Jesus not born in Bethlehem?

Great Debates
21

Okay, forget Asimov then. Uta Ranke-Heinemann, a professor of religious history at the University of Essen (Germany) (In case there’s any question about her authority in this matter) finds rational reasons for doubting the “census migration” story as well. I’ll try to summarize the major points :

First, the idea that Ceasar himself ordered the census is ludicrous. It would have unleashed a wave of international migration and as a way of assessing taxes would have been completely unworkable. The census was ordered by Quirinius, (the one that we have records of and which Luke references) but it was not nationwide.

Secondly, according to Roman Law the declaration had to be made in the place where the person resided, or in the case of property owners, where he owned property, not where a person was born.

Thirdly, there would have been no motive for Joseph going to Bethlehem since he was a native of Galilee. Since Galilee was under the auspices of the tetrarch Herod, Joseph would have been under no obligation to an edict issued by a Syrian governor. It’s pretty obvious that Joseph was a poor person; if he were a rich landowner, he would have had tenants and serfs and could have seen to it that Jesus was born at one of those houses rather than in a manger.

Fourthy, even if Joseph WAS rich and did have to go, there was no reason for Mary to go along as only the head of the household was responsible for declarations for taxation.

Fifthly, and lastly, Joseph going to Bethlehem because “he was of the house and lineage of David” meant absolutely nothing to a Roman emperor. Jewish lineage was a matter of complete indifference to the Roman state.

Saint Sutychus H.M.S.H.
" ‘He is a prince’ , the minstrels sing.
Among men, yes. Among fools he is a king."
Disney Shorts
The Eutychus Papers

22

Oh, come on, Navigator. Don’t be goofy. If you study math, you are a mathematician. If you study history, you are a historian. But if you study Christianity, that DOESN’T make you a Christian - it makes you a scholar of religion.

I dunno about Isaac Asimov, though.

23

Navigator quoted an Egyptian papyrus as saying:

… to which he then followed up with the following caveat:

Okay, but … even if this papyrus does date from the time when Egypt was under Roman rule, and even if it is representative of the census policy throughout the Roman Empire (including Palestine) … it still seems to me that the papyrus doesn’t so much direct everybody to return to his or her place of birth, only to what we nowadays would call his or her place of permanent residence. I.e. if Mary and Joseph lived in Bethlehem but were visiting Nazareth on vacation, then the papyrus would direct them to return home; but if they had made Nazareth their home, the papyrus would not force them to go anywhere.

The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.

24

What makes you think that he ignored them? I think it’s pretty clear that

  1. Asimov was aware that there are people that believe that Luke’s account is accurate.
  2. Asimov, after studying the evidence, decided that the aforementioned people were most likely in error.
    Another problem that I have with Luke’s account: while it doesn’t directly contradict Matthew’s account, it does conflict with it. According to the most obvious understanding of Matthew, Joseph and Mary were originally from Bethlehem. But Luke says that they were from Nazareth.
25

Some interpret the passage to mean that luke was saying that Agustus started the census by decree allowing the local governors to be responsible for thier localities, which could have happened at different times in different place. Hence Luke’s aside as to this being, ‘when Quirinius was governor’.

So I agree. :slight_smile:

According to my sources each man went to the city where his family registry was kept. (‘It was the Jewish custom to enroll by tribes and families. Joseph was of the family of David, and would have to be enrolled where that family had its landed inheritance.’) Not necessairly where he resided. If this was the case, it is a possible explanation for ‘there was no room at the Inn’.

I’m unsure where you get that Joseph was a native of Galilee. He was of the tribe of Judah, and a descendent of David, and hence his registry would have been in Bethlehem. Again, it was a tribal registry, not a local registry.

There was no reason for her not to go along, as well. Her being late in term, Jospeh may well have thought he wanted her with him, so he could assist. We have no conclusive evidence either way, except for the account of Luke, which has been shown to be a accurate historian. Perhaps he may have interviewed Mary herself.

The Roman governor’s may well have gone with the local custom, espeically if they had records of the linage’s which we can be assumed perhaps, given the Hebrew meticulous record keeping.

I’m not saying my interpretation is 100% correct, but the best record we may very well have may be in the words of Luke, despite the hesitancy of the secular world to use such a source.

Luke writes in the first chapter of his gospel.

1 Most honorable Theophilus:
Many people have written accounts about the events that took place among us. They used as their source material the reports circulating among us from the early disciples and other eyewitnesses of what God has done in fulfillment of his promises. Having carefully investigated all of these accounts from the beginning, I have decided to write a careful summary for you, to reassure you of the truth of all you were taught.

Peace.

† Jon †
Phillipians 4:13

26

The geneologies of Luke and Matthew, have often been pointed at as contradictory. The best explanation probably is that the geneology in Matthew is that of Joesph, while the geneology in Luke is that of Mary, that would have been equally Joesph’s upon their marriage.

As tracer’s post suggest it is within the realm of probability that Mary and Joesph were both from Bethleham, but were now living in Nazereth.

I’m from Oregon by birth, but now call Texas my home.

Peace.

† Jon †
Phillipians 4:13

27

Nav’s from Orrygun? That explains a lot . . . :wink:

Good to see ya, Jon. Question: in your last rebuttal you mentioned that

Which source was that? My study bible doesn’t mention that bit, although it does state that

Which indicates to me that Mary certainly was required to travel with Joseph, if in fact they were required to travel at all.

But I’m still not convinced that they necessarily would have been required to. It still sounds to me (and I think someone already mentioned this) as if the bureaucracy-obsessed Pax Romana under Octavius would be less than willing to enforce a mass migration for census purposes. I mean, if you want to know who lives where in a sprawling and nascent empire, I’d think you’d want to find out where they actually live, rather than where their ancestors lived, right?

-andros-

28

andros, well at least you said orygun instead of Ory-gone I HATE that… :wink:

I think that both are possibilities. If there was already a system in place where people needed to be registered, then stick with the plan.

Luke’s accuracy in other historic details that have been confirmed by archaeology, leads me to believe that he would be just as accurate in other details as well.

You [anyone] can disagree, it really isn’t that important.

Peace.

† Jon †
Phillipians 4:13

29

Everyone seems to be arguing against Luke here, but what about the Gospel, Matthew, that corraborates that He was born in Bethlehem, while he grew up in Nazareth?

Matthew 2:1-6

and then also in Matthew 2, this time verse 23

I find it ironic that Navigator’s many sources supporting the authenticity of Luke’s writings are touted as “biased” while Asimov, an athiest, is touted as unbiased because “he has nothing to lose”. He may have nothing to lose, but that does not say he does not have an agenda to attempt disprove what goes against his world-view.

“We love Him because He first loved us.” 1 John 4:19 †

30

Actually, I’m not disagreeing, Jon. I have very little to gain or lose in a discussion of the historical accuracy of the Gospels–it’s just lots of fun. There’s always something more to add to the discussion, one more snippet of text, one more reference in a really obscure manuscript . . . almost makes me want to go to seminary.

Almost.

MKM (I’m sorry, it’s Mike, right?), you’re absolutely correct about Matthew, and I’m embarassed to have forgotten about the Bethlehem references. As I understand it, Matthew is less-used by historians simply because he never made the effort that Luke did to tie the writing into a political and social (ie historical) context. But it’s corroboration.

I’m not going to argue that Asimov was better suited to judge the Bible. But I think it’s important to realize that in his Biblical studies, he often was interested in the historical aspects of the Bible, rather than the spiritual. In that sense, he really had nothing to gain but knowledge. Since he was not prepared to accept for himself Christ’s divinity, the issue was moot for him–he had no need to “disprove” the spiritual and religious aspects, and I don’t think that was his intent.

Now, if it were a criticism by Heinlein, on the other hand . . . :slight_smile:

-andros-

31

Actually. I did mention Matthew, and did so as a conflicting account.

Yes, we don’t know for sure whther Asimov had an agenda, but I don’t see any evidence for it. Luke, on the other hand, very obviously had an agenda.

32

Yes, but your conflicting account had to do with the geneology, of which Navigator dealt with

Sure Luke did - an agenda placed on him by the Holy Spirit to spread the Good News of the birth, life, death and ressurection of the Savior.

“We love Him because He first loved us.” 1 John 4:19 †

33

Would you care to provide corroborating evidence for that, MKM?

34

Well, as a start there is Luke’s opening remarks in his Gospel:

[quote]
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

[quote]

…but Luke was using a literary device, wasn’t he? :rolleyes:

Might I ask what type of evidence would satisfy your curiosity?

“We love Him because He first loved us.” 1 John 4:19 †

35

Raymond Brown in “The Birth of the Messiah” briefly makes that point as well, but he also states that there is no parallel for the idea in history. So, in the end, it’s only a possibility unsupported by the historical record.

[quote]
1 Most honorable Theophilus:
Many people have written accounts about the events that took place among us. They used as their source material the reports circulating among us from the early disciples and other eyewitnesses of what God has done in fulfillment of his promises. Having carefully investigated all of these accounts from the beginning, I have decided to write a careful summary for you, to reassure you of the truth of all you were taught.

[quote]

I daresy the writers of the Warren Commision Report had the same mindset. They (Like, I believe, Luke) weren’t trying to get to the bottom of the truth, per se; it’s more like trying to buttress their position in a debate. It’s pretty useless for he to say that he himself was a thorough historical researcher. I don’t know of a single historian alive today who wouldn’t say that about themselves.

Saint Eutychus H.M.S.H.
" ‘He is a prince’ , the minstrels sing.
Among men, yes. Among fools he is a king."
Disney Shorts
The Eutychus Papers

36

If it was only his assertion, I would agree with you. I’ve listed other sources (in this thread) that affirm that modern archeology considers Luke to be a very careful historian.

Ramsay, for instance, spent 30+ years in the field of the near east. He was originally skeptical of the account of Luke, and through his personal (skeptical) study of the account of Luke, he remarked that he regard Luke a 'historian of the first rank.

Peace.

† Jon †
Phillipians 4:13

37

To which you also said “These are all by Christian authors, so beware.” Well, to take it the logical extreme, you wouldn’t exactly talk to Heinrich Himmler for historical information about Hitler.

Hardly convincing to quote a 1915 source, but hey, I can play that game :

From “Jesus : A Life” (1992, p.75)by A. N. Wilson (fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and memner of the American Academy of Arts and Letters) :

“Luke’s gospel looks like history. It is only when you go a little deeper beneath the surface that you realize that it is not history at all.”

From “The Unauthorized Version” (1992, p. 31) by Robin Lane Fox (University Reader in Ancient History at new College, Oxford) :

“Luke’s story is historically impossible and logically incoherent. It is, therefore, false.”

From “A Marginal Jew : Vol. 1” (1991, p. 213) by John P. Meier (Professor of New Testament at the Catholic University of America in Washington) :

“The historian must be wary about using the Infancy narratives as sources for historical information about Jesus.”

From “Born of a Woman” (1992, p.142) by John Shelby Spong (Episcopal Bishop of Newark) :

  • “Luke was not a careful historian.”*

and finally, from “The Birth of the Messiah” (1993, p. 239) by the well-respected Raymond E. Brown; Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at Union Theological Seminary and probably the number 1 expert on the birth narratives :

“A study of Luke/Acts shows that Luke had shortcomings as a historian. … occasionals historical inexactitudes and a primary interest in the logical rather than the chonological.”

To sum up, Ransey may well have passionately and vehemently believe that Luke could be used a reliable history, but he apparently did not make a valid or convincing enough case to those who didn’t already have a theological axe to grind. The weight of history and the verdict of most unbiased historians is not on his side.

Saint Eutychus H.M.S.H.
" ‘He is a prince’ , the minstrels sing.
Among men, yes. Among fools he is a king."
Disney Shorts
The Eutychus Papers

38
  1. No, it did not have to do with geneology.
  2. The two accounts agree on two points:
    a. Jesus was born in Bethlehem
    b. Jesus spent his later childhood in Nazareth.

Seeing as how Jesus was widely known as being from Nazareth, it’s not much of a coincidence that they agree on b. And since a was necessary to show that Jesus might be the messiah, it isn’t surprising that both found a way to work it in.

So we have agreement in two trivial areas, and conflicts in the rest. I don’t see how this supports the Gospels.

39

MKM wrote:

Something independant would be a start. You can’t use the Bible as evidence to support the Bible.

It shouldn’t come a shock that the Bible contains propaganda. The messiah was a hot political issue around the time of Jesus, and the gospel writers were partisans of a particular faction. That Luke based his account on real but mis-dated and embellished events in order to convince people that the messiah was Jesus is a plausible explanation. That there was a highly disruptive census which required a lot of people to travel, but which was not noted by historians, followed just a few years later by a census which was not disruptive in that way but which was recorded remains highly implausible. Navigator has been doing a pretty good job, though, and perhaps has made it slightly less so, but the evidence remains pretty slender.

40

I want to point out that Asimov’s Guide to the Bible is one of my favorite books. However, after re-reading it for the Nth time, it does seem Asimov is much more cynical during the New Testament than the Old. I wonder if this was due to his Jewish heritage?