homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Kerygmania: How historical are the nativity stories? (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Kerygmania: How historical are the nativity stories?
Hawk

Semi-social raptor
# 14289

 - Posted      Profile for Hawk   Author's homepage   Email Hawk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Giving Jesus David as an ancestor through Joseph, right?
How does that work when Joseph, isn't, erm, well....

There's always a dnager of reading our own understanding into an ancient text. We know about genetic hereditary transmission and so we assume that's how first century Jews understood it. Kwesi mentions genes also, which is part of this anachronistic way of understanding ancestry.

AIUI for Jews it was not the trnasmission of genes that mattered and made you belong to a certain tribe, or family. It was something far more subtle and more real. You became a Jew not just by being born a Jew, but by being circumcised and being a part of the community, following the law. A Jew who wasn't circumcised and didn't follow the law was not really a Jew at all. Being a member of a tribe and a family was about being part of it, sharing identity, not just sharing genes. Part of it is the rituals surrounding marraige, circumcision, and coming of age, which signify acceptance into the community, part of it is how one lives their life.

Belonging to Joseph's family, and sharing in his ancestry was perfectly allowed in Jewish understanding even for someone who wasn't (as we would understand it) directly related to him genetically. Indeed, Jesus didn't physically share any of the genes of the Holy Spirit either (since it doesn't have any) but is still just as legitimately the Son of God as he is the Son of Joseph.

--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer

See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts

Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Jammy Dodger wrote:
quote:
Also you are right to pull me up on the village thing. In comparison to Jerusalem Bethlehem would've been much smaller I imagine but to be called a city it would need to have been big enough to have a protective wall around it.
AIUI, that's exactly what the word polis means - a walled (or fortified) community. Or in other words, it's a description of the sort of place, not its size.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hawk
quote:
There's always a dnager of reading our own understanding into an ancient text. We know about genetic hereditary transmission and so we assume that's how first century Jews understood it. Kwesi mentions genes also, which is part of this anachronistic way of understanding ancestry.
Of course, you are perfectly right, though I was aware of my solecism at the time of posting. Perhaps I should have put "genes" etc. in inverted commas. You remind us, too, of the general point that genealogies are not so value free as is often assumed, which is what makes them so instructive. I wonder what a genealogy through the female line have thrown up!
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

 - Posted      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I wonder what a genealogy through the female line have thrown up!

AIUI the ancients believed that all genetic material was provided by the male. The female simply served as an incubator.

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There are bits and pieces in tradition that reflect the female line. Actually some is Biblical, as Zechariah is a Priest, therefore by the law he had to marry a Levite. So we can assume Elizabeth was a Levite, and as she was a cousin to Mary then there is a good chance Mary was too. What tradition adds is to make Elizabeth and Mary from Priestly stock as well. So that Jesus thus is of the Priestly lineage. That there is no biblical evidence for as far as I can recall.

Jengie

--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge

Back to my blog

Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not aware of any requirement that a priest marry a Levite. Perhaps you are thinking of the high priest, who had to marry "a virgin of his own people." But that applied only to him and "own people" meant AFAIK an Israelite. Aaron himself married a Judahite, Elisheba. So while there could have been priestly lineage on the maternal side, however far back, there is no need to believe Elizabeth (much less Mary) was herself born to the tribe of Levi.

--------------------
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
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058

 - Posted      Profile for Net Spinster   Email Net Spinster   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Zechariah as a priest was not restricted to marrying only a Levite; however, Luke does state his wife was also of the line of Aaron and so a daughter of a priest. The Talmud expands that a priest had to marry a woman who born Jewish and not a convert (and not a mamzer and not a divorced woman). If he were high priest or wanted to be, his wife had to be a virgin at the wedding (not a widow).

Also is there any evidence that adoption existed in Jewish culture and law of that time (as opposed to fostering or Roman law which did have adoption). Talmudic law which was written down a bit later does not have adoption in the modern sense though encourages fostering of children whose parents can't raise them. One's original parents remain the parents though one also has obligations to one's foster parents. You remained of the lineage of your biological father (and lineage was only through the paternal line). Even though at some time (by the time the Talmud was written down) it was established that to be Jewish your mother must be Jewish or you had to formally convert.

--------------------
spinner of webs

Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I wonder what a genealogy through the female line have thrown up!

AIUI the ancients believed that all genetic material was provided by the male. The female simply served as an incubator.
I've heard that before, but I don't believe it. People who bred animals for a living couldn't be so stupid as to not note that offspring inherit properties of the mother.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058

 - Posted      Profile for Net Spinster   Email Net Spinster   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I wonder what a genealogy through the female line have thrown up!

AIUI the ancients believed that all genetic material was provided by the male. The female simply served as an incubator.
I've heard that before, but I don't believe it. People who bred animals for a living couldn't be so stupid as to not note that offspring inherit properties of the mother.
It seems to have been a debated issue. Aristotle's followers favored men providing the seed and women the material while Galen who wrote in the 2nd century CE saw both sexes providing seed (http://www.iep.utm.edu/galen/).

--------------------
spinner of webs

Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I wonder what a genealogy through the female line have thrown up!

AIUI the ancients believed that all genetic material was provided by the male. The female simply served as an incubator.
I've heard that before, but I don't believe it. People who bred animals for a living couldn't be so stupid as to not note that offspring inherit properties of the mother.
It seems to have been a debated issue. Aristotle's followers favored men providing the seed and women the material while Galen who wrote in the 2nd century CE saw both sexes providing seed (http://www.iep.utm.edu/galen/).
Somewhere online there is or was a scholarly article which examines this issue in antiquity. I can't immediately find it but will look again. But broadly I think you are right.

I seem to recall that there are a number of extra-biblical sources which point to Jewish belief in this period following the "both sexes provide seed" model. And in fact that is exactly what Hebrews 11:11 says in the original Greek (where Sarah "received the power to conceive seed"). Though don't bother looking it up in the NIV where the translation is hopelessly mangled.

Quoting from memory again, I seem to recall that Aristotle's view was that both sexes contributed, but the woman's contribution was in the blood which carried life. Or something like that. Though I have from time to time seen "the Aristotelian view" being reported as that the woman was just an incubator (as Moo says) which I don't think is right.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Still looking, but the article appears as a chapter in "Hellenism, Judaism & Christianity - Essays on their Interaction" by P. W. van der Horst. The article is entitled "Sarah's Seminal Emission. Hebrews 11.11 in the Light of Ancient Embryology" and it starts on p 221.

Google Books has a version online (here) though unfortunately it doesn't have every single page available; enough though to be able to follow the argument about different views on this matter.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Was Aristotle a breeder of cattle? Aristotle said a lot of things he had no evidence for. He was not a scientist.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not aware of it if so mousethief. I only mentioned it in passing because I've seen two different views ascribed to him.

On a slightly different tack, the almost universal use of "seed" in a reproductive context is interesting. In many plants it is obvious that the unfertilised embryo is associated with the female part of the plant rather than the pollen. It's easy to say "they wouldn't have made that connection", but does the use of the vegetative analogy not argue against that?

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Aristotle was a lot nearer to being a scientist than most of the Greek philosophers. Made some very sensible observations and experiments on fish, for example. Based his ideas of natural history on the real world.

From a biologists point of view Aristotle is a sort of intellectual great-uncle of modern science. The exact opposite of Plato, whose ideas are inimical to science and need to be utterly rejected before we can think clearly about the natural world.

From a biologists point of view, of course. Physicists may differ.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
From a biologists point of view Aristotle is a sort of intellectual great-uncle of modern science. The exact opposite of Plato, whose ideas are inimical to science and need to be utterly rejected before we can think clearly about the natural world.

From a biologists point of view, of course. Physicists may differ.

Fair enough. I've not studied his biology, only his physics.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313

 - Posted      Profile for HCH   Email HCH   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In one of Isaac Asimov's essays he commented that he almost always had to start by explaining what the Greeks (meaning Aristotle) believed on a topic and then how they were mistaken.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
In one of Isaac Asimov's essays he commented that he almost always had to start by explaining what the Greeks (meaning Aristotle) believed on a topic and then how they were mistaken.

It's always worth remembering that by 4400AD everyone will be saying exactly that about us.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044

 - Posted      Profile for A.Pilgrim   Email A.Pilgrim   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
There are bits and pieces in tradition that reflect the female line. Actually some is Biblical, as Zechariah is a Priest, therefore by the law he had to marry a Levite. So we can assume Elizabeth was a Levite, and as she was a cousin to Mary then there is a good chance Mary was too. What tradition adds is to make Elizabeth and Mary from Priestly stock as well. So that Jesus thus is of the Priestly lineage. That there is no biblical evidence for as far as I can recall.

Jengie

Not only is there no Biblical evidence in favour, there is evidence strongly to the contrary in Hebrews chapter 7, which explains that Jesus was a priest of the order of Melchizedek, not of the order of Aaron. (See esp. 7:13-14.)

Addressing the general subject of the thread, I take the nativity stories as historical, especially in the light of Luke's preface to his gospel. It seems to me to be insupportable haughty arrogance to suggest that anyone distanced from the events by 2000 years knows better than a contemporary writer.
Angus

Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nah, Joseph had bottle. He went home with his family.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981

 - Posted      Profile for BWSmith     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The birth narrative passages were used by Matthew and Luke to bridge the gap between the sudden appearance of Jesus in Mark's gospel (which they were rewriting) and the Old Testament text (and contemporary messianic expectations derived from it).

Matthew is more explicit about this with his direct quotes from the OT, while Luke prefers subtle allusions to OT characters (primarily the Samuel birth story).

Bottom line, Mark, John, and Paul's letters prove that the gospel does not require the birth narrative as a preface.

Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
We don't have a Pauline gospel.

(edited to add - No, I realised you didn't claim we did, but drawing conclusions from Paul's letters, which are mostly issue-driven. is an argument from silence).

[ 13. December 2013, 17:21: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
There are bits and pieces in tradition that reflect the female line. Actually some is Biblical, as Zechariah is a Priest, therefore by the law he had to marry a Levite. So we can assume Elizabeth was a Levite, and as she was a cousin to Mary then there is a good chance Mary was too. What tradition adds is to make Elizabeth and Mary from Priestly stock as well. So that Jesus thus is of the Priestly lineage. That there is no biblical evidence for as far as I can recall.

Jengie

Not only is there no Biblical evidence in favour, there is evidence strongly to the contrary in Hebrews chapter 7, which explains that Jesus was a priest of the order of Melchizedek, not of the order of Aaron. (See esp. 7:13-14.)

Addressing the general subject of the thread, I take the nativity stories as historical, especially in the light of Luke's preface to his gospel. It seems to me to be insupportable haughty arrogance to suggest that anyone distanced from the events by 2000 years knows better than a contemporary writer.
Angus

Not really priestly lineage went down the father's line and Joseph was from the tribe of Judah so Jesus was not priestly even if his mother was.

Just as the evidence for Aaron does not count as he was married before the rule was made!

I still think that Lamb Chopped is right.
Jengie

--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge

Back to my blog

Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:

quote:
Addressing the general subject of the thread, I take the nativity stories as historical, especially in the light of Luke's preface to his gospel. It seems to me to be insupportable haughty arrogance to suggest that anyone distanced from the events by 2000 years knows better than a contemporary writer.
Depends on the contemporary writer, doesn't it? For example the Egyptian Pharaoh Hatshepsut claimed to have driven the Hyksos from Egypt despite the fact that it happened some years prior to her reign. The whole thing is rather akin to Mr Cameron putting up statues to himself across London with claims that he had personally seen off the Third Reich. Or, if you want an example that is nearly contemporaneous with Jesus, you would not get far with a classicist by citing Suetonius as your sole source for an event during the early Principate.

Contemporary writers get things wrong. Sometimes posterity is able to correct them. Sometimes we have to give them the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes they are triumphantly vindicated. I believe in the Virgin Birth and Mary and Joseph fetching up in Bethlehem but I don't think that Luke and Matthew writing sixty to eighty odd years after the event trumps any critical objections that can be levelled in 2013, per se.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490

 - Posted      Profile for k-mann   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
I see no reason why the nativity accounts aren't historically accurate as long as we recognise that lots of traditional "details" are layered on interpretations/embellishments not originally there. E.g. The reference to an "inn" might really be a reference to the "guest room" in a single peasant dwelling.

Well, the word 'inn' is not found in the Greek text. The greek word is κατάλυμα (kataluma), which can mean an inn, but which just means housing or shelter (probably in a private residence).

--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich

Katolikken

Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

 - Posted      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Well, the word 'inn' is not found in the Greek text. The greek word is κατάλυμα (kataluma), which can mean an inn, but which just means housing or shelter (probably in a private residence).

This is the same word that is translated 'guest room' in Luke 22:11.
quote:
...and say to the owner of the house, “The teacher asks you, ‘Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ ”
Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Plus, with Bethlehem being so close to Jerusalem and being so small, it's very unlikely there was a public inn there. AFAIK there's no historical / archaelogoical evidence of there being an inn there in the time of Jesus (or any time near it). I think a family guest room is much more likely, which in turn suggests there must have been a lot of other family staying there at the time for there to be no room upstairs, which makes you wonder what the circumstances were for Mary to be pregnant, yet made to sleep with the animals - a more pressing family need, or some rejection because of her pregnancy out of wedlock?

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's just as likely that we're talking about some random Bethlehem family who were taking people in for the census (whether for cash or kindness). Considering David's amatory prowess, half the country was probably related to him, and even direct descendants only would mean a heckuva lot of people descending upon a small town. Even if it was, as I expect, spread out over several weeks or more in time. (I remember the desperate appeals that went out for people to open their homes to people evacuated from Katrina--and what it was like near L.A. during the Olympics)

--------------------
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
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058

 - Posted      Profile for Net Spinster   Email Net Spinster   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I find it not historically likely that a census would require Joseph et alia to go to Bethlehem in the first place as opposed to staying by his residence/workshop/land in Nazareth. The purpose of the census was taxation so authorities want the people next to any property they own (land, buildings, tools, animals) so as to properly evaluate their wealth (or skills if potentially part of the tax was to be in the form of a labor levy).

In addition when did the census take place? We have evidence from Josephus that a provincial census did take place under Quirinius but well after Herod the Great's death. It also led to a major revolt (for some reason people don't like taxes though there is also the Biblical injunction against censuses).

--------------------
spinner of webs

Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
AFAIK there's no historical / archaelogoical evidence of there being an inn there in the time of Jesus (or any time near it).

Why would you expect there to be any such evidence? It's not like we have the Yellow Pages for every podunk town in the Roman Empire for every year we're interested in. This is a really silly argument from silence.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
I find it not historically likely that a census would require Joseph et alia to go to Bethlehem in the first place as opposed to staying by his residence/workshop/land in Nazareth. The purpose of the census was taxation so authorities want the people next to any property they own...


Luke believed Joseph to be a descendent of David in an unbroken male line. The story has Joseph going to Bethlehem to assert his place in the tribe of Judah.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Net Spinster wrote:
quote:
I find it not historically likely that a census would require Joseph et alia to go to Bethlehem in the first place as opposed to staying by his residence/workshop/land in Nazareth. The purpose of the census was taxation so authorities want the people next to any property they own (land, buildings, tools, animals) so as to properly evaluate their wealth (or skills if potentially part of the tax was to be in the form of a labor levy).
Not this census (whatever that means), but interestingly we do have evidence of a census decree of Gaius Vibius Maximus in 104AD which requires exactly the sort of thing that Luke reports.

Your latter paragraph -
quote:
In addition when did the census take place? We have evidence from Josephus that a provincial census did take place under Quirinius but well after Herod the Great's death. It also led to a major revolt (for some reason people don't like taxes though there is also the Biblical injunction against censuses).
- has of course been hugely thrashed over by scholars of many persuasions on the basis of various 20th century archaeological discoveries. Exactly what they might imply is not entirely clear to me. But the standard critiques are mostly traceable to the summary of Emil Schurer from the end of the 19th century and are somewhat out of date now, though everyone still seems to quote them. If they do remain critiques they at least need refining in the light of the 20th century work.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058

 - Posted      Profile for Net Spinster   Email Net Spinster   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Not this census (whatever that means), but interestingly we do have evidence of a census decree of Gaius Vibius Maximus in 104AD which requires exactly the sort of thing that Luke reports.

Actually Gaius Vibius Maximus census supports the opposite. It requires those who are might be away from their homes to return to their legal homes and to busy themselves with cultivation. It makes an exception for those whose work in the city is needed. City workers not legally residing in the city were almost certainly single people whose parents are still on the family farm but who have temporarily moved to the city to find work and supplement the family income (since labor needs on a farm varied and during the Nile flood little could be done on most farms though some from large families or seeking a better life might leave a bit more permanently).

In addition this is Egypt which had a much higher level of bureaucracy than Palestine and whose agriculture was particularly important to the Roman Empire (without grain from Egypt, Rome would starve). The order might in part be made to force farmers who were seeking a better life in the cities back to farming.

It is not an order to return to the home area of some distant ancestor. Now one could make it work if Joseph's parents or elder brother still lived in Bethlehem and Joseph was a casual laborer and if the census took place when both Judea and Galilee were under Roman control and the same province (i.e., Herod the Great was already dead).

--------------------
spinner of webs

Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
AFAIK there's no historical / archaelogoical evidence of there being an inn there in the time of Jesus (or any time near it).

Why would you expect there to be any such evidence? It's not like we have the Yellow Pages for every podunk town in the Roman Empire for every year we're interested in. This is a really silly argument from silence.
If I was saying "there's no evidence, so there can't have been an inn", then you would have a point, but I didn't say that. I didn't say there wasn't an inn, merely that it is unlikely (or at least when I read up on the topic a few years ago, that's the conclusion I came to), the main reasons being the size and location of Bethlehem, and the misinterpretation due to the translation of "upper room". Pointing out that there's no document from Josephus (or anyone else) saying "I stayed in this lovely inn in Bethlehem..." wasn't intended to be a positive argument, merely an aside pointing out the lack of a negative one. Most people assume there must have been an inn (or, as in many nativity plays, quite a few!) in Bethlehem. The reality is there probably wasn't one at all.

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Not this census (whatever that means), but interestingly we do have evidence of a census decree of Gaius Vibius Maximus in 104AD which requires exactly the sort of thing that Luke reports.

Actually Gaius Vibius Maximus census supports the opposite. It requires those who are might be away from their homes to return to their legal homes and to busy themselves with cultivation. It makes an exception for those whose work in the city is needed. City workers not legally residing in the city were almost certainly single people whose parents are still on the family farm but who have temporarily moved to the city to find work and supplement the family income (since labor needs on a farm varied and during the Nile flood little could be done on most farms though some from large families or seeking a better life might leave a bit more permanently).

In addition this is Egypt which had a much higher level of bureaucracy than Palestine and whose agriculture was particularly important to the Roman Empire (without grain from Egypt, Rome would starve). The order might in part be made to force farmers who were seeking a better life in the cities back to farming.

It is not an order to return to the home area of some distant ancestor. Now one could make it work if Joseph's parents or elder brother still lived in Bethlehem and Joseph was a casual laborer and if the census took place when both Judea and Galilee were under Roman control and the same province (i.e., Herod the Great was already dead).

Mmm... Perhaps I should expand that a little.

It is often said that Roman censuses don't normally require people to return to their place of birth. The census decrees don't, though another class of decree (the "Reintegration Edict") does. Strictly speaking, in both the cases here we have a double edict - a census and a reintegration edict. That's more what I was pointing towards.

There seems to be no fixed view on what reintegration edicts were used for, but some sort of control over migration is an obvious one. What is less clear is their connection with forthcoming census edicts. There seem to be varying views on that. But the standard form of a reintegration edict is to get people to return to their idia (which can be translated as home, but would probably be more accurately stated as homeland). In the GVM edict it stipulates to their hearth (home), which is presumably the implementation in that case. The implementation in other cases would - I assume - vary according to purpose.

Anyway, these are the sort of factors I meant. But as you say there are also differences.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dinghy Sailor

Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507

 - Posted      Profile for Dinghy Sailor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Does the biblical text actually say that Joseph was explicitly told by the authorities to go to Bethlehem?

quote:
Luke 2:3-5 (NRSV):
All went to their own towns to be registered. Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David.

Facts we know:
1) Everyone had to go to "their own town".
2) Joseph's family had roots in Bethlehem.
3) Joseph (plus a pregnant Mary) went to Bethlehem.

If "their own town" actually meant "the town of their ancestors" at that time and in greek then I concede the point - someone who knows biblical greek can correct me. However, from the english it looks like Joseph could just as well have stayed in Nazareth as far as the Romans were concerned. It seems more likely to me that his motivation for the move was something to do with Mary's pregnancy, like LC was talking about upthread. He could marry Mary in Nazarath, leave town before her bump got too obvious, turn up in Bethlehem as a married man with a pregnant wife (i.e. perfectly normal, as long as he didn't let slip how recently they'd got married) and claim it as his hometown on the census because of his family roots there.

--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The reality is there probably wasn't one at all.

The reality is a probability. Not terribly convincing reality.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mamacita

Lakefront liberal
# 3659

 - Posted      Profile for Mamacita   Email Mamacita   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Well, the word 'inn' is not found in the Greek text. The greek word is κατάλυμα (kataluma), which can mean an inn, but which just means housing or shelter (probably in a private residence).

This is the same word that is translated 'guest room' in Luke 22:11.
quote:
...and say to the owner of the house, “The teacher asks you, ‘Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ ”
Moo

That is interesting, Moo.

I have read about excavations in that region of ancient houses constructed with a sort of open basement. This was a sort of lower level, partway below ground, that was open on one side so that animals could come and go as they pleased but would always have a place for shelter from the weather. The article (sorry, I do not remember the source) suggested that this might have been the type of "guest house" or "guest room" where Mary and Joseph found shelter, and would explain the presence of animals. I'm not convinced one way or another about this, but it's interesting to consider.

[ 16. December 2013, 02:07: Message edited by: Mamacita ]

--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.

Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
goperryrevs I think there's some conflict between the first couple of your sentences and the last, which you might like to explain.

Jammy Dodger and I had a discussion upthread some days ago about Bethlehem, how big it was and so forth. It was a city, which means as a minimum it had a gated wall. That wall may have been of stone or wood, but it would still have been there. The fact that Bethlehem was important enough to warrant a wall suggests strongly to me that it had an inn as well. A place of safety where travellers could spend the night.

Moving a bit further along that line of thought, think back to the rather romanticised pictures of Bethlehem as a settlement amongst the hills. Since the earlier discussion, I've thought a bit more about this and come back to Bethlehem as being along the lines of Bree - a walled town with an inn, not large but still offering hospitality to travellers.

Then to go back to the lack of archeological evidence that there was an inn. I have zero knowledge of the area, but what sort of evidence would there be of an inn as opposed to a house? Any ideas welcome.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Trudy Scrumptious

BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647

 - Posted      Profile for Trudy Scrumptious   Author's homepage   Email Trudy Scrumptious   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Since the earlier discussion, I've thought a bit more about this and come back to Bethlehem as being along the lines of Bree - a walled town with an inn, not large but still offering hospitality to travellers.

Then to go back to the lack of archeological evidence that there was an inn. I have zero knowledge of the area, but what sort of evidence would there be of an inn as opposed to a house? Any ideas welcome.

Of course, there's very little archeological evidence to support the fact that Bree had an inn or a wall, either. [Biased]

--------------------
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
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
I take the nativity stories as historical, especially in the light of Luke's preface to his gospel.

There are sufficient historical parallels to Luke's preface that one could make a convincing case that this was the kind of stock introduction one used when one was about to modify a series of existing stories.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Romans don't care whether Joseph goes to Bethlehem or Nazareth or anywhere else. Joseph is asserting that he belongs to Bethlehem, or Luke is asserting it for him, as part of the claim to be in the family of David.

(or whoever wrote the nativity story that "Luke" included in the Gospel)

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Is there any indication that Joseph was born and bred in Nazareth?

Why could he not have come to live in Nazareth at some time, having been born and brought up in Bethlehem? Would that explain why he was returning to his own town?

[ 16. December 2013, 13:52: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The Romans don't care whether Joseph goes to Bethlehem or Nazareth or anywhere else. Joseph is asserting that he belongs to Bethlehem, or Luke is asserting it for him, as part of the claim to be in the family of David.

(or whoever wrote the nativity story that "Luke" included in the Gospel)

Oh, I'm sure that's right about Luke's main point. It's just that Luke does seem to think there was something else going on which fortuitously fulfilled the need to be in Bethlehem. That's all this exploration is about really. He could easily have simply been mistaken as others have said. I just think it merits more probing than dismissing it as having been just made up out of thin air to make the point.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I totally reject the idea that any of the Gospels (with the possible exception of John) was written after AD70 and probably not after the martyrdom of Paul and Peter. There is no reason to suggest that Luke wrote his Gospel in the early 60s just before he wrote Acts (which ends with Paul still alive btw).
I fail to see how Luke's assertion that he made a careful study of the facts should be disregarded and that he even got the nativity stories first hand from Mary.

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Mudfrog -
quote:
I fail to see how Luke's assertion that he made a careful study of the facts should be disregarded and that he even got the nativity stories first hand from Mary.

I agree with that. It's simply that there is the fact that first century Jewish writers were in the habit of embedding meaning within their narratives. Far from making things up, they were trying to explain it. But I don't think this sounds like one of those passages. The thing is that it's presently difficult to reconcile all the separate bits of his narrative if we take them at face value.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I totally reject the idea that any of the Gospels (with the possible exception of John) was written after AD70 and probably not after the martyrdom of Paul and Peter. There is no reason to suggest that Luke wrote his Gospel in the early 60s just before he wrote Acts (which ends with Paul still alive btw).
I fail to see how Luke's assertion that he made a careful study of the facts should be disregarded and that he even got the nativity stories first hand from Mary.

I'd agree with you for an earlyish date for the Synoptics and possibly for the first draft of John. Still, assuming Jesus was born in 4BC, sixty odd years is sufficient length of time for an oral tradition to become garbled.

Naturally one's mileage will vary but I would probably make a distinction between everything in the Synoptics subsequent to Jesus' Baptism on the one hand and the infancy narratives and John on the other. Which isn't to say that I reject the latter absolutely and even if, say, the visit of the Magi did turn out to be a Midrash it wouldn't follow from that that the story was without theological value. It's not the case that if the historical reliability of the Bible varies our faith is in vain.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I totally reject the idea that any of the Gospels (with the possible exception of John) was written after AD70 and probably not after the martyrdom of Paul and Peter. There is no reason to suggest that Luke wrote his Gospel in the early 60s just before he wrote Acts (which ends with Paul still alive btw).
I fail to see how Luke's assertion that he made a careful study of the facts should be disregarded and that he even got the nativity stories first hand from Mary.

I'd agree with you for an earlyish date for the Synoptics and possibly for the first draft of John. Still, assuming Jesus was born in 4BC, sixty odd years is sufficient length of time for an oral tradition to become garbled.

Naturally one's mileage will vary but I would probably make a distinction between everything in the Synoptics subsequent to Jesus' Baptism on the one hand and the infancy narratives and John on the other. Which isn't to say that I reject the latter absolutely and even if, say, the visit of the Magi did turn out to be a Midrash it wouldn't follow from that that the story was without theological value. It's not the case that if the historical reliability of the Bible varies our faith is in vain.

I think it is and our faith would be in vain. We have an incarnate God - it seems odd that the fact of his incarnation is basically myth and not 'real' human events. What's the point of being incarnate flesh if there's no real time basis to the story? Atheists have a field day with this stuff - they accuse us, with some justification, of not believing our own Bible.

[ 16. December 2013, 17:15: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think it is and our faith would be in vain. We have an incarnate God - it seems odd that the fact of his incarnation is basically myth and not 'real' human events. What's the point of being incarnate flesh if there's no real time basis to the story? Atheists have a field day with this stuff - they accuse us, with some justification, of not believing our own Bible.

Well said, that man!
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I didn't say that the fact of the incarnation was basically myth. I said that the account of the incarnation may involve mythological accretions. There is a subtle but important distinction.

Take, for example, the popular memory of the blitz. Apparently in 1940 everyone in London was bloody, bold and resolute for sticking it to the Hun. In fact you had politicians wondering about the possibility of a compromise peace, members of the public wondering if that old fart Churchill had what it took, people taking the opportunities presented by the blitz of ransacking peoples houses and so forth. Now all this was real enough at the time but I wouldn't advise you to hop into your TARDIS, set the controls for VE Day and wander round the pubs of London pointing this out.

I'm totally with you about the truth of God incarnate bit. I merely point out that the human condition involves mythologising stuff. We can't help it. It's what we do. The idea that you can have an incarnate God and no mythologising of his activities by his followers isn't incarnationalism. It's po-faced enlightenment rationalism masquerading as piety.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well said Gildas

Pity that Mudfrog can't see the difference.

Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools