Jack the Bodiless

Another important point to note about Roman censuses (censi?):

They were intended to record the current population of each town. This is important for taxation, water supply etc etc. Thus, there would be no requirement for citizens to return to their birthplaces for the census, merely their current home towns.

And yet, in the Bible, the census is the excuse to move Mary to Bethlehem.

malookiemaloo

Remember reading somewhere (can't remember where-the brain cells are going) that depending on the purpose of the census, people sometimes had to go to their own homes. Censuses (or censi) seemed a popular pastimes with the Romans (well they hadn't started to feed Christians to the lions yet).

As I recall if it was income tax, then you didn't have to go to youir birthplace but if it was for a tax on inheritance (or something similar) you had.

In other words, what I am saying that it was not unknown for people, especially in Israel with emphasis on the family land etc, to go to their place of birth.


m

Secular Pinoy

I think I'll wait for Vork's review of Sanders.

CX

You'll note I did not argue either way regarding the historicity of the census described in the Matthean and Lukan narratives. I said it could not be proven. As such it is not evidence of Jesus.

That is a rather big assumption which requires support.

We cannot know for sure, but certainly there are a number of possibilities. I doubt Luke was simply fabricating a tradition out of whole cloth. If he were we should not expect to see it paralleled in GMt. Rather I suspect this tradition may have been part of one of the sources ALk acknowledges he used in his introduction. It could be that it was a different tradition than that used by AMt. Likewise it could be that ALk knew of a census without having specific details and combined that with a tradition he received regarding Jesus' birth.

malookiemaloo

This is interesting because I had always thought that critics always thought that Luke was 'wrong' and Matthew 'right'. Seems I have got it the wrong way round.

Be devil's advocate for a minute. How would you account for the apparant 10 years difference in the date of Jesus's birth as recorded in Matthew and Luke? The whole Quirinius thing quite fascinates me.

Thanks in anticipation.


m

CX

Hmmmm...I'm not sure what "critics" you mean. I'd say that the scholarly concensus is that both versions are largely ahistorical, each drawing from different traditions and each with a particular theological aim which accounts for the differences.

I would account for any differences by suggesting that neither AMt nor ALk knew the actual circumstances of Jesus' birth and that they developed narratives based on traditions they each received which, while similar in overall theme differed in the details. It's really only a problem if you think either of them are writing literal history.

malookiemaloo

Thanks.


m

Paul Baxter

Well, whatever (as the kids say today). As far as I can tell, Sanders is the single most dominant figure in contemporary NT studies, or something close to it. Perhaps you might compare how many scholars refer to Sanders to how many refer to Vork?

<steps down from soap box>

In any event the work in question is just an introduction. I don't see, having read it, why anyone other than a diehard fundie would consider it as being without great value.

Paul Baxter

no offense meant to you, Vork, of course.

Secular Pinoy

I think you should wait too.