Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Would Mary Have Been In Bethlehem?
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 46 of 156 (508623)
05-15-2009 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by ochaye
05-13-2009 10:52 PM


Possibility vs Probability
quote:
This thread seems to be mostly guesswork (some of it none too reasonable, imv) because there are just too few facts to hand, too many possibilities that the account allows for. If Jews and Romans could not diss this account, and it appears that they had motivation to do so, it does not seem very likely that people 2000 years after the fact can do so.
We can imagine many possibilities, but then we have to determine which of those possibilities are probable.
Possible: being something that may or may not be true or actual
Probable: supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption but not proof
The word "possible" carries the implication that the likelihood is minimal.
The word "probable" carries the implication that the likelihood is strong. IOW, a high chance of occuring.
The OP is trying to look at the probablity that Mary would have actually gone to Bethlehem as the story claims.
I think we can, even 2,000 years later, discern whether account is probable and not just possible.
Many have pointed out the nature of Roman census taking which makes the claim improbable that Mary would have gone to Bethlehem.
The 1st Gospel out, Mark, didn't mention the birth of Jesus at all.
We've found that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark, so those authors came up with the birth from another source.
Matthew is the next Gospel written and the author didn't imply that Mary and Joseph didn't already live in Bethlehem. The author of Matthew needed them in Egypt to fulfill the "called out of Egypt" prophecy. With the Herod massacre of children, the author was mirroring the massacre of children after the birth of Moses. These are probably based on oral stories concerning Jesus at the time.
Luke is a later writing, written about the time of Josephus. Notice no Magi in Luke, but he has shepherds. The mention that there was no room in the inn supports the idea that it would have been a logistical nightmare to send people back to their place of origin. No fleeing to Egypt in Luke, no fear of anyone killing the baby.
The author of Luke had them in Bethlehem (assume by the story) until Jesus was eight days old. When the time of their purification was complete they went to Jerusalem to present Jesus to the Lord. Then they went home to Nazareth.
So by Luke's story this carpenter traveled at least 3 days to the census, stayed eight more days til the child could be circumcised, took another day to travel to Jerusalem, then traveled at least 4 days to get back to Nazareth. Odds are with a pregnant woman and later a baby, the trip took more time, but what we have so far is at least 16 days this man is away from his home and business. This means loss of income and money he would need to spend on a place to stay and food. Since they were going to stay at an inn, we know he didn't have family to stay with or family that had room for them.
One thing about stories, they don't take into account all the everyday realities of a situation.
So, given all this, the probability that the census required Joseph to travel away from home is unlikely.
The probability that the people were required to take their families with them, is unlikely. (Farms and flocks to tend)
Probability is what we trying to discern, not possibilities.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by ochaye, posted 05-13-2009 10:52 PM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by ochaye, posted 05-15-2009 12:23 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 58 by kbertsche, posted 05-16-2009 11:22 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 47 of 156 (508637)
05-15-2009 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Percy
05-15-2009 6:28 AM


it was actually Message 288

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Percy, posted 05-15-2009 6:28 AM Percy has not replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5239 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 48 of 156 (508656)
05-15-2009 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by purpledawn
05-15-2009 6:52 AM


Re: Possibility vs Probability
quote:
We can imagine many possibilities, but then we have to determine which of those possibilities are probable.
All we have to do is discover if the reported event was impossible, and of course possibilities cannot be impossibilities.
When considered from the general context, impossibility of the event is the greatest impossibility. If the Jews were as antagonistic as it seems they were, they would have made the greatest objection possible, if the journey to Bethlehem was either impossible or had not actually happened, because this alleged visit was all about their own religion, which they jealously regarded as their own, as secular history makes abundantly clear. They of course utterly denied then, as they do now, that Jesus was the Messiah, who, as their Scripture indicated, was to come from Bethlehem. It does not matter very much when this was committed to writing, because lore was usually passed on orally at that time, and the facts of Jesus birth, as believed, would have been current very soon after the beginnings of Christian belief- if not before. That the Pharisees and teachers of the Law could not refute Jesus personally counts for very much. The origin of the Messiah was of crucial importance:
'Others said, "He is the Christ." Still others asked, "How can the Christ come from Galilee? Does not the Scripture say that the Christ will come from David's family and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?"' Jn 7:41-42 NIV
In order to accept him, Jesus' disciples must have known where Jesus was born very soon after he started his ministry, and the Jews' leaders must have known soon afterwards, otherwise that ministry would have been cut short. Now that the religion's leaders could not refute the view that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, when they had every legitimate interest and duty in quashing any impostors in short order, is highly significant.
If it is insufficient, the prohibition of Christianity from Trajan onwards is indication that the Romans, who knew a thing or two about their own governance, were apparently quite unable to suppress this new movement that centred on the existence and provenance of one who was being attested to, in homes and synagogues, by reference to Jewish Scriptures that were widely read throughout the empire. Whether or not Julian actually said, "Galilean, you have conquered," matters little. The astonishing fact is that a Galilean artisan soon after got to have his name on the 'front door' of Julian's 'house'!
Edited by ochaye, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by purpledawn, posted 05-15-2009 6:52 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Theodoric, posted 05-15-2009 2:06 PM ochaye has not replied
 Message 50 by purpledawn, posted 05-15-2009 2:30 PM ochaye has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 49 of 156 (508672)
05-15-2009 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by ochaye
05-15-2009 12:23 PM


Re: Possibility vs Probability
quote:
because lore was usually passed on orally at that time
Oral traditions are notorious for being changed through time.
quote:
If the Jews were as antagonistic as it seems they were, they would have made the greatest objection possible, if the journey to Bethlehem was either impossible or had not actually happened, because this alleged visit was all about their own religion, which they jealously regarded as their own, as secular history makes abundantly clear.In order to accept him, Jesus' disciples must have known where Jesus was born very soon after he started his ministry, and the Jews' leaders must have known soon afterwards, otherwise that ministry would have been cut short.
The vast majority of what came to become christians were not jews. Christianity made little or no inroads into judaism, its followers were primarily gentiles. I don't think the jews were much interested in following someone that was supposedly an executed criminal.
The Jews didn't really have much of an opinion either way. There is nothing about your Jesus in the Jewish tradition. SO they didn't make a fuss because it didn't impact them. Maybe because he never existed. The Talmud has him all over the place with in about a 300 year period.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by ochaye, posted 05-15-2009 12:23 PM ochaye has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 50 of 156 (508680)
05-15-2009 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by ochaye
05-15-2009 12:23 PM


Re: Possibility vs Probability
quote:
All we have to do is discover if the reported event was impossible, and of course possibilities cannot be impossibilities.
No we don't have to discover if the supposed event was incapable of happening or impossible. Just because something wouldn't be done, doesn't mean it can't be done. Just because something can be done doesn't mean that it would be done.
As I said, it is about probability, not possibility.
quote:
If the Jews were as antagonistic as it seems they were, they would have made the greatest objection possible, if the journey to Bethlehem was either impossible or had not actually happened, because this alleged visit was all about their own religion, which they jealously regarded as their own, as secular history makes abundantly clear.
The question isn't whether anyone objected to the census or not. It's irrelevant. The question is, was it standard procedure for Rome to require people to journey back to their home of record, so to speak, to register with the census people? It has been shown that they didn't. Therefore that part of the story is not probable.
quote:
It does not matter very much when this was committed to writing, because lore was usually passed on orally at that time, and the facts of Jesus birth, as believed, would have been current very soon after the beginnings of Christian belief- if not before.
Now you're dealing with possiblities. We can make up all the possibilities that we want. It matters that Matthew and Luke don't present the same tale. Their individual details have been found to be improbable. The child massacre in Matthew and the census requirement in Luke are not probable events when we look at records outside the Bible.
quote:
In order to accept him, Jesus' disciples must have known where Jesus was born very soon after he started his ministry, and the Jews' leaders must have known soon afterwards, otherwise that ministry would have been cut short. Now that the religion's leaders could not refute the view that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, when they had every legitimate interest and duty in quashing any impostors in short order, is highly significant.
It's possible, but irrelevant. The authors of Matthew and Luke wrote down a story of Jesus' birth. They included information that supposedly referred to events and people of the time. Their information does not concur with the information on record. So the conclusion is that the events probably didn't occur as described.
Like I said, it is about probably not possibility.
Edited by purpledawn, : Typo

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by ochaye, posted 05-15-2009 12:23 PM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by ochaye, posted 05-15-2009 3:18 PM purpledawn has replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5239 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 51 of 156 (508685)
05-15-2009 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by purpledawn
05-15-2009 2:30 PM


Re: Possibility vs Probability
quote:
we don't have to discover if the supposed event was incapable of happening or impossible.
There seems little purpose to the debate unless we do.
quote:
The question isn't whether anyone objected to the census or not.
Quite so. It's a question of whether they would have objected to Jesus as Messiah, or not.
quote:
Now you're dealing with possiblities.
It's an injection of normative historical method into a thread that quite possibly needs a boost of same!
As already mentioned, but consistently ignored so far, two very powerful factions with the greatest interest in denying the gospel reports, with the greatest possible competence to do so, completely failed to do so, and in one case (or perhaps both) was (were) forced to follow the maxim, 'If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by purpledawn, posted 05-15-2009 2:30 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by purpledawn, posted 05-15-2009 4:23 PM ochaye has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 52 of 156 (508688)
05-15-2009 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by ochaye
05-15-2009 3:18 PM


Re: Possibility vs Probability
quote:
There seems little purpose to the debate unless we do.
Sure there is. We discuss to determine the probability of the event happening as written.
quote:
Quite so. It's a question of whether they would have objected to Jesus as Messiah, or not.
That also has nothing to do with the discussion. The birth story wasn't necessary for Jesus to be the Jewish Messiah. His actions as an adult would determine if he was the messiah.
The Gospel writers were writing to a Greek audience, not Jewish. The idea of half man, half God was common to the Greek and Roman gods. To compete they had to present Jesus as a literal son of God.
Yes it is probable that they embellished to compete with pagan gods. Even in Catholicism's own writings, the religion explains that is was easier to assimilate pagan religions by attaching Christian symbolism to pagan celebrations, rituals, etc. The pine tree at Christmas, the Yule log, etc.
The inaccuracies in the nativity stories doesn't negate the example that Jesus set for his disciples. The nativity story is not important to who Jesus supposedly was and what we know of his teachings.
Doctrine and dogma that make minor improbable events important and going to extremes to defend them, sometimes casts a shadow on what Jesus was trying to do.
The author of Mark didn't include a birth story and he is considered the earliest writer.
Why the need to "beat em"? Why not understand instead?

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by ochaye, posted 05-15-2009 3:18 PM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by ochaye, posted 05-15-2009 4:37 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5239 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 53 of 156 (508691)
05-15-2009 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by purpledawn
05-15-2009 4:23 PM


Re: Possibility vs Probability
quote:
We discuss to determine the probability of the event happening as written.
We do as we decide for ourselves.
quote:
That also
Also.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by purpledawn, posted 05-15-2009 4:23 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
Asteragros
Member (Idle past 3400 days)
Posts: 40
From: Modena, Italy
Joined: 01-11-2002


Message 54 of 156 (508800)
05-16-2009 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Michamus
05-13-2009 2:22 AM


Since this thread was started by Michamus it seems to me appropriate address this message to him, but to avoid proliferation of criss-crosses messages, this answer of mine is directed, implicitly, also to the other Bible critics, like BlueScat48, Perdition and so on.
Michamus said: This would obviously mean that the first Roman census to occur with Quirinius as Governor of Syria would have been 14AD. This is at least 8 years too late for the supposed birth of Jesus.
Who supposes that the Jesus’ birth was 6 C.E.? I’ve never heard a scholar proposing this idea. Do you want be the first?
I could focus my attention to the historical mistakes you made, but my purpose is to defend the reliability of the Bible. The learned members of this forum become aware surely of this errors of yours.
1
Whatever a critic (BlueScat48 and similars) may say, the mankind history is full of things that make no sense (from some observers viewpoints), at all. (I made yet the example of the Nazi invasion to Russia, but the examples can increase out of all proportion, ranging over through the places and the eras). I hope you are aware of this fundamental characteristics of history so to make not indispensable for my part to cite hundreds of historical facts of this kind.
2
Here I have to clear an aspect of the imperial edict Luke reports. I thought it was yet clear for all but it seems is not so. The apographe (registration, and similar) addressed the Palestine only!. All the dissertations about the roaming from a continent to another (even from Belgium to Cairo!) from what they crop up?
These contributors have to read the Bible more accurately. Maybe, they forget that, for an example, Hebrew daughters who inherited land were required to marry only in the family of their father’s tribe, in order to prevent the circulation of their inheritance from tribe to tribe (Numbers 36:6-9). So, families were given assignments within the territory of their tribe, than the land was kept in the possession of the same family from generation to generation. The inviolability of the hereditary possession is illustrated in the case of Naboth’s vineyard. Naboth refused either to sell it to the king or to exchange it for another vineyard (1 Kings 21:2-6).
The Greek expression pasan ten oikoumenen literally means all the inhabited (earth). This expression doesn’t intend all the regions of the globe inhabited in that epoch but the Palestine, like part of the Roman Empire. To the linguistics scholars this is not odd. Ptolemy Evergetes (Apud Fabricii Biblioth Gr. Tom. 2. p. 608) calls his kingdom even kosmos, "the world".
Now, about the use of the word oikoumene in Luke text, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament states:
The word here used . . . usually denotes the inhabitable world, the parts of the earth which are cultivated and occupied. It is sometimes limited, however, to denote an entire land or country, in contradistinction from the parts of it; thus, to denote the whole of the land of Palestine in distinction from its parts, or to denote that an event would have reference to all the land, and not be confined to one or more parts, as Galilee, Samaria, etc.
Clarke, in his Commentary on the Bible) explains:
It is agreed, on all hands, that this cannot mean the whole world, as in the common translation; for this very sufficient reason, that the Romans had not the dominion of the whole earth, and therefore could have no right to raise levies or taxes in those places to which their dominion did not extend. Oikoumene signifies properly the inhabited part of the earth, from oikeo, to dwell, or inhabit. Polybius makes use of the very words in this text to point out the extent of the Roman government, lib. vi. c. 48; and Plutarch uses the word in exactly the same sense, Pomp. p. 635. See the passages in Wetstein []; It appears that [] Luke used this word oikoumenein this sense in conformity to the Septuagint [the first Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (LXX from now on, in mine messages)], who have applied it in precisely the same way.
In fact, Isaiah 13:5 (LXX) has the same expression (pasan ten oikoumenen) referring to the land of Babylon. So in Isaiah 14:26. Similarly, in Isaiah 24:1 (LXX) this expression refers to the Tyre’s country.
In Acts of the Apostles (another Bible book authored by Luke) 11:28 is reported a synonimical expression (holen ten oikoumenen), that, according Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, XX:2:5; 5:2) appears to restrict it to Palestine and not to the globe.
Moreover, local census were inside the frame of August’s political program. According Tacitus (Annales I:11), August leaved, to his death, a Breviarium Totius Imperii where were indicated all the public incomes, the amount of Roman citizens (and the allies), the taxes and the tributes. It's only obvious that these informations could be collected only by an apographe. Not only this. The history reports about local census performed by August. For example, on 28 B.C.E. he called a census for the Gallia. Some papyrus reveal that Egypt, was under local census, at intervals of 14 years Vita di Ges Cristo (Life of Jesus Christ); author: Giuseppe Ricciotti, 1941, Mondadori, Milan, pages 183-184).
Michamus said: The type of census stipulated in Luke is not found in any historical references of any kind.[]. It is quite clear that a Roman census does not require one to return to their home town. (mess. #3). And: I notice that you [Peg] had no rebuttal to my historical dates in regard to the timing of the only census that was even remotely close to the supposed date of Jesus birth as well, and the complete lack of an historical evidence for a ‘Luke style’ census having ever occurred at all.(mess. #17)
Without offending you, we have historical indications that the obligation to go back to the town of origin (mentioned by Luke) was performed also in other cases. A scholar reported that the obligation to be registered in the place of each one origin, belonging to each one stock or lineage, is attested also by an ordinance of Gaius Vibius Maximus, Egypt’s prefect. According it, the census was according in compliance with the families. This scholar added:
This manner to perform the Palestinian census was a very clever measure, also very opportune, politically. This, because it respected the Hebrew people’s traditions, avoiding, consequently, violent reactions from the part of those subjects [].(Vangelo secondo Luca tradotto e commentato da Benedetto Prete (Gospel according Luke, translated and edited by Benedetto Prete), Rizzoli Editore, Milan, 1961, page 123).
Then, what’s the problem if Luke reports the local apographe of Palestine?
3
The information about Quirinius are enough to give reliability to the Luke’s account.
We know from the historical data we have in our possession today that Quirinius was hegemon twice (I’ve yet gave the historical indication about this in mine message #33). The Quirinius’s first political office history records was on 12 B.C.E. In that year were apponted the consuls Publius Sulpicius Quirinius and Marcus Valerius Messalla Barbatus Appianus Cronologia Universale U.T.E.T. (U.T.E.T. Universal Chronology), 1995, Turin, Italy, on the date "12 a.C."; Vita di Ges Cristo (Life of Jesus Christ); author: Giuseppe Ricciotti, 1941, Mondadori, Milan, Italy, page 184.
So, since Luke linked the Syria’s apographe period to the synchronical period August/Quirinius, it’s clear that the first Quirinius’ hegemonia over the Syria must be found in period 12 B.C.E. - birth of Christ.
Now, in the about 10-8 B.C.E. span, Marcus Titius was hegemon of Syria; into the period 8-6 B.C.E. it was Sentius Saturninus; from 6 to 5 B.C.E. that assignment was invested by Quintilius Varo Vita di Ges Cristo (Life of Jesus Christ); author: Giuseppe Ricciotti, 1941, Mondadori, Milan, Italy, page 185.
Since the span 12-8 B.C.E. is too far to be linked with the birth of Jesus, it remains to us the only period 5-1 B.C.E. We don’t possess, until now, no historical data for establish who was the hegemon of Syria, in that period.
Why, it would be considered untrustworthy the Luke’s datum that Quirinius was hegemon of Syria?
Would I say like you have made (This is so that the moderately to poorly educated christian can believe the book to be accurate in reference to Quirinius as governor of Syria around the time of Jesus birth (Michamus mess. #24)?
This is the manner to confront data and ideas?
So, if I believe in what Luke stated, it means I am a poorly educated christian?
Compliments for your cogent logic.
You should know that the attack ad personam is performed when one is badly off arguments.
So, must I deny the reliability of Luke’s report only for you are very prejudiced about the Bible?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Michamus, posted 05-13-2009 2:22 AM Michamus has not replied

  
Asteragros
Member (Idle past 3400 days)
Posts: 40
From: Modena, Italy
Joined: 01-11-2002


Message 55 of 156 (508802)
05-16-2009 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Perdition
05-12-2009 5:06 PM


Sorry, you have to read the Bible more accurately.
Maybe, you have forget that, for an example, Hebrew daughters who inherited land were required to marry only in the family of their father’s tribe, in order to prevent the circulation of their inheritance from tribe to tribe (Numbers 36:6-9).
So, families were given assignments within the territory of their tribe, than the land was kept in the possession of the same family from generation to generation.
The inviolability of the hereditary possession is illustrated in the case of Naboth’s vineyard. Naboth refused either to sell it to the king or to exchange it for another vineyard (1 Kings 21:2-6).
Then, there wasn't any roaming of people throughout the Roman Empire.
(Please read also my answer to Michamus [mess. #54]).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Perdition, posted 05-12-2009 5:06 PM Perdition has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Theodoric, posted 05-16-2009 1:00 PM Asteragros has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 56 of 156 (508824)
05-16-2009 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Asteragros
05-16-2009 10:25 AM


quote:
Then, there wasn't any roaming of people throughout the Roman Empire.
So only Jewish people were counted and taxed?
Weird. I never knew that.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Asteragros, posted 05-16-2009 10:25 AM Asteragros has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 57 of 156 (508835)
05-16-2009 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Asteragros
05-12-2009 12:59 PM


quote:
Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was hegemon (one who is in power) of Syria twice (2 BCE and 6 or 7 CE).
We have no evidence placing Quirinius as governor of Syria at either date. Josephus tells us that Quirinius was sent to Judea and held a census in 6 AD when the Romans fully annexed Judaea.
quote:
Luke himself says that apographe was the first (protos), to infer that another apographe was occurred, at least. Two registrations are mentioned in the Christian Greek Scriptures as taking place after Judea came under subjection to Rome. The first is that reported Luke 2:1-3.
Of course there would be another census after 6 AD - but the 6 AD census appears to be the first in Judaea.
quote:
This was really the second registration under Quirinius, for inscriptions discovered at and near Antioch revealed that some years earlier Quirinius had served as the emperor’s legate in Syria (The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, by W. Ramsay, 1979, pp. 285, 291).
Perhaps you can tell us how the stones discovered at this Antioch tell us that he was legate in Syria.
quote:
Peg is right when cites the Lapis Tiburtinus (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, edited by H. Dessau, Berlin, 1887, Vol. 14, p. 397, No. 3613). It contains the statement that on going to Syria he became governor (or, legate) for ‘the second time.’
No, she is not. The surviving portion of the Lapis Tiburtinus does not mention a name, and there is nothing on it which indicates that it belongs to Quirinius. Nor does it unambiguously state that the person it refers to was twice governor of Syria (it appears more likely to mean governor of Asia and governor of Syria).
quote:
She is right also when mentions the Jewish Antiquities, XVI, 277, 280 [ix, 1]; XVI, 344 [x, 8] to prove the possible duality of the hegemons we discuss.
And she is wrong again since in the Jewish War (Book 1, Chapter 27), Josephus identified Volumnius as the Procurator. So there is nothing special there.
So where is the evidence of this supposed earlier census, other than a wish to deny the obvious inference that Luke referred to the census of 6 AD ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Asteragros, posted 05-12-2009 12:59 PM Asteragros has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Asteragros, posted 05-22-2009 3:38 AM PaulK has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 58 of 156 (508874)
05-16-2009 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by purpledawn
05-15-2009 6:52 AM


Re: Possibility vs Probability
quote:
The OP is trying to look at the probablity that Mary would have actually gone to Bethlehem as the story claims.
I think we can, even 2,000 years later, discern whether account is probable and not just possible.
The problem with this approach is that it is extremely improbably for almost any historical event to have occurred exactly as it did. And probabilities are difficult to assign and somewhat misleading for historical events--the events either happened or they didn't.
What is the probability that a Mars-sized body would strike the early earth, throw off a large amount of earth material which would be captured by earth's gravity and condense to form our moon? This is extremely improbable, but it is apparently what happened.
Or what is the probability that you would wake up exactly when you did this morning, follow exactly the schedule that you did, with the exact conversations and events that occurred? It is extremely small, nearly zero. But it happened nonetheless.
We must be careful when discussing probabilities of past events. Low probability does not mean that the event didn't happen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by purpledawn, posted 05-15-2009 6:52 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Michamus, posted 05-17-2009 7:10 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied
 Message 60 by purpledawn, posted 05-17-2009 9:50 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
Michamus
Member (Idle past 5158 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 59 of 156 (508913)
05-17-2009 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by kbertsche
05-16-2009 11:22 PM


Re: Possibility vs Probability
kbertsche writes:
What is the probability that a Mars-sized body would strike the early earth, throw off a large amount of earth material which would be captured by earth's gravity and condense to form our moon? This is extremely improbable, but it is apparently what happened.
Actually, the probability of that occurring is 100%. (Post Hoc Probability Fallacy)
kbertsche writes:
Or what is the probability that you would wake up exactly when you did this morning, follow exactly the schedule that you did, with the exact conversations and events that occurred?
Once again, the probability of that occurring is 100%. (Post Hoc Probability Fallacy)
kbertsche writes:
We must be careful when discussing probabilities of past events. Low probability does not mean that the event didn't happen.
Actually, I agree with you on this point. We must be careful when discerning probability of past events. So let's carefully discern the probability of this event.
For this to have occurred as written in Luke, several highly improbable things must have happened.
  • A Roman Census must have occurred that there are no recordings of ever occurring.
This is highly improbable as we have amble historical evidence on the Roman Empire and how it operated. The Romans were known for their meticulous behavior when it came to record keeping. We currently have corroborated sources that clearly indicate 3 census dates near that time period. What is even more damning (oh the irony) is that none of those census dates correspond with the purported census date in Luke.
  • This same Roman Census would have to directly contradict all prior, and following Census methodology.
Not once in recorded history has a Roman Census required the stipulations put forth in Luke. Roman Citizens were the only individuals allowed to participate in the census, and would declare their citizenship with their local bureaucrat, or government representative. The Roman Census was also an opportunity for a Roman Citizen to declare his slaves as Citizens by simply including them in the census under the title "Citizen" (though this rarely occurred).
  • This same Roman Census would have required an unprecedented movement of citizens throughout the Empire.
A Census of this magnitude would have shown on business records in the form of massive sales transactions (think "no room in the inn") that would occur Empire-wide. We have found no corroborating documentation of such a massive business flux.
Now let's compare the probability of all these factors to another possible scenario:
The Roman Census mentioned in Luke was a later applied fabrication to attempt to fulfill an earlier "prophecy" which was perceived to have required the messiah to have come from Bethlehem.
Given the fact that we have ample evidence of people making stories up. Also taking into consideration the abundant evidence that people will make stories up if they have a vested interest in the truthfulness of the story. With finally the lack of evidence supporting the authenticity of the story, with corroborating data stating that in fact the story more than likely couldn't have happened as described, I would say it is massively more probable the story was fabricated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by kbertsche, posted 05-16-2009 11:22 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 60 of 156 (508932)
05-17-2009 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by kbertsche
05-16-2009 11:22 PM


Re: Possibility vs Probability
quote:
The problem with this approach is that it is extremely improbably for almost any historical event to have occurred exactly as it did. And probabilities are difficult to assign and somewhat misleading for historical events--the events either happened or they didn't.
We aren't discussing historical events in general. We are discussing a specific author's supposed facts concerning a given event. This topic is looking at the probability that the details are accurate.
To be historically possible, something only needs to be imaginable. However, for something to be historically probable means that there is some evidence for it.
What is the probability that these two accounts are both true?
Matthew 1
24. When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.
25. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
Matthew 2
1. After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem ...
11. On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh.
12. And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route.
13. When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. "Get up," he said, "take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him."
14. So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, ...
19. After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt
20. and said, "Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child's life are dead."
21. So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel.
22. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee,
23. and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."
Luke 2
1. In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world.
2. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.)
3. And everyone went to his own town to register.
4. So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David.
5. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.
6. While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born,
7. and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
8. And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. ...
11. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord.
12. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger...
21. On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been conceived.
22. When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord
39. When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.
It is unlikely that both author's are presenting true facts. IOW: Improbable
If I write that while crossing the Delaware River, George Washington threw a rock and killed Benedict Arnold; although possible is my account probable or not? If not, why not?
ABE: We are dealing with one author's account of an event. The event is the birth. Even if the details leading to the event are improbable, that doesn't mean that Jesus wasn't born.
Edited by purpledawn, : Added thoughts
Edited by purpledawn, : Another thought.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by kbertsche, posted 05-16-2009 11:22 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024