|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: That madcap census in Luke 2
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
That madcap census in Luke 2
There has been a recent exchange in the Guardian (a UK broadsheet newspaper) relating to the census mentioned in Luke’s gospel which results in Jesus being born in Bethlehem not Nazareth.
Luke 2:1-5a says:
quote:
“(1) In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. (2) This was the first enrolment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. (3) And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city. (4) And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, (5) to be enrolled …” [my italics]
Leaving aside the much debated question of Quirinius not being governor at the time - how likely is it that the Romans would adopt such a bizarre and madcap way of running a census?
It is hard to work out from these verses precisely what the command from the Romans was. Each had to go to ‘his own city.’ What is meant by ‘own city’? One might think that it meant the city where you live, or where your main dwelling place is. However, for Joseph verse 4 seems to suggest that ‘own city’ means something like ‘the city of one of your ancestors’. But that leaves us asking which ancestor? How many generations back? Should all Jews go back to Jacob’s city? Or Judah’s? or whose? And what possible purpose would the Romans have in asking people to go to the city of an ancestor of theirs? What would it tell them that they could not find out more easily in other ways?
And further: if they did do it then it would result in the odd situation that towns that had been established and settled after David’s time would not be the home city of any ancestor and thus would be deserted as people left them to go and register elsewhere. Why risk the theft and looting that might result? Do it in stages and ask neighbours to watch the house while you are away?
And if part of the purpose of the census was taxation then surely if Joseph turns up in Bethlehem and says ‘All I have is a tiny house in Nazareth’ how are the officials going to check that he lives in Nazareth, let alone whether he is lying about his assets? And if it is tax money the Romans are after why waste people's time and energy travelling about the country when they could be at home cultivating their fields, making things or otherwise being profitably employed creating wealth for the Romans to cream off?
All in all this is a madcap way of organising a census and surely not what actually happened. Terry Eagleton (in an article on fundamentalism in the Guardian on 22 02 03) makes the same kind of point more briefly.
Is there an answer to this argument? Mark Greene of the London Institute for Contemporary Christianity offers one in the review section of the Saturday Guardian of 01 03 03 (page 23). There he states that it was ‘imperial practice’ for the Romans to require ‘the population to register in their birth places’ when a census was taken.
Leaving aside for a moment the fact that Luke does not say directly that Joseph went to Bethlehem because he was born there, my question is - What evidence is Mark Greene relying on here?
I have been hunting for this and the closest I have got to a possible answer is that he may have in mind the edict of Gaius Vibius Maximus for the Roman census in Egypt in 104 AD Census Edict
This says, amongst other things that “it is essential that all those who are away from their home districts be summoned to return to their own hearths so that they may perform the customary business of registration and apply themselves to the cultivation which concerns them.”
But the problem with that is that this decree refers to asking people to return to their home districts and their hearths (to devote themselves to cultivation incidentally) – their own homes surely and not to their place of birth nor to their ancestral towns? This is not what Luke describes nor what Mark Greene claims.
So does anyone any idea what evidence Mark Greene has in mind?
Glenn
[ 30. March 2004, 12:51: Message edited by: Moo ]
--------------------
This entire doctrine is worthless except as a subject of dispute. (G. C. Lichtenberg 1742-1799 Aphorism 60 in notebook J of The Waste Books)
Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Astro
Shipmate
# 84
|
Posted
Since Matthew puts it that Joseph took his family to Nazereth because he was warned in a dream not to return to Bethlehem, I think that it might have been that he lived at Bethlehem before the birth of Jesus but was away on long term business in the North (or visiting his future in-laws family?) and had to return home to be taxed, but after the birth he made the move to Nazereth permenent.
--------------------
if you look around the world today – whether you're an atheist or a believer – and think that the greatest problem facing us is other people's theologies, you are yourself part of the problem. - Andrew Brown (The Guardian)
Posts: 2723 | From: Chiltern Hills | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Romans (probably) didn't run censuses like that.
I've no idea what Mark Greene has in mind, but I think I know what Joseph had in mind (or Luke, if you want to look at it that way)
Joseph is laying claim to a share in the patrimony of the tribe of Judah - in fact to being a descendant of David - by returning to the city of David.
It is his choice (& presumably that of any others who made similar journeys) to be counted as one of the family of David.
Symbolically it is the year of Jubilee in which the land is redivided within each tribe.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spong
Ship's coffee grinder
# 1518
|
Posted
Glenn, AFAIK the Egyptian census you refer to is the only one that has been quoted in favour of the Romans requiring a return to the home town, and for the reasons you give it's not a very good example. The other problem with the analysis is that Israel was not part of the Roman empire at all in the time of Matthew's story (prior to 4BC and the death of King Herod) - it was a client state, but it was not subject to direct Roman taxation and therefore not an empire-wide census. For which, of course, there is in any case no other historical evidence, which would be rather surprising if it really took place across the empire.
Luke seems to be thinking of a census that is recorded elsewhere and took place in Judaea in 6AD when it passed into direct rule by Rome (because Herod Archelaus made a mess of running it) - but Galilee remained a client state under Herod Antipas. Hence the whole issue of who had the right to try Jesus, but also the fact that Joseph would not be subject to the census.
Astro, the problem with your analysis is Matt 2:22-24 - directed in a dream to settle in 'a town called Nazareth'. Not 'to return back home to Nazareth'. The reader of Matthew's gospel, on its own, would assume that they had originally lived in Bethlehem and came now to Nazareth for the first time. If this is not the case, God seems to have ensured that the first gospel is deliberately written in a way that is misleading... ?
--------------------
Spong
The needs of our neighbours are the needs of the whole human family. Let's respond just as we do when our immediate family is in need or trouble. Rowan Williams
Posts: 2173 | From: South-East UK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spong:
Glenn, AFAIK the Egyptian census you refer to is the only one that has been quoted in favour of the Romans requiring a return to the home town, and for the reasons you give it's not a very good example. ...
Spong,
Thanks for that and for the other useful details in your post. It will be interesting to see if any other source that Mark Greene may have used turns up.
Glenn
Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
It is generally believed that Q (i.e. material common to Matthew and Luke) had little or no narrative material, which would make it possible that they both attest to the Bethlehem tradition independently.
Personally I think Q might have had a lot more narrative than some scholars are prepared to allow, however. But the fact that Matthew omits the details of Luke shows that either there are two traditions present or Luke is simply making it up.*
In any case, one might point to the record of the census in Luke as evidence in itself! Of course, that doesn't mean it did happen like that, but one cannot assume automatically that it didn't, unless there is evidence to the contrary. However, in this case there is, namely that it would be odd to gather info in this way.
* This may be the case. I am not an inerrantist and have no a priori problem with saying he is.
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Oldham:
That madcap census in Luke 2
(...) how likely is it that the Romans would adopt such a bizarre and madcap way of running a census? (...)
And what possible purpose would the Romans have in asking people to go to the city of an ancestor of theirs? What would it tell them that they could not find out more easily in other ways?
Sorry to interrupt such a scholarly debate, but I wonder Glenn if you have ever encountered a French bureaucrat? After one hour in the "Préfecture" today, I can quite imagine the Romans (on whose bureaucracy the current French administrative system is based) doing just such a thing ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fen
Shipmate
# 4052
|
Posted
quote:
posted by ken:
Symbolically it is the year of Jubilee in which the land is redivided within each tribe.
Is it only symbolic? This makes a lot of sense to me.
I Am Not A Historian But: if the Jews were still observing Jubilee at this time, and the census takers knew this, it might make sense for them to actually request that the Jews all return to their "home towns", so that they could gather information based on the "default" state of the population rather than where they all happened to reside at the time.
quote:
posted by Glenn Oldham:
What would it tell them that they could not find out more easily in other ways?
What would the practicalities of collating that amount of data be in those days? If you wanted a list of all the men who came a particular town (based on the above), it might make sense to take a big scroll to the town and get everyone to go there and write their name on it.
However it would seem to make more sense (to us) to put a big scroll in all the towns, and get everyone to write their name and birthplace on, collect them all together and get your scribes to rewrite everything. Or might inaccuracies start creeping in once you have to rewrite the data?
Might the Romans just have wanted to assert their authority for no reason? Could there have been a political reason such as breaking up a potential rebellion (the prophets of this people they ruled over having forecast one, and all that)?
(As I say, I am speculating and lay no claim to actually knowing what I'm talking about; certainly the Jubilee idea makes sense, but please feel free to "educate" me ![[Smile]](smile.gif) )
Posts: 103 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by eutychus:
...I wonder Glenn if you have ever encountered a French bureaucrat? After one hour in the "Préfecture" today, I can quite imagine the Romans (on whose bureaucracy the current French administrative system is based) doing just such a thing
Point taken (and it isn't cofined to France of course!) Mark Greene makes a similar point and reminds us that the Romans did indeed do some madcap things and that, therefore, we can't just write off Luke's census story as impossible just because it is a daft way of doing it. But just how likely it is that the Romans would do things this way is not an easy question to decide on. That's why Mark Greene's assertion that it was in fact 'imperial practice' at least to get people to go to their place of birth is so intriguing. What evidence is he drawing on, I wonder?
Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fen:
...I Am Not A Historian But: if the Jews were still observing Jubilee at this time, and the census takers knew this, it might make sense for them to actually request that the Jews all return to their "home towns", so that they could gather information based on the "default" state of the population rather than where they all happened to reside at the time.
Fen, thanks for your speculations.
On the jubilee issue, I seem to remember reading somewhere at some time that there is very little evidence that the year of Jubilee was ever observed at all at any time in Israel's history.
Naturally, with such accurate recall of the evidence for that statement ( ![[Embarrassed]](icon_redface.gif) ) I could be wrong!
Glenn
--------------------
This entire doctrine is worthless except as a subject of dispute. (G. C. Lichtenberg 1742-1799 Aphorism 60 in notebook J of The Waste Books)
Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cusanus
Ship's Schoolmaster
# 692
|
Posted
The historian Robin Lane Fox, in an admittedly polemical book, the title of which escapes me now (sorry), does a pretty good hatchet job on the historical plausibility of the whole census narrative (pretty much for all the reasons above).
--------------------
"You are qualified," sa fotherington-tomas, "becos you can frankly never pass an exam and have 0 branes. Obviously you will be a skoolmaster - there is no other choice."
Posts: 3120 | From: The Peninsula | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spong
Ship's coffee grinder
# 1518
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cusanus:
The historian Robin Lane Fox, in an admittedly polemical book, the title of which escapes me now (sorry), does a pretty good hatchet job on the historical plausibility of the whole census narrative (pretty much for all the reasons above).
'The Unauthorized Version'. It's where I cribbed a lot of my post from, I should have referenced it, sorry...
--------------------
Spong
The needs of our neighbours are the needs of the whole human family. Let's respond just as we do when our immediate family is in need or trouble. Rowan Williams
Posts: 2173 | From: South-East UK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fen
Shipmate
# 4052
|
Posted
Thanks Glenn,
I suppose if the Israelites didn't manage to observe the Sabbaths, I shouldn't be surprised to find that the Jubilee didn't get observed either.
Googling reveals only one quote suggesting there are "Jewish sources" that say Jubilee was observed before the exile to Babylon, but it doesn't cite the sources. But the vast majority of sites agree it was never observed. (Here endeth the Jubilee tangent.)
Posts: 103 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
So, if it was never observed, why is there all that stuff about Jubilee in the Pentateuch? Why was it put there, and what effect did it ever have? (I know we're getting off topic, but this is interesting.)
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Astro
Shipmate
# 84
|
Posted
quote:
Astro, the problem with your analysis is Matt 2:22-24 - directed in a dream to settle in 'a town called Nazareth'. Not 'to return back home to Nazareth'. The reader of Matthew's gospel, on its own, would assume that they had originally lived in Bethlehem and came now to Nazareth for the first time. If this is not the case, God seems to have ensured that the first gospel is deliberately written in a way that is misleading... ?
Certainly not return back home to Nazareth but "go to that town called Nazereth where you did the carpentry for that rich mans new kitchen last year the one where he was replacing the stuff from MFI..."
--------------------
if you look around the world today – whether you're an atheist or a believer – and think that the greatest problem facing us is other people's theologies, you are yourself part of the problem. - Andrew Brown (The Guardian)
Posts: 2723 | From: Chiltern Hills | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Second Mouse
Citizen of Grand Fenwick
# 2793
|
Posted
I've always been lead to believe that Luke was a very reliable and accurate, in terms of the historical detail in Luke and Acts. Is this generally accepted to be the case, or is it only one opinion among many? ( I only believe it, cos I've been told it so often, I've never seen any actual argument or evidence for it )
If it is true, then it would seem a little out of character to be concerned about accuracy on one level, but then to invent a whole census on another. Surely everyone reading it would have said "Nah, Rubbish, That never happened"
Sorry, this is probably a rather simplistic question, but I'd be interested to hear anyones thoughts on it.
Claire
Posts: 1254 | From: West Yorkshire | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dr Teeth
Apprentice
# 4119
|
Posted
Hey folks, leave Luke alone! Tradition has it that Luke went back to Galilee, Nazareth and other places to try and interview people so that he could provide Theophilus with the proper account he was looking for. Although this can't be proved it does explain why he provides certain details, even stories, that other Gospels don't include. He may have talked with Mary herself which would explain why his Gospel describes what she was thinking at the time of Jesus' birth.
I recall reading about a specific criticism of the accuracy of a reference in Acts that was subsequently resolved by an excavation which validated Luke. I don't have the details to hand but I recall it was about his description of an official's title.
As for the Quirinius debate (was he governor circa 4 BC when records have him governor later?), many people have proposed that he served two terms as governor which sounds plausible to me.
Apologies to all those who hate history lessons!
Posts: 29 | From: London | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveTom
Contributing Editor
# 23
|
Posted
Two things to throw in.
1. I would dispute the idea that Luke implies that the census required everyone to go to their 'ancestral seat' or even their birthplace.
As Glen says, Luke only says they had to go to 'their own towns'. The most obvious interpretation of this is that they went to the nearest town to their permanent place of residence.
This would mean that according to Luke Joseph was (maybe temporarily) in Nazareth, but either lived in Bethlehem or had grown up their and now went back to his family.
2 possible explanations for this. One, being an unmarried man (and maybe underage) he may have been required by the terms of the census to go back to the family home. Alternatively (or additionally), he could quite conceivably been in Nazareth taking part in the arrangements for his marriage to a girl who lived there, and come home to register, later returning to live in Nazareth.
According to this interpretation, Luke mentions Joseph's descent from David, not because everyone had to go to their ancestral seat, but (a) because in this case Joseph's home town was his ancestral seat, and (b) because Luke just wants to mention Joseph's lineage, making the point that Jesus birth in the line and town of David was to fulfill the scriptures.
2. This is all hugely speculative, but my point is to show that nothing in Luke 2 requires the extraordinary idea that everyone in the Roman Empire was required to go back to the town of their most illustrious ancestor.
This is important because where the case of Robin Lane Fox etc. - that Luke is talking crazy nonsense - is weakest is in the question of how Luke could have expected anyone to swallow such a story.
If Fox is right, that Luke is talking about an ancestral census, and that such a thing never happened and nothing like it ever could have happened, then surely anyone reading the first edition would go "What the hell are you talking about?" For Luke not to realise this, he would have to be a lot more stupid than he otherwise appears to be.
Bear in mind that he is writing - at the most sceptical estimates - around AD80, possibly 20 years earlier. It would be like an educated person today writing about someone being born in the inter-war years, saying that their parents had to go to the capital city to vote in a general election.
A priori, the wider you push the gap between what Luke says happened and what could conceivably have happened, the more likely you are to be wrong.
--------------------
I saw a naked picture of me on the internet
Wearing Jesus's new snowshoes.
Well, golly gee.
- Eels
Posts: 1363 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cusanus
Ship's Schoolmaster
# 692
|
Posted
Posted by Dr Teeth
quote:
As for the Quirinius debate (was he governor circa 4 BC when records have him governor later?), many people have proposed that he served two terms as governor which sounds plausible to me.
But not to me. It would have meant he had to have an otherwise-unheard of dual governorship, as the legate of Syria at that time was the later-notorious Quinctilius Varus.
I'm not sure, Steve, that your interpretation would survive Occam's razor. And it doesn't address the other objections that Fox raises, as noted above by Spong -- particularly the issue of Galilee not being part of the empire or subject to an imperial census.
--------------------
"You are qualified," sa fotherington-tomas, "becos you can frankly never pass an exam and have 0 branes. Obviously you will be a skoolmaster - there is no other choice."
Posts: 3120 | From: The Peninsula | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cusanus:
I'm not sure, Steve, that your interpretation would survive Occam's razor. And it doesn't address the other objections that Fox raises, as noted above by Spong -- particularly the issue of Galilee not being part of the empire or subject to an imperial census.
Why should that matter, if Joseph was from Bethlehem? If he was "out of the country" and the census was called and he somehow heard of it, he could be expected to "go home" and be censed.
Methinks the skeptics paint even more hard-to-swallow scenarios to prove the narrative wrong than the narrative is on its face.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cusanus
Ship's Schoolmaster
# 692
|
Posted
Mousethief said:
quote:
Methinks the skeptics paint even more hard-to-swallow scenarios to prove the narrative wrong than the narrative is on its face.
Well, I've looked over this thread and what Spong and I (the more "sceptical" of the posters) have posted. And those hard-to-swallow scenarios are?
I am a Christian who believes in the Incarnation as set out in the creeds. (In fact it is the absolute bedrock of my faith, but that's another issue.) I have no interest in 'proving the narrative wrong' but I am an ancient historian by training and I know how to employ historical method.
I have no problems accepting that the birth narratives are not 'historical'. They still tell us important things about the Incarnation.
--------------------
"You are qualified," sa fotherington-tomas, "becos you can frankly never pass an exam and have 0 branes. Obviously you will be a skoolmaster - there is no other choice."
Posts: 3120 | From: The Peninsula | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cusanus
Ship's Schoolmaster
# 692
|
Posted
Apologies for the double post but:
quote:
It would be like an educated person today writing about someone being born in the inter-war years, saying that their parents had to go to the capital city to vote in a general election
Maybe... but anyone who has had to teach middle school history/civics courses would see this as quite plausible ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
"You are qualified," sa fotherington-tomas, "becos you can frankly never pass an exam and have 0 branes. Obviously you will be a skoolmaster - there is no other choice."
Posts: 3120 | From: The Peninsula | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cusanus:
I have no problems accepting that the birth narratives are not 'historical'.
Why should I accept this? It certainly hasn't been proven. From what I've read in this thread it appears to be based on hunches which are in turn based on nothing.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I understood (from RE A-level: gosh that was a long time ago!) that the birth narrators somehow had to make the Jesus story fit the prophesy that the Messiah was to come from Bethlehem. Now how else could they wangle it when Jesus was obviously a Nazarene - I know, let's have his family make a sudden trip to Bethlehem because of some census requirement.
A cynical interpretation? Who knows?
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I know, let's have his family make a sudden trip to Bethlehem because of some census requirement. A cynical interpretation? Who knows?
A pretty daft thing to write if it wasn't true. Much better to have some sort of 'family emergency' and Mary delivering early. The secret of making up a good lie is to make it sound logical and reasonable.
Given a date of around 80CE for the writting of Luke's account there would be people around who would be able to 'There wasn't a census then!". I think that there must have been some administrative happening around the time of Jesus' birth.
bb
Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
And presumably the same applies to the appearance of a huge star and three(?) men on camels!!!
Isn't part of the problem the fact that in early times the accurate recording of historical fact and the development of myth through oral traditions were not seen as two important and distinct strands, rather that they were interwoven? It was not seen as lying, rather than pictorial interpretation.
It is similar to the idea of plagiarism which was seen as an honour rather than a crime - so we don't even know who wrote things.
Sorry to sound so negative - I'm reporting what I have been taught. I prefer to keep an open mind on the actuality.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
And presumably the same applies to the appearance of a huge star and three(?) men on camels!!!
Yes. Exactly.
In places where things aren't often written down people remember things and tell stories about them. When Matthew wrote his gospel it would not have become generally accepted if it was not in accord with the many stories circulating at the time.
The gospels are full of unbelievable things. Why pick out only a few as more unbelievable than others?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
What I find amusing is that we, 2000 years removed, know better what sorts of things the Romans were or were not likely to do, than did people who lived under their thumb and in and among their occupation armies. They swallowed the whole census thing hook line and sinker; we are so much more knowledgeable about Roman behaviour that we can see through these lies.
Spare me.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cusanus
Ship's Schoolmaster
# 692
|
Posted
Posted by Mousethief:
quote:
They swallowed the whole census thing hook line and sinker; we are so much more knowledgeable about Roman behaviour that we can see through these lies.
And spare me the sarcasm and the caricaturing of my position thanks. I have never referred to the Gospel as lies. Nor has anyone else on these threads.
Luke was written in about 80CE (probably), and most likely outside Palestine. So -- forty years after the end of the tetrarchate and maybe ten years after the major...erm...'re-organisation'of the administration of Judaea following the Jewish revolt. So the historical context for the birth narrative was substantially different (in a political and administrative sense) to that of Luke's readers.
Posts: 3120 | From: The Peninsula | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cusanus:
And spare me the sarcasm and the caricaturing of my position thanks.
YOUR position? I don't recall addressing that post to you; are you Robin Lane Fox? Or have you swallowed his/her arguments to such an extent that you have internalized them as your own?
quote:
I have never referred to the Gospel as lies. Nor has anyone else on these threads.
Proving what? If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, does it matter what you call it?
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveTom
Contributing Editor
# 23
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cusanus:
'm not sure, Steve, that your interpretation would survive Occam's razor.
No, it was a bit convoluted, wasn't it? But it was just an example of a possible explanation, and I prefer it to the alternative that Luke was inventing a census system that his readship would instantly recognise as completely barking.
--------------------
I saw a naked picture of me on the internet
Wearing Jesus's new snowshoes.
Well, golly gee.
- Eels
Posts: 1363 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cusanus
Ship's Schoolmaster
# 692
|
Posted
Posted by Mousethief
quote:
Proving what? If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, does it matter what you call it?
Yes it fucking does arsehole. Please refrain from making the suggestion that I regard the gospels as 'lies'. I find this post patronising, misleading and extremely fucking offensive.
--------------------
"You are qualified," sa fotherington-tomas, "becos you can frankly never pass an exam and have 0 branes. Obviously you will be a skoolmaster - there is no other choice."
Posts: 3120 | From: The Peninsula | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
You have lost all credibility with me, jerk.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Am I really reading this in Kerygmania?
(fetches mobile popcorn stall from hell)
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
You are of course right, Chorister. I apologize to everybody and to Cusanus for calling him/her a jerk.
However if he/she doesn't clean up his/her act, I will call him/her far worse over in Hell.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34
|
Posted
hostly biretta on
I can't quite believe what I have just read here! As Chorister so rightly pointed out, this is Keryg, not Hell.
If you would like to continue your little slanging match please feel free to use the facilities over in Hell.
Mousethief, thank you for your apolgies.
hostly biretta off
bb
Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I didn't go far enough, BB.
Cusanus, I apologize for insinuating that you believe the nativity narrative in Luke to be "lies."
Please tell us what you really believe about it.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cusanus:
Yes it fucking does arsehole. Please refrain from making the suggestion that I regard the gospels as 'lies'. I find this post patronising, misleading and extremely fucking offensive.
Hostly biretta on
I had thought that those words were written in the heat of the moment, and that Cusanus would return in the morning very shamed faced for such disgraceful behaviour in Keryg. It has now been over 24 hours since the above was written.
Cunanus, I am sure that you are fully aware that an apology is required. I expect that your next post on the ship is an apology. If that is not forthcoming then it will lead to some enforced shore-leave.
Hostly biretta off
bb
Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cusanus
Ship's Schoolmaster
# 692
|
Posted
I apologise and withdraw my intemperate language.
--------------------
"You are qualified," sa fotherington-tomas, "becos you can frankly never pass an exam and have 0 branes. Obviously you will be a skoolmaster - there is no other choice."
Posts: 3120 | From: The Peninsula | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cusanus
Ship's Schoolmaster
# 692
|
Posted
And Rdr Alexis: I believe it to be a profound but symbolic presentation of the nature of Christ and his Incarnation. That is, I believe to have poetic rather than historical truth.
--------------------
"You are qualified," sa fotherington-tomas, "becos you can frankly never pass an exam and have 0 branes. Obviously you will be a skoolmaster - there is no other choice."
Posts: 3120 | From: The Peninsula | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Did Luke know it wasn't historically true when he wrote it?
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
Did Luke care? It seems fairly obvious that "John" wasn't too bothered about "historical accuracy", so why should we assume that Luke was?
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Second Mouse
Citizen of Grand Fenwick
# 2793
|
Posted
To me, the beginning of his gospel suggests that Luke was concerned about historical accuracy.
Luke 1:1-4
1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[1] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, 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, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
His talk of eye-witness accounts, careful investigation, and drawing up an orderly account certainly suggest he was looking to record a factual account as best he could.
Claire
Posts: 1254 | From: West Yorkshire | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
I'm glad you quoted that, since this is what I was thinking as well. It's a very striking, and modern, statement.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
I printed this & read it during lunch. Very interesting.
The largest stumbling block to me seems to be the fact that Judea wasn't part of the Roman Empire at that time. This point has been raised several times so far, but not really addressed by those who feel that Luke's account is historically accurate (unless I missed something while chewing.)
On a related issue, I believe remember a discussion on the ship a while back where the point was made that since Luke does state that he was concerned with historical accuracy, that it is fair to judge him by that standard. That made sense to me.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
theMadFarmer
SOCKPUPPET
# 4252
|
Posted
quote:
Did Luke know it wasn't historically true when he wrote it?
It's worth considering that he didn't, largely because our standards for what is historically true are vastly different from the standards of ancient Rome.
For Luke, interviewing some Christians who'd been in the presence of Christ, and maybe some locals who'd witnessed stuff probably counted - doing even that would've set a pretty high standard for his day.
Nowadays, a good historian would interview Jesus's enemies and rivals, would try to dig up a primary source about the census (records of some kind), and would compile as many possible perspectives as possible. Luke's narrative style is, like all the other gospel writers, pretty hagiographic rather than historical.
As to the issue of "lies" - some of us, Mousethief, (or do I call you Reader?) believe that there several kinds of truth, some of them based in fact, but others which exist outside the ken and realm of facts - the kinds of truths best known through experience or in the very fact that they exist in the space outside factual truth. Someone mentioned poetry; all art seems to accomplish this if it is good art.
The Bible is excellent art: its truth is a stumbling block for people reliant too much on narrow modernist concepts of truth-as-propositions, and its wisdom stands, as Paul said, as "foolishness".
The truth of the Bible, to people like us, is koanonical rather than canonoical.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by theMadFarmer:
It's worth considering that he didn't, largely because our standards for what is historically true are vastly different from the standards of ancient Rome.
*sigh* I'm probably going to get shot down, but...
I'm not sure that "our standards for what is historically true are vastly different from the standards of ancient Rome." Thucydides wrote "The History of the Peloponnesian Wars" 400 years before Luke wrote his gospel. As a Greek, or someone familiar with Hellenistic culture, Luke would have had to have been familiar with it. Even today I believe it is considered a model of good historical writing.
On the other hand, Livy, who wrote around the time of Christ, is entertaining but not particularly accurate since he freely uses legends as long as they make the point he wanted to make (Hmmm...that sounds familiar), but he was much farther away in time from what he was writing about than either Thucydides or Luke.
I wouldn't dream of approaching the Gospel of John as "history", but Luke pretty much says his gospel is history, and I really don't understand why he can't be judged by the same standards we use to judge Thucydides, which, while not maybe the same standards we would apply to Will Durant, are not "vastly different".
If Thucydides said there was a battle when there wasn't a battle, he would lose points. The same I think if Luke says there was a census if there wasn't a census. That is either a historical fact, even by the standards of ancient Rome, or it isn't. I don't think it is ultimately important to the "truth" of Christianity, but it is what this thread is about. (I think.)
p.s.: I only have an undergraduate degree. Those better educated in classics may feel free to rip me apart.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cusanus
Ship's Schoolmaster
# 692
|
Posted
Posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
If Thucydides said there was a battle when there wasn't a battle, he would lose points. The same I think if Luke says there was a census if there wasn't a census. That is either a historical fact, even by the standards of ancient Rome, or it isn't. I don't think it is ultimately important to the "truth" of Christianity, but it is what this thread is about. (I think.)
I agree that it's not ultimately important to the 'truth' of Christianity, but I'd quibble over the 'losing points' thing. I know Luke makes a statement at the start of the Gospel that sounds like he's endeavouring to present objective history but I don't think that's what he means. In the end, we go to Luke for the Good News rather than To Find Out What Happened in History, so I don't think he "loses points" at all.
--------------------
"You are qualified," sa fotherington-tomas, "becos you can frankly never pass an exam and have 0 branes. Obviously you will be a skoolmaster - there is no other choice."
Posts: 3120 | From: The Peninsula | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cusanus:
...I know Luke makes a statement at the start of the Gospel that sounds like he's endeavouring to present objective history but I don't think that's what he means.
It's almost exactly what he means, your expectations notwithstanding. Unless you have some insight into what he really means that you'd care to share with us?
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
theMadFarmer
SOCKPUPPET
# 4252
|
Posted
Sine Nomine,
I'm not all trying to argue that the ancients had no standards for historical accounts, but rather that their standards were different. Modern historians definitely recognize Thucydides as a good and reliable source, but I doubt any of them would consider him as reliable as they'd consider a history of World War II - not just because World War II is closer to us in time, but also because some of the main methods of historical research and a great many of the standards for what counts as good evidence developed since Thucydides (or Luke.)
Luke's account is probably very reliable for a document of its day, but modern readers would be misreading Luke if they understood his idea of what counted as reliable sources and research to be the same our ours.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
