Gamera

The "worldwide" Augustan census.

Gamera

Exactly Stephen. I was raised in a Greek household and learned modern Greek before delving into NT Greek.

Gamera

Think Augustus

Gamera

Just toggle down and read the various links that go into the controversy, which exists.

Problem is the verses and usage are ambiguous. So claiming "you got it right" is a bit much. What's fascinating is within the range of ambiguities is the possible reference to the 6 bc census, which in fact corresponds with Jesus' birth. Now, if Luke just got it wrong, you wouldn't expect ambiguous linguage that happens to confrom to a recognizable historical event.

A legitimate question, which various scholars have addressed in various ways. Even if they hadn't, since the history of that time is marked by gaps, Luke's version (assuming he's referencing the Augustan census) would not be ruled out, without more, do to a lack of evidence about the application of the census to Judea. 2 thousand year old history is replete with gaps, and has often been the case, historical claims in the NT that were not part of the conventionals have proven accurate with subsequent discovery. Luke, being closer in time, may have been aware of some application of the Augustan census to Judea for reasons now lost to history.

Transliterations are not erroneous, just conventional. In modern Greek, in which I was raised, proti is the convention. Get over it and stop being a pedant. It suggests a weak case.

Translation are based on scholarship, tendentious or otherwise. The point is, as has been bourn out by various links, a genuine controversy exists as to Luke's usage of proti, and at least some interpretations encompass a usuage consistent with the Augustan census. There's simply no denying that.

Gamera

That appears to be idiocy, which suggests that Luke may be reporting something accurate here. Presumably, if he wanted to get Jesus born in Bethlehem he could have come up with something better if indeed he was not aware of some official tax or census event that required Joseph and Mary to return to Bethlehem. The very strangeness of it argues against it being a figment of Luke's imagination.

Luke may not have characterized the event perfectly, or maybe something got garbled in the transmission between the event and his hearing about it, but it seems less likely that Luke would make up a bad story out of whole cloth, than that he would badly render a true event that somehow involved the necessity of Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem for official purposes. In short, it's not necessary for Luke to have gotten the details right for him to be right about the gist of the event: some Judean tax/census event associated with the Augustan census that required Jesus' parents to travel to Bethlehem.

Diogenes the Cynic

Was Joseph a Roman citizen?

Diogenes the Cynic

Gamera, the census you're referring to was in 8 BCE, not 6 BCE and it was only a head count of Roman citizens. It had nothing to do with a tax and Joseph was not a Roman citizen. It would not have applied to him.

Gamera

Whether it started in 8 BC or 6 BC, the point is it would be ongoing when Jesus was born, hence possibly applicable, if indeed Luke refers to it.

One issue at a time. The first threshold is the time threshold. The ambiguities in the passage seem to allow for Luke to be refering to the Augustan census. That in itself is significant, since you wouldn't explect a prevaricator to be prescient enough to be ambiguous enough to refer to a actual even by mistake. As to the other objections, they are certainly significant. But as I noted in a prior post, while no evidence exists for such a census in Judea at the time of the Augustan census, no evidence rules it out either. In other words, for whatever reason, parallel census in Augustus' clent state may have taken place but isn't recorded anywhere but in Luke. And I guess it is probative that Judea was a client state at the time so there was some connection. If the census was claimed for some kingdom in India, then it really would be without support.

Amaleq13

That is simply absurd. The idiocy of the claim suggests nothing except that the author fabricated it. You are taking rationalization to new depths.

Gamera

No evidence either way, so given his situation in Judea probably not. But like I say below, the very curiousness of Luke's claim that Joseph had to return to his ancestral land suggest he isn't making up a story out of thin air (since presumably he could do much better than that). It strongly suggests some event, however garbled, that invovled an official requirement that brough Jospeh to Bethlehem at that time. As the Augustan census was underway at the time, there may be some connection.