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

[jmj1984]

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.

Yes, in the UK Stephen Fry is known for being a most UNfunny guy when it comes to religion, he can be very rude, disparaging and downright insulting.

 

[steve53]

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.

You are referring to the burning of Matthias by Herod the Great, which occurred just before the Passover in the year of Herod’s death. There was a lunar eclipse on the evening of his execution. That would have been in the spring, and was most likely the Lunar eclipse of March 23, A.D. 4, if I remember correctly.
This is important for many ancient dates. I recommend Hagan’s “Year of the Passover” for anyone interested in this.
Admittedly, Eusebius is very sure of the birth as being a certain number of years after Antony’s defeat at the battle of Actium, but he provides no other source.
The Church Fathers were still centuries after the events, and lived after not just one but two Jewish revolts. Josephus, Tacitus, and other earlier sources should trump them. Tertullian, I believe, actually wrote that Tiberius ordered the Roman Senate to declare Jesus a god! How many believe that actually happened? Bogus Roman “official” documents were probably circulating back then, bought up by early Christians hungry for information about Jesus. Fraud is timeless.

 

[kildare]

In the republican period of Rome a census was taken by the Censor every lustra (5 years). By the time of Christ’s birth, Augustus being the first emperor, was in the process of abolishing the old republican institutions so it is quite possible that a lustra were skipped. However it might be that the office of Censor was actually abolished further back during the dictatorship of Sulla(70BC).
Its actually not all that clear what went on and I’m afraid we have nothing but reports(some of which are not reliable) to come up with a plausible history.

 

[codefro]

Yes, I’ve read that in many, many theology/religion books…just what you said, that the gospel writers were trying to find a way to have Jesus born in Bethlehem to show he was the messiah from the first testament. And many biblical scholars talk about Luke’s historical errors/inaccuracies.

Here’s an excerpt from Bart Ehrman’s book that talks about this:

“The historical problems with Luke are even more pronounced. For one thing, we have relatively good records for the reign of Caesar Augustus,** and there is no mention anywhere in any of them of an empire-wide census for which everyone had to register by returning to their ancestral home.**
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?
Can you imagine the total disruption of human life that this kind of universal exodus would require?
And can you imagine that such a project would never be mentioned in any of the newspapers? There is not a single reference to any such census in any ancient source, apart from Luke.
Why then does Luke say there was such a census? The answer may seem obvious to you.
He wanted Jesus to be born in Bethlehem, even though he knew he came from Nazareth … there is a prophecy in the Old Testament book of Micah that a savior would come from Bethlehem. What were these Gospel writer to do with the fact that it was widely known that Jesus came from Nazareth? They had to come up with a narrative that explained how he came from Nazareth, in Galilee, a little one-horse town that no one had ever heard of, but was born in Bethlehem, the home of King David, royal ancestor of the Messiah.”

― Bart D. Ehrman, *Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible & Why We Don’t Know About Them *

Ya there should be rules against quoting Bart anywhere. He isn’t a good reference at all.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Ya there should be rules against quoting Bart anywhere. He isn’t a good reference at all.

So, the key to being respected on this forum for knowledge is if you are/belief in what you’re talking about. So to be accurate when talking about the Bible, you must be a Christian.

So to be accurate when talking about snakes, you must be a snake yourself? This is a strange academic qualification you have to pass here.

 

[codefro]

So, the key to being respected on this forum for knowledge is if you are/belief in what you’re talking about. So to be accurate when talking about the Bible, you must be a Christian.

So to be accurate when talking about snakes, you must be a snake yourself? This is a strange academic qualification you have to pass here.

My issue with Bart is he has isolated his intellectualism into a tiny bubble and does not take any other thought into his bubble. There are MANY explanations for this topic, but the problem is there isn’t much proof for or against this issue. It is all speculation, but Bart uses this to attack Christians. He is intellectual, I give him that. On the other hand, their are way smarter people who would be on his side that contribute to the argument better. His would be Pop- Theo.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

So, the key to being respected on this forum for knowledge is if you are/belief in what you’re talking about. So to be accurate when talking about the Bible, you must be a Christian.

So to be accurate when talking about snakes, you must be a snake yourself? This is a strange academic qualification you have to pass here.

No. I think what he is saying is if this man said the sky was blue and the Grass green we all need to go and take a look to make sure because you should not go by what Bart says.

 

[kildare]

No. I think what he is saying is if this man said the sky was blue and the Grass green we all need to go and take a look to make sure because you should not go by what Bart says.

But according to the laws of Relativism, his opinion is as valid as any others.

So to be accurate when talking about snakes, you must be a snake yourself? This is a strange academic qualification you have to pass here.

Now then, if only animals could actualy talk and tell us how they really feel!

 

[codefro]

No. I think what he is saying is if this man said the sky was blue and the Grass green we all need to go and take a look to make sure because you should not go by what Bart says.

That’s exactly what I mean. Now we can get Fro- yo and call it a night.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

But according to the laws of Relativism, his opinion is as valid as any others.

But since when are we as Catholics relativist?

 

[codefro]

But since when are we as Catholics relativist?

My guess is that comment was cynical. Catholics are not relativists

 

[kildare]

But since when are we as Catholics relativist?

Indeed we ought not be!
But the modern zeitgeist is totally relativistic.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

LemonandLime: …was watching “QI” a British program mainly about dispelling common facts and talking about “quite interesting” ones. One of them was that historians have been unable to find evidence of the census of the Roman world mentioned in Luke only which called Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem, and commented on how it did not make sense that they had to go to their place of birth to register anyway.

It makes perfect sense if you have ever been forced to wait in line at the Department of Motor Vehicles (or your British equivalent), only to then be called to wait in another unending line. Bureaucracies, including the Roman Empire, do things like that to emphasize their power and control.

Had the producers of “Q” walked into their own state-funded museum, they would have realized this.

There is good evidence that this kind of thing went on in the Roman Empire. An official Roman Census Edict written on a papyrus dated circa 104 B.C., ( currently in the British Museum, inventory # P.London 904) issued by Gaius Vibius (or Vivius) Maximus, the Praefect of Egypt from 103 to 107 A.D., directed those under his control in Egypt to return to their homes for the census:

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 nomes [administrative regions] be summoned to return to their own hearths so that they may perform the customary business of registration and apply themselves to the cultivation which concerns them. Knowing, however, that some of the people from the countryside are required by our city, I desire all those who think they have a satisfactory reason for remaining here to register themselves before . . . Festus, the Cavalry Commander, whom I have appointed for this purpose, from whom those who have shown their presence to be necessary shall receive signed permits in accordance with this edict up to the 30th of the present month E . . .

 

[LemonAndLime]

My issue with Bart is he has isolated his intellectualism into a tiny bubble and does not take any other thought into his bubble. There are MANY explanations for this topic, but the problem is there isn’t much proof for or against this issue. It is all speculation, but Bart uses this to attack Christians. He is intellectual, I give him that. On the other hand, their are way smarter people who would be on his side that contribute to the argument better. His would be Pop- Theo.

If he hated and despised Christians and wishes to attack them, why would he dedicate his life to the study of Christianity with such an obvious genuine interest?

 

[codefro]

If he hated and despised Christians and wishes to attack them, why would he dedicate his life to the study of Christianity with such an obvious genuine interest?

I never said he hated and despised Christians. I wouldn’t know of he does or not.

Many Atheists dedicate their lives to study Christianity in order to learn how to attack it. How does that make any difference? Just out of curiosity, why are you defensive about opinions over Bart. It isn’t a personal issue, he just isn’t a top thinker in his own realm, despite whatever his occupation is. I have no personal hatred or malice towards him. So I’m curious why it seems to matter so much?

 

[thistle]

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.

Stephen Fry is anti-Christian in general and vehemently anti-Catholic in particular.

 

[Darran]

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.

Exactly, you should take most things you hear from brits with a pinch of salt. They appear understanding and moral, but they are a country of snakes. I say this not out of plain spite, nor necessarily because my family has been under oppression from them for 800 years, but that I have never seen a worsely developed person in terms of morality and philosophy than the average brit.

God forbid someone takes insult at this, if you are upright and English, you’d agree with me. If not, then be scandilised, because modern “tolerance” is a shambles.

No agnostic / atheist should be chair of a Dept. of Religous Studies.

He successfully talked himself out of belief in God.

He’s an idiot.

You call a spade a spade, you’re entirely right to do so.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Is this an important fact? Is it an accusation others have heard of before and is there a Church response to it? I am going to do my own research on this, but want to know what people on here think.

Its not really that important. The Scriptures teach us salvation history and not necessarily literal history. That’s not to say that literal history isn’t contained in the bible but it was more important for the authors to explain God than accurately detail historical events.

When looking at the Gospels of Matthew and Luke there appear to be contradictory statements:
In Matthew there is no story of journeying to Bethlehem, they have to flee in the middle of the night, and they settle in Nazareth only because they are afraid to return to Judea.
In Luke they live in Nazareth but travel to Bethlehem for the birth, they appear to peacefully go to Jerusalem and then back home to Nazareth.

It takes more than a little mental gymnastics to blend the two stories into one story that makes logical sense. However there are more similarities than realized at first glance:

1. Mary is pregnant before Mary and Joseph live together.
2. The pregnancy is announced by an angel.
3. Jesus is born in Bethlehem.
4. The newborn is visited by strangers who are aware of his importance.
5. Jesus is raised in Nazareth.

Both Matthew and Luke seem to have the same outline and then filled in the details based on what they wanted to tell us about Jesus. In Matthew the “filled in details” make clear connections between Jesus and Moses. In Luke the “filled in details” are about upending the social/political order (but not in a liberation theology sense). They were using those details to tell us who Jesus is and what His mission was, not necessarily the literal historical details of his birth.

Its possible that one is the literal historical facts and the other is theological midrash, however ultimately its not important. What’s important is what the stories tell us about Jesus.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Here’s a good feature in the Washington Post that describes his spiritual journey, if anyone’s interested:

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/04/AR2006030401369.html

The problem with such articles is that there’s a false choice that’s presented. Its presented as: you must believe that that the bible is literally true in every aspect or none of it is true at all.

As Catholics we certainly believe the Bible is true in what it teaches us about God and our salvation. However, that doesn’t mean we think the Bible is trying to be a history text book or science guide…

 

[codefro]

Jim Blackburn CAF Apologist wrote this:

"Luke 2:1-5 tells us, “In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. This was the first enrollment, when Quirin’i-us was governor of Syria. And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child.”

Regarding the historical accuracy of this account, The Navarre Bible states that Caesar Augustus “is known to have conducted various censuses, one of which could well be that referred to by [Luke].” Additionally, A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture states, “historical research tends to confirm the accuracy of Lk.”