Richbee

So what part of the Roman system of taxation confuses you? Since when did Rome ever concern itself with local rule to collect their taxes? Or count the population and there by make a Roman assessment!?

In any event, why doubt Master Luke now, he is the greatest ancient Historian of all time. He puts old Herodotus to shame.

Let us roll back the tape and review:

Ben Witherington writes:

If Luke is not simply indulging in rhetorical hyperbole, it is not absolutely necessary to take Luke 2:1 to mean that the whole empire was enrolled at once. What the Greek suggests is that Caesar decreed that "all of the Roman world be enrolled."

The present tense of the verb apographo and the use of pos suggest that what Caesar was decreeing was the extension of the enrollment already going on in some parts of the empire to the rest of the empire. Historian A.N. Sherwin -White reminds us,

"A census or taxation-assessment of the whole provincial empire . . . was certainly accomplished for the first time in history under Augustus."

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2...k-article.html

Richbee

Study the History of Herod and how it was that he became the quote: "King". - Click Here

S.C.Carlson

That would be one approach, but there appears no evidence of such a practice and that any such requirement would have been unprecedented in the Roman Empire. However, before we get to deciding whether Luke is reporting something accurate or inaccurate, I think we should make sure that we are understanding Luke accurately.

The relevant text is from Luke 2:3-7 --

3 And everyone would go to get registered, each to his own town. 4 Joseph too went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to David's city called Bethlehem, on account of his being of the house and family of David. 5 to get registered with Mary who was betrothed to him and pregnant. 6 It so happened that in their being there, the days were fulfilled that she give birth, 7 and she gave birth to her son, [her] firstborn, and she swaddled him and laid him down in a feed-trough, because there was no place for them in the loft.

So, according to the text, everyone went to their own hometown to get registered, including Joseph. Since the text has Joseph go to Bethlehem, it implies that his hometown is Bethlehem. Verse 4b explains why Bethlehem is his hometown: Joseph's family has lived at least since the time of David. Thus, Joseph is not in Nazareth because he was living there, but because he had business to do, such as finding a bride.

Another way of determining where Luke thought Joseph's hometown to be is to ask and answer the question: Where did Luke think Joseph and Mary were married?

According to v.5, Mary was merely engaged when she came to Bethlehem pregnant and according to v. 6 it was in Bethlehem where she gave birth. This places the wedding in Bethlehem. Since marriage was patrilocal, the wedding was held in the groom's family, so the sequence of events in vv.5-6 also supports Joseph and his family being from Bethlehem.

Three reasons have usually been given against this reading of Luke, but they are not strong enough for me to go against the plain meaning of the text.

First, it is contended that v.7 "no room in the inn" means that Joseph did not have a home of his own in Bethlehem. This objection relies on some misperceptions. First off, katalyma probably does not mean "inn" but "upper room" or "loft" as it does in Luke 22:11. Also, in an honor/shame culture, Joseph's not having a room for him does not mean that Joseph was not family--it means that the room was used by someone in town of higher status than Joseph. And Joseph's status in this scenario could not have been enhanced by his choice to go through with a marriage to a woman who was already pregnant.

A second reason is that Luke 2:39 states that "they returned to Galilee, to their own town Nazareth." However, this occurred more than a month after Jesus's birth (the redemption of 2:22b is supposed to occur at 30 days), and does not directly address the issue of Joseph's residence before the marriage (Luke 1:26-27 only places Mary in Nazareth). Indeed, land in Nazareth would have been an inducement for Joseph to marry a pregnant woman.

A third counter-argument is found in Fitzmyer's commentary: "The Matthean infancy narrative knows nothing of this and implies rather that their 'house' was in Bethlehem (2:11). One should not read that into the Lucan account." Not much of a counter-argument, and it only works on the assumption that Luke and Matthew are independent (i.e. the Q hypothesis). Those who dispense with Q, on the other hand, have no problems with Luke's agreement with his source, Matthew, for the idea of a Bethlehem home for Joseph.

The idea that Luke is imagining a census that ordered people to go back to their ancestral towns is commonplace but not ultimately supported by the text. A more straightforward understanding is that the census had people registered in their own towns. When Joseph went to Bethlehem with the pregnant Mary, he was returning home to marry her. Luke's careful mention that Joseph complied with the authorities distinguishes Jesus's mother's husband from that rebellious Judas of Galilee, so well-known to the audience of Flavius Josephus.

Stephen Carlson

Diogenes the Cynic

The only one demonstrating any confusion is you.
Since whenever they were dealing with client kingdoms.
Content free witnessing, unsupported by evidence.
See the part I highlighted in your quote? When did Judea become part of the provincial empire?

spin

Who cares about Ben Witherington's opinions?? Stop wasting time.

Sherwin-White is being abused by Witherington. Judea was not in the provincial empire. It was a client kingdom. Augustus administered imperial provinces through his procurators. Judea came under the procurator of Syria in 6 CE, when the kingdom was taken away from Archelaus.


spin

Richbee

Oh?

Since when did the Romans discern the difference between Judea and Galilee?

Why would they care? They wanted their taxes and a census would indicate what was a fair revenue Vs. what King Herod was stealing!

True?

RUmike

So David's family lived in the same town for 42 generations? Wow.

Richbee

What is your point? Is it a Historical certainty, that Jesus was born before King Herod died?

And, after King Herod died, the settlement of his will took a few years to sort out........

Quote:

Augustus designated Archelaus as ethnarch with the promise to be made king if he proved capable of that position and was to rule over Idumea, Judea, and; Samaria. Antipas was made tetrarch over Galilee and Perea and Philip was made tetrarch over Gaulanitis, Tranchonitis, Batanea, and Paneas. Therefore, although Antipas lost claim to kingship, he prevented Archelaus from being king over the whole.

http://www.bible-history.com/herod_t...erods_Will.htm

Bonus question: What is a Tetrarch?

spin

Now you are fantasticating, based on whim rather than any logic or evidence. Please calm down. You have no reason to make this stuff up as you go.


spin

Richbee

Why was Bethlehem called, "The City of David", and why was that note worthy?