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?

[marco]

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?

You forget that Jesus spoke about being "born again" Polonius. There is controversy over the dating of Herod's death in Josephus but I think it's fair to disregard anything Matthew says.

[wiploc]

Can we deduce the nativity events are fiction?

Pick a star, and try to follow it to an individual house. You can't do it in reality. You can only do it in fiction.

[marco]

Can we deduce the nativity events are fiction?

Pick a star, and try to follow it to an individual house. You can't do it in reality. You can only do it in fiction.

That is a good way of putting things, wiploc. The old romantics who see truth in strange places might think the star is the wishing star in Pinocchio:

"When you wish upon a star, Makes no difference who you are. Anything your heart desires. Will come to you....."

If all else fails look for symbolism.

[JehovahsWitness]

• John seems to know of the Bethlehem expectation, but dismisses it in 7:40-43:

  Many of the multitude therefore, when they heard these words, said, “This is truly the prophet.� Others said, “This is the Christ.� But some said, “What, does the Christ come out of Galilee? Hasn’t the Scripture said that the Christ comes of the offspring of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?� So a division arose in the multitude because of him.

Nobody is spoken of as questioning the scriptural references to the Messiah being from Bethlehem, in short that wasn't reported as being "dismissed". As for Jesus, do you mean the writer dismisses Jesus as being thus qualified or it or do you mean that the writer reported that certain people questioned Jesus credentials in this regard?

Clarification appreciated,


JW

[Difflugia]

Nobody is spoken of as questioning the scriptural references to the Messiah being from Bethlehem, in short that wasn't reported as being "dismissed". As for Jesus, do you mean the writer dismisses Jesus as being thus qualified or it or do you mean that the writer reported that certain people questioned Jesus credentials in this regard?

Certain people questioned whether Jesus was qualified because he wasn't from Bethlehem nor descended of David. The evangelist dismissed this, implying that Jesus was qualified despite being neither from Bethlehem nor descended of David.

As I said in the post, though, the author relies on an implicit answer to a rhetorical question, so an apologist could claim that anything at all was implied, including the exact opposite.

It's kind of like Amos 5:25. In context, it's pretty clear that the author implied an unspoken answer of "no" to the question of whether the Israelites offered sacrifices during the forty years of wandering. That would mean, though, that Amos's pre-exilic traditions regarding the Exodus are different than the post-exilic state of our book of Exodus. Apologists, then, usually claim that the rhetorical answer is actually "yes."

[JehovahsWitness]

• John seems to know of the Bethlehem expectation, but dismisses it

... do you mean the writer dismisses Jesus as being thus qualified ...?

Certain people questioned whether Jesus was qualified ...

Al emphasis MINE

Yes that is true. Your post seemed to given the impression that it was the author of John that expressed the sentiment.

[JehovahsWitness]

The evangelist dismissed this, implying that Jesus was qualified despite being neither from Bethlehem nor descended of David.
...

The the sentence you have written is ambiguous and gives the impression that the writer acknowledged that Jesus wasn't from Bethlehem nor descended of David but implied neither fact negated his messiahship. Is it your thought that is expressed in that last clause namely "...Jesus was qualified despite being neither from Bethlehem nor descended of David" or that you are attributing to the author?


If the latter is there something written in the gospel of John that has lead you to the conclusion that the writer felt this way?


JW

[Difflugia]

The evangelist dismissed this, implying that Jesus was qualified despite being neither from Bethlehem nor descended of David.
...

The the sentence you have written is ambiguous and gives the impression that the writer acknowledged that Jesus wasn't from Bethlehem nor descended of David but implied neither fact negated his messiahship. Is it your thought that is expressed in that last clause namely "...Jesus was qualified despite being neither from Bethlehem nor descended of David" or that you are attributing to the author?

If the latter is there something written in the gospel of John that has lead you to the conclusion that the writer felt this way?

JW

John writes:

Many of the multitude therefore, when they heard these words, said, “This is truly the prophet.� Others said, “This is the Christ.� But some said, “What, does the Christ come out of Galilee? Hasn’t the Scripture said that the Christ comes of the offspring of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?� So a division arose in the multitude because of him.

The dispute is over whether Jesus is the Prophet, the Christ, or (perhaps) neither. Those that claim that Jesus is not the Christ use as justification that Jesus isn't "of the offspring of David, and from Bethlehem." The way it's worded, the "division" is over how Jesus should be classified, not about where he's from or from whom he's descended. The twin facts that Jesus is not from Bethlehem and also not descended of David are themselves not challenged or presented as being in dispute. They are presented as the (or at least one) reason behind the dispute over Jesus being the Christ.

If John didn't need to be harmonized with Matthew and Luke, there would be no question about what these verses mean.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 58 by Difflugia]

The evangelist dismissed this, implying that Jesus was qualified despite being neither from Bethlehem nor descended of David.
...

The the sentence you have written is ambiguous and gives the impression that the writer acknowledged that Jesus wasn't from Bethlehem nor descended of David but implied neither fact negated his messiahship. Is it your thought that is expressed in that last clause namely "...Jesus was qualified despite being neither from Bethlehem nor descended of David" or that you are attributing to the author?

If the latter is there something written in the gospel of John that has lead you to the conclusion that the writer felt this way?

JW

Sorry perhaps I wasn't clear, I know there was debate over Jesus qualification as the Messiah, and that as you put it "certain people" claimed he could not be. Agreed. My question is are you suggesting there is something that the writer wrote* that implies that he (The writer) was one of those that did not believe Jesus met all the criteria for messiahship?


*(I'm not really interested in assumptions about what what he did not write, so much as what he did record and whether it js implied that the writer himself believed Jesus lacked the relevant criteria). So in short my question is about THE WRITER, the narrator, does the narrator express doubt as to Jesus credentials.


JW

[Difflugia]

*(I'm not really interested in assumptions about what what he did not write, so much as what he did record and whether it js implied that the writer himself believed Jesus lacked the relevant criteria). So in short my question is about THE WRITER, the narrator, does the narrator express doubt as to Jesus credentials.

Yes. The author put the rhetorical question that he did upon the lips of "some" and then neither he nor any of his other characters challenged it. The implication is that he believed the statement that Jesus was neither from Bethlehem nor of David.