What custom are we talking about here?
Maybe Joseph had property in both Bethlehem and Nazareth and went back and forth between the two towns. He might have had $$$. That’s another awkward way to resolve the dilemma.
Is the WBC misreading Tertullian? Brown thinks so in Birth:
“Before I pass a general judgment on the historicity of Luke 2:1-5, let me mention some final efforts to save Lucan accuracy. It has been pro- posed that the present reading of Luke 2:2 is a mistake or textual corruption and that we should read ''under Saturninus as governor of Syria.” (I did not mention this as a textual variant in the NOTE on 2:2, for there is no manuscript evidence that supports it.) Since Saturninus17 was governor in the period 9-6 B.C., this would at least synchronize the census with the reign of Herod the Great, although it still labors under the lack of evi- dence for a Roman census during that reign. The support for identifying Saturninus as the census taker is a passage in Tertullian, Adversus Marcion IV xix 10: “At that time there were censuses that had been taken in Judea under Augustus by Sentius Saturninus, in which they might have enquired about Jesus’ ancestry.” The fact that Tertullian speaks of censuses (plural) is often overlooked,18 and it is assumed that he was refer- ring to the census in Luke 2:1-5. Some have thought that he had a superior text of 2:2 which read “Satuminus”; others have thought that he was correcting the “Quirinius” reading in Luke after consulting Roman census records. However, there is no real evidence that Tertullian had the Lucan census in mind.10 The passage occurs as part of an argument against the Docetists; and Tertullian wants to show that Luke 8:19-21 (“My mother and my brother are those who hear the word of God and do it”) does not mean Jesus denied having any human ancestry. Accordingly, Tertullian points to the census records as a possible way of proving such ancestry. Probably he is assuming that such records existed for Palestine, even as they existed in Tertullian’s own time. This is not just a guess about Tertullian’s reasoning, for we have evidence of his assumptions in relation to the death of Jesus. In the Apologeticum, v 2 and xxi 24, he tells us that Pilate must have reported the facts about the crucifixion to Tiberius who communicated them to the Senate, where there were debates about the divinity of Christ, in which Tiberius favored Christ!"
Critical scholars have addressed these issues to death. The census is incorrect. It is hard to find anyone outside of those in evangelical circles with doctrinal presuppositions to maintain, that think otherwise. There have been a lot of attempted resolutions to this very clear error.
Vinnie
1 Like
Well, Beaglelady, I was citing sources that said these events were done for various reasons. This means “various reasons” which does in fact mean “various reasons” – and that could and did include for taxation. But there were other motivations and purposes as well. Just an historical tidbit.
As I said (and others as well have said), the Romans were bean counters. Caesar Augustus was extremely focused on keeping track of his empire’s finances. See Tacitus for that. I have also see Suetonius sourced, but I have read Tacitus’ Annals/
as for what “the text says” —
"In those days, a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. " —ESV
“In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered.” --NRSV
“It happened in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that the entire world should be registered [on tax lists]. This registration was…” Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
“It happened in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus for all the world to be registered.” – Word Biblical Commentary
“In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world.” …NIV…which has a footnote adding " The census was for military service and taxation". …and then adds that "Jews. however, were exempt from Roman military service.
Bailey actually assumes something of the sort. He asserts that Joseph was returning to the village of his family origin (the city of David), and then makes some statements relating to his (Bailey’s) experience of having lived in that region of the world for several decades. Bailey uses his opinions or insights into the culture in his work. Since Joseph could recite his background, people would have welcomed him as being from King David’s line. He also reads Luke 2:4 as indicating that Joseph and Mary arrived in that location with plenty of time to make arrangements. I recognize (and I am sure you do too) that the Christmas card “no room in the inn” portrayal is imagery but not necessarily how the event unfolded. It’s just a great image and that is all. If the two had arrived in Bethlehem for a census (of whatever sort), they may have already been in that village for some unknown period of time, found accommodations and were in them when the Baby came due. Bailey also noted in his book that Mary’s cousin Elizabeth was in a nearby village. What Joseph did or did not have in terms of wealth, of course, is speculative. The Bible is pretty bare bones in its telling …which leaves room for lots of questions from “inquiring minds” who “want to know.”
Censuses were for various reasons — declarations of loyalty to Caesar and so on. As for people staying in their home towns…well, reading The Demography of Roman Egypt…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 the Roman tax collectors. Not sure how long they got away with that. But at least it happened.
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.
History has shown appeals have been made to solve the Christological problem. Such as the abnormal cases of ‘multiple personalities,’ ‘altered personality,’ ‘double consciousness,’ and other like phenomena of memory and self-consciousness. There are many modern attempts at Christological reconstruction, such as yours - assuming incorrect knowledge. Even if your flood argument is justified by the certain results of an investigation into the obscure regions of our own distracted nature, can scarcely be regarded as valid or satisfactory when applied to the Person of Christ.
What local custom might that be? I guess I should ask a Rabbi but I’d like to have your opinion also.
Thanks Beagle Lady… the Romans acquiesced to local customs. And that lekly meant just about “any” custom that did not interfere with the will of Rome, of course. It is, and never has been, bad policy for occupying powers to leave local customs intact. After all, if people’s lives and traditions are disturbed too deeply at the local level it is likely to cause greater resentment than the general occupation already had caused. Bad politics over all. Recall how Cyrus allowed the worship of local gods, observances etc — just so long as nothing impacted the overall will of Persia. Alexander the Great ended up wanting people to worship (bow down to) him, and that led eventually to rebellion in his troops.
The Cyrus-Alexander references are just as an object lesson —nothing more, by the way.
.
I believe that moderator Liam has also acknowledged this to you. And I also cited a source that suggested an Old Testament passage that would have provided, possibly, a pattern that people followed.
If Joseph and Mary (Maryam in those days) were to “register” somewhere, they knew where their ancestry lay. Bailey, in his book (cited by me everywhere in this discussion) has also said that memories in the Middle East are long. People knew their heritage. I know that I have read — somewhere along the way — that Benjamin and Judah were two of the Israeli tribal groups that survived the Babylonian captivity intact. In that case, there is no reason for Joseph and/or Mary to not know quite specifically where their ancestry lay. And if Mary had just had a rather extreme supernatural experience (plus being pregnant by means that she of all people knew was not a consequence of lying with a man) — I would imagine that this may have also added to her awareness of her heritage. I am NOT making a theological declaration here – only speculating. The average inhabitant of Judea/Samaria in that era expected that a Jewish man who was both Messiah and God – would soon come. (See Dead Sea Scrolls/Qumran community stuff etc.) They just did not know “all the deets” as we do – or presume that we do.
OK…just look at other things I have cited in lo these many posts… And I wonder what a rabbi would say!! That also would be interesting. They may or may not know.
I was making a joke. We can infer from the Bible that Joseph did not have wealth, right?
What passage is that?
Did not have extensive wealth, but being a carpenter/builder was decently middle-class for Judea at the time, so not as poor as a day-laborer, but not super wealthy.
1 Like
I have likely read a number of things about Joseph and what his occupation was, what Jesus’ occupation entailed (was tekton a carpenter? or a stone mason? as in: how many trees WERE there in Galilee? not my question but the question of others). All this to determine economic status. When Joseph and Mary went to make offerings at the temple with their 8-day-old son, the offerings they gave were the sort of things that the poor gave (see biblical refs on this). Thus people presume they were poor to some extent. But eventually the magi (wise men) came bearing gifts. These gifts were worth at least a bit of money. You could say these were God’s provision for the family in general – after all, everything comes from God in some way. Thus, perhaps, after the visit of the magi, they had a slightly better economic status. But I am only speculating. There is lots of that going on…As for your other question re OT passages…just look at what I have said elsewhere…no repeating. Christmas is four days away. Gotta get stuff done!
There was no real middle class back then. There were haves and have-nots. We can infer that Joseph did not have a lot of money by the sacrifice he offered at the Presentation of Jesus in the temple.
Oh come on. I can’t wade through all your voluminous posts. Why not just come out and say it?
So why did they take the cheap option at the Presentation?
for Judea at the time: i.e. they were above subsistence farmers, day-laborers, and those referred to as “the poor”. They would be about the equivalent of the medieval craftsman, have-nots, but somewhat higher within the have-nots.
Maybe @LM77 can help me out here. You said the Romans left local customs intact in most cases, so what Jewish custom are we talking about that had Joseph and Mary travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem? Is it in the Bible?
Thanks Vinnie. I have read Brown and also some of Meier. See my reference to the issue of whether people could, or needed to, return to their ancestral abode --or wherever they thought appropriate – for a census counting. My remarks ( a day ago) were in a response (twice) to Beaglelady who says she read neither. There seems to be a lot of back and forth amongst historians/commentators on this issue. The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels questions it but says that maybe going to the old homestead might have been allowed if the census were from Rome but conducted as a Jewish one… This is fine, of course, but then we do also have those sources (which we have cited) who said that Rome allowed local districts to perform required administrative or governing orders in a way they saw fit. Just so long as it gone done, evidently. Somewhat begs the questiion.since, if Rome allowed people to follow local traditions (should they so choose), then any sort of census/registration/counting-event/administrative procedure they required would, in the end, be regionally or locally administered. Far as I am concerned, if someone demonstrates that Rome allowed local touches to its edicts, then that settles it…
Settles what? It’s a nightmare to require everyone to go to their ancestral homeland for taxation.
Critical scholars aren’t back and forth on the census. The majority state Luke made a mistake. That is what historians believe. It’s an error. Because many conservatives evangelicals have doctrinal beliefs to maintain regarding the Bible, they try as hard as they can to show this is not an error. Scholarship is not divided on the issue. You have conservative, evangelical scholars with pious imagination vs critical scholars with the historical critical method. The latter argue error, most of the former try to dismiss every and any error in scripture.
1 Like