and heretical enemies of Christianity challenging the statement of Luke. Justin Martyr addressed a letter to Emperor Antoninus Pius who reigned from 138 –161. After telling of the registration of the Holy Family in the census, he adds that details can be found in the official Roman archives ((JMA 1: 34)). About 200 AD Tertullian, in his Adversum Marcionem, writes: There is historical proof that at this very time a census had been taken in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus, which might have satisfied their enquiry respecting the family and descent of Christ ((TE Book 4: 19,10)). So at this time there was historic proof of the census available. Sentius Saturninus was the pagan priest appointed by Augustus to head the planning of the worldwide census. Some critics claim that Mary would not have travelled to Bethlehem, as it was a duty for the head of the household alone. But if the names of Mary and Jesus were not included in the census, Tertullians appeal that his enemies looked in the records would have been pointless.
Other critics have asserted that the Romans did not require a return to one’s hometown to be registered. But we read in the K. C. Hanson collection of Ancient Documents:
“Gaius Vibius Maximus, the Prefect of Egypt, declares:
The census by household having begun, it is essential that all those who are away from their homes be summoned to return to their own hearths so that they may perform the customary business of registration…” ((KCH)).
**
**
 
The real problem with Bart Ehrman – and the problem that most secular scholars in the area have with him – is that he has abandoned scholarship and documentation and logical argument for flinging around wild allegations and being intellectually dishonest. Again and again, he pretends that well-established facts in the field have never been studied or proved, and he ignores scholarship that he previously had quoted. Sometimes he even makes things up.

He used to be a scholar with a good reputation. Nowadays, he has the reputation of being a charlatan who likes to dress up as a scholar, so that people who aren’t familiar with the field will fall for his lies and hate speech.

If you want to see a really thorough dissection of one of Ehrman’s more recent books, go find the blog of some good atheist scholar who studies the ancient Near East for a living. These folks’ lifework has been totally discounted by Ehrman, and then they have to go to parties and listen to idiots who now think they know ancient times better than they do, all in the name of “science” and “skepticism” that is no more scientific or skeptical than the Man in the Moon.

Ehrman believes in God. It’s just that the God he believes in is the Almighty Ehrman, before whom all others must bow down, to whom all others are but dust. He doesn’t want critical thinking; he wants uncritical acceptance of his pronouncements.
 
rdscheirer said:
Where in the Bible does it say David was born in Bethlem?
Click to expand...
It doesn’t say so per se. However, he lived there during the Saul period, when he was chosen by Samuel as the future king. Furthermore, his ancestors lived there, where they met up with Naomi & Ruth; so unless they left town between generations, he was born there.

ICXC NIKA
 
"About 200 AD Tertullian, in his Adversum Marcionem, writes:
Code: 
`There is historical proof that at this very time a census had been taken in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus, which might have satisfied their enquiry respecting the family and descent of Christ` ((TE Book 4: 19,10)).
So at this time there was historic proof of the census available. Sentius Saturninus was the pagan priest appointed by Augustus to head the planning of the worldwide census."

Historical proof? Hardly.
 
steve53 said:
"About 200 AD Tertullian, in his Adversum Marcionem, writes:
Code: 
`There is historical proof that at this very time a census had been taken in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus, which might have satisfied their enquiry respecting the family and descent of Christ` ((TE Book 4: 19,10)).
So at this time there was historic proof of the census available. Sentius Saturninus was the pagan priest appointed by Augustus to head the planning of the worldwide census."

Historical proof? Hardly.
Click to expand...
As we learn more about census’ we see Luke got it right.
 
Might have gotten the census right, but James the Just was more likely the baby born in the manger at that time, and not Jesus, who was seventeen.
 
But how likely is it that our LORD was born in AD7? That would place the public aspect of His life around AD40; does that conflict with other history?

Most error estimates on the time of HIS birth go the other way (7 - 4BC).

ICXC NIKA
 
steve53 said:
Might have gotten the census right, but James the Just was more likely the baby born in the manger at that time, and not Jesus, who was seventeen.
Click to expand...
**Monumentum Ancyranum -(Res Gestae Divi Augusti) **

“A second time,36 in the consulship of Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius, I again performed the lustrum alone, with the consular imperium. In this lustrum 4,233,000 Roman citizens were entered on the census roll.”

It was ordered in 8 BC.

“Quintus Aemilius Secundus, from Palatine, with honors he was decorated in the camp of Divine Augustus under Publius Sulpicius Quirinius legate of Caesar in Syria, prefect of the first Augustan cohort, prefect of the navy’s second cohort. **Commanded by Quirinius to conduct a census of the district of Apamea’s 117,000 citizens; He was also sent by Quirinius to capture the fortresses of the Itureans in the mountains of Lebanon. **(Iturea borders Syria and is just north of Galilee.) Before being involved in the militia he was prefect of engineers, appointed by the two consuls as treasurer, quaestor of his colony, served twice as aedile and duumvir and was as a priest. Buried in this place are his son, Quintus Aemilius Secundus. Inscriptines Latinae Selectae #2683) http://www.biblehistory.net/newsletter/pixel.gif
 
Another theory of the difference is that the “census” described was actually a requirement that everyone came and swore an oath of allegiance to the new emperor. This is corroborated by testimony from Orosius in the 5th century A.D who claimed such a public oath as this was taken sometime around 2 B.C. Caesar Augustus’ own writings claim that the whole Roman world had professed him as “Father” of the empire by the time the title was officially given to him by 2 B.C. Thus instead of the census being about taxation it very likely could have been to swear a public oath of allegiance to Caesar.

Also, take in to mind the actual birth date of Jesus is also under question because of debate over when Herod the Great actually died putting his death anywhere between 6 B.C and 1 B.C. Since Herod the Great was alive during the Nativity this would line up with the public oath if Herod died in 1 B.C effectively pushing Jesus’ birth back a couple years and right into line with when the oath was sworn.

To explain Luke’s reference to Quirinius who was the provincial legate of Syria in A.D 6 during the census its important to look the actual word Luke uses to explain the position Quirinius held. The same Greek expression used in Luke 2:2 is used again in Luke 3:1 to explain Pontius Pilate’s governing role. Since the expression was used to refer to the governing role and not in reference to serving as the legate of an entire province like Syria, it leaves open the possibility that Luke was referring to Quirinius in an entirely different role he held earlier in life.

This fact would strengthen the quote from St. Justin Martyr who stated that Quirinius was a “procurator” in Judea not Syria at the time of the Nativity. It would also corroborate with testimony of Tertullian which claimed Saturninus not Quirinius was the official legate of Syria at the time of the Nativity. This basically makes it entirely possible if not very likely that Quirinius was an administrator of a Judean census of some sort in 3 B.C or 2 B.C when the public oath was done.

Definitely no hard evidence that this was the case, but lots of pieces do fall into line with this line of reasoning. It explains statements made by Church Fathers farther down the line, who could only be thought to be completely mistaken or intentionally lying if they were wrong. In any case the least viable case is that Luke was referring to the census in 6 A.D.
 
GEddie said:
But how likely is it that our LORD was born in AD7? That would place the public aspect of His life around AD40; does that conflict with other history?

Most error estimates on the time of HIS birth go the other way (7 - 4BC).

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
Highly unlikely when compared to testimony of when Herod the Great died.
 
." Commanded by Quirinius to conduct a census of the district of Apamea’s 117,000 citizens; "

Where is Apamea? Judea had far more than 117 thousand people. Syria, or Asia Minor, was made up of a patchwork of client kingdoms and provinces, and Judea and Samaria were only a part of them.
 
Nate13 said:
Another theory of the difference is that the “census” described was actually a requirement that everyone came and swore an oath of allegiance to the new emperor. This is corroborated by testimony from Orosius in the 5th century A.D who claimed such a public oath as this was taken sometime around 2 B.C. Caesar Augustus’ own writings claim that the whole Roman world had professed him as “Father” of the empire by the time the title was officially given to him by 2 B.C. Thus instead of the census being about taxation it very likely could have been to swear a public oath of allegiance to Caesar.

Also, take in to mind the actual birth date of Jesus is also under question because of debate over when Herod the Great actually died putting his death anywhere between 6 B.C and 1 B.C. Since Herod the Great was alive during the Nativity this would line up with the public oath if Herod died in 1 B.C effectively pushing Jesus’ birth back a couple years and right into line with when the oath was sworn.

To explain Luke’s reference to Quirinius who was the provincial legate of Syria in A.D 6 during the census its important to look the actual word Luke uses to explain the position Quirinius held. The same Greek expression used in Luke 2:2 is used again in Luke 3:1 to explain Pontius Pilate’s governing role. Since the expression was used to refer to the governing role and not in reference to serving as the legate of an entire province like Syria, it leaves open the possibility that Luke was referring to Quirinius in an entirely different role he held earlier in life.

This fact would strengthen the quote from St. Justin Martyr who stated that Quirinius was a “procurator” in Judea not Syria at the time of the Nativity. It would also corroborate with testimony of Tertullian which claimed Saturninus not Quirinius was the official legate of Syria at the time of the Nativity. This basically makes it entirely possible if not very likely that Quirinius was an administrator of a Judean census of some sort in 3 B.C or 2 B.C when the public oath was done.

Definitely no hard evidence that this was the case, but lots of pieces do fall into line with this line of reasoning. It explains statements made by Church Fathers farther down the line, who could only be thought to be completely mistaken or intentionally lying if they were wrong. In any case the least viable case is that Luke was referring to the census in 6 A.D.
Click to expand...
No one seriously doubts that Herod the Great did not die in late 4 B.C.

Josephus is clear that only in A.D. 6 did Judea become a Prefecture, with Coponius becoming the first Prefect. And he lists them through to the revolt. When the Herod family ruled, the President of Syria had technical powers over them, but as long as taxes were paid, no one cared. Herod the Great could even name his own successor.

Tertullian is notoriously unreliable, and should not be used as a source.

For Augustus to order a census within Herod the Great’s domain would be a great insult to Herod, who was the best ally Augustus ever had. What would Augustus gain by it? Money? Herod the Great would gladly rob and kill his own citizens to get Augustus as much money as he needed. Josephus is clear on this. Why bother with a census?
 
Nelka said:
Be careful with QI.

I used to watch it and enjoyed it but they attack God and the church a lot.

I saw a religious program where Stephen Fry (QI host) was debating against God, the Bible and the commandments. He was like a demon in his attacks. I used to think he was a fun bloke on tv but after this I cannot look at him the same.

QI is also a product of the BBC which is also anti-God, anti-religion etc.

Your safest bet in life is don’t believe anything you see/hear on tv.
Click to expand...
I am aware that they do that.

But, there are reasons for it. Stephen Fry is openly gay and has suffered from severe depression. Bitterness for a religion which condemns him as evil is completely understandable.
 
Ridgerunner said:
The Middle East is still tribal, and it undoubtedly was back then as well. Tribes are often distinguished by a notable ancestor. So I don’t find it at all odd that in the Middle EAst of the time, one would be directed to report to the center of his tribe’s ancestor, which was also probably where the highest tribal concentration still was, notwithstanding the passage of time.
Click to expand...
However, we have hundreds and hundreds of documentation from the Roman era. We’re not short of it. If there was a census of the entire roman empire, there would be records or at least a mention of it. But there isn’t.
 
steve53 said:
No one seriously doubts that Herod the Great did not die in late 4 B.C.

Josephus is clear that only in A.D. 6 did Judea become a Prefecture, with Coponius becoming the first Prefect. And he lists them through to the revolt. When the Herod family ruled, the President of Syria had technical powers over them, but as long as taxes were paid, no one cared. Herod the Great could even name his own successor.

Tertullian is notoriously unreliable, and should not be used as a source.

For Augustus to order a census within Herod the Great’s domain would be a great insult to Herod, who was the best ally Augustus ever had. What would Augustus gain by it? Money? Herod the Great would gladly rob and kill his own citizens to get Augustus as much money as he needed. Josephus is clear on this. Why bother with a census?
Click to expand...
I disagree. Early Church Fathers including Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus of Rome, Eusebius, and Epiphanius put Christ’s birth between 3 B.C and 2 B.C. I am very wary in disregarding the testimony of this many of the Early Church Fathers many of whom would have had access to information we might not today. A majority of scholars believe as you do that Herod the Great died in 4 B.C, but some are of the opinion that he died in 1 B.C soon after a lunar eclipse that year. In any event the differing opinions are due to what source you trust. I do believe Josephus to be incredibly reliable, but that doesn’t mean the census Luke was referring to was the one Josephus talked about as occurring in 6 A.D.
 
LemonAndLime said:
However, we have hundreds and hundreds of documentation from the Roman era. We’re not short of it. If there was a census of the entire roman empire, there would be records or at least a mention of it. But there isn’t.
Click to expand...
Somehow Caesar Augustus got everyone to publicly swear an oath to him by 2 B.C.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top