Bible Discrepancy 1: The Census of Caesar Augustus (Revelation, principle, perspective)
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.
It's almost sad to see the concept of biblical literalcy be so firmly and rationally put to bed once and for all.
But not quite.
Skimmed through this thread just now, it appears that the non-bible believes are just a gullible and willfully ignorant as the believers. One of the main reasons why people don't change their minds in matters like this is because people put forward an argument, mock potential respondents before they've even responded, and then make assumptions in their favour were doubt can be found. It’s hard to win an argument when you exert a holier-than-thou attitude with your fingers in your ears, even when you might be closest to the truth.
"Luke 2:2 states that Jesus was born when Cyrenius (a.k.a. Quirinius) was also governor of Syria. This appears to be an impossibility. The historical record shows that Herod was king from 37 until his death in 4 BCE. Quirinius was not governor of Syria at any time during this period. He came to power in 6 CE"
There's some argument about Cyrenius or Quirinus having tax - collecting powers under the Govorner of Syria at the time Herod was on the Judean throne, but the point is that the Lucan census for the tax was not carried out in Judea until after Herod's death and the removal of his son, Archelaus. In fact, Matthew specifically states that Joseph, his wife and Jesus had fled to Egypt to escape Herod and they only return after Herod's death and then go to Galilee (ruled by Herod Antipas) for fear of Archelaus. Shortly after, Archelaus is removed and Judea (but not Galilee) becomes a Roman province and Quirinus carries out the tax which supposedly, is the reason Joseph takes his wife to Bethlehem where Jesus is born.
Clearly there is no way these can be the same date. Some have suggested a secret tax carried out by Quirinus on behalf of Herod. This is unkown to history and could hardly have been carried out secretly as the result of carrying out a census in Judea was civil disturbance. It could never have been secret. Also, Luke says the 6.A.D census was the 'first'. It was, in Judea.
You are correct that the misdeeds of Herod were pretty well known. Even threatened actions against the public that were never actually carried out were recorded. A slaughter of children could hardly have escaped History, not to mention escaping the other three gospel - writers.
Finally, as you say, given that there is some indication that people should register in their own locale, where they would be taxed, that doesn't seem to be reason to accept Luke's suggestion that Joseph had to go back to his ancestral family home to register for a tax that, as a Galilean he would pay in Galilee. Apart from the strong liklihood that Galilee (still being ruled by a Herod) would not be taxed under the Judean provincial tax.
I tried to get some confirmation of that and it doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone but some german historian whose name escapes me. He reckoned that Joseph and a Galilean would not need to register for a Judean tax. As you mention, there is no record of a mass movement of people to register in their ancestral towns rather than where they lived and worked.
Well, it's not like there was an internet back then, and that people could fact check.
So exactly how does this kind of indiscrepancy change the message of Jesus?
It's almost sad to see the concept of biblical literalcy be so firmly and rationally put to bed once and for all.
But not quite.
The analogy I use is the music lover who says they'd rather NOT know about the music but just enjoy it for its own sake. I have found that, there can be a few shocks on the way, but it always greatly enhances the understanding and pleasure in the end by knowing what it's all about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckmann
Well, it's not like there was an internet back then, and that people could fact check.
So exactly how does this kind of indiscrepancy change the message of Jesus?
It invalidates it as the fabricated or speculative message of men, not the true message of God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glacierx
Skimmed through this thread just now, it appears that the non-bible believes are just a gullible and willfully ignorant as the believers. One of the main reasons why people don't change their minds in matters like this is because people put forward an argument, mock potential respondents before they've even responded, and then make assumptions in their favour were doubt can be found. It’s hard to win an argument when you exert a holier-than-thou attitude with your fingers in your ears, even when you might be closest to the truth.
Just an observation.
I'll take the best possible view of that one. I agree that non - belief can sometime come across as unconsidered rejection of Christianity - claims as unconsidered as unthinking acceptance.
I disagree with that as much as you do, and so I try not to come to a conclusion unless a good case has been put forward.
I'd say a touchstone - lockdown case has been put for the non -historicity of the nativity stories and i can only suggest that you go back and read, rather than skim. That's if you are interested in the truth, as distinct from "The Truth".
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-17-2013 at 04:43 AM..
I can only suggest that you go back an read the thread where the reasoning is explained.
In part the argument is argument from silence, and I know some Bible - apologists have trouble with that.
Matthew's gospel begins with the betrothal and the discovery of the inexplicable conception. Then Jesus is born. There is no mention of how the family got to Bethlehem, Jesus being known to be a Galilean Nazarene. It is thus reasonable to assume that Matthew is suggesting that they had been there form the start.
This is supported by the episode of being warned to flee to Egypt and then back to Judea Matth 2. 21-2 (and why would they do that if not intending to return to their home -town of Bethlehem?) and then being warned not to go there because Herod's son was ruling Judea (see what I mean about a clumsy plot?) and then despite what my Bible cheekily labels 'The return to Nazareth' Matthew says:
'And he (Joseph) withdrew to the district of Galilee. And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth,' And it is denialist to claim that this does not strongly demonstrate that the Joseph family had (according to Matthew) always lived in Bethlehem of Judea and left there and found a place to live in Galilee, and Matthew implies that this was to explain how, in scripture, Jesus (born in Bethlehem) was 'called a Nazarene'.
There is no indication in the scripture of going back to a Nazareth where they previously lived (which is the story in Luke) but of going there because Judea was not safe.
Thus Luke and Matthew are telling quite contradictory stories, as well as pretty much different ones, and set in different historical times and mileu - Luke's Roman province, Matthew's Herodian client -kingdom.
Thus the evidence is that there is a conspiracy - to invent fabricated stories to wangle the Galilean Nazarene into Bethlehem, where it was strongly felt, the messiah should have been born. I repeat that John at 7 42 had the perfect chance to add a gloss 'But they knew not that Jesus was for sure born in Bethlehem, so there'. or some such, and that is tacit admission that so far as he knows, Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem. And Mark of course has no nativity at all, which (like the resurrection appearances) suggests that, in the original text common to all the synoptics, it wasn't there at all. If there is sound evidence of a conspiracy, then it is not 'just a theory'.
Now I have given my case for why Matthew disagrees with Luke about Joseph going from Nazareth to Bethlehem, and my doubts about the whole Nativity story in any case. How about you give evidence why Matthew is actually saying that Jesus' family did originally live in Nazareth? Hint: Faith - based inspiration won't do.
I'm not the sort who insists upon Biblical inerrancy. I've always found that notion ridiculous. But let me respond to your various points:
1.) "Earlier in this thread I've proven to my own satisfaction that X, Y and Z are officially debunked and invalid" is fine and good if you are the one saying it. I did see your earlier posts and you are not getting a consensus from all posters that your dismissal of Paul, Luke, Matthew or anybody else is valid.
2.) Christians with an ounce of sense know perfectly well that a lot of things in the Bible don't line up right. Off the top of my head, I could list of dozens of discrepancies between the gospels and other historical account Biblical texts. Give me a chance to really dig in and research it and I know I'll find hundreds. In the science of archaeology, this is not at all uncommon. Christians and archaeologists both solve the problem in the same fashion: Use one text to fill in the blanks when another text has nothing to say on a matter. If you cannot reconcile varying contradictory accounts then make note of it and move on. You are playing a very different game here: Pitting one text against another even when one text only seems to imply this, that or the other.
3.) It is important to remember that the Gospels weren't written in the same day. It is commonly accepted that Mark was the earliest Gospel to appear, coming a decade or more before the rest. The Gospel of Mark is the baseline. Subsequent Gospels almost certainly had it as a reference text. I'm no expert and I can even see it: Matthew and Luke are filling in the blanks where Mark had nothing to say. For that reason, I've always felt that Mark should appear first in the Bible and not second.
4.) You're making a rather interesting assumption, claiming that the Roman records are flawless, accurate and complete, getting all the dates right too boot. There is one Roman general and conqueror who saw himself as quite the historian as well. That man's name was Julius Caesar. As he is giving his account of his wars against the Gauls, he mentions a creature that was unknown to Romans and other Mediterranean civilizations. So here is what Julius Caesar has to say about this fascinating new creature known as "An Elk":
Quote:
There are also [animals] which are called elks. The shape of these, and the varied color of their skins, is much like roes, but in size they surpass them a little and are destitute of horns, and have legs without joints and ligatures; nor do they lie down for the purpose of rest, nor, if they have been thrown down by any accident, can they raise or lift themselves up. Trees serve as beds to them; they lean themselves against them, and thus reclining only slightly, they take their rest; when the huntsmen have discovered from the footsteps of these animals whither they are accustomed to betake themselves, they either undermine all the trees at the roots, or cut into them so far that the upper part of the trees may appear to be left standing. When they have leant upon them, according to their habit, they knock down by their weight the unsupported trees, and fall down themselves along with them.
So there you have it! Julius Caesar discovered a new animal called an elk! "It's a bit like the deer we already know about, only bigger and Elk have no horns. Elk also have no knees or joints in their legs at all. As a result, they do not lie down to sleep. If an elk falls over, it can't ever get back up again. Instead, they lean against trees when they sleep, allowing them to rest without risking falling over. If tipped over, an elk is helpless, so one good hunter's trick if you want to bag an easy elk: Find the elk's tree. Loosen the roots or weaken the tree in some other way without making it obvious. When the elk comes back to go to sleep, the tree will fall over and the elk with it!! Voila! Elk steaks for dinner!!
Clearly Caesar had no clue what he was talking about ... but he certainly pretended to be an expert on the subject. There are a number of other "What the...??" moments in Caesar's account of the Gaelic Wars, yet his writings are the best information available about the ancient Celtic peoples of modern day France and Germany. And just because Caesar has not clue what an elk is really like does not mean there is no such thing. It does not mean you toss Caesar's entire account in the garbage either. It does not mean that there were no Gallic Wars at all. Caesar's history is still the best source of information we have on the ancient Celts. He's probably just guilty of being incredibly gullible when some Gaelic folks decided to have a bit of fun and told him a rather elaborate fib.
My main point is simple: Don't give so much weight to Roman sources. They weren't perfect either. They made their fair share of mistakes and tended to fill in the blanks the same way that you're saying Luke did: Taking what they had and guessing about things they were sure of, then trying to come off as confident as possible so nobody would have any reason to doubt them. There may have been some event closer to 0 AD which Joseph and Mary -- descendents of the royal line of David -- would have considered a compelling reason to travel to all the way from Nazareth to Bethlehem. Maybe they travelled for no other reason than to help an ancient prophecy come true, and Luke guessed wrong.
5.) If you are right about everything you claim, nothing much changes. If Luke was wrong then Luke was wrong. To a Christian, he's just a fallible human being who got some things wrong when trying to piece together all the data he had gathered about the life of Christ. Whether Mary and Joseph traveled a long ways to get to Bethlehem or lived there all along, it doesn't actually matter. Either Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah or he was not. If he was, then even if the entire New Testament was wrong more than it was right, it doesn't change the who and what Jesus was. In large part, this is why I always say that the Bible is mostly a useful tool at pointing us to God. It is not (and never claims to be) a compendium of all truth.
Even today, major modern historical figure's can have their stories largely rewritten when new data emerges. The problem with Christ and other very ancient figures: New data is unlikely to ever emerge. What we have now is all we're ever going to have. We can draw conjectures, posit theories and debate about details, but we cannot prove our theories or conjectures right or wrong. You're theory that there was some grand conspiracy to invent the Messiahship of Jesus is all very nice but it is not "clear" or "obvious" and it is anything but certain.
^ 10/10 Excellent post, godofthunder! Bible critics often come across as Conspiracy Theorists, but you, on the other hand, have put forward a rational critique.
I can only repeat that, if we can't trust what the gospel -writers wrote, why should we believe what they say about Jesus? Who he was and what he did?
Like I already said, why are you assuming that Luke was completely wrong and that the Romans didn't just forget to mention the taxation that Luke is talking about? I believe I've demonstrated that they are imperfect on their facts as well. Julius Caesar presents his description of an elk as though he has seen all of it first hand, but he was way way way off. If one piece of Roman history is flawed then, by your standards, we should just throw all of it in the garbage. Give me time and I can provide hundreds more errors in Roman histories for you if you like. Yet you are using the Roman historical records -- with the blanket assumption that they got everything right and didn't miss anything important -- to judge the gospels. By your own standards, you are using one invalid source to invalidate another source.
Amongst the information available to Luke, there is apparently a fairly credible source (or sources) that says Mary and Joseph traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem while Mary was very close to giving birth. It is conceivable that Luke mistakenly assumed that it was the 8 AD census that compelled them to make the trip. If Mary and Joseph made that trip, Luke getting one detail wrong decades later isn't all that surprising -- and that is if and only if the Romans didn't miss something themselves.
The earliest of the gospels (Mark) has no mention of the Nativity at all. The second to appear (Matthew) at least added something on the subject. Then the third gospel (Luke) adds even more detail about the Nativity. And the final gospel (John) took a radically different approach and just doesn't talk about the Nativity. I don't know why you object to this sort of progression of information.
The relevant science here is archaeology. Archaeology is a science that uses a lot of imperfect sources and best guesses to fill in the blanks. You are holding the four gospels up to a standard that no sane archaeologist ever would. "One mistake and your out!" That's only going to fly with your "the Bible is flawless and God's perfect word" Bible worshiper crowd. Not with me. Not with any Christian who actually reads the entire Bible regularly. Flawed and incomplete though it might be, New Testament is the best information we have about Jesus and the early Church.
That's a nice suggestion, Mark as the first gospel didn't bother to mention that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, Matthew gave the account of what happened after he was born there but not why he, a Galilean came to be there. Luke gives the reason why he was there, but didn't mention the star, Herod being involved, Magi trekking from the east in response to a heavenly tip - off (though he did mention a few local peasants and an angelic choir) and he doesn't think the flight to Egypt and the Bethlehem assassination attempt worth mentioning.
John of course, since Matthew and Luke have covered it pretty well between them, doesn't think it even worth a passing mention, even when he has a crowd of Jews all saying Jesus can't be the messiah as he comes from Galilee.
Sorry, I don't buy it. It is a glib attempt to explain away the problem, but it does not work.
Mark as the first gospel should at least have have mentioned the miracles and signs at the birth of the messiah and Matthew and Luke should at least give a story that has some point of contact. And as i say, John could hardly have resisted the rejoinder that Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem, if he'd have known of it.
I can also say that you are using a misrepresentation of my argument to discredit it. There are just too many problems with the nativity. They have been discussed in full, but the main one is that Matthew is set in Herod's time, and Luke's in Roman times after Herod's death and the deposing of his son.
Efforts to argue a secret Roman census in Herod's time have failed, because Qurinus wasn't even there.
Add to that the unhistorical Bethlehem Massacre, the strong indication that Matthew regarded Joseph as a Judean who was obliged to relocate to Nazareth, while Luke has him as a Nazorean who is obliged by the Census to make the absurd and pointless journey to his distant ancestral city, dragging along his pregnant wife for no reason than it would defeat the object to leave her at home.
Come on there are so many strikes that this is 'Out'. And that is only the nativity. The resurrections are just as bad. And there are many, many strikes throughout the gospels. It is one 'strike' after another.
Now, I am familiar with you 'witness error' line of argument. In a way you are on the right lines with Luke searching his history and getting it wrong. But let's face it, he and Josephus agree that the roman census of Quirinus was the first conducted in Judea and that was 6 AD, after Herod's death, the deposing of Archelaus and the Roman annexation.
Thus to suggests that the Romans got something wrong, or Archaeology doesn't have all the information or Luke made a mistake won't wash. Luke had his information right, as we have Josephus in confirmation of that aspect at least.
That is the main problem, because Matthew clearly puts the event in the time of Herod and before Archelaus, who is given as the reason Joseph went to Galilee.
Appeal to archaeology using imperfect sources and 'best guesses' is simply closing your eyes to the reliable evidence that the two nativities don't match. Strike one. The Bethlehem massacre is unhistorical, strike two, Luke's Joseph is a Nazorean and Matthew's a judean, strike three, the roman census did not apply to Galilee, strike four, and even if it did, trekking to Bethlehem makes no sense strike five..isn't it time you accepted you are out?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-19-2013 at 04:26 AM..
I can only repeat that, if we can't trust what the gospel -writers wrote, why should we believe what they say about Jesus? Who he was and what he did?
You don't have to. See how easy that is?
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.
Matthew says:
