Jesus not born in Bethlehem?

Great Debates
1

In Asimov’s Guide to the Bible (p. 927), Issac Asimov suggensts that the writer of the Book of Luke used a literary device to place Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem in time for Jesus’ birth, even though it was well known that Jesus was from Nazareth, in order to convince readers that Jesus was the fulfillemt of Old Testament prophecy concerning the Messiah. Luke claims that a census under Roman military governor Quirinius required everyone in Judea to travel to their ancestral town to be counted, thus forcing Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem despite her being heavily pregnant. But number one, there is no corroborating evidence of such an event taking place, and number two, the whole thing doesn’t make sense.

Quirinius served from 6 B.C to 4 B.C. and again from 6 A.D. to 9 A.D. To be sure, according to Jewish historian Josephus, a census was conducted during Q’s second term, but as we all know (except the Pope), Jesus was born no later that 4 B.C. because that’s when King Herod died. There could have been an unrecorded census during Q’s first term, but the idea of requiring everyone to report to their ancestral town is ridiculous. When you’re doing a census, you want to count everyone where they live and work, you don’t want then traipsing up and down the countryside, clogging the roads, getting into all kinds of trouble, fermenting revolt. What purpose would that serve? The Romans were sticklers for efficiency, and once they established a procedure, they tended to conduct business that way throughout the empire. The question is, does anyone have any evidence that the Romans–or anyone else–conducted censuses (censi?) by requring people to travel to their ancestral homes? It’s a lot easier to believe that “Luke” simply made the whole thing up and that Jesus of Nazareth was born in Nazareth.

2

Here is an explanation, for those that are interested.

On an objection about Luke, Quirinius, and Herods:

And for you Cliff Notes fans, the author concludes with these points:

[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–
[ul][*}Luke, a very, very, very reliable historian SAYS SO!
[li]Augustus was this ‘type of person’ with repeated, known actions along this line.[/li][li]These kinds of events occurred at major changes in ruling personnel–a situation that obtained in Palestine at the time Luke indicates.[/li][li]Parallel events occurred in other Roman-controlled areas, in roughly the same time (i.e. Egypt 10/9 BC).[/li][li]There is not a scrap of contrary data.[/li][li]Quirinius’ participation is such an event (along with Varus) is not only possible, but highly likely.[/li][li]We have positive evidence of an empire-wide decree of Augustus within a year or two of the required date.[/ul][/li][/quote]

Hope that helps.

Peace.

† Jon †
Phillipians 4:13

3

also… inefficency is the hallmark of any goverment :slight_smile:

4

sqweels:

I would recomend avoiding the everyone knows argument around here.
There are sharks in these waters. And bigger fish further out in the Deep. :slight_smile:

I have heard it argued that Nazareth didn’t yet exist when Jesus was born.

The argument was that it was a mistranslation.

Jesus of Nazareth = Jesus the Nazerite.

Meaning Jesus was dedicated to God. Like Samson, and others.

Just putting my 2sense in.

Tyranny,* like Hell*,* is not easily conquered*.
-Thomas Paine (fugitive slave catcher)

5

Sorry. The whole thing still doesn’t make sense.

Imagine a family with a father born in one town, a mother born in another, and a child born in a third. What happens? Do they all have to go their separate ways for the census? Ludicrous!

I think the best and most logical explanation given is Asimov’s: Luke was using literary license (or to put it less kindly, he was re-writing history) to try to make Jesus’s life “fit” the prophesy of a messiah born in Bethlehem.

And what kind of bogus argument is this:

And exactly what sort of data would you use to prove the census didn’t occur? Using this line of reasoning, I can prove that Bigfoot exists by simply arguing that there is no proof he doesn’t exist.

I call “sheesh” on that one!

6

What the hell does the guy who writes Cliff’s Notes know about anything? It’s some English major who’s only paraphrasing what someone else has already said. Furthermore, pertaining to the contrary evidence, what are you looking for? Some sanskrit saying, “Whatever else happened, we did not take a census between 5 BC and 4 AD.” That’s stupid. I have never heard of evidence proving that Atlantis does not exist, therefore it does? WTF

7

spoke proposes:

They would go to the city where the father was born. Just like Luke said. It might not have been the best idea, and probably not even partially optimal, but there is evidence that such a system was used in the early first century.

He and others go on to ask about ‘There is not a scrap of contrary data’

This may not be the best singular data point, but as the article suggests, there is supporting evidence that such a census had taken place within the context of Luke’s account.

Regarding the accuracies of Luke’s accounts, British Archelogist Sir William Ramsay concluded after thirty years of study, that:
[/list][li]Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness[/li][li]Luke is a hitorian of the first rank.[/li][li]this author [Luke] should be placed along with the very greatest of historians&sup1[/list][/li]
inertia rants:

I cut and pasted the ‘cliff notes’ from the link so people could read the conclusions of the author of the link, without having to read the long dissertation. I’m sorry if the condensed version was not satisfactory for you.

as to the assertion that:

I would consider a reliable first century historians account to have more veracity than a science-fiction author of the twentieth century. YMMV.

Peace.

† Jon †
Phillipians 4:13

8

OK, what if you have an extended family under one roof? Do you go to Dad’s hometown, or to Granddad’s?

Can you give us some examples of what makes Luke such a “very very, very, very relaible historian”? (I may have left out a “very” - I’m not sure.)

Just a hunch, but is “British archaeologist Sir William Ramsay” a Christian? What does the fact that he’s British have to do with anything? Is that supposed to make him subtly more credible, somehow?

Calling Luke a “reliable first century historian” is a mighty stretch. He was a religious writer, justifying the religion he espoused. I don’t remember there being that much history (except for the story of Jesus himself, to the extent that may be considered history) in the Gospel according to Luke. Enlighten me please! Give me concrete examples of Luke’s accurate reporting.

9

What does this mean? I didn’t see any evidence cited in the article which showed that such a census had taken place. All I saw was a bunch of conclusory statements. What do you mean “in the context of Luke’s account”? Does that mean there is evidence the census took place? Evidence that the census took place as Luke decribed it? What evidence? (And please, state the evidence, don’t just link us to a web site.)

10

Other sources that have a high regard for Luke’s accuracy.

Merril Unger states regarding Luke’s other writings (Acts).

You then go on to ask:

Here is a breif biography of Sir William Ramsay

I’m unsure whether he was a Christian, but let me add another footnote to Sir Ramsay.

So it appears, that despite Sir Ramsay’s theology, he was sceptical of the acurracy of Luke’s writings, and then after his extensive research, reversed his view, and considers Luke a ‘historian of the first rank.’

Oh, and what is the theology of Asimov? Does the fact that he is an atheist, make him more or less credible? Or is it that he is decribing events that are 1900+ years in the past make him more credible? Perhaps we should enjoy his futuristic writings more than hid forays into history.

Peace.

† Jon †
Phillipians 4:13

11

No offense Navigator, but it doesn’t sound like your thumbnail biography of Ramsay came from an unbiased source.

I’m still waiting to hear specific examples of what Ramsay found that so convinced him (according to you and your source) that Luke was an historian of unfailing accuracy.

Simply repeating over and over again that Luke was a “great historian” doesn’t make it so. Go behind your sources, and find some examples proving that Luke was an accurate historian, and your argument may have more credibility.

12

More; the fact that he doesn’t have anything at stake makes his statements much more believable.

Not directly, but there are factors connected to this that make him more believable:
He has access to a greater number of documents. Luke’s point of view represents the point of one man who obviously had a very strong bias. Asimov’s point of represents the point of view of centuries of scholarship, and is not impaired by any significant bias.
He follows modern standards of proof, citing sources, etc.
We actually know who Asimov is; no one is really certain who Luke is. We have absolutely no basis for determining the credibily of Luke, while there is plenty of writings by Asimov that support his credibility.

All of his speculation of what will happen was well grounded in a good understanding of what has happened.

13

In case my point wasn’t clear enough: when one argues against Luke, one is arguing solely against Luke. When one argues against Asimov, one is arguing against not just Asimov, but against all of the scholarship that supports his view. This is not solely a matter of personalities; it is also a matter of who has the most support.

14

Books that support this historicity of Luke.

Prophets, Idols and Diggers, John Elder, New York, Bobbs and Merril Co., &copy 1960.

Archaeology and Bible History, Joseph P. Free, Wheaton, Scripture Press, &copy1950.

Baker’s Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, ed. Norman Geiser, Grand Rapids, Baker, &copy 1998.

What Mean These Stones?, Millar Burrows, New York:Meridian Books, &copy1957.

From the Stone Age to Christianity, W. F. Albright, Baltimore: john Hopkins Press, 1940.

The Bearing of Recent Discovery of the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, Sir, W. M. Ramsay, London:Hodder and Stoughton, 1915.

New Testament Documents: Are they reliable?, F. F. Bruce, Downers Grove, Ill.:InterVarsity Press, 1964.

The Book of Acts in the Setting of hellenistic History, Colin J. Hemer, Winona lake, Ind.:Eisenbrauns, 1990.

Can I Trust the Bible, Howard Vos, Chicago:Moody Press, 1963.

All of these are probably by Christian authors, so beware.

Another summary of the ‘Census Problem’

The Ryan put forth this case:

I’m unsure of the date of Asimov’s Guide to the Bible, but I believe that many of the sources I’ve cited pre-date his book. If so, why did he ignore this corpus of scholastic work when we compiled his guide?

Peace.

† Jon †
Phillipians 4:13

15

I don’t know why he ignored them. Perhaps there were other, more numerous or more credible sources that supported the view that Asimov espoused?

Profanity is the crutch of the inarticulate mother-fucker.

16

If I want to know something about&#133
[li]Biology, ask a Biologist[/li][li]History, ask a Historian[/li][li]Chemistry, ask a Chemist[/li][li]Mathematics, ask a Mathematian[/li]&#133
[li]Christianity, ask an Atheist???[/li][li]the Bible, ask a Science Fiction Author???[/li]Somehow that just doesn’t follow…

lets try again&#133

[li]Christianity, ask a Christian[/li][li]The Bible, ask a Bible Scholar[/li]
Somehow that just seems a little more valid.

Peace.

† Jon †
Phillipians 4:13

17

At amazon.com I found the following:

[quote]
The book is now thirty years old, and as a result does not contain the latest scholarship. However, it is not intended as a scholarly work: instead it’s a very readable presentation of a great deal of the fascinating background to the most influential book in Western civilization.

[quote]

So perhaps it doesn’t contain the latest in biblical scholarship, and should be read in that light.

I enjoy much of Asimov’s work. As a Science Fiction author, he stands just beneath Authur C. Clarke in my list of truly great forward thinkers.

I’m just not sure about the thesis of book, given the context of his atheistic views.

Peace.

† Jon †
Phillipians 4:13

18

Isaac Asimov’s credentials are irrelevant; he just happens to be someone who brought this issue to light. This is not a debate about Christianity, nor is it a debate about the Bible. It is a debate about history. The question remains, is there any evidence that censuses were conducted in the ancient Mediterranean world by requiring fammilies to travel the father’s ancestral home? You’re an excellent researcher, Nav, and you say that such evidence exists, but you haven’t provided it.

19

Gosh I hate to come off as a Phaedrus :o, but I left my source at home. I had read the web page a while, back and thought the cite was included. But it is in my other text. I will post it later. (REALLY :))

Peace

† Jon †
Phillipians 4:13

20

A papyrus found in Egypt gives directinos for the conduct of a census:

Both:
Prophets, Idols and Diggers, John Elder, New York, Bobbs and Merril Co., © 1960.

Archaeology and Bible History, Joseph P. Free, Wheaton, Scripture Press, ©1950.

Cite this papyrus, but I have not found the date of the document.

I suppose that an argument could be made that this only applied to Egypt and not to Palestine. I would argue that it at least shows the practice was common in the region.

Other evidence I could post are from Bible commentaries and dictionaries, that I doubt you would find convincing.

Hope that helps.

Peace.

† Jon †
Phillipians 4:13