the christmas story

ok. moving past the delicious pagan pagentry to a literary view...i was thinking the other day (danger!!) and happened upon this thought.somewhere back in samuel and kings there are two versions of the same story. they have some theological differences but i think i've had that discussion. i've now misplaced the references but that's not so important. suffice to say, david took a census of the isrealites and this was a great sin.so i've made some interpretations and i think it was a sin because it gave a countable number to the sons of abraham who are supposed to be numbered as the stars in the sky or the sand on the beach or some such thing... in other words, uncountable.so the reason this was so bad is that it verged on having the power to break the promise that god made to abraham. (end pre-story)it occurred to me that the whole christmas scenario begins with a census of the jews.so it seems to me this is, perhaps, the most amazing part of the whole story. that someone purported to be without wrong could come to be when his very birthplace was determined by a great wrong.what's your take on it? ie what do you think of my interpretation of david's sin? am i aright in thinking the roman census was a great wrong (not necessarily perpetrated for that express purpose; i understand the usefulness of a census.)? what affect do you think this idea might have on the birth story?(this is a topic for bible scholars only, and not one for a debate about the reality of any religion or the truth of the jesus story.)This message has been edited by brennakimi, 01-03-2005 22:31 AM

So where were you thinking this should go? And could you get slightly more specific about what your question is?

---

that's a good question come to think of it. at first i'd say faith and belief. but i dunno.the topic is less of a specific question or challenge and more of a well this is what i think, what you do think?

It's just not clear what you're asking. Is it that the Roman Census was somehow sinful?

yes. in a more specifc sense, breaking a promise.

op editted. better?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

well, the census appears to be a literary divice to get mary and joseph to bethlehem, an incorrect reading of a messianic prophesy that just doesn't apply to jesus.jesus was called jesus of nazareth, not jesus of bethlehem. so where he was born should not really be an issue.but that is a different and interesting observation. might have even been a subtle nod to the samuel/chron story, pointing to the romans as evil, because the text is very clearly and purposefully devoid of any such referrence on the surface. (pilate washing his hands, etc)matthew even has herod the great killing every child of a certain age in israel, and jesus escaping to egypt, only to return when it's safe. it's a passover reference, but there is no way this really happened.another possibility is that birth part of the gospels of luke and matthew is of different origin than the life and death parts in the the gospels. we do have other infancy gospels, and mark and john don't seem to care about christmas at all. if it's of different origin, maybe it's meant to slander romans, and imply that jesus is the messiah who would save the jews from rome, leading them to war. such infancy gospel are said to have floated around within jesus's own lifetime.but either way, it's kind of neat that god uses sin to his advantage, at least in terms of the literature.

First, the census couldn't count all of Abraham's descendents, it could only count the ones that exist up to that point in time. Abraham's current descendants at the time of the census would of course have more children and thus more descendants. Also, this is moreso figurative language. God specifically uses the example of counting stars in the sky. The footnotes of my Bible say that there would probably be about 8,000 stars visible in Abraham's time. That doesn't mean there are literally about 8,000 descendants. Abraham couldn't count how many stars there were in the sky because they were so numerous. The same would be true of his descendants. So the whole point of this is not to give Abraham a specific number, but to give him an abstract sense of the size of his descendants.

There was a Roman census to assess Judaea for taxation when the Romans took over - and Quirinius was the person in charge. This much is recorded in Josephus and there is no reason to doubt it (a census would be expected then - but not while Judaea was a client state as it was prior to that point). While Luke's reason for getting Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem doesn't quite make sense, it is possible that Joseph would have had to go if he had owned property or land in Bethlehem (although this calls into question the "no room at the inn" story and doesn't explain why a heavily pregnant Mary would have to make the journey).The big problem is reconciling the Lukan account with that in Matthew. Not only is the Nativity account in Matthew set around 10 years earlier, the accounts just don't fit together (for instance, in Matthew it is apparent that Joseph and Mary are residents of Bethlehem at the time of the story and move to Nazareth only after they return from Egypt).

you didn't actually read my post did you?try again. that's kinda what i said. and the census giving them an actual number is the precise bad thing. and yes it's only up until that time but guess what. it mattered just as much to those descendants as it does to the ones now.

OK. I'll try again. The census conducted by David exists for exactly the same reason the census exists today. Now if the census existed specifically for the purpose of counting Abraham's descendants, that would be a different story.

who do you think lived in isreal?

no no i see his point. not all of abraham's descendants were israelites.

oh um lol. right.see how much i pay attention?This message has been edited by brennakimi, 01-09-2005 12:09 AM