|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Would Mary Have Been In Bethlehem? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2383 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Are you claiming that Judea was not taxed by Rome before 6 AD? (If it were taxed earlier, there must have been an earlier tax census.) There is evidence of "a combined census and oath of allegiance to Augustus in 3-2 B.C., perhaps related to the bestowal of the title 'pater patriae' (father of thy country) by the senate on Feb. 5, 2 B.C." This was apparently mentioned by Caesar Augustus and by Josephus, and the fifth-century historian Orosius seems to link this to the birth of Christ:
Orosius writes:
(Quotes taken from section 2.3 in Yet Another Eclipse for Herod)
[Augustus] ordered that a census be taken of each province everywhere and that all men be enrolled. So at that time, Christ was born and was entered on the Roman census list as soon as he was born. This is the earliest and most famous public acknowledgment which marked Caesar as the first of all men and the Romans as lords of the world ... that first and greatest census was taken, since in this one name of Caesar all the peoples of the great nations took oath, and at the same time, through the participation in the census, were made part of one society. quote:But remember the old adage, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." quote:Not so fast. You're making an argument mostly from lack of corroborating evidence for the biblical account, not from any evidence that the biblical account is wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17912 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
quote: Not directly, no. As Judaea was part of a client state rather than a part of the Empire it paid tribute rather than being part of the Roman tax system.
quote: Checking out your source, and it's references:the Res Gestae (one source) states:
"When I administered my thirteenth consulate (2 B.C.E.), the senate and Equestrian order and Roman people all called me father of the country..."
This doesn't suggest a registration of the citizens of client states. Nor does Ovid:
Sacred Father of the Country, this title has been conferred On you, by the senate, the people, and by us, the knights. Jospehus refers simply to an oath of loyalty, not mentioning a census of any sort (and of course, a loyalty oath would not require one). So we don't have any indication of a census or a loyalty oath directly connected to this event other than Orosius's claim that this is so - and Orosius could easily be assuming a census based on Luke, not on any other source.
quote: That adage has limits. To be strictly correct it refers to a COMPLETE absence of evidence. For instance the fact that Josephus does not mention a prior census is not an "absence of evidence" in the strict sense of the adage. Since we would expect Josephus to mention such an event his failure to mention it is evidence that there was no census prior to 6 AD. And of course we must include indirect evidence. Given all the other places that he could be (including more likely places like Rome) why would we expect Quirinius to be in Judaea ? The fact that we do not have a complete record of Quirinius' activity does not entitle us to assume that he was in Judaea at any particular time that is not recorded. Such an idea must be judged less likely than the idea that he was somewhere else.
quote: Even if that were entirely true (and it isn't) it is still the case that it is better to assume that Luke meant a recorded event which fits his description than one which is largely assumed without evidence. Consider that Luke expects the event to be recognised, even though he was almost certainly writing 70 years or more after the event. And we should expect that to be reflected in Josephus, who wrote not so long after (or possibly even before Luke). To Josephus the famous census held under Quirinius is the 6 AD census. I do, however, find it interesting that you insist that Luke must be wrong if he meant the 6 AD Census. I do not equate "Luke meant the 6 AD census" with "The Biblical account is wrong" (the more so since there is no single Biblical account of the event - we have, instead, two conflicting accounts with little in common).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5409 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
kbertsche writes:
ROFL. So then what stage of pregnancy would you suppose Mary was in before she supposedly embarked for Bethlehem?
Did you not think to perhaps check the original or some modern translations before commenting?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 6.0 |
quote: But you have no evidence. Just attempts to shoehorn stories from the bible into known historical facts. Everyone of these attempts runs into multiple inconsistencies. Most importantly you have no outside evidence. The only evidence at all are the gospel stories and these have multiple inconsistencies between them and within each. They are obviously not historical and should not be taken as historical documents Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3709 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:But the very next line says: While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born. Realistically how long do you think they were there before she gave birth?There was no room in the inn (I guess there was only one in town), were they staying in the stable for several months? If they were trying to stay at an inn, then there wasn't family to support them while they were there. How long could he afford to be away from his business and property? What in the text leads you to believe she wasn't at least in her 9th month? "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 5181 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
PaulK writes: So we don't have any indication of a census or a loyalty oath directly connected to this event other than Orosius's claim that this is so - and Orosius could easily be assuming a census based on Luke, not on any other source. Josephus does in fact mention a tax under Quirinius that led to a jewish revolt however Luke mentions no such revolt in his account of the registration indicating that they were writing about two different registrations. The Jewish encylopedia says: It was then that Judas, the son of Hezekiah, the above-mentioned robber-captain, organized his forces for revolt, first, it seems, against the Herodian dynasty, and then, when Quirinus introduced the census, against submission to the rule of Rome and its taxation. there is more information about Judas the Galilean and the revolt against Qurinius here Error 404 - Livius Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17912 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
quote: That's not a valid argument. There's no reason to assume that Luke would mention the revolt. It plays no role in his story.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 5181 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
PaulK writes: That's not a valid argument. There's no reason to assume that Luke would mention the revolt. It plays no role in his story Your right. The revolt played no role in the story because there was no revolt during that registration. He does mention the revolt though. He specifically mentions it with regard to 'the first registration' (Acts 5:37) So Luke knew of the revolt but did not write it in his gospel. The only reason he would do this is because the registration he wrote about in the Gospel, was a different registration to the one that resulted in a jewish revolt.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17912 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
quote: Repeating your assumption doesn't make it any better.
quote: Or more accurately he reports someone else talking about it, in a context of failed religious leaders or would-be messiahs.
quote: Wrong. There is another possible reason. And I've already told you it. It just wasn't important to his story.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2383 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:A minor clarification: The registration described in Acts 5:37 is not described by Luke as "the first," while the one in Luke 2:1 is described this way. This is suggestive (but not proof) that they are speaking of two different events. A leading archaeologist who was a world expert on Asia Minor and on Luke's writings said this:
Again the census (Luke II 1) under Quirinius is pointedly called the first, implying that it was the first of a series of census. A census is known to have been made in Syria by Quirinius in his second government, about 6 A.D., suggesting that they were perhaps decennial. We have no other evidence as to a census in 5-4 B.C.; but when we consider how purely accidental is the evidence for the second census, the want of evidence for the first seems to constitute no argument against the trustworthiness of Luke's statement.
Ramsay pointed out that the evidence for the 6 AD census rests on a single inscription from Venice. This had been lost for some time after its discovery, leading skeptics to doubt both this census and the existence of Quirinius.
(Sir William Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen (New York: Putnam, 1904) pp. 385-386.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17912 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
quote: If Ramsay said that then he had no idea what he was talking about. The 6 AD census is recorded in Josephus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2383 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Perhaps Ramsay was referring only to firsthand evidence when he called evidence for the 6 AD census "purely accidental?" Josephus' information would have been secondhand at best, since he was born after the census. At any rate, if anyone is guilty of minimizing Josephus' testimony, it is the biblical critics more than Ramsay. As Ramsay wrote in a footnote on p. 386 regarding the "purely accidental" evidence for the 6 AD census:
An inscription found in Venice is the sole authority. As the stone was lost, the inscription was pronounced a forgery, apparently for no reason except that it mentioned Quirinius's census. Even Mommsen refused to admit it as genuine, until, fortunately, part of the stone was rediscovered. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17912 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
quote: That seems unlikely. Besides, Ramsay is promoting ideas with considerably less support than that. It seems more likely that he is suggesting that the existence of Josephus work is "accidental" in the sense that it is unusual to have so detailed a history of events in a single province.
quote: I've looked at what Ramsay wrote elsewhere. There is no indication that it was felt to be a forgery because it mentioned the 6 AD census (which was accepted as genuine). Indeed Ramsay states that the reason for suspicion was that it might have been forged to agree with Luke's account. (A valid concern - a relic with Biblical associations might attract a higher price - something that is still a motive for forgery today). It should also be remembered that this criticism was only made when the stone itself was missing.
Absolutely the only reason for thinking it to be a forgery was that it mentioned the census of Quirinius, and therefore seemed to give some support to Luke. But as this might be the historical census of Quirinius in AD. 7, the support was very slight and indirect;
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 5181 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Cheers for that, the gospel account is the first registration.
I just wanted to point out that the scriptures put the birth of Christ at 2bce...so if we take the scriptures chronology as superior to the ancient historians (of which there is much speculation and confusion) then Lukes account about the registration took place in 2bce rather then 5-4bce.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17912 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
quote: No, they don't. That's just one speculative idea.
quote: Since the date of Jesus' birth according to the Gospels is a prime example of "specualtion and confusion" you would be very foolish to take that chronology as superior to Josephus with regard to that period. (In fact the whole Nativity is an area of "speculation and confusion" - the two accounts are that different ). Obviously the best supported answer is that Luke meant the 6 AD census. It's the best fit and it requires no implausible speculations (or misrepresentations of the evidence).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024