RUmike

Ben, I consider that possible as well. However, what is the likelihood of a family staying in the exact same town for 42 generations? That, to me, is beyond belief.

Ben C Smith

It might not be quite so unbelievable if you knew some of my in-laws.

But I agree; that is beyond belief for me, as well. However, I think it would have been a more believable (or at least more patently desirable) fiction in antiquity than having everybody return to some ancestral town for a census.

My usual opinion on the Lucan census falls somewhat along the lines of what spin was suggesting: Luke was melding two traditions. He had to get Joseph and Mary from Nazareth (known as the hometown of Jesus) to Bethlehem (known as the birthplace of the messiah) somehow, and he knew from Josephus the importance of the census under Cyrenius. Luke liked to tie Jesus into Greco-Roman culture wherever possible, so he tied the birth of Jesus into a Roman census.

I cannot help but thinking that Luke intends something specific for Joseph by labelling both Nazareth and Bethlehem as his own city. Perhaps the melding of those two traditions was all that was on his mind; perhaps there was more. I do not know.

Ben.

S.C.Carlson

On the contrary, Luke 2:7 has Joseph and Mary cohabitating at least since the birth of Jesus. This cohabitation occurs after the wedding. Luke 2:5-7 is states that they were not married when they arrived in Bethlehem and has them living as husband and wife by the time Jesus arrives.

Furthermore, Jewish law, though less strict than Anglo-American law about tying legitimacy to wedlock, provides some important incentives for willing parents to be married before the child is born. For example, a man is allowed to inherit from his wife, but not from his betrothed. As death in childbirth was common, it would make little sense for a man, already intending to marry a pregnant woman, to delay marriage until after the birth. He would be forfeiting his claim to whatever resources she or her family owned.

Now, perhaps Luke's audience did not appreciate the niceties of Jewish law because they were gentiles. However, Roman law is more strict than Jewish law over being able to legitimize a child born outside of wedlock. Like Jewish law, a man cannot inherit from her unless she is his wife. Also, if she dies, it is impossible to legitimate the child, and even if she lives and they marry, she must bear at least subsequent in-wedlock child to legitimate. Thus, even Luke's Roman audience would not assume that Joseph and Mary would voluntarily delay the wedding until after the birth. Rather, the normal expectation is that a man who can marry the mother of his coming child (e.g. if he's not married or if she is not a prostitute) will do so before the birth.

So, I disagree that the text does all it can to militate against the view that they married in Bethlehem. On the contrary, Bethlehem is the only place that the text permits for reasonable marital behavior. Unfortunately, this text was not available to commentators throughout most of history because the Byzantine text (from which the TR derives_ interpolates the word "wife" into Luke 2:5. However, we today should not allow ourselves to continued to be misled by interpretations that are based on late variants added to the text, however much inertia they may have.

Stephen Carlson

S.C.Carlson

Since Luke 2:5 still has Mary being betrothed, he imagines that the actual ceremony was not yet completed. Your point, I think, argues against the wedding being defered until after they return from Bethlehem, whenever that was.

Here's where I see evidence of Luke's knowledge and even reaction against Josephus. Under my reading, the text betrays Luke awareness that Joseph went to Bethlehem to get married there. That Luke knowingly ignores the dog (to be married) to focus on the tail (to be registered) indicates to me that the purpose of the whole census stuff is not to move Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem--that can easily be done without the census--but something else. Based on the way the text functions and the scholarly observation that Luke is very politically sensitive, that something else appears to be making Jesus's legal father Joseph out to be a law-abiding pro-Roman. This apologetic purpose makes the most sense not just (a) after the War but also (b) as a counterspin to Josephus's interpretation of the cause of the War that highlight the role of those dangerous Galilean tax rebellers as the ultimate cause of the War.

I'm getting ahead of myself, but I wouldn't characterize this approach as quite the "scrabbling apologetics" DtC has accused me of.

Stephen Carlson

S.C.Carlson

I think this helps in getting at an explanation about the "own town" business that is clearer than my first attempt. (IIDB is great at vetting some arguments, which is why I'm testing this approach out.)

Under either the conventional interpretation or my own, the "own town" in Luke 2:3 has a different referent, Bethlehem, than in 2:39, Nazareth.

Under the conventional interpretation, "own town" in Luke 2:3 means ancestral village for purposes of the census (despite all evidence in antiquity to the contrary) and in 2:39 it means where Joseph is residing.

Under my view, the difference is chronological: Bethlehem is Joseph's own town in 2:3 until he got married, but then he decided to dwell with his wife in her town by 2:39.

The conventional interpretation certainly provides a better fit for the Byzantine text, which interpolates the word "wife" into 2:5 and misleads exegetes into thinking that Joseph and Mary must already be married (and inferring that Joseph's home town is in Galilee).

This assumes that one's ancestral village is different from his actual village. Luke 2:3 is about people going home for the census. Luke 2:4a has Joseph go to the Bethlehem for the census. Rather than concluding that Bethlehem is Joseph's home, however, v.4b is somehow taken to mean that Bethlehem must be ancestral home, not his actual hometown, rather than that Joseph's actual hometown is his ancestral home. I can perhaps get to that strange conclusion if I had strong evidence that there a practice of people returning to their ancestral homes for a census. But isn't this view, as a matter of history, "idiotic" as been said earlier in this thread?

Stephen Carlson

S.C.Carlson

Palestinians are making these kinds of claims today. What matters as far as what Luke believes is concerned is not its actual historicity but whether such a claim is plausible at the end of the first century.

Stephen Carlson

Amaleq13

I thought it argued against the notion that they would have waited until she was "great with child".

Well, I find your Josephus connection particularly interesting.

ETA:<never mind, I think you answered my earlier question as we cross-posted>

S.C.Carlson

Oh I see. I don't why the KJV translated ἐγκύῳ as "great with child." My sources seems to state that it just means "pregnant."

Stephen

Amaleq13

The Blue Letter Bible's reference to Strong's defines egkuos as: "big with child, pregnant" and their comparison of versions shows Webster, Darby, ASV going along with the KJV (though not the NKJV). The NLT has "obviously pregnant" which I would say qualifies. Unfortunately, it appears that this is the only use of the term in the entire Bible. :huh:

TomboyMom

Richbee seems to have a habit of posting threads that assert:
"The mainstream historical view is that [insert minority evangelical position that is NOT mainstream historical view.]
response: That's not the mainstream historical view.
Richbee: Prove that the [position itself] is false.
It's getting tired.