ask Vinnie on that
OK…true…Joseph was engaged to Mary and discovered she was pregnant, had his dream and married her. There is no mention of locale beyond the baby being born in Bethlehem…but later in that chapter it says that after Bethlehem and Egypt, they went to Nazareth. Mark, John and Acts have Jesus being from Nazareth. It seems that Nazareth is understood as where Jesus grew up.
Luke does not give a date for the census. He just says there was one. The fact that Caesar Augustus was obsessed with censuses makes it hard to say there might not have been a census around the era of Jesus’ birth (4-7 B.C.E.). The name of Quirinius being attached to it is problematic though. Censuses took years, even decades to do.
Great question. I would whole heartedly endorse the exodus theme in Matthew and each of the four points you list. I would even agree (to an extent) with Bruce Vawter that the early Christian’s saw themselves as having permission to re-read the OT in ways that we would find surprising today. Where did they get this idea from? I would suggest from Jesus himself.
I also think there is a lot of historical telescoping going on in how Luke and Matthew get Jesus to Nazareth. But whilst this make reconstructing a general timeline problematic I don’t think it therefore means that the event in one or both of these narratives didn’t happen.
I think it is also worth noting that Luke gets some historical details wrong Eg. Quirinius vs. Caesar Augustus. This would be easily done in a time when people didn’t have access to historical political records as we do today. However, it does give a date range in which these things took place.
I also think Luke confused a census of the Roman world with a census of Israel* or that there was a census but only those in Israel were required to return to their ancestral homes.
I think it shows that they believed in a Scripture that was dynamic, living, and multi-layered; One that could be read Christocentrically to unlock treasures long hidden. And that they believed in a Divine Author who was sovereign over time, space, places, and people.
Not trying to disprove what you’ve written, as I’ve already said:
So I would be interested in whether we can affirm any common ground here?
—-
*Israel = I’m using Israel (for ease) as shorthand for Judea, Samaria and Galilee,’fully recognising that Israel was not a thing in those days.
This census was supposed to be so everyone could be taxed. And so people were expected to stay in their home towns so the authorities could tax them according to what they owned.
But why do you think it did happen is my question? Given you say this:
“I would even agree (to an extent) with Bruce Vawter that the early Christian’s saw themselves as having permission to re-read the OT in ways that we would find surprising today. Where did they get this idea from? I would suggest from Jesus himself.”
Why did they also not “see themselves as having permission to re-read Jesus in ways that we would find surprising today?” I believe John’s whole Gospel did this to a large extent. Jesus says and does things very differently than in the synoptics. Why can they use the OT so loosely or plastically but not create Jesus a birth narrative? I understand the possibility of historical kernels that became great stories but why in the infancy narratives specifically? Whether Jesus gave a sermon on the mount or a plain is irrelevant to me. Whether he said all this stuff in one sitting or it was spread out as it is in Luke is irrelevant. In both cases, though yes our authors are editors, they are using what in all likelihood is basic traditional material about Jesus. I don’t see that in the infancy narratives in regards to the broad outline. Jesus had parents named Joseph and Mary, he was born very roughly within two decades. Herod the Great was alive or the tetrarchy of his children was in place. Crucifixion under Pilate whose tenure can be dated reasonably provides us the upper bookend. I am trying to understand what in the infancy narratives has any semblance of actual history given all the errors, problems and theological motivation for creation.
The point for me is the majority of the NT shows no awareness of these details. Everywhere we turn outside these few small chapters in Matthew and Luke, it is Nazareth, Nazareth Nazareth. What good can come from there they say? The demons who know who he is call him Jesus of Nazareth in Mark. All of a sudden because of theological motivation, Matthew and Luke both want Jesus born in Bethlehem. The tradition of Nazareth is way too strong. So they both create stories on how Jesus of Nazareth could have been born in Bethlehem. Luke has him part of a universal census and Matthew the end of Herod’s reign. THey casted him in light of ancient events of significance. Telescoping is a fancy evangelical buzzword and I agree it is sometimes appropriate. But I don’t see it in the infancy narratives. Now it’s not impossible someone knew Jesus was always from Bethlehem but lived in Nazareth and the authors just filled in Gaps creatively. If we accept Q there are some overlaps and similarities in their independent works.
And these are very minor mistakes as you mention the lack of access to political records or say the internet!
We can agree Jesus is the new and greater Moses. That in him is the fulfillment of Israel. I think we can also agree that God condescended himself during the incarnation and that Luke having him born in a manger, under the lowliest and most humble of circumstances is true. Nothing suggests wealth on the part of Jesus or his family in the tradition so I absolutely affirm a very humble birth of Jesus. An obscure Jew from some backwater hamlet in Galilee!
I just am not convinced he was born in Bethlehem, I don’t care about Davidic birth (because scripture was used so plastically and he is not my favorite character to begin with). I love how Jesus even seems to distance himself a bit from David in the Gospels! The Virgin Birth I will only accept on the basis of the magisterial teachings of the Church. There is really nothing else in favor of it in my opinion. It is certainly not a theological necessity to bypass original sin.
Vinnie
1 Like
Yes he grew up in Nazareth, and was called Jesus of Nazareth. But Matthew makes no mention of a journey of Mary and Joseph from Nazareth to Bethlehem.
1 Like
Matthew and Luke either created or had a tradition of Jesus being from Bethlehem. Yet they seem to get him there in contradictory ways. In Matthew, Bethlehem seems to be where Mary and Joseph live considering its where they want to return to after their sojourn in Egypt but elect to “retreat” to Galilee because one of Herod’s sons (Archelaus) is ruling Judea (Mt 2:19-23). The wording of this settling in Nazareth does not, in Meier’s words, sound like a “return to the old homestead” as he formally introduces Nazareth for the first time and uses the same words in 4:13 when Jesus left Nazareth and settled down in Capernaum.[1] This decision comes through a warning in a dream (Mt 2:22), curiously, just after the Lord told him in a dream that those seeking to kill Jesus are now dead and it is safe to return to Israel (2:21). Was the angel of the Lord wrong in sending Joseph back? Was it or was it not safe?
Also, this account becomes even more implausible if we ask whether or not the angel of the Lord knew that another of Herod’s sons (Herod Antipas) was ruling Galilee at the time? The angel basically says its safe, the men chasing after you have died, go back to Israel. It turns out its not actually safe in Judea since Herod’s son is in charge. So Joseph goes to Galilee where Herod’s other son is in charge! One cannot prove an error on this alone but it is a very peculiar account. Given the convoluted narrative Matthew has created, with a sojourn in Egypt meant to cast Jesus in light of the Exodus as a new Moses, he appears to struggle to get Jesus to where everyone knew he was actually from—Nazareth. It is of note to me that the NIV labels this section “the return to Nazareth” despite Matthew not presenting it as a return. The NRSV more soberingly refers to it as “the return from Egypt.” Luke has a pregnant Mary accompanying Joseph, who clearly lives in Nazareth, to Bethlehem for a census (Luke 2:4-7). At the end of it all they “return to their own town of Nazareth.” (Luke 2:29) A pregnant Mary who is close to delivering her baby is now traveling 90 miles for tax purposes (maybe Joseph would get a discount is one apologetic I hear by registering elsewhere!).
[1] John Meier A Marginal Jew, Vol 1 pg. 212. He also argues on page 211 that the plain sense of the words even before the return from Egypt is that they live in Bethlehem: “In the case of Matthew, the first place name that occurs in his narrative proper (1:18-2:23) is Bethlehem of Judea (2:1). Since no indication of a change of place is given at this point, the reader who knows only Matthew’s story would naturally take the preceding story of “the annunciation to Joseph” (1:18-25) as located in Bethlehem too.” This fits in with the magi finding the child in a house (presumably theirs) as opposed to a cave or manger, and Herod killing all the boys in Bethlehem and surrounding areas two and under.
Even in Luke we have the same type of problems.
John Meier writes bluntly that Mary was not the source of her purification rituals story in Luke, which are confusingly narrated. First Meier narrates how Luke 2:22 uses their in reference to purification and in the following sentence that they brought Jesus to Jerusalem. Only Mary, the wife would be ritually unclean after given birth. Joseph would have undergone no purification rituals on account of Jesus’ birth. It gets worse for Luke as Meier writes, “Furthermore, Luke conflates two distinct rituals, as the two halves of 2:22 show: the purification of the mother (which, according to Lev 12:1-8 and later rabbinic statements, did require a visit to the tent/temple) and the redemption of the firstborn male child (which required the payment of five shekels to the temple, but not a temple visit). Luke is thus inaccurate when he describes the bringing of the child to the temple as “according to” the Mosaic Law (2:23 + 27). He is likewise incorrect when he connects the redemption or “presentation” of Jesus with the sacrifice of doves or pigeons (actually a part of the purification ritual), while he says nothing about the payment of the shekels, a necessary part of the redemption ritual”[1]
[1] John Meier, A Marginal Jew Vol pg 210. See also Fitzmyer, Luke pg 424, n. 22 for comments on how this historical conundrum has led to some textual tampering.
I just don’t see us really working with history here.
What is the point if the infancy narratives then? Why are they in scripture? What are we to make of them? To me these are the important questions that get loss in missing the literary genre and quibbling over their differences and bad harmonization attempts. Neither author was writing history but each author is communicating truth about Jesus. What is the truth?
1 Like
This article from Bible & Archaeology explains the problems with the census account in Luke. The Bible is explaining that this was the birth of the messiah, as foretold in Micah. What’s not to like?
1 Like
Censuses were for various reasons — declarations of loyalty to Caesar, collecting data for taxation, figuring out who was in what social class, who was about to inherit something, and so on. As for people staying in their home towns…well, in reading The Demography of Roman Egypt (by Bagnall and Frier pub 1994)…sometimes whole communities vanished into the sand dunes when someone cried “The IRS is coming!”
No…we cannot evade taxes nowadays the way they could then…whole villages emptying out while people hid from tax collectors. Not sure how long they got away with that.Caesar Augustus was fixated on knowing the state of finances in his world, and this required “financial reform especially with regard to taxation abuses in the provinces,” per the Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (pub 1953). He set up a professional civil service for all of this – and left a written account of financial status before his (Augustus’) death in 14 A.D./C.E.
As for staying in their hometown — the Romans followed local customs. If Joseph and family were of the line of David and counted going to Bethlehem for the census, then the Romans allowed that. Pregnant women walking a distance like Nazareth to Bethlehem — even in advanced stages — happened in those days. See Bailey’s Jesus through Mediterranean Eyes) … and also Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (1994). Also see Bagnall and Frier who cit "an edict of G. Vibius Maximus, governor of Egypt, 104 A.D.) as an example of this.
1 Like
Actually, the matter of Matthew’s account backs in to that other issue of audience. Who was the author focusing on and why did he say things the way he said it? In this case, Matthew was honing in on the reality that Jesus was the Messiah who was to be born in Bethlehem. And then he later asserts (rather suddenly) that Jesus’ family went to Nazareth. It is easy to see why they would not have gone back to Bethlehem — the Herod who ruled there was rather insane (maybe not literally but…) while the one in Galilee was not great, but at least more lenient. And the connection with Nazareth thus linked Jesus with some Old Testament references to the One who “would be called a Nazorean.” The idea that Jesus’ early years were fulfillment of messianic expectations — this is what Matthew is focusing on.
Thanks for the reference. I did just read the Bible and Archaeology piece you referenced. The problem with that is that just about all of his main points are items that others dispute.
Bagnall and Frier say there is “ample evidence” for people going to “their legal domicile” which they illustrate further with the edict of G, Vivius Maximus,…" (p 115 their book cited elsewhere)…Also WBC said Egypt also directed people to go to their original residence…Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (1994) cites 2 Samuel 24 as describing Jewish custom which would have allowed the tradition of a return to the ancestral homeland…and WBC also noted that Egypt directed people to go to their original residences.
Bailey in his book noted that, since they were of the Davidic line, Joseph or Mary (or both) might have had property in the Bethlehem area. …We do not think of these two in that way, but they were of the Davidic line and the gospels do not say much beyond that of them…Bailey is the one who said the journey to Bethlehem, even though preggers, would not have been unlikely for a woman of that era.
The article also noted that Quirinius and Herod did not rule at the same time. The matter of Quirinius certainly runs one into a brick wall on all of this. Both Baker (mentioned above) and also the Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (1953 pub) note that Luke does not say that Quirinius (CCHS uses the word ‘Cyrinius’) himself conducted the census…" Word Biblical Commentary cited Tertullian (who lived about 200 A.D.) as saying the census was done in the governorship of C. Sentius Saturninus (ca 9-3 B.C.) Baker adds that quirinius “was a legate between Varius and Gaius Caesar in 4 BC – 1 BC,” citing the historian Sherwin-White. They said a census would have Quirinius’ name on it, but that does not mean he was a governor, possibly an administrator (whatever!) … And another source said Quirinius was administrator not legate or governor.
Quirinius — Publius Sulpicius Quirinius – was a man who certainly spent a large amount of time in that area of the Roman world. He was in Syria around 9-6 B.C. during the time of Sentius Saturninus, and he was in battle against a local army in an area of what we now call southwestern Turkey in the 4 BC time frame. And then he did go on to bigger and better things in Caesar’s household in 1 A.D. and so forth…
NRSV and also Anchor Bible just say the census was “a literary device” that associated Mary and Joseph, “residents of Nazareth with Bethlehem” in order to connect them with the tradition of Matthew 2.
As we can both see (I suspect), there is a lot of back and forth on this whole subject. The Oxford Bible Commentary is skeptical of the whole birth story, while the CCHS) is not…and then on down the line. WBC, NRSV, Anchor Bible, and Llewellyn (in his New Documents that Illustrate Early Christianity), plus WBC — all use “registration” and not “census.” But that is another issue. Call it what you want. The Romans were bean counters…starting with Augustus.
In the end, I do find this observation interesting and compelling: “Early critics of the Gospel like Celsus never question his statements (regarding a census) while early Christian writers like St. Justin (a Palestinian) appeal to the Roman records as proof of it.”
The likelihood that records of that sort still existed in Justin’s day is not hard to believe. Tertullian, who was slightly later than Justin (maybe but not by much) also cited Roman records as relating, in his case, to the darkness that was experienced around the region around the time of the crucifixion (whole different topic). If they had records, these all were lost when Rome fell a couple centuries later…but no one at the time questioned the reality of these events the way we do now. Telling! Why would not a skeptic like Celsus --who disliked all else about the gospels – not critique the census and tri-to-Bethlehem stories if there were the least amount of reason for doubt? Jesus-going-to-Eygpt? evidently also not bothersome since it happened in that part of the world from time to time for others…
OK… all for me on this
“We may sum up that historical research tends to confirm the accuracy of Luke” (CCHS and also the ICC on Luke). So also says Sherwin-White in his history…
Luke 2:1 says
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
TAXED. They have to see their assets. W2s were not around then.
What? The Romans were conquerors and made up their own rules. And who cares what Egypt did–how is that relevant?
Well, that is one of the reasons for sure for a census! But not the only one. See my other comments.
well…I did give you sources for that, Beagle Lady. I was not just making it up. See remarks elsewhere. And Egypt is very relevant. Rome also had similar policies there.
As for staying in their hometown — the Romans followed local customs. If Joseph and family were of the line of David and counted going to Bethlehem for the census, then the Romans allowed that. Pregnant women walking a distance like Nazareth to Bethlehem — even in advanced stages — happened in those days. See Bailey’s Jesus through Mediterranean Eyes) … and also Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (1994). Also see Bagnall and Frier who cit "an edict of G. Vibius Maximus, governor of Egypt, 104 A.D.) as an example of this.
Well interestingly, one of the reasons that Roman Empire was so successful was that it left local customs largely intact. worship your gods, keep your customs, live largely however you like so long as you stay loyal to Caesar, respect the governor, and pay your taxes! Compare this to say the British Empire which saw itself as a civilising the savages or the Nazi Reich which sought ideological ‘reform’.
1 Like
Can you give me a page number or citation from bailey? I have three of his books. i would like to read what he says abut pregnant women right about to give birth making 90 mile journeys. Also, the idea that everyone went to their ancestral hometown is a bit stretched. Fitzmeyer, in his commentary on Luke, writes:
"Moreover, one wonders why they would be going from Galilee, where they were resident in the territory of Herod Antipas, lo Judea to take part in a census in an area in which they did not live. There is no evidence that in a Roman census people were expected to return to their native lands (as the reading in ms. D suggests) or to their ancestral cities. In a Roman census the people were registered for taxation or military service where they happened to be (or possibly in a large town nearby).
It is true, however, that apographe kat’ oikian or kat’ idian is known from Greek papyri from Egypt, i.e. a registration according to (one’s) house, or ac- cording to one’s (property). The edict of G. Vibius Maximus, recorded in Lon- don Papyrus 904 (from A.O. 104), sets down: “Since registration by household is imminent, it is necessary to notify all who for any reason are absent from their districts to return to their own homes that they may carry out the ordi- nary business of registration and continue faithfully the farming expected of them” (lines 20-27; see A. Deissmann, LAE, 271). Just what pertinence such a regulation in the province of Egypt would have to customs in the province of Syria is hard to say. In any case, it does not say anything about the need to go to one’s ancestral town in order to register in a census. There is, moreover, not a hint that Joseph owned property in Bethlehem; nor can this be deduced even from Matt 2: 11, if that were even remotely pertinent to the Lucan story."
The census is a dues ex machina intended to get Jesus from his home to Bethlehem. It also is utilized for other goals. Fitsmeyer writes:
"In introducing Caesar Augustus, the supreme ruler of the Roman world, Luke depicts him as an agent of God, who by his edict of regis- tration brings it about that Jesus is born in the town of David. Jesus’ Davidic connection is thus dramatically emphasized. . . .
Thus Luke, writing from a later period in the Roman age, associates the birth of Jesus with a famous Roman emperor and suggests that the real bearer of peace and salvation to the whole world is the one whose birth occurred in the town of David and was made known by angels of heaven. By relating Jesus’ birth to a worldwide census, Luke hints at the worldwide significance of that birth. Jesus’ birth is recounted in terms of lowly circumstances to contrast with the majesty and renown of him whom the rest of the Roman world regarded as its savior. The birth in the city of David gives the story a Jewish atmosphere, but that is transformed by the larger reference to Roman history. The child thus born under Pax Augusta will eventually be hailed as “the king, the One Who is to come in the name of the Lord”-and the result will be, “Peace in heaven and glory in the highest heaven” (Luke 19:38)."
Raymond Brown writes in Birth : " Ironically, the Roman emperor, the mightiest figure in the world, is serving God’s plan by issuing an edict for the census of the whole world. He is providing the appropriate setting for the birth of Jesus, the Savior of all those people who are being enrolled."
Vinnie
1 Like
The text says that the census was for taxation, doesn’t it?