Is the Bible Totally reliable ? The Nativity

The ironic thing is Josephus is usually completely discounted when the Book of Daniel comes up.

I wasn't speaking of the urls and articles I posted, in fact, I've come to disagree with several of their points through this discussion. My post on the Greek was my own initial study. I followed it up with reading an analysis of the Greek from a source that agrees with you. I said nothing concerning those Greek words and meanings that conflicted with that one as far as I can tell. I appreciate your opinion though. Take care.This message has been edited by adrenalinejunkie, 06-21-2005 08:15 PM

Well of course there is evidence for a census in Judea. It's found in Luke. Geez Paul how'd you miss that great work of antiquity? lol And the quote from Augustus is a lie? hmmm... Didn't know that. How do you know?

I haven't found, as of yet, anyone, except those here who claim the statement by Augustus conducting a census in 8 B.C. to be a lie. In fact, it seems to be liberally quoted.
and his translation was as follows:Caesaris Augusti Res GestaeThe Deeds of the Divine AugustusA copy below of the deeds of the divine Augustus, by which he
subjected the whole wide earth to the rule of the Roman people, and of
the money which he spent for the state and Roman people, inscribed on
two bronze pillars, which are set up in Rome.skip to number 88. When I was consul the fifth time [29 BC], I increased the number
of patricians by order of the people and senate. I read the roll of
the senate three times, and in my sixth consulate [28 BC] I made a
census of the people with Marcus Agrippa as my colleague. I conducted
a lustrum, after a forty-one year gap, in which lustrum were counted
4,063,000 heads of Roman citizens. Then again, with consular imperium
I conducted a lustrum alone when Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius
were consuls [8 BC], in which lustrum were counted 4,233,000 heads of
Roman citizens. And the third time, with consular imperium, I
conducted a lustrum with my son Tiberius Caesar as colleague, when
Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Appuleius were consuls [AD 14], in which
lustrum were counted 4,937,000 of the heads of Roman citizens. By new
laws passed with my sponsorship, I restored many traditions of the
ancestors, which were falling into disuse in our age, and myself I
handed on precedents of many things to be imitated in later
generations.Closest thing I could find to a denial of this being true, came from a message board. This quote was from a un-believer at least as far as the Bible is concerned.Alexis ComnenusApril 17, 2002, 08:59 AM
Tortonm,CX, ignoring the apologetics stuff, I think we can agree that the NT documents are better attested than any other ancient work excpet something like the Res Gestae of Augustus (and let's face it, we don't believe much of that either!)then a later reply to someone else:Actually, the Res Gestae is carved around the base of Augustus's altar of victory in Rome and is also extant on some temples in Turkey so I think we mean the same thing. Interesting to hear texts are frequently rock carved in the East. Obviously this is rarer in the West.My point is simply that although we have a contemporary copy of the Res Gestae and a thousand year late one of nearly everything else, this makes precious little difference to how we use each to do our Roman history. The question is not 'is Caesar's writing accurately transmitted?' but 'is Caesar accurate?'.Once again, this does bring up the point that since there is so much skepticism of EVERY ancient source, it is surprising that people are confidently rejecting the possibility that Luke and Matthew aren't harmonious. Obviously, I am confidently saying they ARE harmonious based on the same minimal to none evidence, (even what we do have coming into question by someone) so I should admit this is the pot calling the kettle black. Admittedly my opinion of the Bible isn't based on the nativity account.

In other words you did make a claim which did not come from your study of Greek words, and which had already been exposed as false on this thread.

So you DO feel free to add things to the Bible. And I didn't say that the quote from Augustus was a lie. The lie is in pretending that lustrum census would have applied to the ordinary people of Judaea. It wouldn't - and we know that.

So perhaps you can tell me why you managed to miss Message 19 in this thread ? The one where I specifically answered the argument based on the Res Gestae and even provided a link to a translation ?And then you can explain how your research didn't manage to find out that the lustrum census only applied to Roman citizens...

Did you see, the one in 8 B.C> was ROMAN CITIZENS.Juddah was a seperate kingdom. They were not roman citizen.Plus, you know that just because someone makes a comment in the sidelines doesn't mean that comment is accurate

*sigh*Of COURSE the issue is that there is little evidence the census in 8 B.C. counted anyone other than Roman citizens, and that Judea would not have been included until 6 A.D. or whenever.But of course, is that what I was responding to? No.I was responding to statements like this from ramoss
...........from known historical sources, there was no known census order by augustus in 8 b.c.e...........But the Res Gestae does record a census order by Augustus in 8 B.C., thus, I showed that. And when I write things to ramoss like "this doesn't answer all the questions," I'm including the lack of evidence concerning any affects on Judea from such a census. The question of how such a census would apply to Mary and Joseph have had some possible answers thrown out there using cases from Egypt, and the census' in Apamea and Cappadocia etc..Paul's response is that we don't need to question anything because we already know it didn't happen. Then this discussion is pointless. Completely. Besides when I DO take a point you've made about an ARTICLE I find, and decide you have a GOOD point and change my views accordingly, then I get berated for THAT? You convincing me of something is a bad thing? hmmm... that's different.And this was amusing:
...........Your other quotes also argue against your quotes. Archelaus is credited with the power to reduce taxation, Herod is blamed for high taxes - and for keeping tax revenues for himself.......Since all the quotes referenced by the statement came from Josephus, can we then say Jospephus is discredited and his records of a census in 6 A.D. are invalid as well?It's enjoyable and a learning experience to bounce things off you guys and hear your perspective on it. But this has not been a free exchange of ideas as much as it has been a stern lecture. And those get kinda tiring.This message has been edited by adrenalinejunkie, 06-22-2005 03:40 PM

Well I see you are misrepresenting me again. THe fact is that we know that the 8 BC census applied only to Roman citizens because Augustus says so. It is explcitly described as being the lustrum census and the count given is of Roman citizens.http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~ekondrat/Rome_Govt.html

He mentions Roman citizens, but he expressly states as well that the census is of "the people." That sure sounds like more than just Roman citizens to me.

As in the "Senate and People of Rome" (SPQR) ?i.e. the people entitled to vote in Roman elections ?i.e. Roman citizens.? SPQR
In the context of a lustrum census what other people COULD be meant ?

Another problem with the Nativity stories is well covered in http://www.inerrancyexposed.com/bethlehem.html (permission to reproduce part of the article here permitted).The problem concerns the geographic origin of Jesus and his family.The Inerrantist Jason Gastrich employs a common Inerrantist tactic in his attempt to harmonize Matthew and Luke. Where two Biblical narratives differ, Inerrantists often resort to the explanation that the narrators have included some details, and have omitted other details, yet together the two narratives tell a complete story. It is often asserted that an omission is not itself a contradiction. There is an element of truth to such an assertion. After all, when two people give an account of the same event, they will typically include some details which the other person does not include, and vice-versa. After all, you cannot contradict nothing, which is all that an omission is! But while it is correct to say that an omission cannot result in a contradiction, in itself, this point can also be misleading. For, it is the narrative as a whole which may or may not contradict another narrative. It is a trivial point that anything remaining unsaid within that narrative cannot contradict another narrative.And in order to properly interpret the narrative as a whole, one must first provide the best interpretation of that particular narrative, not first leap to force its harmonization with a second narrative.When we examine the two infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke, it is apparent that there is in fact a contradiction. The contradiction is not uncovered by comparing the account of the flight to Egypt in Matthew with its omission in Luke, as the Inerrantist would have you do. Instead, the contradiction is demonstrated by the correct interpretation of each of the two narratives - paying special attention to the two sets of movements of Jesus' family, and to the towns and houses Jesus' family is claimed to live in by Matthew and Luke.New Testament scholar Raymond Brown summarises the issues well:"The two narratives are not only different - they are contrary to each other in a number of details. According to Luke 1:26 and 2:39 Mary lives in Nazareth, and so that the census of Augustus is invoked to explain how the child was born in Bethlehem, away from home. In Matthew there is no hint of a coming to Bethlehem, for Joseph and Mary are in a house at Bethlehem where seemingly Jesus was born (2:11). The only journey that Matthew has to explain is why the family went to Nazareth when they came from Egypt instead of returning to their native Bethlehem (2:22-23). A second difficulty is that Luke tells us that the family returned peaceably to Nazareth after the birth at Bethlehem (2:22, 39); this is irreconcilable with Matthew's implication (2:16) that the child was almost two years old when the family fled from Bethlehem to Egypt and even older when the family came back from Egypt and moved to Nazareth."
- Raymond E. Brown The birth of the Messiah -- a commentary on the infancy narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (New York: Doubleday, 1993, updated edition), p. 36.But let us examine these points in more detail, by first interpreting Luke, and then Matthew.Luke's AccountLuke has Joseph and Mary move from their hometown in Nazareth in Galilee, to Bethlehem for the birth of Jesus, and back to Nazareth in Galilee.Luke puts Joseph and Mary's home in NazarethNazareth in Galilee is shown to be Joseph and Mary's hometown before the birth of Jesus in Luke 2:3-4. Joseph, Jesus' legal father, has to travel from his "own town" (2:39) of Nazareth in Galilee, to his "own [ancestral] town" (2:3-4) Bethlehem in Judea, only because of the census of Quirinius:Luke 2:1-4: "In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2 This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3 All went to their own towns to be registered. 4 Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David."Also, in Luke 1.26, Nazareth was declared to be Mary's hometown nine months earlier, at the time of her conception:Luke 1.26-27: "Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, 27 to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary."Some inerrantists have attempted to argue that, while Luke explicitly calls Nazareth Mary's hometown, he does not do so for Joseph. They then speculate, for the sake of harmonization, that Joseph lived in Bethlehem, while only Mary lived in Nazareth! Because such a situation is highly speculative, and an unlikely interpretation of Luke's narrative, this is unable to be defended as a proper interpretation of the text. But there is also a further problem for the inerrantist who tries to separate Joseph from Mary for the purposes of his harmonization. For, according to Matthew, Joseph had already taken Mary as his wife before Jesus was born, although Joseph was not yet having sex with Mary (Matthew 1:24-25). The Jewish institution of marriage in the first century, although differing from the modern institution, at least included the man taking his wife into his house. So, according to Matthew, Joseph was living in the same house, in the same town, with Mary. And this is corroborated by Matthew's need to say that Joseph wasn't having sex with Mary before Jesus was born - as the common matrimonial home would have provided the opportunity for Joseph to have regular access to Mary for sexual intercourse. So what of Luke's account of Joseph going between Nazareth and Bethlehem in Luke 2:2-3 & 39? If Joseph and Mary were already married, and one wishes to harmonize the accounts of Matthew and Luke, this must also have been Joseph's town.Then, according to Luke, after Joseph and Mary had travelled to Bethlehem, Jesus was born in Bethlehem:Luke 2:6-7: "While they were there [in Bethlehem], the time came for her to deliver her child. 7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son . "Luke then describes the circumcision of Jesus, and the purification (from the 'impurities' of childbirth) of Mary. Circumcision was carried out on the eighth day after birth (Lev 12:3), and the mother was considered ceremonially unclean for the 7 days following childbirth, and 33 days following the circumcision (Lev 12:2, 4). After this 40-day period, the mother had to provide a sheep as a sacrifice to restore her purity. This sacrifice could be changed to two turtledoves or pigeons if she were too poor to afford a sheep (Lev 12:6-8). As Luke 2:24 shows, Mary offered two turtledoves or pigeons:Luke 2:21-24: "After eight days had passed, it was time to circumcise the child; and he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb. 22 When the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the law of the Lord, "Every firstborn male shall be designated as holy to the Lord"), 24 and they offered a sacrifice according to what is stated in the law of the Lord, "a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.""Leviticus 12 sets out the relevant "law of Moses", the requirements of which took a period of 40 days following childbirth. Luke is then quite clear that Joseph and Mary returned to their "own town" of Nazareth "when they had finished" these 40 days of legal requirements:Luke 2:39: "When they [Joseph and Mary] had finished everything required by the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.The phrase "when they had finished ... they returned to Galilee" translates the Greek kai hos etelsan ... epestreupsan eis ten Galilaian, literally: "as they completed [all the requirements of the Law], they returned to Galilee." Such a phrasing makes the inerrantist's presumption of any trip to Egypt at this stage highly unlikely. Luke is clearly narrating the return to Nazareth as something that occurred just when Mary had completed the 40 days of legal obligations. And the presumption of a long trip to Egypt awaiting Herod's death, omitted by Luke, would be quite contrary to the meaning being conveyed by Luke in 2:39.Matthew's AccountMatthew has Joseph and Mary take an entirely different route, from an entirely different hometown!Matthew puts Joseph and Mary's home in BethlehemAt some point following the birth of Jesus, Joseph is commanded to go to Egypt, from their house in Bethlehem. If this "house" (Matthew 2:11) is Joseph and Mary's own house, this is complete contradiction to Luke's account, which places the Holy Family's hometown in Nazareth, Galilee. This is the most likely meaning of oikia ("house"), which most naturally refers to a family's abode. In its unqualified sense, as it appears in Matthew 2:11, oikia most probably refers to Joseph and Mary's own household. Therefore, Matthew should be interpreted as understanding that Joseph and Mary were living in Bethlehem immediately before the birth of Jesus! As Raymond Brown explains:"Presumably this was the house which served as the home of Joseph and Mary who were inhabitants of Bethlehem. The view is quite different from that of Luke 2:1-7. There have been many attempts, often quite forced, to harmonize the information." (p. 176)Many Inerrantists, faced with the natural and probable translation of oikia as Joseph and Mary's home, will reach for their concordances and try to translate oikia as the stable of Luke's story, or some other harmonizing option. This tactic, searching for any unlikely alternative meaning of a word in order to support a harmonization, is commonplace amongst Inerrantists. But the tactic is denounced in mainstream biblical scholarship, where it is labelled "illegitimate totality transfer." However, there is a further problem for the Inerrantist in the case of Matthew's nativity story. For, even if this natural interpretation of oikia is rejected by the Inerrantist, there is conclusive proof later on in chapter 2 of Matthew that Bethlehem was Joseph and Mary's hometown. For, when Joseph is told to return to Israel:1. Joseph's first thought is to return to Judea (the province in which Bethlehem is), not Nazareth (Matthew 2:22). Naturally, Joseph and Mary wished to return to their hometown, which Matthew 2:22 reveals was in Judea. But Nazareth is in Galilee, not Judea!2. Only after being warned in a dream not to return to Judea, Joseph goes instead to Galilee (Matthew 2:22).3. On coming to Nazareth, Joseph is not described as returning to the home that Luke believes he has there. To the contrary, Joseph is described as "making his home" there. The phrase "made his home in a town called Nazareth" (Matthew 2:23) reveals that Joseph is settling in a new place, which Matthew now introduces for the first time! Far from returning to his hometown, Joseph has arrived in a town that is altogether new to him.4. What is more, it is only because of Joseph's arrival in Nazareth at this time that Matthew sees fit to claim that Jesus will now fulfill the prophecy, "He will be called a Nazorean" (Matthew 2:23).So when we actually come to consider the logic of Matthew's narrative itself, rather than leap to a forced harmonization with Luke, it is beyond reasonable doubt that Matthew must be interpreted as presenting Bethlehem, not Nazareth, as Joseph and Mary's original hometown. As Raymond Brown summarises:"Joseph's first thought was to return to Judea, i.e., to "Bethlehem of Judea" (2:1), because he and Mary lived in a house there (2:11). Since Joseph and Mary were citizens of Bethlehem, Matthew takes pains to explain why they went to Nazareth. In Luke's account, where they are citizens of Nazareth, the painstaking explanation is centered on why they went to Bethlehem (2:1-5)."So, in contrast to Luke, Matthew has Joseph and Mary move from their house in Bethlehem, to Egypt, and then settle for the first time in Nazareth!The time-scale in MatthewMoreover, this occurs over a period of some years following Jesus' birth. Remember that Luke has Jesus leave Bethlehem for Jerusalem after 40 days, the term of Mary's purification (Luke 2:21-24, 39). So, in Luke, Jesus is still little more than a newborn baby when he leaves Bethlehem. But the wise men who visited Jesus in Matthew's account provide information to Herod about Jesus' age that leads to him killing all boys up to two years old. The clear implication of the narrative is that the wise men had given Herod information about the date of Jesus' birth that led Herod to kill all boys who lived in Bethlehem up to 2 years old:Matthew 2:16: "When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, he was infuriated, and he sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had learned from the wise men."And in Matthew's account, Joseph and Mary remain in Egypt for some time after this, awaiting the death of Herod. Yet, according to Luke, Jesus travelled to Nazareth with his family only after 40 days:Matthew 2:15, 19-21: "and [Joseph, the child and his mother] remained there [in Egypt] until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, "Out of Egypt I have called my son." . 19 When Herod died, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, 20 "Get up, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who were seeking the child's life are dead." "Many inerrantists who try to harmonize Luke with Matthew posit a trip to Egypt between the visit to Jerusalem and the return to Nazareth. But:1. Such a harmonization abuses the straightforward statement in Luke that shows Joseph and Mary return home on completing the legal requirements of Leviticus 12. According to Luke, Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth "as they finished everything required by the law;"2. Such a harmonization takes no account of the presentation of Nazareth as the hometown of Joseph and Mary in Luke, versus Bethlehem in Matthew; and3. Such a harmonization fails to adequately explain why, on being warned to flee straightaway to Egypt by an angel of Yahweh (once the wise men who had visited them, in Bethlehem, had left the place: 2:1-15), Joseph first travelled to Jerusalem (Luke 2:22) the very place where Herod himself reigned!Summary: The contradictionLuke places Joseph and Mary at home in Nazareth, Galilee, from before the birth of Jesus (Luke 1:26-27; 2:4). After a trip to Bethlehem, Judea (Luke 2:5), during which Mary gives birth to Jesus and has him circumcised (Luke 2:6-7, 21), they return home to Nazareth, Galilee. If he is presented to the temple in Jerusalem after 40 days as was the custom (Matthew 2:21-38) - the return would be 40 days after Jesus' birth (Luke 2:39).But:Matthew places Joseph and Mary's original home in Bethlehem, Judea. Matthew does not believe that their original home was in Nazareth, Galilee. This is clear from the fact that they begin in Bethlehem, as shown by the visit to their home in Bethlehem, Judea by the wise men in Matthew 2:1-12, and Herod seeking to destroy all Bethlehem infants in Matthew 2:16-18; and especially as shown by the angel of the Lord telling them to return home to Judea, Israel in Matthew 2:19-21, and the decision not to do so but to settle in a new town, Nazareth, Galilee.So for Luke: Jospeh and Mary begin in Nazareth, Galilee. (1) They travel to Bethlehem, Judea for a temporary census, and remain approximately 40 days after Jesus's birth there, before (2) making sacrifice at Jerusalem. (3) They then return to their home in Nazareth, Galilee.But for Matthew: Joseph and Mary begin in Bethlehem, Judea. (1) After a period of up to 2 years, they then travel to Egypt, to wait out the death of Herod, for a further period of months or years. They are then told to return to Israel - but (2) later travel to Galilee to "settle" in the town of Nazareth.The contradiction is demonstrated by a proper examination of each of the two infancy narratives. Gastrich's attempt to claim that the two accounts merely involve 'omissions' is disproved by the contradictory movements of Joseph and Mary, and the different hometowns which are presupposed in Matthew (Bethlehem) and Luke (Nazareth). The common inerrantist harmonization, whereby Joseph and Mary travel to Egypt between Jerusalem and Nazareth, is demonstrated above to be a highly unlikely and quite tendentious interpretation.

Well, there are even more problems than that. Any birth date would have to meet certain critieria. According to the gospels, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist when he (Jesus) was about 30 and during his (Jesus’) ministry, John was executed/ beheading by order of Herod (Herod Antipas). If you check Josephus, you will find that he reports John’s death to be around the year 36 CE (this is arrived at obliquely by observing the defeat of Herod by his former father-in-law and the subsequent Roman action in support of Herod that occurred in 37 CE). Luke reports that John began his ministry in the 15th year of Tiberius’ reign (about 28 CE) and it is believed that John’s ministry lasted only 6 months before his words on Herod’s marriage to Herodias angered Herod and resulted in his being imprisoned. The date would also have to support Jesus being tried before Pontius Pilate. Pilate was recalled to Rome and left in late 36 CE or early 37 CE. It is believed that one reason the Roman Army that supported Herod wintered in Judea was to put Pilate’s replacement in office and send Pilate packing back to Rome. It should now be fairly evident that none of the dates predicated by the gospels (Matthew and Luke) come anywhere near meeting all the criteria necessary. Dates that correspond with Herod the Great’s reign would be much too early and would have Jesus beginning his ministry prior to John the Baptist, and dying prior to John the Baptist, not to mention being prior to Quintilus being in office. If you go by Luke and accept a date during the term of Quintilus, then the dates offered by Matthew can’t be met, plus Jesus would not have begun his ministry until the year John was executed and the final year of Pilates term in office (that is utilizing the earliest day of Quintilus term - 6 CE). There is no way that the gospels can be telling the truth about the birth (or for that matter the death) of Jesus of Nazareth (we won’t even go into the lack of existence of this town in 1st century CE.)

I am very curious as to why the micro management of the historical aspect of the bible is such a big deal to people. It's the forest for the trees kind of thing.