dockeen

I saw a new defense (to me) this evening in which it is claimed that by shlepping
over the Bethlehem, Joseph would qualify for lower tax rates, and taking his pregnant
wife along would make him eligible for the same lower rate.

Of course, one does have to consider the source:

http://conservapedia.com/Luke_and_the_Census

ApostateAbe

You can solve any exegetical problem by rewriting what the texts actually claim. For example, maybe the journey to Bethlehem was all just a hallucination that Joseph had after Joseph and Mary ate some wild mushrooms. Mary became pregnant, and they had no idea what happened, so they believed the hallucination. That's possible, too.

Toto

Conservapedia is noted for its effort to translate the Bible into modern English without the liberal bias of previous translations. The editor there notes that the effort was featured on the Colbert report, as if this were something other than mockery.

That section does do a thorough job of trying to rehabilitate the Lukan census, but it's a lost cause.

DCHindley

From my reading, it appears that in the 1st century the temple organization governed tenancy rights on certain portions of land, at that time about half the land of Judea (the rest had been confiscated by succeeding conquerers, and was also leased out for rent by the Romans and their toadies). Technically, God alone owned the arable land of Israel (he allowed the permanent ownership of non arable portions such as houses in towns/villages, olive presses and threshing floors). The tenants held posession of certain tracts of arable land by agreeing to pay tithes on their produce to the temple. I cannot find the passage offhand, but Josephus called the arrangement a "lease". If someone is hard on their luck, and needs cash (say to move to another province or tetrarchy where they could buy land or at east operate with lower overhead), and he held right of tenancy on plots of temple administered land in Judea, he could "sell" that right to someone else for a period (it seemed to vary between 7 & 70 years). He or his descendants could then at the end of the agreed period redeem the loan and revive their right of tenancy (with some adjustments for improvements that might have been made to the property or land, such as irrigation or barns). The terms, I suppose, would be negotiated by the parties involved, and ratified by the appropriate temple authorities.

Anyone who knows someone who owns an actual operating farm or similar agricultural operation, him/herself knows that a significant amount of money is tied up in the operation. Any acquisition of land, either by purchase or lease, involves lawyers (in this case scribes) and judges.

No wonder why "God" sent Magi with gifts of gold, frankincense & myrhh. That is, unless Joseph made his fortune along the Persian trade routes from Asia and China, and these men and their gifts represent that, meaning Joseph had a wad of cash (gold, or at least letters of credit) and sought to retire in Judea on land his ancestors had sold the rights to 70 years previously.

Someday, he thought, even his son could one day be king. In other words, Joseph father of Jesus was the forerunner of Joseph Kennedy, whose son John became president of these here United States.

DCH

Chili

Nah, he went to give an account of himself that we call confession.

DCHindley

Jesus' relatives seem to have owned some land in the time of Domitian:

Hegesippus:

So he asked them whether they were of the family of David; and they confessed they were. Next he asked them what property they had, or how much money they possessed. They both replied that they had only 9000 denaria between them, each of them owning half that sum; but even this they said they did not possess in cash, but as the estimated value of some land, consisting of thirty-nine plethra only, out of which they had to pay the dues, and that they supported themselves by their own labour. And then they began to hold out their hands, exhibiting, as proof of their manual labour, the roughness of their skin, and the corns raised on their hands by constant work. [Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., iii. 20]

Thirty Nine "plethra," equals roughly 13 acres if the original Greek measure was meant, or about 27 acres if equated with thge Roman iugerum*.

Just to illustrate how confusing the debate is regarding the relative value of this land, here are two authorities (selected simply because I have their books):

David H Fiensy, The Social History of Palestine in the Herodian Period (1991, pp 92-95):

We must also include small freeholders (…, t. Peah 2:2) in this chapter on agricultural workers in the service of the elite. They served the elite mainly in that they paid taxes, probably the brunt of the taxes for Palestine under Herod and his successors. Much of these revenues went to build cities such as Caesarea Maritima, Sebaste, and Phasaelis and palaces such as Masada and Herodium which did not benefit the peasants at all. Moreover, Herod made large gifts to neighboring Greek cities and political notables from his revenues. The concept of taxation for the good of the nation as a whole is not an ancient one. Moreover, the average Jewish peasant supported an aristocratic priesthood (at least partially) through tithes. Thus the taxation-tithing relationship that existed between the elites
and the peasants was just as much an "asymmetrical power relationship" as that between landlord and tenant. Indeed there is very little difference between having to pay a percentage of one's crop in rent and having to pay a percentage in taxes.

The main difference between small freeholders and tenants was that the former was totally responsible for his harvest. As Finley has observed: "The freer the ancient peasant, in the political sense, the more precarious his position." A tenant might receive assistance during a drought from a beneficent (or shrewd) landlord and perhaps a relaxation of rent payments. But the freeholder would pile up debts against his land during those times and probably wind up losing his land. "Debt was always the nightmare of the small freehold peasant...."

Although there were probably some small freeholders who lived fairly comfortably, the peasant in the Greco-Roman world in general "was always at the margin of safety." This condition was due to small farmplots, natural and man-made disasters, and taxation. Ben-David (whose figures match those of Oakman) has calculated that a family of six to nine people would have needed seven hectares or around 16.8 acres (half of which would lie fallow each year) to subsist comfortably and pay taxes or rents. A study by Hopkins found that a family of 3.25 persons would require in Italy 7 to 8 iugera of land ( = around 4.5 acres) to meet the minimum food requirements or 8 acres for a family of six people. But K. D. White argues that this acreage is too low and that a peasant holding such a small amount of land would have to hire out as a day laborer to supplement his income. Dar maintains that a peasant owning 5 to 6 acres could live comfortably meeting all his subsistence needs. Applebaum, however, has challenged Dar's estimate on the amount of land needed to feed a family especially since Dar failed to consider that virtually all ancients let half their land lie fallow every year to replenish it. Brunt's estimate as to how many iugera could feed one person in Italy results in the sum of 10.8 acres for six people. Thus the suggestions of necessary acreage are as follows:

1. Ben David	16.8 acres
2. Oakman	16.5 acres
3. Hopkins	8
4. Dar	6
5. Brunt	10.9
6. White	(more than 8 acres)
7. Applebaum	(more than 6 acres)

We must remember that half of this land would lie fallow every year, a standard practice in the ancient world.

Perhaps the simplest way to figure the crop yield for Palestine is to take the standard measurement of a Kor's space (i.e., the area which one Kor's measurement or 5 bushels seed could sow). A Kor's space was approximately 5.8 acres and would yield normally five fold. Thus one Kor's space (leaving half fallow) could feed a family of six, after taxes (see below) for about 110 days at the rate of 400 grams of wheat per day. A farm consisting of three Kor's spaces then (17.4 acres) could feed the family the basic grain staple for a year.

This calculation is purely hypothetical, however. In the first place most peasants, as Dar has shown, probably cultivated vines, olives, and grains. Perhaps the vines and olives yielded more equivalent calories than grains. Second peasants probably sowed grains in between the rows of olive trees thus utilizing every available inch of space. Thus our calculation above can only serve as a rough guideline in determining a peasant's income.

In spite of the fact that a family might need more land, evidence exists that many family plots were no larger than 6 acres. First of all we might point to the references to 7 iugera ( = 4.5 acres) farms as standard size in republican Rome. Second are the references in the Latin sources to allotments made in the first century which according to literary allusions and other considerations must have been around 10 iugera (6.3 acres). Many families in Palestine must have subsisted on similar plots. The reference in Eusebius (HE 3.20) to the two grandchildren of Jude the brother of Jesus indicates they possessed between them 39 plethra of land, which would be probably around 6 acres per family. In addition, we have the archaeological evidence from Galilee that most farm plots in antiquity were 4 acres (though they vary commonly from 1 to 15 acres). Finally there are the conclusions from Dar's survey of Hirbet Buraq in Samaria which is one and one half miles southeast of Qawarat Bene Hassan (see above Chapter 2). The team discovered an area of small marked-off plots around an ancient village ruin, evidently owned by small freeholders, since there was no evidence of a tenurial system here such as was found at Qawarat Bene-Hassan. The area totaled 445 acres which was divided by 70 households for an average of 6 acres per family. Naturally some might have owned more or less land, but a combination (as existed at Qawarat Bene-Hassan for tenant farmers) of a vineyard, an olive orchard, and a field for grain probably in most cases was close to the average. Similar results have been found also in Judea. Thus, although we cannot say that most freeholders in Herodian Palestine only owned 6 acres of land (since our evidence is very incomplete), still some of them did. On the other hand we can find no evidence that indicates most peasants owned more land than this.

Jack Pastor, Land and Economy in Ancient Palestine, 1997, pp 8-10):

Some scholars feel that the Land of Israel was more agriculturally productive in the ancient past than in anytime up to the introduction of modern technology. There is no doubt that the country was considered fertile and productive by the standards of the region and the time. Nevertheless, two questions are of immediate concern in dealing with economic and social problems. Was the country able to feed its population? How much land was necessary to feed a person?

The literary sources are few, and not necessarily illustrative of the common situation. However, Brunt used information provided by Cato and Polybius on ration needs of slaves and soldiers, demonstrating that two iugera were needed to support one adult. This has been confirmed by the work of White and Hopkins. Some modern works quote Eusebius' anecdote about the sons of Jesus' brother. These two men lived off a farm of 39 plethora (Alon claims that equals 34 dunams.) Oakman tried to compare the figures from Italy derived by Hopkins, and the figures from Eusebius, while taking into consideration that some land had to be fallow. His conclusion was that a "subsistence plot in antiquity was, then, about 1.5 acres" (6 dunams). Feliks notes that the Talmudic literature mentions plots of a few dunams to plots of 23 dunams which are considered generous.

Shimon Dar working on the basis of archaeological surveys in northwestern Samaria reached a conclusion for the Roman-Byzantine era that a family holding averaged 39-45 dunams. Admittedly the evidence is drawn from a limited geographical area, but another survey in the western Hebron Mountain region found the average size of farms to be 30-50 dunams. Comparative figures for other Mediterranean areas are 40 dunams for Attica and 5-25 dunams for Italy.

Dar contends that the average Jewish farmer lived on a smallholding worked by himself and his family. It is difficult if not impossible to determine what the average size of an agricultural unit was. The Mishnah recognizes the minimum size of a field to be nine "kabs." The Tosefta mandates 9.5 kabs as the minimum size of a field. Dar notes that deeds from the Nessana area in the late Roman-Byzantine period show small plots of only 1-4 dunams.

Applebaum, working from the archaeological research in Samaria, maintains that 25 dunams may have been the average figure of a holding. He quotes Ben-David, who working from talmudic sources suggests 40 batei scab as the average holding needed to support a family, which he computes as 31.3 dunams. These figures of Ben-David are derived from the Mishnah. Orman based on a survey of the Golan region found an average settlement comprised 20 dunams? Golomb and Kedar found enclosed fields in the Galilee were about 16 dunams, although individual plots may vary between about 4 dunams to even 60 dunams

However, not only subsistence farms draw our interest. As we shall demonstrate one of the recurring problems of the landownership system of Israel was the tendency to concentrate large areas of land in a few hands; with all the concomitant ills of debt, starvation, and social unrest. Fiensy, basing his work on Dohr, claims that most "gentlemen landowners" owned "medium-sized estates of 80-500 iugera."

Most people lived in villages during our period. Portugali, working with an average population density of 45 persons per dunam in a settlement (village, town, city), multiplying that figure by the number of sites for each period, comes to the conclusion that the western portion of the Jezreel Valley had a population of 13,000 in the Persian period, 18,000 in the Hellenistic period, and 34,000 in the Roman period. Of course these numbers could be wrong. There is no guarantee that all the settlements have been discovered. Furthermore, the supposed size of a settlement is dependent on how well the survey really revealed the site. Finally how sure can we be that 45 persons per dunam is always the average density? Nevertheless Portugali's figures give us an approximate figure from which we can judge the minimum nutrient needs of an area.

I have not even attempted to subject this to analysis, but it looks very convoluted and difficult to decompose, as there are two different standards for the Greek "plethra", the original measure and later as a stand-in for the Roman Iguera/aurora.

DCH

PS: See below for a key to interpreting the problem. These equations come from an old Freeware program by Stefan Kloppenborg called Denarius Converter. Good luck trying to find it online, as he has not supported it or promoted it for over 10 years. He doesn't say where the data comes from, so I e-mailed him years ago and he said he just used "the usual references." I took it to mean it was thrown together and equations should be taken as approximate. You can modify the equations yourself, so anyone can fine tune it to be more precise (Anyone interested in having the program please e-mail me and I'll send it to you as an attachment). The value of it all? Hegesippus claims it had a value of 9,000 denarii. That is enough to support one person at subsistence for 25 years.

*39 plethron (Greek measure)

=19.500000 aroura(e)
=0.195000 pecheis(2)
=19.500000 schoinion(2)
=19.500000 iugerum(-a)
=5.374200 hectare(s)
=13.279648 acre(s)
=53.742000 dunam(s)

39 plethron (Roman useage)

=39.000000 aroura(e)
=0.390000 pecheis(2)
=39.000000 schoinion(2)
=39.000000 iugerum(-a)
=10.748400 hectare(s)
=26.559296 acre(s)
=107.484000 dunam(s)

Toto

These so-called relatives of Jesus would be the Desposyni. The Romans do not seem to have been at all impressed with their claims to be related to the Lord and Savior.

There are some threads in the archives on the Desposyni (also spelled Desposynoi.)

DCHindley

As long as we are talking about Landau's suggestion that the Magi were checking into the possibility of the birth of a royal claimant to challenge Herod, the desposyni (which means "little despots") had the following to say about Herod's own legitimacy:

Julius Africanus. (1st half of 3rd Century AD) "Epistle to Aristides":

“A few, however, of the studious, having private records of their own, either by remembering the names or by getting at them in some other way from the archives, pride themselves in preserving the memory of their noble descent: and among these happen to be those already mentioned [in a prior paragraph dealing with the “kinsmen of the Savior” and their version of Herod’s ancestry in which he is the son of a slave, who was in turn the son of a servant of the Temple of Apollo in Ascalon, and thus not a true Idumean Jew, and with Herod allegedly burning the public archives to hide the “fact”], called “desposyni”, on account of their connection with the family of the Savior. And these coming from Nazara and Cochaba, Judean villages, to other parts of the country, set forth the above-named genealogy [meaning either Africanus’ earlier attempt to reconcile the two Gospel genealogies by reference to the lack of official records caused by Herod’s supposed burning of the public archives, or to the remarks about Herod’s supposed ancestry mentioned above], as accurately as possible from the Book of Days.” [Eusebius, History of the Church 1:7] The “Book of Days” is thought to be some sort of public register of births and/or deaths."

Sometimes the backstory is more interesting in the public story. That the interfamily bickering went deep, Hegesippus also is represented by Eusebius as saying:

1. It is reported that after the age of Nero and Domitian, under the emperor whose times we are now recording [that is, Trajan's], a persecution was stirred up against us in certain cities in consequence of a popular uprising. In this persecution we have understood that Symeon, the son of Clopas, who, as we have shown, was the second bishop of the church of Jerusalem, suffered martyrdom.

2. Hegesippus, whose words we have already quoted in various places, is a witness to this fact also. Speaking of certain heretics he adds that Symeon was accused by them at this time; and since it was clear that he was a Christian, he was tortured in various ways for many days, and astonished even the judge himself and his attendants in the highest degree, and finally he suffered a death similar to that of our Lord.

3. But there is nothing like hearing the historian himself, who writes as follows: "Certain of these heretics brought accusation against Symeon, the son of Clopas, on the ground that he was a descendant of David and a Christian; and thus he suffered martyrdom, at the age of one hundred and twenty years, while Trajan was emperor and Atticus governor."

4. And the same writer says that his accusers also, when search was made for the descendants of David, were arrested as belonging to that family. And it might be reasonably assumed that Symeon was one of those that saw and heard the Lord, judging from the length of his life, and from the fact that the Gospel makes mention of Mary, the wife of Clopas, who was the father of Symeon, as has been already shown.

5. The same historian says that there were also others, descended from one of the so-called brothers of the Saviour, whose name was Judas, who, after they had borne testimony before Domitian, as has been already recorded, in behalf of faith in Christ, lived until the same reign [that is, of Domitian]. [Eusebius 3:32]

So, we got factions of the family of David trying to get other factions of the family into serious trouble, and succeeded in the time of Trajan, to their own peril. "Family of David" seems to be (Roman?) code for "Royal claimants." Claiming descent alone, though, did not seem to merit execution in Domtian's time. Trajan, FWIW, was considered a progressive emperor. If his governor had Symeon executed, it was likely with some reason (that means sedition, which merited torture to get the "truth" and execution similar to the Lords = crucifixion). Put 2 + 2 together folks. Eusebius, I believe, assumes that this Symeon he had heard was executed in Trajan's time for being of the "family of David" must have been Symeon mentioned in scripture, and adds "and of being a christiuan" etc to Hegesippus' account. Hegesippus only mentions it because the Gospels claim Jesus is descended from David.

DCH

Duvduv

Presumably then he could get food stamps and Section 8. Maybe even SSI........(!!)

Diogenes the Cynic

He wouldn't have paid Roman taxes at all if he stayed in Galilee. The census and tax only applied to Judea.