|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: Length of Mary's pregnancy
|
Aristotle's Child
Apprentice
# 18498
|
Posted
Luke 1:5, 41-43 In the days of Herod, King of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah of the priestly division of Abijah; his wife was from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth……….When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit,she cried out in a loud voice and said, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.43 And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord* should come to me?….
Luke 2:2-7 This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3 So all went to be enrolled, each to his own town.4 And Joseph too went up from Galilee from the town of Nazareth to Judea, to the city of David that is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David,a5to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. While they were there, the time came for her to have her child,7and she gave birth to her firstborn son.*
King Herod died in 4 BC and Quirinius was governor of Syria from 6-8 AD.
Did Mary’s pregnancy really last 10 years?
[ 28. May 2016, 02:08: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
Posts: 33 | From: Oregon USA | Registered: Nov 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
No. The timing of events described in Luke's nativity story are just screwy. Not that important unless a literalist gets into it with a Jesus Seminar adherent.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Is there a question here?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is there a question here?
"Did Mary’s pregnancy really last 10 years? "
As Lyda said, only if you believe Luke got his history spot on.
Otherwise, I would say nine months, give or take a few weeks, same as any other human pregnancy.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is there a question here?
"Did Mary’s pregnancy really last 10 years? "
Sorry, I meant is there a discussion here.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
There is a discussion, but of course it's not really about Mary's pregnancy, it's about the accuracy of Luke's dates. We've discussed this here before, but it seems 'tis the season to do it again. (You can read a previous thread here on a similar topic, but it's more to do with the accuracy of the census story than with the dating of the event).
It's always struck me as a bit odd that Luke would go to such great lengths to tie his narrative in to specific historical dates, characters and events -- something most Biblical writers, including the other gospel writers, don't bother to do -- and write a preface telling us that he's a careful historian who did his research, only to get the dates all wrong. I'm not entirely sure what this suggests, but it seems to undercut the argument that "Oh well, the accuracy of the dates/events doesn't matter because ancient people didn't see history and mythology the same way we do, the Bible writers didn't think of themselves as writing history texts." ISTM from the prologue of Luke and the details given in the birth narrative that Luke very much DID think of himself as writing a history text, which makes it all the stranger that the dates don't seem to line up with history as we know it.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Assuming that our historical dating is correct (and I would guess they draw on Roman governmental documents or inscriptions, saying who was in charge when) then I would suggest that Luke's sources were muddled. You are only as good as your data. And they were using Roman numerals, weren't they? It's easy to slip with all those Xs and Ls.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Apparently it would be perfectly respectable, and make historical sense, to translate Luke as saying this was the census before Quirinius was governor of Syria. Maybe our growing historical knowledge shows the need to re-examine a translational decision, rather than to conclude that Luke is wrong.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aristotle's Child
Apprentice
# 18498
|
Posted
Weren't the Gospels written in Koine Greek? And did Luke use or understand Latin??
Posts: 33 | From: Oregon USA | Registered: Nov 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aristotle's Child
Apprentice
# 18498
|
Posted
The" before" translaton isn't too credible if one recalls that from the Jewish historian Josephus, we know that the census was conducted under Quirinius following the Roman exile of Archelaus in 6 AD, who ruled Judea from 4 BC (King Herod's death) until 6 AD. Then the census was conducted and was the cause of a rebellian by Judas the Galileen mentioned in Acts.
Thus this would have been 10 years after the birth of Jesus as reported by Matthew and alluded to by Luke 2.
Posts: 33 | From: Oregon USA | Registered: Nov 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
We know that a census was conducted under Quirinius which was famous for giving rise to a revolt (because it marked the start of direct Roman rule). We have (outside Luke's gospel) no direct reference to a census or registration carried out before Quirinius was governor of Syria, but that doesn't mean there wasn't one - see the last two paragraphs quoted from N T Wright's comments on the census.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Aristotle's Child
Apprentice
# 18498
|
Posted
Bro James posted:
"We know that a census was conducted under Quirinius which was famous for giving rise to a revolt (because it marked the start of direct Roman rule). We have (outside Luke's gospel) no direct reference to a census or registration carried out before Quirinius was governor of Syria, but that doesn't mean there wasn't one - see the last two paragraphs quoted from N T Wright's comments on the census."
RESPONSE: On the contrary, we know exactly the census being referred to.
Luke2:2 "This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria."
Quirinius became governor of Syria in 6 AD. See Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, chapter 18
"Moreover, Cyrenius (aka Quirinius - Latin)came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus's money"
This followed Archelaus's being exiled in 6 AD
so we know just when that census was taken. It was Quirinius' first enrollment or census of Judea as governor (or ruler).
[ 12. November 2015, 23:30: Message edited by: Aristotle's Child ]
Posts: 33 | From: Oregon USA | Registered: Nov 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aristotle's Child
Apprentice
# 18498
|
Posted
With all due respect to Jimmie Akins (of Catholic Answers), I prefer to go by the statements of the scripture scholars of the New American Bible usually affiliated with the Catholic Biblical Association and sometimes Catholic University of America.
NAB footnote to Luke 5-2
"...Moreover, there are notorious historical problems connected with Luke’s dating the census when Quirinius was governor of Syria, and the various attempts to resolve the difficulties have proved unsuccessful. P. Sulpicius Quirinius became legate of the province of Syria in A.D. 6–7 when Judea was annexed to the province of Syria. At that time, a provincial census of Judea was taken up. If Quirinius had been legate of Syria previously, it would have to have been before 10 B.C. because the various legates of Syria from 10 B.C. to 4 B.C. (the death of Herod) are known, and such a dating for an earlier census under Quirinius would create additional problems for dating the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (Lk 3:1, 23). A previous legateship after 4 B.C. (and before A.D. 6) would not fit with the dating of Jesus’ birth in the days of Herod (Lk 1:5; Mt 2:1)....
Posts: 33 | From: Oregon USA | Registered: Nov 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I think the point of references to an earlier census is that there might have been one before 6AD, but obviously not under the authority of Quirinius. Possibly one was taken when Archelaus was given control of Judea, though we don't have any record of one. In which case, Luke has confused this census with the better known 6AD census under Quirinius.
Ultimately, I think it's just an example of Luke not being historically accurate, at least in relation to the birth of Jesus.
Matthew and Luke both faced a problem in writing their birth narratives. At a time when it was uncommon for families to move between towns, with most people born in the same town as they lived, and for their parents and grandparents to also be from the same town they had a dilemma. They had a tradition that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, yet there was no doubt that Jesus was from Nazareth in Galilee. How to account for this discrepancy?
Matthew solves the problem by having Mary and Joseph as residents of Bethlehem, so naturally having their son born there. Then with the slaughter of the innocents, a flight to Egypt and eventually a return to Galilee to settle down (where they would be unknown, they wouldn't be associated with the people Herod wanted killed, and presumably felt safer under Antipas than Archelaus).
Luke solves the problem by having Mary and Joseph as residents of Nazareth, so naturally raising their son there. But, he then needs a reason for a man to take his heavily pregnant with to Bethlehem to give birth. Hence a census with the unique requirement of people registering in their ancestral home town, forcing Joseph to travel to Bethlehem. Placing that census more than 10 years too late is by no means the only problem with the narrative. As mentioned, there's no other record of any census where there was a requirement to register anywhere other than where you were living at the time (to my knowledge). And, there's no record of any other census which required registration of anyone other than men (and, quite often only those of the right age to join the army), which would mean even if he had to go to Bethlehem there was no reason to take Mary on that long and hazardous journey - she would have stayed safely in Nazareth with family there.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Matthew and Luke both faced a problem in writing their birth narratives. At a time when it was uncommon for families to move between towns, with most people born in the same town as they lived, and for their parents and grandparents to also be from the same town they had a dilemma. They had a tradition that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, yet there was no doubt that Jesus was from Nazareth in Galilee. How to account for this discrepancy?
I agree with you about the problem Matthew and Luke are trying to solve, but I'm not sure how rare this kind of mobility really was. I've certainly heard it claimed that it was by other people too. But, I've also heard figures of huge numbers of miles of road per year being built by the Roman Army at this time, and almost every famous Ancient seems to have been pretty mobile. Paul was born in Tarsus, but educated in Jerusalem. Galen was born in Pergamum, but moved to Alexandria. Cicero was born in Arpinum, but moved to Rome.
Maybe there's a correlation between being famous and having moved in your youth, but I wonder if it's quite as rare as people make out.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Of course, the Romans built their roads primarily so they could quickly move the legions to where they were needed to keep the locals in line, and for messengers to quickly reach the nearest garrison to deliver the "we need help with the rebellious locals" messages.
There probably is a correlation between mobility and privilage. The rich were more likely to be engaged in trade between cities (it may be why they were rich in the first place). The wealthy would be able to send their children to school, and following an educational path almost always involves travel to centres of learning. It was, and still is, very common for those being groomed for positions of civic leadership to spend time with the civic leaders of other locations to learn from how others deal with their situations.
Whether a peasant couple in a backwater province of the Empire, even where the husband is a craftsman, would have the opportunity to travel is a different question - beyond the pilgrimages to Jerusalem for festivals that is.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
You know, if you're dealing with Jews, particularly devout ones, the travel thing is easy to cope with--much easier than if you were dealing with a different culture. The Torah demanded that every man visit Jerusalem on the three great feasts of the year. I suspect that was considerably loosened by the time of Christ, but the idea of pilgrimage to Jerusalem (with Bethlehem a mere morning's walk away) meant that travel--even yearly travel!--between Nazareth and the neighborhood of Jerusalem was not a rare occurrence.
As for Mary's presence, it is nowhere stated AFAIK that she herself, in particular, was required to be registered. In the line "to be registered with Mary..." the bit "to be registered" is an aorist infinitive--it doesn't come in singular or plural. And the "with Mary" bit could just as logically refer to the whole preceding clause "And Joseph went up" etc. etc. There is no punctuation to clarify matters for us. Lacking any other indication, I would assume that the registration applied to Joseph only, in his role as head of household. He doubtless took Mary along for practical reasons--I imagine everyone in Nazareth was counting on their fingers, and giving birth away from home is an easy way to obscure the actual birthdate (and hence likely conception date) of a child.
[ 13. November 2015, 03:52: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotle's Child:
Bro James posted:
"We know that a census was conducted under Quirinius which was famous for giving rise to a revolt (because it marked the start of direct Roman rule). We have (outside Luke's gospel) no direct reference to a census or registration carried out before Quirinius was governor of Syria, but that doesn't mean there wasn't one - see the last two paragraphs quoted from N T Wright's comments on the census."
RESPONSE: On the contrary, we know exactly the census being referred to.
Luke2:2 "This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria."
That is to assume that that translational decision is correct. As I pointed out above quote:
it would be perfectly respectable, and make historical sense, to translate Luke as saying this was the census before Quirinius was governor of Syria. Maybe our growing historical knowledge shows the need to re-examine a translational decision…
AS N.T. Wright comments quote:
This solves an otherwise odd problem: why should Luke say that Quirinius' census was the first? Which later ones was he thinking of? This reading, of course, does not resolve all the difficulties. We don't know, from other sources, of a census earlier than Quirinius'. But there are a great many things that we don't know in ancient history. There are huge gaps in our records all over the place. Only those who imagine that one can study history by looking up back copies of the London Times or the Washington Post in a convenient library can make the mistake of arguing from silence in matters relating to the first century.
My guess is that Luke knew a tradition in which Jesus was born during some sort of census, and that Luke knew as well as we do that it couldn't have been the one conducted under Quirinius, because by then Jesus was about ten years old. That is why he wrote that the census was the one before that conducted by Quirinius.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
With BroJames, I think Luke's dating of the nativity has suffered from something of a mistranslation – or a leap of logic that isn't really founded on the linguistic evidence.
The English Bible versions have been accustomed to using the term “governor” to translate the Greek word ἡγεμονεύοντος (= hegemoneuontos) in Luke 2:2, and this is then assumed to mean a reference to Quirinius' Legateship in Syria, beginning in AD 6.
That's a strange jump to make, because hegemoneuontos doesn't map in a 1:1 way to the office of Legate. It denotes a wider sense of holding administrative responsibility.
Quirinius could have 'ruled' in another capacity earlier than AD 6. The Tiburtine Inscription, a Roman inscription discovered in 1746, refers to someone who had twice been 'ruler' of Syria. Quirinius himself led a military campaign against the Homonadensian tribes in Cilicia between 9 BC and 2 BC. To do so he would have had to have access to the Syrian legions, which implies some degree of authority in the relevant area before AD 6.
It's also interesting to see how Luke's describes the enrolment in 2:1-2. Why does he bother to define it as the first enrolment (the question Wright asks)? I think he feels it necessary to add this little piece of detail because he was aware that there was another, later, enrolment and didn't want his audience to be confused over the dating. We are helped here by Josephus who, in his Antiquities Book XVIII and chapter 1, refers to one Cyrenius (the Greek spelling of 'Quirinius') who undertook an enrolment in Judea and to determine what to do with Archelaus' money. This presumably determines the date of the event to the end of Archelaus' reign in AD 6. Josephus also makes the point that these enrolments caused disruption to people's lives. Luke makes another reference to an enrolment in Acts 5:37 which is a closer fit with Josephus (both mention one Judas as a rebel). If Luke was aware of this possible more disruptive AD 6 enrolment, then this nicely explains his statement in Luke 1:2 in these terms - “By the way, the enrolment I'm talking about here is not the better known one in AD 6; I'm talking about an earlier one...”
So I'm not convinced that Luke was incorrect in his dating. It may be somewhat ironic that Luke, in his desire to avoid confusion over dates among his audience, ended up causing confusion among later commentators who were not privy to the information Luke and his original audience had to hand.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aristotle's Child
Apprentice
# 18498
|
Posted
Alan Cressfell posted:
“I think the point of references to an earlier census is that there might have been one before 6AD, but obviously not under the authority of Quirinius. Possibly one was taken when Archelaus was given control of Judea, though we don't have any record of one. In which case, Luke has confused this census with the better known 6AD census under Quirinius.”
RESPONSE: Actually, Archelaus was not given control. He inherited it from King Herod his father. The Jews very strongly objected to a census, but no doubt Herod maintained some kind of tally of who owned what so he could collect taxes.
“Ultimately, I think it's just an example of Luke not being historically accurate, at least in relation to the birth of Jesus.”
RESPONSE: What about the Church’s position that scripture cannot contain even the slightest error since it is all inspired by God. Or is “God breathed”? See Providentissimus Deus, 20, and other related encyclicals.
“As mentioned, there's no other record of any census where there was a requirement to register anywhere other than where you were living at the time (to my knowledge). And, there's no record of any other census which required registration of anyone other than men “
RESPONSE:
As a New American Bible Revised Edition admits in its footnotes to Luke 2:
* [2:1–2] Although universal registrations of Roman citizens are attested in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and A.D. 14 and enrollments in individual provinces of those who are not Roman citizens are also attested, such a universal census of the Roman world under Caesar Augustus is unknown outside the New Testament.
[ 13. November 2015, 13:13: Message edited by: Aristotle's Child ]
Posts: 33 | From: Oregon USA | Registered: Nov 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotle's Child:
RESPONSE: What about the Church’s position that scripture cannot contain even the slightest error since it is all inspired by God. Or is “God breathed”? See Providentissimus Deus, 20, and other related encyclicals.
What about it? Who actually believes that the bible can contain no error otherwise it is completely useless?
Also would you mind using the correct code (see the buttons below the box where you enter a reply)? It is very hard to read your posts (and you might well make a grave error like spelling the ADMIN's name wrongly) if you keep doing it like this.
Help is available in the UBB practice thread in Styx.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotle's Child:
RESPONSE: Actually, Archelaus was not given control. He inherited it from King Herod his father. The Jews very strongly objected to a census, but no doubt Herod maintained some kind of tally of who owned what so he could collect taxes.
This is rather tangential to the main thrust of the thread, but…
Herod Archelaus, according to Britannica quote:
was named in his father's will as ruler of the largest part of the Judaean kingdom—Judaea proper, Idumaea, and Samaria—Archelaus went to Rome (4 bc) to defend his title against the claims of his brothers Philip and Antipas before the emperor Augustus. Augustus confirmed him in possession of the largest portion but did not recognize him as king, giving him instead the lesser title of ethnarch to emphasize his dependence on Rome.
It is perfectly reasonable to regard him as having been 'given' control - both by his father's will, and by Caesar.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crśsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotle's Child:
Alan Cressfell posted:
“I think the point of references to an earlier census is that there might have been one before 6AD, but obviously not under the authority of Quirinius. Possibly one was taken when Archelaus was given control of Judea, though we don't have any record of one. In which case, Luke has confused this census with the better known 6AD census under Quirinius.”
RESPONSE: Actually, Archelaus was not given control. He inherited it from King Herod his father.
A minor quibble, but Archelaus was actually "given control". Augustus Cćsar was the executor of Herod the Great's will and had considerable latitude in the disposal of the kingdom. Augustus actually modified the terms of the will granting Archelaus considerably less than the whole kingdom and disposing the rest amongst various other descendants of Herod. The details are available in Josephus.
Interestingly, this bit of history may be embedded in one of Jesus' parables, which begins:
quote:
He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return."
This is not the usual way someone becomes a king but it's what Archelaus had to do, traveling to Rome at the same time as his scheming relations (and a delegation of Judean citizens who'd had all they could stand of the House of Herod).
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotle's Child:
What about the Church’s position that scripture cannot contain even the slightest error since it is all inspired by God. Or is “God breathed”? See Providentissimus Deus, 20, and other related encyclicals.
Hostly reminder
Biblical infallibility is a Dead Horse, and any discussion of it should take place on that board.
/Hostly reminder
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
Luke solves the problem by having Mary and Joseph as residents of Nazareth, so naturally raising their son there. But, he then needs a reason for a man to take his heavily pregnant with to Bethlehem to give birth. Hence a census with the unique requirement of people registering in their ancestral home town, forcing Joseph to travel to Bethlehem. Placing that census more than 10 years too late is by no means the only problem with the narrative. As mentioned, there's no other record of any census where there was a requirement to register anywhere other than where you were living at the time (to my knowledge).
As has by now been pointed out quite a few times, Luke actually portrays Joseph as living in Bethlehem, as a member of the family of King David. Mary came from Nazareth. What would basically have happened was that Joseph was working in Galilee, probably in relation to the construction of the city of Sepporis, and the census required him to go home to Bethlehem to register. In Galilee he would have been seen as a migrant worker, akin in modern terms to a Polish worker in the UK.
The interpretation that sees Joseph forced to return to an ancestral home with which he had no current connection depends on translating 'ketalyma' as an 'inn' rather than its primary meaning of a 'guest-chamber', implying in turn that Joseph was staying in an inn rather than in his family home. Translate 'ketalyma' as 'guest-chamber' and that aspect of the problem just disappears.
As a secondary issue I understand at least one early text of Luke gives the name of the Census taker as 'Saturninus' rather than Quirinius; Does anyone out there know more about that? AIUI, 'Saturninus' rendered into Greek with 'Chronos' instead of 'Saturn' might produce a name that could be confused with the Greek version of 'Quirinius'.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
...I understand at least one early text of Luke gives the name of the Census taker as 'Saturninus' rather than Quirinius...
I think this may have come from Tertullian, rather than from any textual variant of Luke. I couldn't find any reference in the critical apparatuses to such a name.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Thanks Nigel M. As I perhaps imperfectly recall it, Tertullian was in effect claiming to have seen a variant text containing that alternative name, which text may not have itself survived to be in modern critical sources???
Anyone else know anything?
A bit ago I saw an article in a secular astronomy magazine stating that there was a stone inscription reference to a census in Turkey, which might have been associated with Syria at that time, at the appropriate time for the dating of Jesus' birth before Herod's death.
Again, does anybody know more??
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
There having been an alternate text that has failed to be retained in any copies of the text we have is, of course, possible. We know that scribes occasionally made mistakes, resulting in variations in the text.
But, for the name of Quirinius to be wrong implies that Luke originally used a different name, but that the error in copying happened very early on such that the wrong name appears in all surviving versions, with the right name having been lost because of the volume of incorrect versions swamping it out. Possible, but is it a good foundation for an approach to reconcile the apparent discrepancies in the text we have?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Alan Cresswell;
quote:
But, for the name of Quirinius to be wrong implies that Luke originally used a different name, but that the error in copying happened very early on such that the wrong name appears in all surviving versions, with the right name having been lost because of the volume of incorrect versions swamping it out. Possible, but is it a good foundation for an approach to reconcile the apparent discrepancies in the text we have?
Sort of with you, Alan. But the problem might not be quite so simple. The name 'Quirinius' appears in the NT in a Greek form as 'KurEnios'; as I understand it a Greek version of 'Saturninus' might well not be simply 'transliterated' to the Greek alphabet, but semi-translated by using the Greek form of 'Saturn', that is 'Chronos' with the 'Ch' being a 'chi' which looks like an 'X'. Such a Greek-ised version of Saturninus might be confusable with 'KurEnios/Quirinius' because of Quirinius' involvement with the later census. It wouldn't be so much that the earlier version was 'dropped out' as that it became confused with a similar name....
I wouldn't wish to make too much of this. My preferred guess in some ways would be that we're talking about a 'first census' under a Quirinius with some broad authority in the Middle East which Luke rendered as 'governing in Syria' but not necessarily the specific office of 'the governor'.
We tend not to realise how fluid things still were in the 'Augustan' period after the civil wars surrounding Caesar and Pompey and the aftermath of Caesar's assassination.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Two thoughts on this.
First, I'm fairly sure it's always been assumed Mary's pregnancy was the normal length. Why else do we think we celebrate the Annunciation on 25th March?
Second, it may not have been the Romans that required Joseph to go back to Bethlehem to be enrolled. They may have gone there because he wanted to make sure he was recorded where he regarded himself as really coming from, rather than where he just happened to be. Perhaps he thought that if they didn't go back there and get on the records there, he might lose some sort of entitlement, inheritance rights or something.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Possibly too much of a tangent here - but I've been fascinated to hear about the cherry-tree carol, which apparently is based on some pseudo-gospel claptrap and, some say, the Koran.
Anyway, some of the many versions say that the birth happened on the 7 January. I've no idea where they got that from!
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Ah, it looks like that's just a Julian calendar issue. Still, funny to see it in a traditional English folk carol.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Two thoughts on this.
First, I'm fairly sure it's always been assumed Mary's pregnancy was the normal length. Why else do we think we celebrate the Annunciation on 25th March?
Second, it may not have been the Romans that required Joseph to go back to Bethlehem to be enrolled. They may have gone there because he wanted to make sure he was recorded where he regarded himself as really coming from, rather than where he just happened to be. Perhaps he thought that if they didn't go back there and get on the records there, he might lose some sort of entitlement, inheritance rights or something.
It wouldn't strictly speaking have been the Romans who required the detailed aspects of the census anyway; Judea/Palestine was still a nominally independent client kingdom in Herod's day. Herod would do the census at the Romans' request to sort out the tribute he needed to pay them, in effect; but it would be a kind of 'arms-length-management' situation in relation to Rome.
As I pointed out back above, if you correct the later misunderstanding of the word 'ketaluma' as an 'inn' rather than a 'guest-chamber', the text basically says Joseph went back to Bethlehem because it was his actual home, even if his work as a 'tektOn'/builder had taken him to Galilee for much of the year.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by mr cheesy;
quote:
Anyway, some of the many versions say that the birth happened on the 7 January. I've no idea where they got that from!
The Bible doesn't specify a date - but implies a likely winter date, Joseph returning to Bethlehem during a slack period for building work.
In the early days there were several competing versions of a possible birth-date. As I understand it Dec 25th derives from some guy who had the idea that all the important events of Jesus' life would happen neatly on the same day - and on whatever info he had available, he thought the crucifixion (or possibly the resurrection) happened on March 25th. He thought the conception more important than the birth, so dated that as March 25th, and Mary would 'obviously' have a 'perfect' nine month pregnancy so the birth 'must have' been on December 25th....
Even if I accepted his logic there, I'd still be rather surprised that God apparently arranged it by the Roman solar calendar rather than the Jewish lunar calendar!!
It was the post-Constantine Roman state church which settled the date at December 25th to correspond with and take over the mid-winter Saturnalia festival.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As I pointed out back above, if you correct the later misunderstanding of the word 'ketaluma' as an 'inn' rather than a 'guest-chamber', the text basically says Joseph went back to Bethlehem because it was his actual home, even if his work as a 'tektOn'/builder had taken him to Galilee for much of the year.
That at the most is a possible interpretation, not the only possible one. The same for your following post, about Joseph returning home during a slack part of the year.
As to 25 December - that of course is 3 days after the solstice, and in some ancient calendars the start of a new year. It may have that significance, but the truth is that we have no idea of the real date.
As an aside, when did the Incarnation occur - the conception or the birth? I can't think of anything turning on either date, but no doubt someone at some stage has thought of the answer.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As I pointed out back above, if you correct the later misunderstanding of the word 'ketaluma' as an 'inn' rather than a 'guest-chamber', the text basically says Joseph went back to Bethlehem because it was his actual home, even if his work as a 'tektOn'/builder had taken him to Galilee for much of the year.
[qb]
That at the most is a possible interpretation, not the only possible one. The same for your following post, about Joseph returning home during a slack part of the year.
Obviously the hypothesis of Joseph returning during 'a slack part of the year' is just that - a hypothesis or supposition. There could be other explanations for the return; including that to protect Mary's reputation it was a good idea that the birth took place away from Nazareth to confuse issues about the timing of the pregnancy.
On the more basic point, the word 'ketaluma' does basically mean a guest-chamber - it is used of the room of the last supper, and the other reference to an inn in Luke, in the Good Samaritan parable, uses a different word.
Luke says (I'm using my favourite Berkeley version, but I don't think it makes any difference);
quote:
They all went to be registered, each to his own city, and Joseph, too, went up from Galilee out of the city of Nazareth to Judea, to the city of David, called Bethlehem, because he was of the house of David, to be registered with Mary his betrothed wife whose pregnancy was advanced
Thus far, it seems a natural reading that everybody went back 'to his own city' and that Joseph was no exception. He was in Nazareth at the time, but Bethlehem was his home city and he went back there to register. He was 'of the house of David' and the family still lived in a portion of David's family's lands in Bethlehem, albeit in 'reduced circumstances' compared to in the time of David.
The only thing which has caused an unnatural reading, with Joseph apparently going back to a Bethlehem which wasn't his current home city, but only a long ago ancestral city, is when 'ketaluma' has been read as an 'inn' rather than a guest-chamber. Restore the 'guest-chamber' interpretation, and what is implied is an entirely natural situation, which also fits with archaeological knowledge of the kind of house likely in Bethlehem.
And again, while there might be other explanations, the most likely explanation of Joseph's presence in Nazareth is the combination of on the one hand proximity to his fiancee and her family, and on the other hand the availability of building work in and around the city of Sepphoris.
I'm not saying my suggestion is the only possible explanation; just that it seems very likely and in particular resolves the apparent problem of the interpretation based on the idea of Joseph as an outsider to Bethlehem who needed to stay in an inn.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Joseph went to a guest chamber in his own house in Bethlehem?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The biggest problem is that, apart from junior school nativity plays, I don't think anyone really thinks that Joseph and Mary wandered around the streets of Bethlehem looking for the local Premier Inn.
Much more likely it was a typical one-room house - a room in which the animals (at least a donkey, as we're told Mary rode one) were also housed at night. A house like any other, only lacking room because the owners (members of Josephs family) are now accommodating two more people and an extra donkey. If there were several animals there, that part of the room may have been the warmest on a cold night, where better to keep a new born child warm?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
There is always (the unknowable, in my opinion) possibility that the events were transported to Bethlehem by the gospel writers in order to make a point about prophesy. AFAIU there has never been found a recorded census in the period which required people to go to their ancestral town outwith of the gospel account.
I've been to Bethlehem, and there are not many really old buildings, so in my opinion we are all making assumptions about how the buildings were constructed, and I think these are largely influenced by the shape of the buildings which were around in the middle ages.
It would be interesting to read more detail about any archaeology about homesteads* in the region. But it is feasible to imagine that animals lived either with humans or on a floor below.
The whole notion of a "stable" seems to me to be unwarranted from the text, at best it says that the child was laid in an animal feeding trough. This could have been in the street or the countryside.
It is all supposition, of course.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
leo: It was his ancestral families home, not his own home.
I guess that gives a whole new dimension to the story. In this case did his family tell him there was no place for them there? Why? Fodder for a good soap opera ISTM.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There is always (the unknowable, in my opinion) possibility that the events were transported to Bethlehem by the gospel writers in order to make a point about prophesy. AFAIU there has never been found a recorded census in the period which required people to go to their ancestral town outwith of the gospel account.
As you say, unknowable. The challenge is ISTM, that if they were willing to transpose events at all in this way, then why does Nazareth get a look in in the first place. We can make another speculative hypothesis for that too, but then Occam's razor ought to begin to take effect. It is worth saying also that Luke doesn't say that the census required people to go to their ancestral towns - just that they did (Luke 2.3)
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I've been to Bethlehem, and there are not many really old buildings, so in my opinion we are all making assumptions about how the buildings were constructed, and I think these are largely influenced by the shape of the buildings which were around in the middle ages.
I've been to Bethlehem too. The really old stuff is mostly below ground level now. But there is archeological evidence (scroll down the page for one example - albeit not in Bethlehem). So it's a bit more than just making assumptions
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It would be interesting to read more detail about any archaeology about homesteads* in the region. But it is feasible to imagine that animals lived either with humans or on a floor below.
The whole notion of a "stable" seems to me to be unwarranted from the text, at best it says that the child was laid in an animal feeding trough. This could have been in the street or the countryside.
Here is an extended discussion of what might have happened with reference to archeological sources.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I've been to Bethlehem too. The really old stuff is mostly below ground level now. But there is archeological evidence (scroll down the page for one example - albeit not in Bethlehem). So it's a bit more than just making assumptions
Thanks, I've been brought up with photos and claims like those in my concordance and "evidence for the bible" books. These days I'm pretty skeptical about these as a reliable source of information.
quote:
Here is an extended discussion of what might have happened with reference to archeological sources.
Yes. I'd need a lot better sources than those. As far as I read and understand, there is very little architectural archaeology from the period.
[ 26. November 2015, 15:23: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I've been to Bethlehem too. The really old stuff is mostly below ground level now. But there is archeological evidence (scroll down the page for one example - albeit not in Bethlehem). So it's a bit more than just making assumptions
Thanks, I've been brought up with photos and claims like those in my concordance and "evidence for the bible" books. These days I'm pretty skeptical about these as a reliable source of information.
Yes. I know what you mean.
However, there's actually quite a lot of work been done, although principal buildings often get more attention than standard houses. Excavations at both Yodefat and Gamla give more evidence as to the nature of private housing, but very little of this sort of thing is directly available online without institutional access to academic resources. Even then, if one chooses to discount any sources associated with Christianity, the ability to read modern Hebrew is likely to be necessary. Mostly it tends to be Christian-based organisations who are interested in disseminating the information more widely - and I appreciate that from your POV these are not to be relied on. I am satisfied that respectable evidence exists as to the nature of 1st Century Palestinian housing, but unfortunately, as I have indicated, if you are going to discount what is posted on 'Christian' sites, then the internet is not a medium in which it is possible to respond to those doubts.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Ah, it looks like that's just a Julian calendar issue. Still, funny to see it in a traditional English folk carol.
Bit of a tangent, but that's quite an interesting point. Mary Hopkin - does any shipmate remember her? - sang a version with 6th January in it.
It makes one wonder whether that wording dates from shortly after 1752 when the calendar changed, though logic would suggest that should have been 5th January. There would almost inevitably have been some people who claimed that mere humans could not change God's time. I believe there was speculation among some people at the time as to which night the animals would bow, worship and briefly have the power of speech.
About thirty years ago, I was told that there was a Scottish island that still kept to the old calendar. I don't know if that's true and if so, whether it still does. In the early 1970s there were churches on a remote part of the mainland in Scotland that did not recognise summer time.
Further tangent - this is why the financial year runs from 6th April - 5th April. Before the calendar changed, the new year ran from Lady Day, but people couldn't be taxed for a whole year on a year that was 11 days short.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Le Roc;
quote:
Joseph went to a guest chamber in his own house in Bethlehem?
No, Joseph went to his family's house in Bethlehem; the original intention would have been to use the guest-chamber for the birth, for some reason that didn't work out, they used the animal area instead and Jesus was installed in a manger/feeding-trough.
This isn't a modern semi-detached, or a modern farm with the animal accommodation very much outside. It would be more like an old north of England 'bastle house', with family and animals all in the same building, a big 'daytime' room and some private-ish sleeping areas, and the animals and their provisions at one end. The animal area wouldn't be that different to the rest of the house. Such buildings were common through Europe and the Middle East for centuries before and after the 1st Century CE.
The 'big' point is that Luke's story does not imply the long traditional but rather absurd idea of Joseph going to an ancestral city with which he had no current connection, and so had to stay at an 'inn'. Like others affected by the census, he went to be registered quite logically at 'his own city', which happened to be Bethlehem because he was a descendant of David, and he stayed with his new wife in the current family home.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Steve Langton: No, Joseph went to his family's house in Bethlehem; the original intention would have been to use the guest-chamber for the birth, for some reason that didn't work out, they used the animal area instead and Jesus was installed in a manger/feeding-trough.
Still, this says something about Joseph's relationship with his family. Okay, so there is this family house in Bethlehem. According to you, Joseph lived there (not in Nazareth), but he didn't have a room there. I can get this, it's a big extended family, they don't have that many rooms, so in his absence his room was occupied by someone else. He shows up from Nazareth with his wife Mary, who's obviously about to give birth. What I would imagine is the family wanting this to happen in the best place available, with a lot of Joseph's sisters, nieces, aunts ... fussing over her. And an uncle shouting "What the devil are these shepherds doing here? Can't they see the house is full enough?"
Yet, Jesus seems to have been born in what doesn't seem the best place. And by all accounts, Joseph and Mary were alone. The only reason I can see for this is if Joseph's family didn't believe that the child was his?
[ 26. November 2015, 19:56: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
No, Joseph went to his family's house in Bethlehem; the original intention would have been to use the guest-chamber for the birth, for some reason that didn't work out, they used the animal area instead and Jesus was installed in a manger/feeding-trough.
Seriously - where are you getting this stuff from?
quote:
This isn't a modern semi-detached, or a modern farm with the animal accommodation very much outside. It would be more like an old north of England 'bastle house', with family and animals all in the same building, a big 'daytime' room and some private-ish sleeping areas, and the animals and their provisions at one end. The animal area wouldn't be that different to the rest of the house. Such buildings were common through Europe and the Middle East for centuries before and after the 1st Century CE.
I spent quite a while in academic books this afternoon looking for information about housing in first century Palestine, and nothing I've read resembles this. Just FYI.
quote:
The 'big' point is that Luke's story does not imply the long traditional but rather absurd idea of Joseph going to an ancestral city with which he had no current connection, and so had to stay at an 'inn'. Like others affected by the census, he went to be registered quite logically at 'his own city', which happened to be Bethlehem because he was a descendant of David, and he stayed with his new wife in the current family home.
As discussed before, there is no record of anyone having to go to an ancestral home for a census. If you have anything showing this practice, I'd be very interested to hear it.
[ 26. November 2015, 20:44: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Yet, Jesus seems to have been born in what doesn't seem the best place. And by all accounts, Joseph and Mary were alone. The only reason I can see for this is if Joseph's family didn't believe that the child was his?
I hadn't thought of this point before, but this flight of fantasy is impaled on this point. If Joseph had a home in Bethlehem, someone in Bethlehem would have given him a room for his wife to give birth. To not do so would surely have been shameful in that society.
The fact that no room was available suggests strongly that the pair were not well known in Bethlehem.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
