Would Mary Have Been In Bethlehem?

quote:

---

What is the earliest account of Mark/Mathew that you are referring to, which manuscript is it based upon?

​

and which manuscipt of Luke are you comparing them to??

---

You still misunderstand. I'm not comparing particular manuscripts, I'm comparing the standard texts. Now if YOU wish to claim that Luke or Mark and Matthew have been redacted since they were written then YOU need to deal with the manuscript evidence. I'm assuming that these accounts have not been significantly changed in that way.

quote:

---

Paul please dont treat me like an imbocile.

---

I'm not. I'm simply correcting your mistakes. If you don't like that then please be more careful in your reading and make fewer mistakes.

quote:

---

I ask you for evidence for such a claim that "Lukes version of the Olivet discourse appears to have been changed from that found in Mark"

---

No, you didn't If you had asked that I would have told you to read and compare Mark 13 with Luke 21:5-36.

quote:

---

and you say thats not what you said

---

No, I claim that IS what I said. The version in Luke is different from that found in Mark and Matthew and the changes seem to have been made to make the discourse better fit the actual events.

quote:

---

Its not up to me to provide you evidence that it has not been changed, its up to you to prove back up your statement with evidence for such a change

---

That's not true. If you had simply asked for evidence I would have given it - as I have just done. Instead you asked for the WRONG evidence, based on a misunderstanding of what I said.

quote:

---

Btw, im sure you realise that standard texts are merely translations and all translations appear slightly different, so please dont tell me thats your evidence for saying that Luke has been changed.

---

I assure you that I am not relying on differences that can be put down to mere variations in the translations.

quote:

---

you have not done so at all

---

Yes, I have. I've told you hwere to find the two accounts, all you have to do is read them.

quote:

---

You are backtracking because you made a claim that you cannot backup.

---

Wrong. I'm sticking exactly to my original claim.

quote:

---

As I said, If the manuscript of Luke has been changed, then there must be other manuscripts that show this to be the case, otherwise how is it known that the Luke has been changed

---

That is not what I claimed. I have consistently corrected this misunderstanding on your part as is clear from the posts.

quote:

---

You cannot name a manuscript that shows such a change so now you are doing a backflip and saying i made a mistake in what you had said

---

I am not doing a backflip and you did make a mistake. And you keep making the same mistake despite the fact that I have corrected it EVERY TIME.

quote:

---

I know it does not mean exactly 30. As i said above, 'it would mean 30 plus up to 12 months'

​

but if Jesus was 31 or 32 or 33 etc, there was nothing stopping Luke from writing it that way...if he could write '30' he could just as easily have written '31' or '32' or '33'

---

And if he meant "30 and some months" he could have just as easily written "30"But there are other reasons why Luke might have written "about 30" that you don't acknowledge.1) Luke didn't know Jesus' exact age at the start of his ministry "About 30" is an estimate. (Remember we DON'T have solid dates for the crucifixion either).2) Luke didn't feel that the exact age was important so he wrote it to the nearest 10 years, qualified with "about" (or maybe the nearest 5).3) Jesus was a few years short of 30 and Luke preferred to say "about 30", because he thought it sounded better.

quote:

---

...but, in every case, this other interpretation confirms that what Luke refers is both reasonable and plausible.

---

Of course it's not the plausibility of what Luke said that's in question here. It's the assertion that Luke was referring to a census prior to the known 6 AD census - a census which is a close match for his description.And just as you put words into Lukes mouth , so you try to put them into mine.

quote:

---

I’m happy that you now acknowledge that the Latin term iterum in the lapis implies a repetition of the politic office it refers.

---

Since my position on this is completely unchanged, there is no cause for happiness on your part here.

quote:

---

Even, you even present us, now, the new possibility that the person the lapis refers was twice hegemon in both places: Syria and Asia! Thanks so much.

---

No, I don't. As you know I was simply explaining how the stone can be read as referring to the holding of ONE governorship in Asia and ONE governorship in Syria. Which was my original point.And if you're feeling happy because I didn't mention all the other points I've made that you have yet to address. Don't be. I haven't forgotten.

You present a very simplistic view of dealing with ancient writers. One tailored to apologetic use, rather than true historical investigation.

quote:

---

Very often it happens that an ancient writer (A) asserts that in an any given moment of history, in an any given place, a certain character made this or that action.

​

Now, if:
- no-one other ancient writer (B+) cites the same event;
- no-one other ancient writer contradicts (B+) the A event description (on sound basis, obviously);
- the event is in itself plausible
we are bound to accept that event as a historical fact.

---

What if some other ancient writer WOULD be expected to mention the same event - but did not ?What criteria do you accept for "contradiction" ? Because on the face of it Matthew's nativity story clearly contradicts Luke's. Is this not a reason to regard both as suspect ?Where do the sources, motives and biases of ancient writers come into your analysis ?

quote:

---

1) Do you exclude Luke (from the ancient trusted writers’ list) if he (or an any so-and-so) had reported - what we now find in Luke 2 - in a purely chronachistic area, that is, with no relation with any prophecy? If you answer Yes, why this would be different?

---

When assessing the works of ancient writers it is necessary to consider what we know of their sources and motives - and we should be prepared to judge portions of their work differently to others. The nativity account is clearly one of the less trustworthy parts of Luke.It is entirely possible that Luke's story was concocted about the known 6 AD census, on the belief that Micah predicted that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. That Matthew provides a very different account lends some weight to this hypothesis - since it is implausible that both are accurate.

quote:

---

2) If all the testimonies of the ancient historians would confirm the Luke’s statements about the apographe, do you really believe the prophecy (of Micah 5:2) was fulfilled? Sincerely, don’t you advance other pretexts to reassert what you seem to believe —a priori — that is, it is impossible that a real prophecy exists?

---

If Jesus was NOT born in Bethlehem that would negate the idea that he fulfilled that interpretation of Micah 5 - but it would not show that he fulfilled it. Many people have been born in Bethlehem. So your argument here is irrational. Showing that Luke's account is true would not show that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy.

quote:

---

You said: Of course it's not the plausibility of what Luke said that's in question here..
This is false.

​

The plausibility of Luke’s account is a pivotal argument in this topic.

---

In this topic as a whole, perhaps. In this particular part of the discussion it isn't - because we are discussing a claim that Luke DID NOT MAKE.

quote:

---

If you consider plausible the Luke’s account then you have to consider him an integrative historical source. In this case, isn’t difficult harmonize him with the other historycal data we possess.

---

In that case you should support the idea that Luke was referring to the 6 AD census.

quote:

---

If you consider not plausible the Luke’s account you have to delete, together with Luke, all the ancient writers that cited events not directly confirmed by other ancient writers.

---

Wrong. I am not limited to such simplistic judgements.

quote:

---

First of all, my message (this particular part of the discussion) was addressed to Michamus and not to you.

---

Wrong. You're mixing up two different discussions.
Your quote comes from my Message 127 which is a reply to your Message 125, which is a reply to my Message 73.

quote:

---

So, if you consider not important the argument of the plausibility of Luke’s account, what’s the problem?

---

I didn't say that it wasn't important. Just that it wasn't important to that particular discussion. And it wasn't important because the point under discussion did not come from Luke.

quote:

---

Secondly, your definition (simplistic judgements) about mine historical data assessment’s criteria is an your personal viewpoint (for what it’s worth).

---

Nevertheless it is a fact that your criteria omits clearly relevant factors. If you want my personal judgement your "criteria" are designed only to "justify" uncritical acceptance of Luke (and would be quickly dropped or modified if they lead to any conclusions that you didn't like).

As usual you are relying on the claims of apologists, rather than true scholars.Every source I have seen rules out the reading of Luke as indicating a census prior to that of Quirinius,Quirinus could not have held the position of procurator at the time Jesus was born (it was restricted to those of equestrian rank only) - If Justin Martyr said otherwise, he was wrong.Going over your "concluding" points:

quote:

---

That Augustus MIGHT HAVE issued a world-wide census decree (a record of which is only preserved in Luke's gospel) is ALTOGETHER reasonable and plausible. The data about Augustus' 'propensity' to count and tax is well known. For example, he documents, in his own records, how he counted the Roman nation some three times (Res Gestae Divi Augusti , 8--from Roman Civilization--SourceBook II: the Empire, eds. Lewis and Reinhold, p 12)., and increasingly levied detailed taxes throughout his reign--with the attendant increase in bribery and vice (see Gibbons'Rise and Fall). As vain as he was, it would not be surprising at all for this to have occurred.

---

Thus is barely relevant - it doesn't even touch on the problems of assuming a census prior to 6AD.

quote:

---

It was also customary for the Roman empire to take a census when there was a change of local government (e.g. when Archelaus was deposed in AD 6, one of Quirinius' first tasks was to liquidate his estate and hold a census to determine the tribute load.) The implication of this pattern for our discussion is that when Varus became governor of Syria in 7 BC, one of his first acts would have been to take a census (the one which would have produced the trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem for Joseph/Mary.)

---

This is doubly false. Firstly there was no rule that a new governor would hold a census - most would not. A governorship lasted around 3 years. See your statement below that the Romans only held a census in Egypt every fourteen, Secondly because Judaea was not part of Syria when Varus took over, and the government of Judea did not change at that time (Herod was still king).

quote:

---

We KNOW Augustus instituted a 14-year census-cycle for EGYPT in 10/9 BC...(SourceBook II, above, p. 388)...Not only does this give us more confirmation that Augustus was a "countin' sorta guy'" but it may reflect a local execution of a 'worldwide decree' of Augustus.

---

This not only contradicts your preceding point, it gives the wrong date for you.

quote:

---

To assert that Augustus did not make such a decree is an affirmative historical statement. And, "the burden of proof, for any historical assertion, always rests upon its author" (Hacket, Historians' Fallacies, Harper: 1970, p 63.).

---

It is less clearly such a statement than the assertion that there was such a census. And you clearly fail to meet the burden of showing that there was.

quote:

---

And to argue that Luke was wrong because there was NO worldwide decree (because we don't have a record of the specific decree) is to make a common mistake in historical method--arguing from 'slim' silence (some silence-arguments can be made to work, though). Hacket again:
"evidence must always be affirmative. Negative evidence is a contradiction in terms--it is no evidence at all. The nonexistence of an object [read: "worldwide decree"-gmm] is established not by nonexistent evidence [read: "we can't find the decree so far"-gmm] but by affirmative evidence of the fact that it did not, or could not exist [e.g. a document that says it did not happen--gmm]" (above, p62)

---

That's just nuts. There SHOULDN'T be a document that says it didn't happen - we don't go writing lists of all the things that didn't happen in a year.

quote:

---

To summarize this section on the 'the missing census of 7/5 BC': I HAVE affirmative evidence and good arguments for such a census:

​

Augustus was this 'type of person' with repeated, known actions along this line.

---

Neither affirmative evidence. nor a good argument.
.

quote:

---

These kinds of events occurred at major changes in ruling personnel--a situation that obtained in Palestine at the time Luke indicates.

---

Only true if you accept that Luke meant the 6 AD census. If you don't it is disproven by your own reference to the 14 year Egyptian cycle which is clearly less frequent than the changes in the govenorship.

quote:

---

Parallel events occurred in other Roman-controlled areas, in roughly the same time (i.e. Egypt 10/9 BC).

---

Too early, and only one area.

quote:

---

There is not a scrap of contrary data.

---

Neither affirmative evidence, nor a good argument even if it were true.

quote:

---

Quirinius' participation is such an event (along with Varus) is not only possible, but highly likely.

---

This should be established via evidence - which is clearly lacking.

quote:

---

We have positive evidence of an empire-wide decree of Augustus within a year or two of the required date.

---

False,Let us note that Christian apologists are biased and prone to invention and misrepresentation. I see no reason to assume that Luke's story was not a similar invention,Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

The answer is simple. Luke is clearly talking about the 6 AD census. The error, then, is made by those who insist that he meant a fictious earlier census.

Can you give a good reason to suppose that Luke DIDN'T mean the 6 AD census ?

quote:

---

If it's clear, the question is unnecessary.

---

On the contrary, the question is made necessary by your apparent disagreement. It gives you the opportunity to state your case. If you have one.Since Luke explicitly identifies his census as being carried out under Quirinius why should we doubt that he is indeed referring to the well-known census carried out under Quirinius ?

No, there's very little discussion of what Luke meant. There are many more posts like yours that assume that Luke meant some earlier census - but don't give any reason for it. I've asked before in this thread for reasons - and nobody seems to have any.Luke refers to a census of Judaea held under Quirinius. We have a census of Judaea held in 6AD under Quirinius. Why should we assume that Luke meant some earlier census ?

quote:

---

Do we have extra-biblical records of more than one census under Quirinius?

---

No. We don't have any independent records of ANY Roman census of Judaea prior to 6 AD, or any record of Quirinius holding the governorship of Syria (or any other position that Luke might have meant) prior to 6 AD.

quote:

---

Luke pointedly refers to the "first" census under Quirinius, implying that Quirinius held at least one later census.

---

I think that you are misreading it. I believe that Luke meant that it was the first Roman census of Judaea - which was held under Quirinius. Because Judaea was a nominally independent client state up until 6 AD when it was absorbed into the Roman Empire there would have been no earlier census. (And if there had been, Jospehus - who was very interested in the relationship between the Jews and the Romans - should have recorded it)

quote:

---

Why do you assume that the 6 AD census was the first one under Quirinius, and not the second or a later one?

---

I don't simply assume it. I conclude it, given that there are good reasons to reject the idea of any earlier Roman census (under any governor) - and no reason to place Quirinius as governor of Syria prior to 6 AD.

quote:

---

That's not what I asked. To be more specific, do we have any extrabiblical records of another census under Quirinius AFTER the 6 AD census? If so, your case would have more weight

---

Your argument is based on the assumption that Luke implies that there were two censuses under Quirinius. I have already answered that point in my previous post.