Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 07-24-2007, 08:16 AM

I look forward to reading comments from readers.

Ray Moscow · 07-24-2007, 09:10 AM

As far as I know, there is none. There is just the Micah "prophecy" that some took to mean that he must have been.

Luke goes so far as to make up a bogus census (that never happened) to get him there. Who ever heard of going to the hometown of an ancestor to register for a census? Doesn't one have to register where one lives?

Ray

Dreadnought · 07-24-2007, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Moscow

As far as I know, there is none. There is just the Micah "prophecy" that some took to mean that he must have been.

Luke goes so far as to make up a bogus census (that never happened) to get him there. Who ever heard of going to the hometown of an ancestor to register for a census? Doesn't one have to register where one lives?

Ray

Yes indeed. Not only is the idea bizarre that you'd have to register according to your ancestors, but as this census, if it had happened, presumably would have been for tax purposes it would be counter-productive to send people all over the country only to have the trouble of tracking them down again to collect the tax. How did the romans know who were the ancestors of who anyway? And if they knew why should they care?

Clouseau · 07-24-2007, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

I look forward to reading comments from readers.

Genealogy was fundamental to the Israelite identity and economy, and was based largely on tribe, so it would make sense for a census to be based on records kept in the towns of one's tribe. If Joseph was a Judahite, as claimed, he would have had to go south from Galilee to a town in Judea for his record to be checked.

However, it seems more than possible that the Romans did not make use of Jewish tribal records, but used their own system which was akin to that used by William I in making his Domesday Book, which recorded property, employees, etc. It would appear, then, that Joseph owned inherited property in Bethlehem, this being accounted his 'own town'.

Minimalist · 07-24-2007, 10:22 AM

Is there any credible evidence that jesus was born anywhere?

Clouseau · 07-24-2007, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Is there any credible evidence that jesus was born anywhere?

Didn't take long for the goalposts to shift.

Ray Moscow · 07-24-2007, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

I look forward to reading comments from readers.

Genealogy was fundamental to the Israelite identity and economy, and was based largely on tribe, so it would make sense for a census to be based on records kept in the towns of one's tribe. If Joseph was a Judahite, as claimed, he would have had to go south from Galilee to a town in Judea for his record to be checked.

However, it seems more than possible that the Romans did not make use of Jewish tribal records, but used their own system which was akin to that used by William I in making his Domesday Book, which recorded property, employees, etc. It would appear, then, that Joseph owned inherited property in Bethlehem, this being accounted his 'own town'.

OK, this is a lot of conjecture. Where does this census appear in history? As far as I know, it doesn't.

Let's look at the Luke version:

Quote:

Luke 2:1-4: And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David

Luke gives out some supposedly historical details, but as is well known these don't hold up very well and are WAY off the timeline used by Matthew, by at least 10 years.

Not only that, but as mentioned above the whole enterprise looks highly unlikely. You get taxed where you live, not where your ancestor lived.

What similarities might this census have had to the Domesday Book? As far as we know, none whatsoever. That wasn't a census, it was a list of properties and productive assets.

Ray

Spanky · 07-24-2007, 11:03 AM

If you consider the G of Mathew and G of Luke to be credible evidence then I guess there is evidence that he was born in Bethlehem.

But if you don't consider these books to be credible evidence then you might doubt if he was born in Bethlehem (or even born at all).
Personally, I feel Jesus was conceived and born in the minds of men.

Dreadnought · 07-24-2007, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

I look forward to reading comments from readers.

Genealogy was fundamental to the Israelite identity and economy, and was based largely on tribe, so it would make sense for a census to be based on records kept in the towns of one's tribe. If Joseph was a Judahite, as claimed, he would have had to go south from Galilee to a town in Judea for his record to be checked.

However, it seems more than possible that the Romans did not make use of Jewish tribal records, but used their own system which was akin to that used by William I in making his Domesday Book, which recorded property, employees, etc. It would appear, then, that Joseph owned inherited property in Bethlehem, this being accounted his 'own town'.

This is less than convincing. There were twelwe tribes until the conquest of the northern kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians in 722 BCE. 10 of them (or really 9 and a half) were lost and are known as the 10 lost tribes. 3 remained, Judah, Benjamin and Levites (priests), but after the Babylonian captivity Benjamin had been assimilated by Judah and so only Judeans (Jews) and Levites remained. To say that the tribal system was important at the time of the alleged birth of Jesus is ridiculous.

As for Joseph owning property in Bethlehem I hope you can offer something to substantiate that claim. Against the veracity of the claim speaks the "fact" that according to the gospels they couldn't find anywhere to live in the city and had to settle for a stable which is a bit strange if Joseph owns property there and also presumably had relatives in the town.

chrisrkline · 07-24-2007, 11:36 AM

One thing that strikes me, is that if Luke did mean the census when Quirinius was governor, then he would have guessed that Jesus was born in 6 or so CE. I don't think he had Matthew in front of him, and since he was probably making up the specifics anyway, this is not a problem.

But, if Jesus, in Luke, is born in 6 CE, and is crucified at about 30, that makes his death around 36 CE, which matches Josephus' dating of John the Baptist's execution, which is at least internally consistent with the rest of Luke.

But the whole notion of Joseph having to go to Bethlehem for the census is silly, and an obvious mythical element added to fit scripture.

07-24-2007, 08:16 AM	#1
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Is there credible evidence that Jesus was born in Bethlehem? I look forward to reading comments from readers.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-24-2007, 09:10 AM	#2
Ray Moscow Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Surrey, England Posts: 1,255	As far as I know, there is none. There is just the Micah "prophecy" that some took to mean that he must have been. Luke goes so far as to make up a bogus census (that never happened) to get him there. Who ever heard of going to the hometown of an ancestor to register for a census? Doesn't one have to register where one lives? Ray

07-24-2007, 10:22 AM	#5
Minimalist Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,808	Is there any credible evidence that jesus was born anywhere?

07-24-2007, 11:03 AM	#8
Spanky Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: US Posts: 1,216	If you consider the G of Mathew and G of Luke to be credible evidence then I guess there is evidence that he was born in Bethlehem. But if you don't consider these books to be credible evidence then you might doubt if he was born in Bethlehem (or even born at all). Personally, I feel Jesus was conceived and born in the minds of men.

07-24-2007, 11:36 AM	#10
chrisrkline Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Little Rock, AR Posts: 68	One thing that strikes me, is that if Luke did mean the census when Quirinius was governor, then he would have guessed that Jesus was born in 6 or so CE. I don't think he had Matthew in front of him, and since he was probably making up the specifics anyway, this is not a problem. But, if Jesus, in Luke, is born in 6 CE, and is crucified at about 30, that makes his death around 36 CE, which matches Josephus' dating of John the Baptist's execution, which is at least internally consistent with the rest of Luke. But the whole notion of Joseph having to go to Bethlehem for the census is silly, and an obvious mythical element added to fit scripture.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.