Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"According to estimates, Ephesus had a population of 33,600 to 56,000 people in the Roman period."
How do things like this keep getting repeated over and over again, without being challenged? How did anybody arrive at an "estimate" rounded to three significant digits (or even two), for a value that could not possibly have been known, over a nebulous time frame that has no defined boundaries? And actually get the estimate published against peer review?
Disclaimer: I have no idea what the population of Ephesus was, nor do I feel inclined to try and find out.
That said, do you remember why Jesus was born in Bethlehem, even though his earthly parents lived in Nazareth?
"In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world." (Luke 2:1) (The passage goes on to explain that everyone had to travel to their ancestral homeland in order to be counted . . . which also explains why there was no room at the inn, because a whole lot of people were traveling at that time for the purposes of the census.)
Censuses are not a modern invention. Someone, somewhere, did a count of the population of Ephesus and the other cities of the Roman world, and presumably the results were recorded somewhere. It seems possible (or at least plausible) that whoever was quoted in Wikipedia had done some research and had located a source that identified the results of the census, rounded to the nearest 100.
That said, do you remember why Jesus was born in Bethlehem, even though his earthly parents lived in Nazareth?
"In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world." (Luke 2:1) (The passage goes on to explain that everyone had to travel to their ancestral homeland in order to be counted . . . which also explains why there was no room at the inn, because a whole lot of people were traveling at that time for the purposes of the census.)
Yes, the Romans used the census for tax purposes, but the Bethlehem birth story is another historical absurdity.
First, there was no Roman census taken in the year of the birth of Jesus. Second, in that the primary purpose of the census was to establish the basis for leveling taxes, it makes no sense at all for the Romans to dislocate people and order them to travel to the land of their birth. What interested the Romans was the wealth of the person being counted. Therefore any census would be taken at the place of that person's farm or business, where the wealth could actually be seen and counted.
In that the prophecies called for the Messiah to be born in Bethlehem, it became necessary for the gospel writers to invent the means for getting Joseph and Mary to that place. The census story was obviously a contrivance.
Yes, the Romans used the census for tax purposes, but the Bethlehem birth story is another historical absurdity.
First, there was no Roman census taken in the year of the birth of Jesus. Second, in that the primary purpose of the census was to establish the basis for leveling taxes, it makes no sense at all for the Romans to dislocate people and order them to travel to the land of their birth. What interested the Romans was the wealth of the person being counted. Therefore any census would be taken at the place of that person's farm or business, where the wealth could actually be seen and counted.
In that the prophecies called for the Messiah to be born in Bethlehem, it became necessary for the gospel writers to invent the means for getting Joseph and Mary to that place. The census story was obviously a contrivance.
As this is not the Religion forum, I'll refrain from commenting on what you've said. But your response misses my point, which was that the Romans conducted censuses, and the data from such a census could have been used as the source for the population figures shown for Ephesus.
As this is not the Religion forum, I'll refrain from commenting on what you've said. But your response misses my point, which was that the Romans conducted censuses, and the data from such a census could have been used as the source for the population figures shown for Ephesus.
Of course it isn't a religious forum, but the history contained in the Bible is subject to examination by historians. I presented a historical argument, not a religious one. The religious argument would be that the birth took place in Bethlehem regardless of the evidence to the contrary.
I understood your point, it was hardly a complex one. Perhaps the next time you wish to make that point, you will not employ a religious source for your illustration. I mean, this isn't a religious forum you know.
Of course it isn't a religious forum, but the history contained in the Bible is subject to examination by historians. I presented a historical argument, not a religious one. The religious argument would be that the birth took place in Bethlehem regardless of the evidence to the contrary.
I understood your point, it was hardly a complex one. Perhaps the next time you wish to make that point, you will not employ a religious source for your illustration. I mean, this isn't a religious forum you know.
Our historical points, as relevant to this thread, are the same: the Romans conducted censuses. Whether Jesus was born in Bethlehem, or indeed was born at all, is off-topic, which is why I did not address those issues.
The source I used clearly states that there was a census conducted in the Roman world. You apparently agree with that, even if you dispute other matters presented in my source.
The source I used clearly states that there was a census conducted in the Roman world. You apparently agree with that, even if you dispute other matters presented in my source.
No, I do not agree and why would you think that I do? That the Romans took a census to establish the basis for taxing empire members is well established in Roman sources. That the particular census you reference took place runs contrary to standard Roman practices and thus is not a valid source for the information.
No, I do not agree and why would you think that I do? That the Romans took a census to establish the basis for taxing empire members is well established in Roman sources. That the particular census you reference took place runs contrary to standard Roman practices and thus is not a valid source for the information.
You are determined to be obtuse, aren't you? I am not arguing for or against any particular census. My sole and entire point is this: ROMANS TOOK CENSUSES. Period! Do you disagree with that?
You are determined to be obtuse, aren't you? I am not arguing for or against any particular census. My sole and entire point is this: ROMANS TOOK CENSUSES. Period! Do you disagree with that?
No. You however seem determined not to understand.
The Biblical account of the census is discredited by contrary facts.
Yes, censuses took place, but your citation of the Bible as proof is invalid methodology. You should have relied on a better source.
Why are you not grasping this?
The problem:
Quote:
The difficulties this text raises can be initially summarized and then discussed along the following two lines:6 (1) There is no record nor apparent possibility of a census of the kind Luke describes; (2) There is no record that Quirinius was governor of Syria at the time Luke describes.
Luke’s description of the census is difficult for three reasons. First, there is no record of a singular, empire-wide census instituted by Augustus.7 Second, a Roman census would have required Joseph to register not at his ancestral home in Bethlehem but in the principal city of his “taxation district,”8 presumably somewhere in Galilee. (Not to mention, Mary would not have been obliged to go with him.9) Third, Roman censuses were not administered in client kingdoms, such as Herod’s was.
Cite Livy, cite Cicero, both left behind extensive writings about the census practices.
Do not cite the Bible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
