Ideologist

I'm curious what kind of evidence you would require to say that "a miracle happened." Because requiring a miracle to be proven before miracles can be proven is a recursive dependency.

My intention is not to show that the Apostles actually settled all of those Churches, but that the number of Churches they are claimed to have started is not so extraordinary as was claimed.

Ideologist

Certainly not; again, my intention is not to show that Luke is correct, but that it is plausible that it was correct. It is realistically impossible to go beyond that without records that simply don't exist.

There is evidence that local census practices have been retained in certain places; beyond that it's necessarily speculation.

synonym: A word or phrase that has a meaning the same as or very close to that of another word or phrase is a synonym of that other word/phrase.

The meaning of the two words is not the same; they are close, but not close enough to be used interchangeably in many situations.

I recognize that it is entirely reasonable to go either way; if the evidence leans slightly toward owning no property then it is almost only because of Luke's ambiguity on the matter.

No; they are two distinct possibilities for explanations. I might not have been entirely clear in differentiating them.

I have to say; this is the first time I've heard anyone seriously say that the text in that area is absolutely clear.

The further question is whether the author would have known to make that element had he not known what would actually happen in such a circumstance.

No; the story gives a reason without any apparent explanation, subject to interpretation by the reader.

And I think I responded to one of those people, which you didn't seem to notice.

The Evil One

If the Gospel record is anywhere near accurate, Jesus was endorsed by the famous John the Baptist, preached to thousands of people, threw the upper reaches of the Jewish priesthood into a mad panic, etc etc. This would make him at least as notable as many of the religious leaders Josephus does mention, and make the fact that he isn't mentioned (except in passing, if you accept an authentic core to the TF) suspicious.

If the Gospel record isn't anywhere near accurate, then we can't say anythign about Jesus with any certainty at all.

To warm to the theme I've been developing over the past few days: the Jesus we are talking about is the Jesus of the texts. The Jesus of the texts was not a minor, unnoticed figure. Assuming that some Jesus existed who was a minor, unnoticed figure, then he certainly wasn't the Jesus of the texts; and we can therefore state confidently that (given this assumption)the Jesus of the texts never existed.

spin

You can see your own problem, can't you?

Perhaps you should look harder.


spin

spin

Ummm, he miraculously fed four and five thousand people. That would surely raise a gosh or two. He cure a number of people from the illness of being dead. Surely if the gospels can report it as fact, why can't Josephus?


spin

Amaleq13

I need to squint to see that fine line but, ok. You still require evidence to achieve your goal. As it stands, you've offered nothing but unsubstantiated speculation that lacks any genuine connection to the text.

Why haven't you presented it? It is my understanding that the Egyptian document represents Roman practice. It is certainly a far more sensible requirement than the one described in Luke.

Yes and you will find that "suggest" is offered as a synonym for "indicate" if you follow the link I provided. This tangent you've created is as tiresome as it is trivial.

They are interchangeable in this situation which is the only one that is relevant. I have no problem if you prefer to use the word "suggests". The point remains, as you have already agreed, that the author suggests Joseph owned no property.

You recognize nothing but your own preferences. There is nothing in Luke's story to suggest that Joseph owned property in Bethlehem and what is provided suggests that he did not.

There is no ambiguity. That you prefer there to be does not make it so. The evidence does more than "lean slightly". It points in only one direction. That it is not the direction you prefer is not relevant.

Luke's author offers only one explanation and the one you prefer appears to have no basis in the text.

You need to get out more. You have certainly not established any ambiguity in the text. All you've established is your ability to impose ambiguity where there is none.

Since I tend to assume the author was not an idiot, that question does not occur to me. How much imagination does it require to suspect that the described requirement would result in overcrowding of the town's accommodations? How much less given that the author apparently believed that Jesus' birth in a manger was foretold by angels?

The explanation is explicitly provided in the text:

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: ) 2:4, KJV (emphasis mine)

We have no evidence to suggest that Rome ever had such a requirement for any tax census nor that Rome ever required citizens of a region not under direct control to travel to a region that was under direct control

We have no reason to think Joseph owned property in Bethlehem.

Ideologist

You say that John the Baptist's endorsement is notable, yet in Josephus even John the Baptist (who does seem to have been a very significant figure, as if not more significant to most people by the Gospels' account) receives a relatively short paragraph mention.

The fact is, scale can be exaggerated quite easily. It's unlikely that the numbers at the Battle of Agincourt were anywhere near as lopsided as has been recounted, but that's no reason to believe that the Battle never occurred.

Scale is, in all likelihood, the most frequently exaggerated thing in ancient histories. But the difference between 1200 and 12000 people is not so significant as to make the entire narrative completely unreliable.

Now, certainly, we should accept that certain things in the Gospels are not necessarily correct, just as we cannot accept what Josephus says without justification. But we can't write off Josephus (or the Gospels) entirely because they contain errors.

No, not at all.

This depends on whether the important thing about Jesus was "he had huge numbers of followers woo" or "he lived in Judaea and was crucified." I think it's entirely reasonable to believe that the latter is the more important thing; if specific events were exaggerated it does not necessarily destroy the basic integrity of the narrative.

You're oh so cool. How can I be like you?

Maybe it would help if you explained what you were trying to say, rather than responding in vacuous platitudes.

One would assume that events of that nature would be taken with a grain of salt, even in an age as miraculous as the classical era.

Without any further evidence (and I don't have any on-hand) any explanation for the passage is inherently going to be speculation.

Before I respond to the third sentence here, I'd prefer you give some backing to the second.

Arguing over semantics almost always is.

By the same link, "analyze" is a synonym for "prove." Now, certainly they can be used interchangeably some of the time, but they do not mean the same thing.

I disagree entirely that they are interchangeable in this situation, because they vary on the intensity. It is similar to "prove" and "witness;" both are words related to showing evidence, but they clearly vary on what they imply.

Now, yes, I admit that Luke 2 suggests that Joseph might not have owned property there. But indicate, being a much stronger word, I do not use.

What Luke gives is a justification for Joseph going to Bethlehem; it was the land of his ancestors. The way this is given in the text, one assumes that the writer believed that we would know what he was talking about, so he fails to give any answer as to why this is relevant.

Now, you can say "the passage is clear" until the cows come home, but the fact is that the text does not give a clear reason for why Joseph's lineage would matter. Since we can, as you said, assume that the author of Luke was not an idiot, we can safely say that there is more behind the statement than "he had relatives there." Our question, then, is to determine whether and why that would matter.

Now, since we don't have any documentary evidence from the period to tell us one way or the other about Jewish or Judaean census practices, we have to resort to some degree of speculation. But what we can't do is say that because we have no evidence one way or another, the matter is decidedly one way.

aa5874

The book of Acts claims that the Pharisees organised house to house persecutions of the followers of the Christ and also was invovled in His execution. According to Acts, this persecution, with at least a death squad headed by Saul, the Pharisee, continued for a long time while Josephus, a Pharisee, was supposed to alive.



If we assume the numbers in Acts are under-estimated (which is an entirely reasonable suggestion), then Jesus would be an eminently notable figure.

spin

Try to derive it from the gospel material. You can't.

We can see, moving from BJ to AJ that Josephus does correct his materials. Moving from one gospel (Mark) to another (either Matt or Luke) we don't notice any awareness of any historical necessity to fix thngs. We do get ideological changes though.

I don't think you can. You're not in a position to eradicate some of your prior commitments. The coolth was obviously that you are aware of your own shortcoming -- along with the dilemma of you being unable to rationalise it.

David Hume provided you with the criterion you needed 'to say that "a miracle happened"': it would be more miraculous to conclude it didn't happen.

So you cut to insults when you realise you don't have any content to fall back on.

See all those specific miracles in all the ancient sources? You get presages, but miracles? Where are they? They weren't taken with a grain of salt. They weren't taken at all. There is a remarkable lack of of such events. Where are all the miracles in the fathers' efforts? Just as lacking. What evidence do you have that the "classical era" was "miraculous" at all?

Do you accept -- to any degree -- the narrative rationale given by Amaleq13 for moving J&M to Bethlehem?

If the writer is in such a quandary over the data, why would you assume that?

In one breath he talks about a census of Augustus (who made only three censi -- and they were only for Roman citizens, according to his res gestae), while in the next he talks about Quirinius who carried a census for the absorption of Judea into the empire at the time of the removal of Archelaus. Going to one's hometown doesn't fit the m.o. of a census, especially when Joseph went from one realm (Galilee) to another (Judea) for the census.

I find it of interest that you transfer your responsibility to deal with the text onto your understanding of the Lucan reading audience, who must have known what the writer was talking about, without attempt to justify your conjecture.

It doesn't matter at all for the sake of the census because Quirinius was only interested in Judea and its assessment.

When the writer had the task of reconciling Bethlehem with Nazareth in the tradition to people who had generally worse access to information than even we do, there is nothing safe about your assumption.

In another thread you might have noticed the simplicity of the writer's treatment of Capernaum where Jesus was at home: he just wrote it out. And where Matt feels the need to move Jesus to Capernaum, Luke just removes the problem: home in Capernaum? what home?

Having relatives in Bethlehem gives reason for going to Bethlehem. The writer's conception of the census would add persuasion. There is no substance in the text either for relatives in Bethlehem or for property there, as it was Joseph's intention to use an inn. What is unknown is how much of this is derived from the writer and how much from the tradition he is writing in.


spin

Amaleq13

As I indicated (sorry, suggested), I'm working from memory but the census was conducted in Roman Egypt and the edict commanding it was given by the Roman governor of Egypt. Again, IIRC, even the apologists who use it as supporting Luke's requirement emphasize it as establishing Roman practice.

Do you know of evidence to the contrary?

Either the author assumed the reader would know or assumed that the reader would only care about the result (ie that Jesus was born in a manger in Bethlehem in fulfillment of prophecy).

The text clearly states that everyone was required to "his own city" to be taxed and clearly states that Bethlehem was considered Joseph's "own city" because of his Davidic lineage.

We cannot even say that since there is nothing to suggest he had relatives there. All we can say from the text is that Joseph could claim Davidic lineage and, since Bethlehem was considered David's hometown, Bethlehem was also to be considered Joseph's "own city" for the purposes of the census.

Silly rabbit, how else is the author going to get Jesus born in a manger in Bethlehem in fulfillment of the alleged prophecies?