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?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 68 by marco]

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.

In Egypt there were census taken in fourteen-year intervals beginning in BC 9.
W.M. Ramsay, "The Bearing of Recent Discoveries on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (4th ed; London, 1920, pp 255-274
https://books.google.com/books?id=fS28b ... us&f=false

EarthScienceguy wrote:


“…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.

EarthScienceguy wrote:


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?

EarthScienceguy wrote:


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?

EarthScienceguy wrote:



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.

[marco]

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.

In translation one takes the meaning that makes most sense. When Virgil says that men sailed on a "pine tree" he is using metonymy for something that is made from pine wood, namely a ship. Of course words have a variety of meanings, and it is the job of the translator to choose the most apt not the most idiotic. The word refers to family unit and by the same type of metonymy to the actual house.

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.

This is sensible. But it refers to laws of the Eastern Roman Empire under Justinian 500 years after Christ.
When you jump to descendants of David we lose sense. How on earth would a carpenter have property a hundred miles away?

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

Are you seriously suggesting some poor soul had property 100 miles away from where they lived? Even today that might be so only with folk who are very rich. If they did possess property, then why did they choose a stable for Mary's confinement?

Israel's property was associated with the tribe 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.

And which Bethlehem would that have been. There were two apparently. I am full of admiration for the "scribes" who kept a record of some anonymous joiner, 100 miles away, a record reaching back hundreds of years. We don't have that efficiency today.
And yes, that system would explain everything including names of angels in attendance.

Rome taxed people in various ways: there was a tax on the money got for selling a slave, or for freeing a slave; at one stage Rome got so much from gold and silver mines that there was no need to tax its immediate citizens, but the provinces were taxed and the important thing was number of people. Rome, - urbs Roma, the Eternal City, wasn't interested in where Jews had come from in the remote past. They wanted money, not a history lesson.

[Difflugia]

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.

That's not the word I was worried about. We could leave that untranslated and it wouldn't affect the reading of the rest of the edict. The phrase that's mistranslated is ...εἰς τὰ ἑαυτῶν �φέστια.... The word �φέστια literally means "fireplaces," but was most often used in the sense of a home or household. The whole phrase means "...to the homes of them...."

So, the apologetic scenario here is that because Joseph had property in Bethlehem that was unimproved (he and his super-pregnant wife had no place to stay once he got there, remember), he had to travel away from his established home to the district of his other property? This, despite an actual example of a census edict proclaiming exactly the opposite?

Even so, that's not what Luke wrote. Luke didn't say anything about property ownership, but just wrote that Joseph had to go to Bethlehem because he was "of the house and family of David." Indeed, Luke says in 2:39 that Nazareth is "their own city" to which they return. It's actually too bad that Luke didn't think to make Joseph an absentee property owner, because that would have made his story more plausible.

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.

Perhaps you could double-check your numbering or let me know what publication you're using. Applying that numbering to this edition leads to a decree about flogging negligent arsonists.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 71 by Difflugia]

That's not the word I was worried about. We could leave that untranslated and it wouldn't affect the reading of the rest of the edict. The phrase that's mistranslated is ...εἰς τὰ ἑαυτῶν �φέστια.... The word �φέστια literally means "fireplaces," but was most often used in the sense of a home or household. The whole phrase means "...to the homes of them...."

This phrase simply supports what, Hoehner put forward in his work. The whole thought is the following.

The house-to-house having starte, it is essential that all person whow for any reason whatsoever are absent from their home be summoned to return to their own hearths.

The Greek word for return is νόστος which means can mean: the act of returning or going back. So where do are you saying the Egyptians are returning from the store. So you are saying that they were going door to door to register people.

But the Roman law stated: "Roman law states that the property owner had to register for taxation in the district in which his land was situated.

So what if there land was not where they were living at that time then what did they do. How would they know if they had land? Did they take all the land scrolls of the entire country with them while they did this census? Do you think they just trusted them to tell them the correct amount of land they owned?

The logistical nightmare in that day of not having people return to where they owned land is truly staggering.

So, the apologetic scenario here is that because Joseph had property in Bethlehem that was unimproved (he and his super-pregnant wife had no place to stay once he got there, remember), he had to travel away from his established home to the district of his other property?

In Israel was divided by tribe, and then by family and scribes were the record keepers of the land. And each area of Israel their own scribes that kept track of the land deals in that area.

According to your theory, a person could have a small house in one part of the country and say that is all that he owned and no one would know the difference.

Or let's say that this same person tells the census takers that they own land in another providence and the census taker makes a little note. How many little notes would that census taker have? Who do you think Rome would put the problem of verification on?

It would be much easier for the census taker to take the land records in each area in which they are taking a census of at that time and check off the land owners as they came. Logistically the only way to take a tax of land owners would be for those landowners travel to where they owned land and pay the tax.

Even so, that's not what Luke wrote. Luke didn't say anything about property ownership, but just wrote that Joseph had to go to Bethlehem because he was "of the house and family of David."

2 things here.

1. The mode of taxation would have been familiar to all the readers in Luke's day.

2. Families owned land much like farmers today.

So any reader would understand that Joseph went to Bethlehem because that is where their families land was. So Dr. Luke did talk about property ownership when he mentioned that Joseph was of house and family of David.

Indeed, Luke says in 2:39 that Nazareth is "their own city" to which they return. It's actually too bad that Luke didn't think to make Joseph an absentee property owner, because that would have made his story more plausible.

Yes the city in which they were living at that time. People can own land and live somewhere else.

Perhaps you could double-check your numbering or let me know what publication you're using. Applying that numbering to this edition leads to a decree about flogging negligent arsonists.

I also cited Hoehner's actual text.

[marco]

Families owned land much like farmers today.
People can own land and live somewhere else.

The argument becomes more fanciful as one snatches for sense. Joseph was a carpenter not a farmer. It is utterly inconceivable he held land 100 miles away from his job. And yes, farmers today are land owners - they usually live on their land and build houses and have cattle and sheep. But they don't double as carpenters.

[Difflugia]

This phrase simply supports what, Hoehner put forward in his work. The whole thought is the following.

The house-to-house having starte, it is essential that all person whow for any reason whatsoever are absent from their home be summoned to return to their own hearths.

Right. I'm with you so far.

The Greek word for return is νόστος which means can mean: the act of returning or going back. So where do are you saying the Egyptians are returning from the store. So you are saying that they were going door to door to register people.

I'm not sure what you mean here, but I think you're asking me where the people of Alexandria are "returning" from. The answer is wherever they were. That part of the notice is addressed to "all persons who for any reason whatsoever are absent from their nomes." I don't see why you think "returning" implies anything special about where they've gone.

but the Roman law stated: "Roman law states that the property owner had to register for taxation in the district in which his land was situated.

So what if there land was not where they were living at that time then what did they do. How would they know if they had land? Did they take all the land scrolls of the entire country with them while they did this census? Do you think they just trusted them to tell them the correct amount of land they owned?

The logistical nightmare in that day of not having people return to where they owned land is truly staggering.

A census counted people to establish the amount owed for a poll tax ("poll" meaning "head" and not "place where you vote"), which assessed a certain amount per person and had nothing to do with assets. If the Herodian census followed the same pattern as the papyrus from Alexandria, then Joseph and family needed to be at their "home" in Nazareth. If the other law you're talking about is what counts, then they had to go where their property was. This wasn't a tax on the value of their property (that wasn't determined by a census), so if that's what you think the "Roman law" is talking about, then it doesn't apply.

The question is where the government expected people to be when they registered for the poll tax. The evidence that we have suggests that Joseph and family would be expected to remain in Nazareth. It is conjecture without evidence that Joseph had property in Bethlehem, but even if he did, I have no reason (other than your further assertion) to think that it would have mattered. He and his family were to be at their home.

According to your theory, a person could have a small house in one part of the country and say that is all that he owned and no one would know the difference.

Yes, because whether one owned zero or ten houses didn't matter to a census.

I also cited Hoehner's actual text.

Applying that citation in every reasonable way I could think of, I couldn't find any such "Roman law." Since he misunderstood the papyrus that I did find in a way that just happened to support his strained harmonization, I expect he misunderstood the "Roman law," too. I'm not taking his (or your) word for it and considering the amount of legwork I've done tracking down other sources you've used, I don't feel bad expecting you to track this one down yourself.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia]

What happened in Egypt really has no bearing on what happened in israel because Israel was treated different than other conquered areas in the Roman empire because they were so monotheistic.

Most of the time when Romans conquered a it was easy for the Romans to let the conquered nation keep governing themselves. All the Romans wanted was taxes and power. As long as they the territory pledged there allegiance to Rome and paid their taxes the Roman Empire was content in leaving them alone. Conquered nations usually showed their allegiance to Rome by adding the Roman gods to the gods that they already worshiped.

But the Jews were crazy to the Romans because they would rather die than to worship other gods and because of this it was easier for the Romans to control the Jews if they gave them many concessions.

Since the Romans let conquered people govern themselves each census would have been conducted according the customs of each conquered people.

Dr. Robert Godfrey https://www.ligonier.org/store/a-survey ... art-1-dvd/

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 73 by marco]

The argument becomes more fanciful as one snatches for sense. Joseph was a carpenter not a farmer. It is utterly inconceivable he held land 100 miles away from his job. And yes, farmers today are land owners - they usually live on their land and build houses and have cattle and sheep. But they don't double as carpenters.

I answered this in my answer to Difflugia. Post 75

[Difflugia]

What happened in Egypt really has no bearing on what happened in israel because Israel was treated different than other conquered areas in the Roman empire because they were so monotheistic.

So now you're completely reversing your argument? Last week, it was "Jews were not the only ones that had to go to their ancestral homeland" and now "Egypt really has no bearing on what happened in Israel?" Which is it?

You're certainly allowed to change your mind, but I'd expect at least a little bit of explanation after a complete one-eighty like that. If nothing else, at least let us know if that's the only part of your argument that you've reconsidered.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 77 by Difflugia]

So now you're completely reversing your argument? Last week, it was "Jews were not the only ones that had to go to their ancestral homeland" and now "Egypt really has no bearing on what happened in Israel?" Which is it?

You're certainly allowed to change your mind, but I'd expect at least a little bit of explanation after a complete one-eighty like that. If nothing else, at least let us know if that's the only part of your argument that you've reconsidered.

Well, no actually if you would look at the flow of the conversation I was simply using Egypt as an example of another country that the preformed a census the same way that Israel did. My argument has always been that Rome gave Israel the freedom to conduct it's census the way that it wanted. So the evidence I provided simply reinforces my original premise.