Ehrman's response, from his blog: A census took ten years to implement? Really? And then what was the rush for Joseph to get there when Mary was about to give birth?
So, finally, where is the truth on this? And you think anyone can still trust the Bible just like that? Moreover it's even not the unique kind of confusion through the Bible. Just look at the episode of Jesus'resurrection: who actually witnessed it? After all some will say "one must under the Holy Spirit" to understand the Scriptures. Ô so easy escape!
I like that answer. It may have been started before. Next question. How long did it take to conduct a census? Was there some benefit to Mary to give birth then? Better birthing oils & salves?
Augustus himself writes he instituted a census in 8 BC. It took several years for this to be completed. Luke's gospel in Greek matches the grammatical structure perfectly of the Aramaic. Aramaic always has the adjective after the noun; therefore it reads "first census" in both Aramaic and Greek. Quirinius implemented the 6 BC census since he was a highly respected member of the Roman government of the area during that time. In 6 AD he made his second census. That's why Luke had to specify which one he was talking about.
+Shane Wagoner Augustus funerary inscription Res Gestae Divi Augusti reports that all people in the Empire called him "Father of the Country" during his 13th consulate [2 BC]. This is the census which both Luke and Josephus wrote about. Quirinius second census was a tax census in 6 AD and at that time he was governor of Syria.
@@jparks6544 shut up? Lol, go fuck yourself. You lied, plain and simple. Quirinius was never in Syria prior to 6CE. He was at war in Galatia, 900 miles away, from 12BCE-1BCE. You're just yet another deluded believer desperate to defend the faith. Grow up.
Darrell Bock's answer is right on point. Apparently Bart Ehrman was not too happy with the answer. He drove by Dr. Bock's office but security refused to let him in. So Ehrman decided to honk his car horn during the interview at 1:22. How rude of Bart to do so.
luke never claims that Jesus was born under Quirinius. He simply says the world-wide census that began in Augustus time "came to pass" under Quirinius.The correct translation should read "Augustus sent out a decree that the entire Roman empire be registered...this very first empire-wide registration came to pass when Quirinius was governing Syria. It's absurd for critics to claim Jesus wouldn't have been born in Bethlehem, because it was too far away. Joseph was just six miles away at the temple in Jerusalem when Mary went to be purified 40 days after giving birth.
@Darren Krock the mental gymnastics these people do. It's embarrassing, and the same thing happens when you argue with muslims. The koran is "preserved with no erros" lol
there could be all kinds of reasons to go to bethlehem, we just aren't told explicitly why they would have to go there. also it is quite probably that Mary lived in bethlehem and Joseph in nazereth, so he went to Bethlehem so the two of them could be registered. it never says that Mary was from Nazareth so she was probably from bethlehem anyway.
A list of governors leaves blank the governor during 2 BC. So Quirinius was, indeed governor once (first - "protos") in 2 BC and Herod was ruling then. His reign was revised by 3 years, his actual date of death occurring in 1 AD. See uploaded video. The issue is now solved.
@bretzagar Quirinius was co-procurator with Quintilius in Syria in 4 bc., for the purpose of taking the census in Israel. So the first census of Q was in 4-5bc and Luke got it right.
In addition to Raymond Brown (the catholic priest I mentioned in the PM), there are others who said Luke was wrong. In the link you sent, Miller refers to A.N. Sherwin-White. In his book "Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament" he says on pg. 163 in reference to the census "a provincial census in Judaea in the time of the kingdom is an impossibility". Want more? I have the book right in front of me!
"Then again, with consular imperium, I conducted a lustrum alone when Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius were consuls [8 BCE], in which lustrum were counted 4,233,000 heads of Roman citizens" - RES GESTAE DIVI AUGUSTI. We know that Caesar Augustus presided over at least three censuses, which were finalized and celebrated via a lustratio ritual in 28 BCE, 8 BCE, and 14 CE. Each of Augustus' censuses were spaced 20 years apart, except for the census in 14 CE, which took place 21 years after the census in 8 BCE, because in 2 BCE Augustus celebrated his silver jubilee and this coincided with the 750th anniversary of Rome, so it wasn't counted as being part of the twenty year census cycle. The decree to conduct each census was issued five years (a lustrum) prior to it being finalized and celebrated via a lustratio ritual. The author (or redactor) of Luke clearly states "in those days, ... there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the inhabited land of the Empire (οἰκουμένην) should be registered for taxation (ἀπογράφεσθαι)" and that "Yosef also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem ... to be registered for taxation with Miriam, his betrothed wife, being great with child" (Luke 2:1-5). We know that Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa died in March 12 BCE and that Augustus officially became Pontifex Maximus on 6 March 12 BCE, because the former Pontifex Maximus, Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, had died in 13 BCE. If the lustratio ritual that marked the end of the tax registration (ἀπογράφεσθαι) happened in 8 BCE, then wouldn't the decree for the aforementioned lustrum have been issued in 13 BCE, five years prior to 8 BCE, when the lustratio ritual was performed? Wouldn't this mean that Yosef and Miriam probably journeyed to Bethlehem sometime after 13 BCE but well before the end of the lustrum in 8 BCE? Further, Luke 3:23 states that "Jesus" (Yeshu) was nearly thirty years old, when "John" (Yochanan) began preaching the "baptism of repentance" (Luke 3:3), which Luke 3:1 states happened in the "fifteenth year" of the "ἡγεμονίας" (hegemonias) of Tiberius. According to Liddell & Scott's "Greek-English Lexicon," the word "ἡγεμονία" means, "chief command, sovereignty or simply rule." In 4 CE, Emperor Caesar Augustus adopted Tiberius and grants him proconsular power and tribunician power; hence, in the mind of Luke's author (or redactor) wouldn't Tiberius' "rule" (hegemonia) have started in 4 CE, which would make the "fifteenth year" of his "ἡγεμονία" about 19 CE? Tribunician Power was established in the early days of the Roman Republic. The office of Tribune of the Plebs ultimately carried with it wide ranging powers and protections, including inviolability of person. On 1 July 23 BC, Augustus obtained a lifetime grant of the tribunician power, an important step in the establishment of an autocracy as it gave him the absolute right of veto as well as the authority to convene the Senate. Tribunician power was generally assumed at the commencement of each new reign, though some emperors had already received it during their predecessor's reign (e.g. Tiberius, Titus, Marcus Aurelius, etc.). It is of special interest when followed by a numeral as this allows a coin to be assigned to its precise year of issue, the tribunician power being renewed annually for the purpose of regnal dating. Yes, Tiberius was granted tribunician power for five years in 8 BCE. Although this power was the formula for imperial authority it did not label Tiberius as successor. However, after the untimely deaths of Lucius in 2 CE and Gaius in 4 CE, Augustus had no other choice but to adopt Tiberius at which time he grants him proconsular power and renews his tribunician power for ten years; hence, Tiberius' "ἡγεμονία" (hegemonia) as imperial successor begins in 4 CE; thus making 19 CE the "fifteenth year" of his "ἡγεμονία," right? If "Jesus" (Yeshu) was thirty years old in 19 CE, then doesn't this mean he must have been born sometime in 12 BCE? I ask this, because if one assumes that Tiberius' "ἡγεμονία" (hegemonia) began on 18 September 14 CE, then his "fifteenth year" would have in 29 CE; and if "Jesus" is about thirty years old in 29 CE, then he could only have been born in 1 BCE or 1 CE, which is impossible! Why? Because we know from the story about the Wise Ones (who were probably Babylonian-Jewish חֲכָמִים - Chakamiym and not pagan astrologers), that Herod the Great was alive when "Jesus" (Yeshu) was born and we know that Herod the Great died in 4 BCE. I would suggest that Luke was stating that, ""This census took place before (πρώτη) Quirinius was governor of Syria," that is to say, before the taxation in 6 CE that resulted in the rebellion led by Judas the Galilean." His reason for adding this parenthetic phrase was probably to distance the followers of Yeshua from the Zealots in the eyes of the High Priest, Theophilus ben Ananus, to whom he wrote his gospel and the book of Acts - "The former (πρῶτον) treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach...." (Acts 1:1). The grammatical objects to reading πρώτη as "before" rather than as "first" can be overcome if one sees in Luke 2:2 the hand of a redactor, who was ignorant of the censuses and/or was confused by Luke's parenthetic allusion to the 6 CE tax rebellion and sought to "correct" Luke.
In my post I said: "I *seriously* doubt you have any real evidence that has not been refuted many times before." You proved me right! You pointed me to something that was not written by a new testament scholar (or scholar of any type) and the arguments have been refuted many times. Needles to say, I am not surprised you sent that.
@AllOtherNamesUsed 1) They are are "sweeping assertions" because they address very specific issues. 2) It is not strawman argument, because I am not mispresenting it as arguments from others and then countering that arguement. You can easy confirm yourself that Galilee was under Roman control and Bethlehem was not. You will also find that one of the reasons for the census in 6CE mentioned by Josephues was that Judea had become a Roman province, no longer under a client king.
Tertullian mentioned Roman records of censuses during the time of Christ's birth when Saturninus was governor of Syria. Does this conflict with Luke's record? No. Josephus mentioned that there were governors (plural) in Syria during the rule of Saturninus, naming at least 2. It would seem from his background that Quirinius was a special type of governor at this time, or as Justin Martyr referred to him, a procurator, a special delegate for census taking. More info: askelm*com/star/star014.htm
it really isnt entire speculation, it's semantic fact. Look up any decent lexicon and you will see. Luke describes that the census was for the entire inhabited world/ empire. The reference to Quirinius governing over syria is purely one of dating the event, it has no bearing on the extent of the census. notice the case of the nouns in verse 2
@jimmo42 Again the question, Do YOU Have any legitmate references? No. The claim on that fundie website "The Oath Was a Census", for example, is simply a desperate attempt to force something into the text that is not there. In the original Greek, Luke did not use "oath", but απογραπηο, which means "to enter in public records the names of men, their property and income". It was a tax census. That's why there is a major problem with Luke!
There are a multiple of ways to translate that very small passage in Luke, and no one can be absolutely certain what Luke meant. First, the most common mistake people make about the passage is the phrase "Proti Apografi" first registration, not taxation. Second, Luke doesn't say the whole world, he says "Every "oikoumeni" or household in Syria. Finally, Quirinius is not identified as the "Governer" or tetrarch, it says it was under his "governing" which could be accomplished under any title.
@AllOtherNamesUsed Sald, like a fundamentalist YOU ingore the arguments of your own side whenever it suits your purpose. Fundies frequently use the records of a tax census in Egypt as "proof" Romans told people to return to their homes for tax purposes. Further, the only reason for such censuses was for tax purposes. There are no record of any kind of "registration" other than for taxes. Do YOU have any legitimate references showing "registration" for any othe purpose"?
Even if Luke's testimony is revoked, what about Matthew's related to Jesus' birth during Herod era? Historically, there is evidence that Herod died in 4 BC. It's therefore a nonsense to arguing that Jesus was born while Herod was governor. Another concern is related to the geographical location of that famous census. How can Luc say that the census took place all over the world? What world is it about?
""According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death"" Atheists assume that Quirinius was only in Syria once and never had any ruling capacity there before AD6. Luke is a historian and is evidence that Q had a governing capacity at the time of Herod and this is confirmed by an inscription of a dual rulership in Syria at this time. The name was missing but Q would fit this perfectly since he was a general and the military was often necessary at the time of censuses especially with the Jews.
Bullshit. You're ignorant as fuck. Some have tried to appeal to a headless (and thus nameless) inscription as proving that Quirinius held the governorship of Syria twice, but the inscription neither says that, nor can it belong to Quirinius. The inscription in question is a fragment of a funeral stone discovered in Tivoli (near Rome) in 1764, and is now displayed (complete with an inventive reconstruction of the missing parts) in the Vatican Museum.[5.1] We know only that it was set up after the death of Augustus in 14 A.D., since it refers to him as "divine." The actual content of the inscription is as follows: ...KING BROUGHT INTO THE POWER OF... AUGUSTUS AND THE ROMAN PEOPLE AND SENATE... FOR THIS HONORED WITH TWO VICTORY CELEBRATIONS... FOR THE SAME THING THE TRIUMPHAL DECORATION... OBTAINED THE PROCONSULATE OF THE PROVINCE OF ASIA... AGAIN OF THE DEIFIED AUGUSTUS SYRIA AND PH[OENICIA]... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... The most obvious problem with this piece of "evidence" is that it doesn't even mention Quirinius! No one knows who this is. Numerous possible candidates have been proposed and debated, but the notion that it could be Quirinius was only supported by the wishful thinking of a few 18th and 19th century scholars (esp. Sanclemente, Mommsen, and Ramsay). But it is unlikely to be his. We know of no second defeat of a king in the career of Quirinius, though Tacitus writes his obituary in Annals 3.48, where surely such a double honor would have been mentioned, especially since a "victory celebration" was a big deal--involving several festal days of public thanksgiving at the command of the emperor. We also have no evidence that Quirinius governed Asia. Though that isn't improbable, we do know of another man, Lucius Calpurnius Piso, who did govern Asia and who defeated the kings of Thrace twice, and received at least one "victory celebration" for doing so, as well as the Triumphal Decoration, and who may also have governed Syria.[5.2] Though it cannot be proved that this is Piso's epitaph, it is clear that it would sooner belong to him than Quirinius. Thus, to ignore him and choose Quirinius would go against probability. Yet even if we lacked such a candidate as Piso, to declare this an epitaph of Quirinius is still pure speculation. Even more importantly, this inscription does not really say that the governorship of Syria was held twice, only that a second legateship was held, and that the second post happened to be in Syria.[5.3] From what remains of the stone, it seems fairly obvious that the first post was the proconsulate of Asia. This means that even if this is the career of Quirinius, all it proves is that he was once the governor of Syria.
You can't even count. I referenced both Raymond Brown and A.N. Sherwin-White here, plus Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier in the PM. That's 4. All you have done is point to a web site with someone who has no expertise in the field. Now how about simply refuting the two I mentioned here. Brown's book "The Birth of the Messiah" and Sherwin-White's "Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament".
So if yr using Quirinius to date the event, then Jesus birth either took place after the death of Herod or before the census. In the first instance we end up with a Story of Herod attempting to kill Jesus ten years after his own death. Was Herod resurrected as well? on the other hand we get Mathew and Luke getting the date of Jesus birth wrong. Fortunately, we have the attestation of Dr. James Dunn finding Luke's account "hard to credit" along With the observations of E.P. Sanders.
no that doesn't contradict. joseph was also probably from bethlehem but went to nazereth for work as a carpenter, then returned home to be registered and to get married. The family trees given indicate that they were most likely to have been from the bethlehem area and the "inn" was much more likely to have been their relatives house rather than just an inn. Dunn is a christian yes, but sanders isn't, at least nothing more than nominal. the NPP movement they are part of is all wrong as well
Dr. Bock's view is interesting though I certainly don't think he solved the classic problem of Luke's timeline or Augustus Caesar's census. Furthermore I'm inclined to disagree that most of the gospels were written sufficiently close to the death of Jesus that were he actually not born in it would have created a problem for the religion. Most scholars believe that Matthew and Luke were written sometime between 75-90 AD which places them 50+ years after the death of Jesus - a significant enough amount of distance from the events in question that it may not have presented a problem at all.
yes he grew in nazereth, becuase the family went to live there after egypt. Joseph probably left town to find work in nazereth, then returned to be registered and married. there is no mention of a bar either, only that he was placed in a manger, which were common inside houses in those times. I find their scholarship problematic mainly due to the errors and biases in the NPP stuff but also a few other areas of orthodoxy they deny.
At the beginning of the video Dr. Bock mentions that the date of the censes is off by 4 to 6 years. But aren’t we actually living under the Roman calendar which starts 5 years before the birth of Christ. That is to say that Christ was born in the year 5 of the reign of Nero. It was only later that we transposed the date of the birth of Christ onto the date that started with the beginning of the reign of Nero.
Some people might think of this as a travesty of dating and a miss use of the calendar. But how else would we know of the birth date and year of the birth of Christ. When a baby is born we can’t just reset or preset the calendar to that year and day. Add to this that an awful lot of people didn’t know that he was the Christ and the Messiah yet. This was only discovered 30 or more years later and in the times since then.
One more thing about the calendar and the dates; Shouldn’t it rather be called BC and AB or ABC rather than BC and AD? If we are talking BC, meaning Before Christ and AD meaning After Death, then where is and what has happened to His life? This sets up the dates and the calendar to suggest that his birth and his death happened both in the same year. If we used something like AB which would mean After Birth or ABC meaning After the Birth of Christ this would include and cover the 30 and more years of his “earthly life” with us here on earth.
Either that or we should just use the BC meaning Birth of Christ instead of Before Christ and use positive and negative numbers to denote the direction in time that from that point, or that year, that one is counting in. Or we could use BBC to denote Before the Birth of Christ, (don’t know what this would do for or to the British Broadcasting Corporation, i.e. the BBC) and then use ABC to indicate After the Birth of Christ. I don’t know but the way things are set up now already seems a bit odd and a bit too confusing.
@jimmo42 Yes, like fundamentalists do, secular or other, you rush to slap down what doesn't fit your belief system without even knowing what it's about. In this case, you completely ignored the research I posted which shows that this was NOT about taxes as is typically assumed. Why even make a pretense of a discussion with such mentality? Such behavior clearly shows no interest in learning but rather pushing an ideology. Such fundamentalists charlatans are have no credibility and waste my time.
@AllOtherNamesUsed Sadly you ingore an extremely important aspect, which most fundamenalist also do. To match Matthew, the census *must* be during the reign of king Herod. While Bethlehem is in Judea and under Herod's control, Galilee is not. It is completely implausible to assume people went from one jurisdiction to another to be taxed. It is no less than ludicrous to beleive people would be expected to leave the place where their possessions are to go to a different jurisdiction to be taxed.
@AllOtherNamesUsed Even if we assume your ludicrous claim that it was not about taxes, the basic principles still stands. Quirinius was NOT in a position during the time specified in Matthew to organize, order or anything else concerning any type of census. If you look as sources like Father Raymond Brown, you have them all in one place, not some non-scholarly sites like askelm*com. ....facepalm...
Thank you. Your point differs from the findings in my book. King Monobaz (Joseph) and Queen Helena (Mary) of Adiabene wouldn't have been in this census. Queen Helena (Mary) did not convert to Judaism until after two decades had passed in the year of our Lord . She and King Izaates II, her son, did not convert until 27 or 30 AD which would coincide with Jesus' mission beginning once he (King Izaates II) became Jewish.. Steefen, author of "Insights on the Exodus, King David, and Jesus."
If you are referring to the claims by Sir William Ramsay, that is over 100 years old and only relates to the fact Luke was able to list cities, island and the titles of various officials correctly. That is something any good tour guide should be able to do. I *seriously* doubt you have any real evidence that has not been refuted many times before. If you actually do have evidence, do tell us.
no i'm sorry but that is not correct. This is a completely fallacious claim. yes oikos means a house or household but the entire word oikoumene is a refference to the entire inhabited world. It is always used as short hand for "oikoumene geh", or inhabited world. hence the world oikoumene became to mean the entire habited world. Don't be fooled by a word stem as to it's definition. for example the word butterfly has no implication of butter or the sort even though it has the stem
@AllOtherNamesUsed Further, even IF you assume your ludicrous claims, you are willfulling ignoring one of the key factors. Nazareth was in a difference province from Bethlehem. People living within a Roman controlled province (i.e. Galilee) would NOT be required to go to the Hebrew controlled province (Bethlehem). I already pointed this out, but you choose to be willfulling ignorant about it. The facts show no such registration (for taxes or otherwise) took place.
@AllOtherNamesUsed I suggest you read "The Birth of the Messiah", by the late Raymond Brown. He was a catholic priest and spent a good 10 pages on just the census. The bottom line is that all of the vain attempts to reconcile this problem fail completely. Granted Fr. Brown did not address the really lame explanation in Norman Geisler's "When Critics Ask". Even without knowing the historical errors Geisler makes, the logic is obviously nonsense.
I disagree with Dr. Bock. As Raymond Brown clearly points out in his The Birth of the Messiah, Luke's census is designed to move Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, in order to fulfill the prophecy in Micah. It's a theological decision, not a factual one. There's also the issue that both Mark and John call Jesus "Jesus of Nazareth." The best example of this is from Mark 16:6, "You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here," and Mark earlier calls Nazareth "Jesus' hometown," or something very close.
themetsfan861 Just because one says that someone is “of Nazareth” doesn’t have to mean that they were born there. It could mean that they grew up there or spent a long time living there. Thanks for reading
Sailing Ship True, but the narratives in Mark and John suggest that Jesus is from Nazareth proper. On another note, I don't think that it really matters. Jesus is God Incarnate whether He was born in Bethlehem or Nazareth.
Kim Yun Mi Criterion of embarrassment. The Biblical writers need Jesus to be born in Bethlehem, when he was born in Nazareth. How do they get around it? Luke comes up with a census that occurs 10 years later, and Matthew has Jesus fleeing Herod the Great's murder attempt. I don't believe inerrancy is critical to the Christian message; I'm only an inerrantist in the Catholic sense.
That is dead on correct. That census was an invention; it was a literary device and nothing more.The Old Testament HAD to be matched up with the new in order for people to later be able to claim that it was borne of prophecy. An apologist will claim 435 of them, but if you read into them you 'll find vagaries, inconsistencies, and distortions -things being taken out of context in order to make them fit. Wouldn't Isa 7:14 be a good example of this? Anybody with me? It's the same as this Micah 5:2 deal. That author was trying to place Jesus' birth in Beth because of 5:2, but he fucked up the chronology by ten years, am I right?
Wedlockvideos The evangelists used a Midrashic approach to the OT in many places. Yes, you're correct with Isaiah 7:14 and Micah 5:2, both of which were reinterpreted to refer to Jesus. Luke didn't actually screw up the chronology that badly; he relocated the census to fit his needs.
Why reluctant, Dr. Soper? because they disagree with you? Besides the problem is not with Dunn or Sanders, but with Luke's account.Even if we nail down that the census took place as claimed, Luke still has serious problems. There would be no requirement for either parent to travel to Bethlehem; None. With out it. There's no reason for them to be there.No reason to leave Nazareth.
@AllOtherNamesUsed "What a JOKE!" Your're right! Your posts ARE a joke. All you have done is read a single web site, obviously with confirmation bias and not bothered to look up the facts yourself. As I already pointed out, even Raymon Brown, a catholic priest and New Testament scholar, in his book "The Birth of the Messiah" says you and Luke got it wrong.
So you wanna bet? I send you a picture of my collection of theology, biblical history, historiography and biblical greek books. You lose the bet, so you delete your RUclips account. That sounds fair. Want to take the bet? ROTLOL!!!
Except we KNOW Jesus was from Nazareth, Terry Technical. So Joseph and Mary, who are from Bethlehem don't have their own place there, but are forced to go to a "relatives house" who don't have enough room for them -even though they must have lived there and make Mary give birth out in the barn. Now Sanders thinks he is a christian, but even if your right, you still have not answered the question about why their scholarship is problematic.
It is always funny reading the desparate and insecure remarks of the atheist crowd when it comes to these kind of videos....they are literally frothing at the mouth in their angst and anger that the Bible again and again is proven to be accurate....oh my.....
"Bart Ehrman - refuted" By whom? Show us the references! I have read many refutions of Ehrman's work, but nothing on the Lucian census. You simply made that up. Isn't making things up lying? "Richard Carrier - pathological liar" Which we both know you copied from a site that also uses your librarian as a source. How about a refution of his claims and not a childish ad hominem? As everyone can see Sherwin-White also says Luke got it wrong.
This guy contends that everybody would have known that Jesus would have been born in Bethlehem, ..as if this was just common knowledge, ...but the 'census story' could have been a mistake (since the 'apologetics' are so lame!). The only way this makes any sense at all is to imagine that no one would have noticed that Luke got the date for the census wrong. Since as many as 8 or 9 decades had passed since the birth of Jesus and the authorship of Luke, ...the author just didn't figure any one would notice the mistake in timing he had come up with to get Jesus of NAZARETH being born in BETHLEHEM so that Jesus would seem to fit Old Testament prophesy. (Mathew 'came up' with his own 'story' and made the same mistake concerning Herod' s 'killing of the innocents') Neither one of them are historically accurate.
imacoop there is only no evidence that King Herod slaughtered innocence outside the Bible, but there is also no contrary evidence to prove that Matthew made the story up. Judging by the deeds and mentality of all the cruel things Herod did described in Josephus’s writings, it would actually make sense that Matthews account of slaughtering babies would occur. It seems a handful of babies were slaughtered and it never significantly made the news.
You mean references that are better than your librarian??? I have provided then, as everyone can see. You argue like a typical fundie. You don't refute the arguments, you simply pretend no arguments were presented. I refuted your source (the librarian) with experts in the field. Now you need to refute them. (Which we both know you can't)
"Which we both know you are incapable of disproving." Classic fundie arguments. Rather than addressing the issues you simply ingore them. In the PM pointed out how your librarian was wrong about the instription and the "Numismatic evidence" (Vardaman's made-up coin). Rather than you doing the work to look it up, you claim you couldn't find anything in a simple google search. Seem pretty clear YOU are "incapable of disproving" anything.
You have no clue about this subject or logical discourse. It is only an appeal to authority if the person is not an authority in the field in question. For example, YOU using someone who is not an authority on ancient history or theology is an appeal to authority. I am referencing world-reknown experts in the field. You are refering (in the PM) an unemployed librarian!
Ehrman's response, from his blog: A census took ten years to implement? Really? And then what was the rush for Joseph to get there when Mary was about to give birth?
So, finally, where is the truth on this? And you think anyone can still trust the Bible just like that? Moreover it's even not the unique kind of confusion through the Bible. Just look at the episode of Jesus'resurrection: who actually witnessed it? After all some will say "one must under the Holy Spirit" to understand the Scriptures. Ô so easy escape!
Because Mary had to stay by his side in order to avoid shaming.
@@ea-tr1jh … his question was why did they go then? If a census took 10 years, why not wait until after the birth?
I like that answer. It may have been started before.
Next question. How long did it take to conduct a census? Was there some benefit to Mary to give birth then? Better birthing oils & salves?
Good question. The one about the rush. Got me thinking.
Augustus himself writes he instituted a census in 8 BC. It took several years for this to be completed. Luke's gospel in Greek matches the grammatical structure perfectly of the Aramaic. Aramaic always has the adjective after the noun; therefore it reads "first census" in both Aramaic and Greek. Quirinius implemented the 6 BC census since he was a highly respected member of the Roman government of the area during that time. In 6 AD he made his second census. That's why Luke had to specify which one he was talking about.
+Shane Wagoner
Augustus funerary inscription Res Gestae Divi Augusti reports that all people in the Empire called him "Father of the Country" during his 13th consulate [2 BC].
This is the census which both Luke and Josephus wrote about.
Quirinius second census was a tax census in 6 AD and at that time he was governor of Syria.
***** just because you think it's so, don't make it so. You are incorrect in your assumptions and I've given you proof.
@@jparks6544 No you didn't. You baselessly asserted an outright lie
@@jtalistair6725 shut up
@@jparks6544 shut up? Lol, go fuck yourself. You lied, plain and simple. Quirinius was never in Syria prior to 6CE. He was at war in Galatia, 900 miles away, from 12BCE-1BCE. You're just yet another deluded believer desperate to defend the faith. Grow up.
Darrell Bock's answer is right on point. Apparently Bart Ehrman was not too happy with the answer. He drove by Dr. Bock's office but security refused to let him in. So Ehrman decided to honk his car horn during the interview at 1:22. How rude of Bart to do so.
luke never claims that Jesus was born under Quirinius. He simply says the world-wide census that began in Augustus time "came to pass" under Quirinius.The correct translation should read "Augustus sent out a decree that the entire Roman empire be registered...this very first empire-wide registration came to pass when Quirinius was governing Syria. It's absurd for critics to claim Jesus wouldn't have been born in Bethlehem, because it was too far away. Joseph was just six miles away at the temple in Jerusalem when Mary went to be purified 40 days after giving birth.
@Darren Krock the mental gymnastics these people do. It's embarrassing, and the same thing happens when you argue with muslims. The koran is "preserved with no erros" lol
there could be all kinds of reasons to go to bethlehem, we just aren't told explicitly why they would have to go there. also it is quite probably that Mary lived in bethlehem and Joseph in nazereth, so he went to Bethlehem so the two of them could be registered. it never says that Mary was from Nazareth so she was probably from bethlehem anyway.
A list of governors leaves blank the governor during 2 BC. So Quirinius was, indeed governor once (first - "protos") in 2 BC and Herod was ruling then. His reign was revised by 3 years, his actual date of death occurring in 1 AD. See uploaded video. The issue is now solved.
@bretzagar Quirinius was co-procurator with Quintilius in Syria in 4 bc., for the purpose of taking the census in Israel. So the first census of Q was in 4-5bc and Luke got it right.
In addition to Raymond Brown (the catholic priest I mentioned in the PM), there are others who said Luke was wrong. In the link you sent, Miller refers to A.N. Sherwin-White. In his book "Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament" he says on pg. 163 in reference to the census "a provincial census in Judaea in the time of the kingdom is an impossibility". Want more? I have the book right in front of me!
There were two census one was in BC and one was in ad so the birth report is still consistent with a census
evidence to support our claim?
@@napoleon6979 sorry I made a comment a year ago I do not remember why I made it or what the evidence was at the time
associate for biblical research has an excellent take on this topic
"Then again, with consular imperium, I conducted a lustrum alone when Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius were consuls [8 BCE], in which lustrum were counted 4,233,000 heads of Roman citizens" - RES GESTAE DIVI AUGUSTI.
We know that Caesar Augustus presided over at least three censuses, which were finalized and celebrated via a lustratio ritual in 28 BCE, 8 BCE, and 14 CE. Each of Augustus' censuses were spaced 20 years apart, except for the census in 14 CE, which took place 21 years after the census in 8 BCE, because in 2 BCE Augustus celebrated his silver jubilee and this coincided with the 750th anniversary of Rome, so it wasn't counted as being part of the twenty year census cycle. The decree to conduct each census was issued five years (a lustrum) prior to it being finalized
and celebrated via a lustratio ritual.
The author (or redactor) of Luke clearly states "in those days, ... there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the inhabited land of the Empire (οἰκουμένην) should be registered for taxation (ἀπογράφεσθαι)" and that "Yosef also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem ... to be registered for taxation with Miriam, his betrothed wife, being great with child" (Luke 2:1-5).
We know that Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa died in March 12 BCE and that Augustus officially became Pontifex Maximus on 6 March 12 BCE, because the former Pontifex Maximus, Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, had died in 13 BCE. If the lustratio ritual that marked the end of the tax registration (ἀπογράφεσθαι) happened in 8 BCE, then wouldn't the decree for the aforementioned lustrum have been issued in 13 BCE, five years prior to 8 BCE, when the lustratio ritual was performed? Wouldn't this mean that Yosef and Miriam probably journeyed to Bethlehem sometime after 13 BCE but well before the end of the lustrum in 8 BCE?
Further, Luke 3:23 states that "Jesus" (Yeshu) was nearly thirty years old, when "John" (Yochanan) began preaching the "baptism of repentance" (Luke 3:3), which Luke 3:1 states happened in the "fifteenth year" of the "ἡγεμονίας" (hegemonias) of Tiberius. According to Liddell & Scott's "Greek-English Lexicon," the word "ἡγεμονία" means, "chief command, sovereignty or simply rule."
In 4 CE, Emperor Caesar Augustus adopted Tiberius and grants him proconsular power and tribunician power; hence, in the mind of Luke's author (or redactor) wouldn't Tiberius' "rule" (hegemonia) have started in 4 CE, which would make the "fifteenth year" of his "ἡγεμονία" about 19 CE?
Tribunician Power was established in the early days of the Roman Republic. The office of Tribune of the Plebs ultimately carried with it wide ranging powers and protections, including inviolability of person. On 1 July 23 BC, Augustus obtained a lifetime grant of the tribunician power, an important step in the establishment of an autocracy as it gave him the absolute right of veto as well as the authority to convene the Senate. Tribunician power was generally assumed at the commencement of each new reign, though some emperors had already received it during their predecessor's reign (e.g. Tiberius, Titus, Marcus Aurelius, etc.). It is of special interest when followed by a numeral as this allows a coin to be assigned to its precise year of issue, the tribunician power being renewed annually for the purpose of regnal dating.
Yes, Tiberius was granted tribunician power for five years in 8 BCE. Although this power was the formula for imperial authority it did not label Tiberius as successor. However, after the untimely deaths of Lucius in 2 CE and Gaius in 4 CE, Augustus had no other choice but to adopt Tiberius at which time he grants him proconsular power and renews his tribunician power for ten years; hence, Tiberius' "ἡγεμονία" (hegemonia) as imperial successor begins in 4 CE; thus making 19 CE the "fifteenth year" of his "ἡγεμονία," right?
If "Jesus" (Yeshu) was thirty years old in 19 CE, then doesn't this mean he must have been born sometime in 12 BCE? I ask this, because if one assumes that Tiberius' "ἡγεμονία" (hegemonia) began on 18 September 14 CE, then his "fifteenth year" would have in 29 CE; and if "Jesus" is about thirty years old in 29 CE, then he could only have been born in 1 BCE or 1 CE, which is impossible! Why? Because we know from the story about the Wise Ones (who were probably Babylonian-Jewish חֲכָמִים - Chakamiym and not pagan astrologers), that Herod the Great was alive when "Jesus" (Yeshu) was born and we know that Herod the Great died in 4 BCE.
I would suggest that Luke was stating that, ""This census took place before (πρώτη) Quirinius was governor of Syria," that is to say, before the taxation in 6 CE that resulted in the rebellion led by Judas the Galilean." His reason for adding this parenthetic phrase was probably to distance the followers of Yeshua from the Zealots in the eyes of the High Priest, Theophilus ben Ananus, to whom he wrote his gospel and the book of Acts - "The former (πρῶτον) treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach...." (Acts 1:1). The grammatical objects to reading πρώτη as "before" rather than as "first" can be overcome if one sees in Luke 2:2 the hand of a redactor, who was ignorant of the censuses and/or was confused by Luke's parenthetic allusion to the 6 CE tax rebellion and sought to "correct" Luke.
In my post I said:
"I *seriously* doubt you have any real evidence that has not been refuted many times before."
You proved me right! You pointed me to something that was not written by a new testament scholar (or scholar of any type) and the arguments have been refuted many times. Needles to say, I am not surprised you sent that.
@AllOtherNamesUsed 1) They are are "sweeping assertions" because they address very specific issues. 2) It is not strawman argument, because I am not mispresenting it as arguments from others and then countering that arguement. You can easy confirm yourself that Galilee was under Roman control and Bethlehem was not. You will also find that one of the reasons for the census in 6CE mentioned by Josephues was that Judea had become a Roman province, no longer under a client king.
Tertullian mentioned Roman records of censuses during the time of Christ's birth when Saturninus was governor of Syria. Does this conflict with Luke's record? No. Josephus mentioned that there were governors (plural) in Syria during the rule of Saturninus, naming at least 2. It would seem from his background that Quirinius was a special type of governor at this time, or as Justin Martyr referred to him, a procurator, a special delegate for census taking.
More info: askelm*com/star/star014.htm
it really isnt entire speculation, it's semantic fact. Look up any decent lexicon and you will see. Luke describes that the census was for the entire inhabited world/ empire. The reference to Quirinius governing over syria is purely one of dating the event, it has no bearing on the extent of the census. notice the case of the nouns in verse 2
oikoumeni doesnt mean household according to any lexicon, it is almost always a reference to the whole known world, or roman empure.
@jimmo42 Again the question, Do YOU Have any legitmate references? No. The claim on that fundie website "The Oath Was a Census", for example, is simply a desperate attempt to force something into the text that is not there. In the original Greek, Luke did not use "oath", but απογραπηο, which means "to enter in public records the names of men, their property and income". It was a tax census. That's why there is a major problem with Luke!
or perhaps josephus was wrong, always a possibility. besides i'd be pretty reluctant to start following the scholarship of dunn or sanders.
There are a multiple of ways to translate that very small passage in Luke, and no one can be absolutely certain what Luke meant. First, the most common mistake people make about the passage is the phrase "Proti Apografi" first registration, not taxation. Second, Luke doesn't say the whole world, he says "Every "oikoumeni" or household in Syria. Finally, Quirinius is not identified as the "Governer" or tetrarch, it says it was under his "governing" which could be accomplished under any title.
@AllOtherNamesUsed Sald, like a fundamentalist YOU ingore the arguments of your own side whenever it suits your purpose. Fundies frequently use the records of a tax census in Egypt as "proof" Romans told people to return to their homes for tax purposes. Further, the only reason for such censuses was for tax purposes. There are no record of any kind of "registration" other than for taxes. Do YOU have any legitimate references showing "registration" for any othe purpose"?
It was an oath of allegiance to Caesar 3-2 BC.
Even if Luke's testimony is revoked, what about Matthew's related to Jesus' birth during Herod era? Historically, there is evidence that Herod died in 4 BC. It's therefore a nonsense to arguing that Jesus was born while Herod was governor. Another concern is related to the geographical location of that famous census. How can Luc say that the census took place all over the world? What world is it about?
""According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death""
Atheists assume that Quirinius was only in Syria once and never had any ruling capacity there before AD6. Luke is a historian and is evidence that Q had a governing capacity at the time of Herod and this is confirmed by an inscription of a dual rulership in Syria at this time. The name was missing but Q would fit this perfectly since he was a general and the military was often necessary at the time of censuses especially with the Jews.
Bullshit. You're ignorant as fuck. Some have tried to appeal to a headless (and thus nameless) inscription as proving that Quirinius held the governorship of Syria twice, but the inscription neither says that, nor can it belong to Quirinius. The inscription in question is a fragment of a funeral stone discovered in Tivoli (near Rome) in 1764, and is now displayed (complete with an inventive reconstruction of the missing parts) in the Vatican Museum.[5.1] We know only that it was set up after the death of Augustus in 14 A.D., since it refers to him as "divine." The actual content of the inscription is as follows:
...KING BROUGHT INTO THE POWER OF...
AUGUSTUS AND THE ROMAN PEOPLE AND SENATE...
FOR THIS HONORED WITH TWO VICTORY CELEBRATIONS...
FOR THE SAME THING THE TRIUMPHAL DECORATION...
OBTAINED THE PROCONSULATE OF THE PROVINCE OF ASIA...
AGAIN OF THE DEIFIED AUGUSTUS SYRIA AND PH[OENICIA]...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
The most obvious problem with this piece of "evidence" is that it doesn't even mention Quirinius! No one knows who this is. Numerous possible candidates have been proposed and debated, but the notion that it could be Quirinius was only supported by the wishful thinking of a few 18th and 19th century scholars (esp. Sanclemente, Mommsen, and Ramsay). But it is unlikely to be his. We know of no second defeat of a king in the career of Quirinius, though Tacitus writes his obituary in Annals 3.48, where surely such a double honor would have been mentioned, especially since a "victory celebration" was a big deal--involving several festal days of public thanksgiving at the command of the emperor. We also have no evidence that Quirinius governed Asia. Though that isn't improbable, we do know of another man, Lucius Calpurnius Piso, who did govern Asia and who defeated the kings of Thrace twice, and received at least one "victory celebration" for doing so, as well as the Triumphal Decoration, and who may also have governed Syria.[5.2] Though it cannot be proved that this is Piso's epitaph, it is clear that it would sooner belong to him than Quirinius. Thus, to ignore him and choose Quirinius would go against probability. Yet even if we lacked such a candidate as Piso, to declare this an epitaph of Quirinius is still pure speculation.
Even more importantly, this inscription does not really say that the governorship of Syria was held twice, only that a second legateship was held, and that the second post happened to be in Syria.[5.3] From what remains of the stone, it seems fairly obvious that the first post was the proconsulate of Asia. This means that even if this is the career of Quirinius, all it proves is that he was once the governor of Syria.
You can't even count. I referenced both Raymond Brown and A.N. Sherwin-White here, plus Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier in the PM. That's 4. All you have done is point to a web site with someone who has no expertise in the field. Now how about simply refuting the two I mentioned here. Brown's book "The Birth of the Messiah" and Sherwin-White's "Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament".
which lexicons are you referring to?
I just not need to provide them because anyone who simply googles can "Jerry Vardaman".
So if yr using Quirinius to date the event, then Jesus birth either took place after the death of Herod or before the census. In the first instance we end up with a Story of Herod attempting to kill Jesus ten years after his own death. Was Herod resurrected as well? on the other hand we get Mathew and Luke getting the date of Jesus birth wrong. Fortunately, we have the attestation of
Dr. James Dunn finding Luke's account "hard to credit" along With the observations of E.P. Sanders.
no that doesn't contradict. joseph was also probably from bethlehem but went to nazereth for work as a carpenter, then returned home to be registered and to get married. The family trees given indicate that they were most likely to have been from the bethlehem area and the "inn" was much more likely to have been their relatives house rather than just an inn. Dunn is a christian yes, but sanders isn't, at least nothing more than nominal. the NPP movement they are part of is all wrong as well
Dr. Bock's view is interesting though I certainly don't think he solved the classic problem of Luke's timeline or Augustus Caesar's census. Furthermore I'm inclined to disagree that most of the gospels were written sufficiently close to the death of Jesus that were he actually not born in it would have created a problem for the religion. Most scholars believe that Matthew and Luke were written sometime between 75-90 AD which places them 50+ years after the death of Jesus - a significant enough amount of distance from the events in question that it may not have presented a problem at all.
HK91PTR, sorry for bothering you. Do you believe that the texts are directly inspired by the devine? Because this alone changes everything really.
yes he grew in nazereth, becuase the family went to live there after egypt. Joseph probably left town to find work in nazereth, then returned to be registered and married. there is no mention of a bar either, only that he was placed in a manger, which were common inside houses in those times. I find their scholarship problematic mainly due to the errors and biases in the NPP stuff but also a few other areas of orthodoxy they deny.
At the beginning of the video Dr. Bock mentions that the date of the censes is off by 4 to 6 years. But aren’t we actually living under the Roman calendar which starts 5 years before the birth of Christ. That is to say that Christ was born in the year 5 of the reign of Nero. It was only later that we transposed the date of the birth of Christ onto the date that started with the beginning of the reign of Nero.
Some people might think of this as a travesty of dating and a miss use of the calendar. But how else would we know of the birth date and year of the birth of Christ. When a baby is born we can’t just reset or preset the calendar to that year and day. Add to this that an awful lot of people didn’t know that he was the Christ and the Messiah yet. This was only discovered 30 or more years later and in the times since then.
One more thing about the calendar and the dates; Shouldn’t it rather be called BC and AB or ABC rather than BC and AD? If we are talking BC, meaning Before Christ and AD meaning After Death, then where is and what has happened to His life? This sets up the dates and the calendar to suggest that his birth and his death happened both in the same year. If we used something like AB which would mean After Birth or ABC meaning After the Birth of Christ this would include and cover the 30 and more years of his “earthly life” with us here on earth.
Either that or we should just use the BC meaning Birth of Christ instead of Before Christ and use positive and negative numbers to denote the direction in time that from that point, or that year, that one is counting in. Or we could use BBC to denote Before the Birth of Christ, (don’t know what this would do for or to the British Broadcasting Corporation, i.e. the BBC) and then use ABC to indicate After the Birth of Christ. I don’t know but the way things are set up now already seems a bit odd and a bit too confusing.
Thanks for reading
Sailing Ship AD means Ano Domini Latin for In the year of our Lord.
@jimmo42 Yes, like fundamentalists do, secular or other, you rush to slap down what doesn't fit your belief system without even knowing what it's about. In this case, you completely ignored the research I posted which shows that this was NOT about taxes as is typically assumed. Why even make a pretense of a discussion with such mentality? Such behavior clearly shows no interest in learning but rather pushing an ideology. Such fundamentalists charlatans are have no credibility and waste my time.
@AllOtherNamesUsed
Sadly you ingore an extremely important aspect, which most fundamenalist also do. To match Matthew, the census *must* be during the reign of king Herod. While Bethlehem is in Judea and under Herod's control, Galilee is not. It is completely implausible to assume people went from one jurisdiction to another to be taxed. It is no less than ludicrous to beleive people would be expected to leave the place where their possessions are to go to a different jurisdiction to be taxed.
Therefore, how do you explain Joseph travelling to Bethlehem for the census? Because he went there!
@AllOtherNamesUsed Even if we assume your ludicrous claim that it was not about taxes, the basic principles still stands. Quirinius was NOT in a position during the time specified in Matthew to organize, order or anything else concerning any type of census. If you look as sources like Father Raymond Brown, you have them all in one place, not some non-scholarly sites like askelm*com. ....facepalm...
Thank you. Your point differs from the findings in my book. King Monobaz (Joseph) and Queen Helena (Mary) of Adiabene wouldn't have been in this census. Queen Helena (Mary) did not convert to Judaism until after two decades had passed in the year of our Lord . She and King Izaates II, her son, did not convert until 27 or 30 AD which would coincide with Jesus' mission beginning once he (King Izaates II) became Jewish..
Steefen, author of "Insights on the Exodus, King David, and Jesus."
You don't travel for a census.
There ar ehistoric records that people had to travel for said purposes.
@@valentino3228 Joseph would have registered in Nazareth
@@valentino3228 Thou Shalt not Lie
If you are referring to the claims by Sir William Ramsay, that is over 100 years old and only relates to the fact Luke was able to list cities, island and the titles of various officials correctly. That is something any good tour guide should be able to do. I *seriously* doubt you have any real evidence that has not been refuted many times before. If you actually do have evidence, do tell us.
no i'm sorry but that is not correct. This is a completely fallacious claim. yes oikos means a house or household but the entire word oikoumene is a refference to the entire inhabited world. It is always used as short hand for "oikoumene geh", or inhabited world. hence the world oikoumene became to mean the entire habited world. Don't be fooled by a word stem as to it's definition. for example the word butterfly has no implication of butter or the sort even though it has the stem
@AllOtherNamesUsed Further, even IF you assume your ludicrous claims, you are willfulling ignoring one of the key factors. Nazareth was in a difference province from Bethlehem. People living within a Roman controlled province (i.e. Galilee) would NOT be required to go to the Hebrew controlled province (Bethlehem). I already pointed this out, but you choose to be willfulling ignorant about it. The facts show no such registration (for taxes or otherwise) took place.
@AllOtherNamesUsed I suggest you read "The Birth of the Messiah", by the late Raymond Brown. He was a catholic priest and spent a good 10 pages on just the census. The bottom line is that all of the vain attempts to reconcile this problem fail completely. Granted Fr. Brown did not address the really lame explanation in Norman Geisler's "When Critics Ask". Even without knowing the historical errors Geisler makes, the logic is obviously nonsense.
bdag is my main go to lexicon
I disagree with Dr. Bock. As Raymond Brown clearly points out in his The Birth of the Messiah, Luke's census is designed to move Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, in order to fulfill the prophecy in Micah. It's a theological decision, not a factual one. There's also the issue that both Mark and John call Jesus "Jesus of Nazareth." The best example of this is from Mark 16:6, "You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here," and Mark earlier calls Nazareth "Jesus' hometown," or something very close.
themetsfan861
Just because one says that someone is “of Nazareth” doesn’t have to mean that they were born there. It could mean that they grew up there or spent a long time living there.
Thanks for reading
Sailing Ship
True, but the narratives in Mark and John suggest that Jesus is from Nazareth proper. On another note, I don't think that it really matters. Jesus is God Incarnate whether He was born in Bethlehem or Nazareth.
Kim Yun Mi
Criterion of embarrassment. The Biblical writers need Jesus to be born in Bethlehem, when he was born in Nazareth. How do they get around it? Luke comes up with a census that occurs 10 years later, and Matthew has Jesus fleeing Herod the Great's murder attempt.
I don't believe inerrancy is critical to the Christian message; I'm only an inerrantist in the Catholic sense.
That is dead on correct. That census was an invention; it was a literary device and nothing more.The Old Testament HAD to be matched up with the new in order for people to later be able to claim that it was borne of prophecy. An apologist will claim 435 of them, but if you read into them you 'll find vagaries, inconsistencies, and distortions -things being taken out of context in order to make them fit. Wouldn't Isa 7:14 be a good example of this? Anybody with me? It's the same as this Micah 5:2 deal. That author was trying to place Jesus' birth in Beth because of 5:2, but he fucked up the chronology by ten years, am I right?
Wedlockvideos
The evangelists used a Midrashic approach to the OT in many places. Yes, you're correct with Isaiah 7:14 and Micah 5:2, both of which were reinterpreted to refer to Jesus. Luke didn't actually screw up the chronology that badly; he relocated the census to fit his needs.
Why reluctant, Dr. Soper? because they disagree with you?
Besides the problem is not with Dunn or Sanders, but with Luke's account.Even if we nail down that the census took place as claimed, Luke still has serious problems. There would be no requirement for either parent to travel to Bethlehem; None. With out it. There's no reason for them to be there.No reason to leave Nazareth.
@AllOtherNamesUsed "What a JOKE!" Your're right! Your posts ARE a joke. All you have done is read a single web site, obviously with confirmation bias and not bothered to look up the facts yourself. As I already pointed out, even Raymon Brown, a catholic priest and New Testament scholar, in his book "The Birth of the Messiah" says you and Luke got it wrong.
Bdag? Is that the guy who lives in the dumpster over at D&D?
Right, so the Pharises and the Sadducees did not know how to read?
So you wanna bet? I send you a picture of my collection of theology, biblical history, historiography and biblical greek books. You lose the bet, so you delete your RUclips account. That sounds fair. Want to take the bet?
ROTLOL!!!
You can't say "before" he was governor, the grammar doesn't work. Never mind the syntax and odd phrasing.
nope bauer danker lexicon
Except we KNOW Jesus was from Nazareth, Terry Technical. So Joseph and Mary, who are from Bethlehem don't have their own place there, but are forced to go to a "relatives house" who don't have enough room for them -even though they must have lived there
and make Mary give birth out in the barn. Now Sanders thinks he is a christian, but even if your right, you still have not answered the question about why their scholarship is problematic.
It is always funny reading the desparate and insecure remarks of the atheist crowd when it comes to these kind of videos....they are literally frothing at the mouth in their angst and anger that the Bible again and again is proven to be accurate....oh my.....
"Bart Ehrman - refuted"
By whom? Show us the references! I have read many refutions of Ehrman's work, but nothing on the Lucian census. You simply made that up. Isn't making things up lying?
"Richard Carrier - pathological liar"
Which we both know you copied from a site that also uses your librarian as a source. How about a refution of his claims and not a childish ad hominem?
As everyone can see Sherwin-White also says Luke got it wrong.
This guy contends that everybody would have known that Jesus would have been born in Bethlehem, ..as if this was just common knowledge, ...but the 'census story' could have been a mistake (since the 'apologetics' are so lame!). The only way this makes any sense at all is to imagine that no one would have noticed that Luke got the date for the census wrong. Since as many as 8 or 9 decades had passed since the birth of Jesus and the authorship of Luke, ...the author just didn't figure any one would notice the mistake in timing he had come up with to get Jesus of NAZARETH being born in BETHLEHEM so that Jesus would seem to fit Old Testament prophesy. (Mathew 'came up' with his own 'story' and made the same mistake concerning Herod' s 'killing of the innocents') Neither one of them are historically accurate.
imacoop there is only no evidence that King Herod slaughtered innocence outside the Bible, but there is also no contrary evidence to prove that Matthew made the story up. Judging by the deeds and mentality of all the cruel things Herod did described in Josephus’s writings, it would actually make sense that Matthews account of slaughtering babies would occur. It seems a handful of babies were slaughtered and it never significantly made the news.
It takes ten years to do a census? That doesn't seem like a very useful set of data...
Never happened
You mean references that are better than your librarian??? I have provided then, as everyone can see. You argue like a typical fundie. You don't refute the arguments, you simply pretend no arguments were presented. I refuted your source (the librarian) with experts in the field. Now you need to refute them. (Which we both know you can't)
"Which we both know you are incapable of disproving."
Classic fundie arguments. Rather than addressing the issues you simply ingore them. In the PM pointed out how your librarian was wrong about the instription and the "Numismatic evidence" (Vardaman's made-up coin). Rather than you doing the work to look it up, you claim you couldn't find anything in a simple google search. Seem pretty clear YOU are "incapable of disproving" anything.
You have no clue about this subject or logical discourse. It is only an appeal to authority if the person is not an authority in the field in question. For example, YOU using someone who is not an authority on ancient history or theology is an appeal to authority. I am referencing world-reknown experts in the field. You are refering (in the PM) an unemployed librarian!