Can we deduce the nativity events are fiction?

[marco]

Rome built itself on logic, on a superb communication system. A census would give important details of population numbers, used for military purposes or taxation. The simplest way of obtaining information would be for a magistrate and his officers to set up stations and record information, then send it to the Emperor. Rome would have details of colonies thousands of miles away. Joseph would go to his nearest station wherever he lived and Rome would do the rest. Roman efficiency!

Luke's much debated census under Quirinius has people travelling vast distances to some supposed birth town, then back home again. If another census took place, the same wandering of nations would be involved. If a governor ordered such migrations he would possibly lose his head.

Given the importance Luke gives to the census, it is surprising that we are not told about Joseph performing the registration. And if Mary was incapacitated, she would not have been required to travel. One wonders how the hundreds of poor (always with us) managed to make similar journeys.

It is reasonable to assess Luke's tale as rubbish, without probing its supernatural elements.

Does this condemn his entire gospel? Is the explanation for Luke's Bethlehem location a case of fitting a tale to a name in Scripture?

[1213]

...You suggest that, "God didn’t want to make it clearer." The only result of such a motive would be confusion. ...

Or it can be that there was really no reason to make it clearer, because people who don’t want to understand, rejects it anyway, even if it would be clearer. Also, I think the message is clear, if one remains in truth.

[1213]

Lets see. Matthew says Jesus was born during the life of King Herod who died in 4 BC. Luke says Jesus was born during the 6 AD Roman census of Jerusalem.

If both stories are really inspired by God then Mary must have had two sons named Jesus born ten years apart.

Do you think there is any fiction here?

Yes, 4 BC and 6 AD. Where do you get those numbers and why believe them?

[marco]

Yes, 4 BC and 6 AD. Where do you get those numbers and why believe them?

It is possible to come up with provisional dates based on what events have been named such as a death or a census. This is not conclusive but it gives something to work on.

On the other hand what makes you so certain that angels summoned shepherds to Bethlehem around 1AD? Who told you this?

[EarthScienceguy]

ioioh

[EarthScienceguy]

Rome built itself on logic, on a superb communication system. A census would give important details of population numbers, used for military purposes or taxation. The simplest way of obtaining information would be for a magistrate and his officers to set up stations and record information, then send it to the Emperor. Rome would have details of colonies thousands of miles away. Joseph would go to his nearest station wherever he lived and Rome would do the rest. Roman efficiency!

Did ancient empires rely on centralized government strategies to accomplish the dissemination of information or did it rely on proxy governments to dissemination information.

Ancient empires relied on proxy governments to run conquered areas. Like when Hezekiah was set up by Assyrian empire to rule over the land of Israel. Having a "King" rule over the conquered area.

Consequently the person in charge of the census would have been Heriod and he being a Jewish king would have used a Jewish method for taking the census. The Jews before AD 70 took meticulous care in recording genealogies. The genealogies that the Jews kept were all based on the tribes that the people belonged to when God gave them the promised land. Since Joseph was a descendant of King David who was part of the Tribe of Judah, he had to go to Bethlehem because that is where his families genealogies that were kept by the scribes were kept.

Given the importance Luke gives to the census, it is surprising that we are not told about Joseph performing the registration. And if Mary was incapacitated, she would not have been required to travel. One wonders how the hundreds of poor (always with us) managed to make similar journeys.

Mary and Joseph were poor. When they went to the temple to give sacrifice for the birth of Jesus they sacrificed a pigeon instead of a lamb. A pigeon was used by the poor.

Mary may not have had anywhere to stay because people back then were just as sceptical about the Jesus as they are today.

It is reasonable to assess Luke's tale as rubbish, without probing its supernatural elements.

It is far from rubbish if one understand what was going.

[marco]

Did ancient empires rely on centralized government strategies to accomplish the dissemination of information or did it rely on proxy governments to dissemination information.

Ancient empires relied on proxy governments to run conquered areas. Like when Hezekiah was set up by Assyrian empire to rule over the land of Israel. Having a "King" rule over the conquered area.

Rome used a system of governors in her colonies. She built a network of roads that made communications excellent. If Rome required a census then it would be done through a Roman governor.

Since Joseph was a descendant of King David who was part of the Tribe of Judah, he had to go to Bethlehem because that is where his families genealogies that were kept by the scribes were kept.

Rome wasn't interested in David, just in the number of people. There is no way some nonentity would have had his family history recorded by "scribes", back to the time of David, and even Adam. This is utter nonsense, not worth discussing.

Mary may not have had anywhere to stay because people back then were just as sceptical about the Jesus as they are today.

Well he wasn't born. A pregnant peasant woman would not have been required to register - her husband would have done it without a 100 mile trip.

It is far from rubbish if one understand what was going.

Well I defer to your superior knowledge of "what was going on". Were the tale told today it would be met with loud laughter. Why take it seriously because it allegedly happened 2000 years ago? The basis of human advancement is to question what we are told and if it seems like nonsense it may well be nonsense.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to marco]

Rome used a system of governors in her colonies. She built a network of roads that made communications excellent. If Rome required a census then it would be done through a Roman governor.

Another question that needs to be addressed is who did the Romans tax? Would the poor be worth taxing? How would the poor be separated from the rich or from the slaves? Romans only taxed property owners.

People had to register where they owned land to register. In the case of the Jews that would have been tied to the tribe and family in which they were born into. And Jews were not the only ones that had to go to their ancestral homeland.

“…a papyrus dated to A.D. 104, records an Egyptian prefect who ordered Egyptians to return to their ancestral homes so that a census could be taken. In the first century Rome, since the Jews’ property was linked to their fathers (i.e. patriarchal), the Romans would certainly have allowed them the custom of laying claim to their family estate for taxation.�

Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977), 15

Now on to the date of Jesus birth.

Dr. Luke was very specific about the time when Jesus was born.

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)


This taxing was the 1st. The 1st of what? It was the 1st of a series of census that were taken at 14 year intervals. There was a census taken in AD 6 and Dr. Luke mentions that census in Acts 5:37.

After him Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him. He too perished, and all who followed him were scattered.

The reason why we know AD 6 was the census Dr. Luke is speaking about is because there is a well documented Jewish revolt in AD in which Cyrenius or Quirinius quelled. So most people would have known of the census of AD 6. So to specify between the two census he describes the one that Jesus was born as the 1st census. The 1st census 14 years earlier in AD 8.

According to Hoehner, “What is meant is that censuses were taken at different times in different provinces – Augustus being the first one in history to order a census or tax assessment of the whole provincial empire. This is further substantiated by the fact that Luke uses the present tense indicating that Augustus ordered censuses to be taken regularly, rather than only one time.�
Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977), 14.

New Testament historian Jack Finegan says, “As to the taking of such an enrollment in general, it is known from discoveries among the Egyptian papyri that a Roman census was taken in Egypt, and therefore perhaps also throughout the empire regularly, every fourteen years. Many actual census returns have been found, and they use the very same word (ἀπογ�άφω) which Luke 2:2 uses for the “enrollment.�

Jack Finegan, Light from the Ancient Past: The Archaeological Background of the Hebrew-Christian Religion, Volume II (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 258.


It seems me there is more than enough evidence to support the Biblical timeline. So I am good and anyone reading can be assured the the Bible is true and accurate.

[Difflugia]

“…a papyrus dated to A.D. 104, records an Egyptian prefect who ordered Egyptians to return to their ancestral homes so that a census could be taken. In the first century Rome, since the Jews’ property was linked to their fathers (i.e. patriarchal), the Romans would certainly have allowed them the custom of laying claim to their family estate for taxation.�

Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977), 15

Harold W. Hoehner was wrong about what that papyrus document said. This was brought up recently in another thread when discussing an apologetics website that relied on a similar mistranslation of the text.

The edict doesn't require people to go to their "ancestral homes," but to simply be at home, literally "their own hearths" (�φέστια). It's actually telling people to not be away on some extended trip, even if it's to an ancestral homeland. There were exceptions for rural citizens that need to be in the city for business.

[marco]

Another question that needs to be addressed is who did the Romans tax? Would the poor be worth taxing? How would the poor be separated from the rich or from the slaves? Romans only taxed property owners.

I have no idea where you get your information on ancient Rome. Before the Augustan reforms, publicani or tax collectors, set up their own method of collecting and the system was corrupt. Augustus effectively introduced a poll tax, based on the number of people - hence the need for a census.

“…a papyrus dated to A.D. 104, records an Egyptian prefect who ordered Egyptians to return to their ancestral homes so that a census could be taken. In the first century Rome, since the Jews’ property was linked to their fathers (i.e. patriarchal), the Romans would certainly have allowed them the custom of laying claim to their family estate for taxation.�

The emperor in question would have been Trajan, a cautious and wise ruler. The papyrus presumably refers to some local situation but I would be astonished if Trajan required this or sanctioned it. It seems absurd. There is no way Augustus would have allowed masses of people to travel round; he was establishing control at the time and was very rigorous in maintaining order. Basically he wanted to know how many heads he had to establish a tax figure. Where they were born was of no value to him.

Now on to the date of Jesus birth.

Dr. Luke was very specific about the time when Jesus was born.

He was nothing of the kind. We have problems interpreting whether there were two censuses. To account for the fact that Quirinius was governor after Herod died we have to invent a second governorship for him, which is not recorded. And how did this "Doctor" Luke acquire the information?

The reason why we know AD 6 was the census Dr. Luke is speaking about is because there is a well documented Jewish revolt in AD in which Cyrenius or Quirinius quelled. So most people would have known of the census of AD 6. So to specify between the two census he describes the one that Jesus was born as the 1st census. The 1st census 14 years earlier in AD 8.

You are surmising a census took place every 14 years. In any case you mean 8 BC - i.e. Jesus was born 8 years before his official birthday. You are also taking some theoretical research and stating it as proven fact. Most writers I believe accept Luke just made a mistake. Not impossible when we recall he invited angels to the birth and traced Jesus back to Neanderthal times. Is it too much to believe he made other things up, to give the impression of authenticity, and to place baby Jesus where Scripture wanted the Messiah to be, in Bethlehem?

It seems to me there is more than enough evidence to support the Biblical timeline.

Well I can see that's how it seems to you. Others might say the tale is a mess, a mixture of wrong dates, imagined treks, mystical pregnancies, choirs of angels ….you name it and Luke has it. It is incomprehensible to me how one can accept what Luke says. Legend has it he was the author of the gospel attributed to him, that he was a physician and also a martyr. We might add visionary.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 67 by Difflugia]

Harold W. Hoehner was wrong about what that papyrus document said. This was brought up recently in another thread when discussing an apologetics website that relied on a similar mistranslation of the text.

The Greek word that is translated "house to house" is "oikos (ancient Greek: οἶκος, plural: οἶκοι;" Oikos refers to three related but distinct concepts: the family, the family's property, and the house. Its meaning shifts even within texts, which can lead to confusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oikos

So there is no explanation in your source that states why "oikos" was translated to "house to house". So why are you interpreting as house or home.

Ulpian Iustiniani digesta 1.15.4.2. states that "Roman law states that the property owner had to register for taxation in the district in which his land was situated.

Adolf Deissmann in "Light from the Ancient East. translated by Lionel R.M. (4th ed.; New York, 1927, pp 270-271. The prefect of Egypt ordered Egyptians to return to their home so that the census might be carried out.
https://books.google.com/books?id=fS28b ... us&f=false

This is the way that Hoehner interpreted the passage in his book. So the question is which of the three definitions of "oikos" make sense in this context.

If they are to "return to their home" that would mean that there is a good chance that they are not at their home. Combine that with the fact that the Romans taxed people by where they had property. The conclusion would have to be at the very least that they have to return to where they owned property.

Israel's property was associated with the trib they were born into. The records were kept by scribes in the different areas in which the property was assigned to each family when the promised land was conquered. This would totally support the idea that Joseph and Mary since they were both descendants of David had to go to Bethlehem where the scribes that held the records for their families were located. If Rome taxed their citizens in the area that they owned property.