From: Nigel B. Mitchell <>
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian
Date: Sunday, 7 March 1999 10:56
Subject: The birth of Jesus



I wrote:
>>Read John 7:40-43. IMHO The passage makes no sense at all if John was
>>aware of the tradition that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Able replied:
> I am sorry Nigel, but it makes perfect sense, the crowd was debating
>if he was the Christ, some assuming he was from Galilee, said how
>could he be, as Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Read the text again. There were some in the crowd that said he could
not possibly be the Messiah _because he was born in Galilee_. No-one
present said that he was born in Bethlehem If John was aware of that
tradition he makes no mention of it, there or anywhere else - not even
as editorial comment.

>>We don't know the man's name, for sure. Was it Quirinius or Cyrenius?

>Kurenios transliterates quite well--the  pronunciation of the Latin
>name Quirinius. They are the same person.

>Cyrenius: the Grecized form of Quirinus. His full name was Publius
>Sulpicius Quirinus. Recent historical investigation has proved that
>Quirinus was governor of Cilicia, which was annexed to Syria at the
>time of our Lord's birth. Cilicia, which he ruled, being a province of
>Syria, he is called the governor, which he was de jure, of Syria. Some
>ten years afterwards he was appointed governor of Syria for the second
>time. During his tenure of office, at the time of our Lord's birth
>(Luke 2:2), a "taxing" (R.V., "enrolment;" i.e., a registration) of
>the people was "first made;" i.e., was made for the first time under
>his government. Eastons Bible Dictionary.

Able, please try to understand.

Herod's kingdom was not subject to a Roman census. If it had been,
there would be mention of it in Jewish and Roman records.
Cyrenius (or whatever his name was) did not become Governor of Syria
until 6 AD/CE.

>>>>>When Cyrenius was governor of Syria. Syria was the most important of
>>>>>all the Roman provinces, and Quirinius (Cyrenius) served in several
>>>>>capacities there at different times. Roman censuses came every
>>>>>fourteen years. The first one of which we have recorded knowledge came
>>>>>in a.d. 6. This earlier census then may have been set in motion in
>>>>>Rome about 8 b.c., while Quirinius was the military governor of Syria.
>>>>>Several years would be required to complete such a census.
>>>>>There is not necessarily an inconsistency here.
>>>>
>>>>Where did you get this from? It is utter rubbish, anyway.
>>
>>
>>>Why is it utter  rubbish? you would need to amplify that.
>>>It is from a commentary on the KJV..
>>>EditorsEdward E. Hindson, Th.D., D.Min.
>>>Woodrow Michael Kroll, Th.D.
>>
>>>Here is another reference..
>>>2:2 Quirinius is Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, a prominent Roman
>>>governor of Syria (a.d. 6) who was in control of the military in Syria
>>>under Varus (6 b.c.) and would have directed the census. Recent
>>>archaeological discovery indicates that Quirinius may have been twice
>>>governor of Syria, the earlier date being about 6ñ4 b.c. and the
>>>second a.d. 6ñ9. The first term of Quirinius would fit Lukeís account
>>>well at this point. Luke is a careful historian as well as an
>>>accomplished theologian.
>>>W.A. Criswell, Believerís study Bible
>>
>>Able, please understand. Books with titles like "Believer's study
>>bible" are written with the express purpose of reassuring people that
>>the Biblical text is correct, despite all the evidence to the
>>contrary. It is the same with the "defending the Bible" websites.

>And the Harmony of the Gospels by Augustine?
>You mean they are all telling Porkies for God too..stretching the
>truth.

No. They saw the discrepancies and errors in the Bible, and tried to
provide explanations for them.

>  Sorry Nigel but you can not dismiss this so glibbly.Now there is a
>possiblity that the first census took a deal of organising, was called
>for by Augustus, but was never finalised until the well published
>census problems.That is yet another possiblity.

12 years, with changes of administration in Galilee, Rome, Syria and
Judea? How likely is that?

>>>>During the reign of Herod the great, he ruled the province of Judea as
>>>>a client king. He was entirely independent of the governor of the
>>>>province of Syria - he answered directly to Rome. It was only after
>>>>Herod's death that the governor of Syria assumed control of Judea.
>>>>
>>>>Can't you see that Luke is simply wrong about this.
>>
>>>Is it inconceivable to you that he could be correct.?
>>
>>It is extremely unlikely that a census of a type never recorded before
>>or since would have taken place and not been recorded in the Roman or
>>Jewish records. We know about the census in 6 AD because partly
>>because it caused riots. People objected to being taxed by the Romans.
>>Why was there no objection to the Roman administration forcing people
>>to return to their ancestral villages (even pregnant women on the
>>verge of childbirth!).
>>
>>Also, as I said in my last post:
>>What would be the purpose of a census where everyone returned to their
>>ancestral city? Why would the Roman administration go to the great
>>expense and inconvenience of doing such a thing?

>Why would it be at the expense of the Roman administration..?
>I do not think it would be such a hassle in those days as it would be
>now.Census and taxation has to do with wealth, property and
>inheritance perhaps.I will look further into this Nigel.

Just think about it. What would be the point of such a census.
If you were the occupying power, would you want to register people at
their ancestral homes, or in their place of living, working, etc?

Think of the expense:
Who paid the officials to take the census (all written out by hand)?
Who ensured that the people did as they were told and travelled
hundreds of kilometres to their ancestral homes?

If the people of Judea rioted when forced to participate in an
ordinary census in 12 AD/CE (or thereabouts), how do you think they
would have reacted when forced to travel (pregnant women and all) to
participate in another one 14 years earlier, and at a time when they
were supposedly an independent province ruled by a Jewish king?

>Vines..
> 2) an enrolment or registration in the public records of persons
>together
>with their income and property, as the basis of a census or valuation,
>i.e. that it might appear how much tax should be levied upon each one

Luke's census does not fit this pattern.

>>There is no objective corroboration of the census.
>>There is no objective evidence that there was a time when Quirinius
>>was governor of Syria, Augustus was emperor, and Herod was king.

>A careful read of the text with reference to the Greek and it does not
>say this either Nigel.
>It says that Augustus was emperor, Herod was King..
>The text says that they went to be registered (apographo) in Bethlehem
>not to actually pay tax, it also says that the taxing was FIRST made
>to happen or completed (ginomai ) when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.
>I suggest that it took all this time to complete the census, and when
>it was complete the problem started when the tax was collected, much
>later.
>Now entirely consistent Nigel..any problems?

Luke 2:1. "At the time Ceasar Augustus issued a decree... This census
.. took place while Quirinius was Governor of Syria.

Quirinius was not appointed governor of Syria until 6 AD/CE, 10 years
after Herod's death. Why is that so hard to accept?

>>During the reign of Herod there was no need for a census. There is no
>>record of one taking place, other than in Luke. Even if there had been
>>such a census, it would not have included residents of Galilee. Except
>>for this one instance, there has never been a census in recorded
>>history where people have been required to travel to their ancestral
>>villages to be registered.

>But all Census information in the UK from 1840 onwards..has an entry
>space to fill in place of Birth..just an aside.

Imagine what the population today would say if they were required to
go to their place of birth to fill in the census form. Would you do
it? Why do you imagine that the whole population of Galilee and Judea
did it 2000 years ago - on foot or by donkey?

>>Such an idea would be an administrative
>>nightmare today - and all the more so 2000 years ago.

>Less I would suggest.

Come on, Able. You think it would have been easier to administer a
census where everyone had to go to their home towns to be registered -
at their own expense, at the command of a foreign ruler, without
modern transport, without computers, ...
Be realistic.

>>... why didn't Joseph and
>>Mary just go home?

>Because Joseph had a dream after the wise men left.
>The time lag was between the wise men leaving Bethlehem, and Herod
>realising  he had been fooled.It could have been a considerable time.
>The Margin of error is one that Herod would have put on to make sure
>he got the children of the correct age. For example his calculations
>may have put Jesus at 6 months..so to be sure he killed every one
>under two.

But no-one other than Matthew, not even the other Gospel writers,
recorded this atrocity.
Once again, be reasonable!

>>
>>>Hsa 11:1 When Israel [was] a child, then I loved him, and called my
>>>son out of Egypt
>>
>>EXACTLY!
>>Matthew's story is told to identify Jesus with Moses, and with the
>>people of Israel. It is an example of Matthew using a few words from
>>the OT, out of context, to make a statement about who he believed
>>Jesus to be. It is not historically accurate, and it is not meant to
>>be. Read Hosea 11 and ask yourself if anyone could reasonably say that
>>the author was thinking of Jesus when he wrote those words.

> So you think that nobody reasonable would say that the Author was
>talking about Jesus?
Nope. Look at Hosea 11.

>Hummm, Matthew did, and he was an Apostle..That is enough evidence for
>me.

Able, I really wish I did not have to repeat myself. I am happy to
debate/discuss with you, but when you make comments like that, It is
really hard to go on.

Matthew was writing an account of the birth of Jesus deliberately in
such a way as to pass on his (Matthew's) faith that Jesus was the
Messiah. He used stories and images that resonated with his audience
(Herod was a bad man, Quirinius ran an unpopular census, words and
phrases from the OT) as the vehicle for his message.

Perhaps the best way I can put it is like this. Your preacher probably
uses stories and examples from everyday life, from history, and maybe
even from popular stories about biblical characters (which may or may
not be in the Bible) to illustrate his sermons. If you went up to your
preacher and asked him if his story illustrations really happened, he
would laugh at your gullibility or think you were taking the mickey.
Matthew's use of the OT and historical stories should be seen as
sermon/message illustrations. In the ancient world people did not take
the same sort of care we do today in saying "Imagine if..." or "As
Jesus might have said..." etc.

It does not matter whether they actually happened - what matters is
the message they convey about Jesus.

And, to save you the trouble, and me the repetition-
No, that doesn't mean he was telling porkies for God. You know my
answer to that.

>>This is what I referred to in my earlier post. There are examples of
>>the same type of storytelling throughout the NT.
>>
>>Can you find "He will be called a Nazorene" anywhere in the OT?

> Probably, but is there anypoint as you will not accept the authority
>of the Bible on it anyway.

Go on, then. I will buy you lunch at a restaurant of your choice if
you can find it.
Actually, it is probably about time I bought you lunch anyway, but I
am snowed under at the moment and taking two weeks off after Easter,
so I will have to owe it to you sometime in April.

>>>>I have faith in God.
>>>>To put my faith in a book that human beings have written about God
>>>>would be idolatry.
>>
>>> IYHO.
>>
>>What would you call putting your faith in something that human beings
>>have made?

> But that is exactly what you are doing through your liberal theology

Read what I said. My faith is in God. Not in any kind of theology.
And not in a book.

cheers

N+

Nigel B. Mitchell









-----Original Message-----
From: Nigel B. Mitchell <>
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian
Date: Sunday, 7 March 1999 11:11
Subject: Re: The birth of Jesus



I wrote:
>>Look at this verse in context. The people in the crowd were
>>saying "He couldn't be the messiah! He comes from Galilee".
>>John does not say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem - just that
>>some people said he couldn't possibly be the Messiah because he
>>was not born in Bethlehem. If John had known about the tradition
>>that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, this would have been a perfect
>>moment for him to mention the fact, so it is surprising, and
>>perhaps illuminating, that he didn't.

In <36e204e7.176551900>,  (Able)
wrote:
>John knew full well that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and that he was
>the Messiah. The crowd speak of it as certain that  Jesus was of
>Galilee, John is simply straightening them out. It is as simple as
>that.

I can only repeat what I wrote above. Look at the verse in context. In
John 7:40-43 it says that some of the crowd thought Jesus could not
possibly be the Messiah, because they thought the Messiah had to come
from Bethlehem, and Jesus came from Galillee. They argued about it. If
John, or anyone else, had been able to settle the argument by saying
"well, actually, he did come from Bethlehem", then why on earth didn't
John say so?

>>>>They contradict each other as to how he came to be born in
>>>>Bethlehem and raised in Nazareth. Luke has them travel to
>>>>Bethlehem for the census (although according to Roman records
>>>>this census never took place). 
>>>
>>>Let us assume that Matthew wanted to tell a story around Jesus being
>>>born in Bethlehem...why does he have to invent a census to make things
>>>fit? It is redundant to his purposes.Unless it is to at the same time
>>>establish the lineage of Jesus.From some study notes I found the
>>>following:- (David Guzik).
>>>
>>>i. Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the second century, says
>>>that you could look up the registers of the census Luke mentions in
>>>his own day 
>>
>>We have evidence of a census conducted in about 12 AD/CE, but
>>that was only in Judea - Galilee was under a separate
>>administration at that time. The Roman governor at the time was
>>Quirinius - in fact, he had just been appointed. 
>>Luke has the census take place whilst Augustus was Emperor,

>Correct.

>> Herod
>>was King, 

> Correct.

>>and Quirinius was governor. 

> Luk 2:2 ([And] this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor
>of Syria.) 
>The word for governor here  also means  leader.

There are many spelling variants in the text of the NT, just as there
are many variants about word order, content, etc. Let's not quibble
about one letter.

Of course, in an infallible and inerrant text, we would know the man's
correct name. Unfortunately, we don't.

>When Cyrenius was governor of Syria. Syria was the most important of
>all the Roman provinces, and Quirinius (Cyrenius) served in several
>capacities there at different times. Roman censuses came every
>fourteen years. The first one of which we have recorded knowledge came
>in a.d. 6. This earlier census then may have been set in motion in
>Rome about 8 b.c., while Quirinius was the military governor of Syria.
>Several years would be required to complete such a census.
>There is not necessarily an inconsistency here.

Where did you get this from? It is utter rubbish, anyway.
During the reign of Herod the great, he ruled the province of Judea as
a client king. He was entirely independent of the governor of the
province of Syria - he answered directly to Rome. It was only after
Herod's death that the governor of Syria assumed control of Judea. 

Can't you see that Luke is simply wrong about this. It does not affect
our salvation, or anything else much, but there was not a moment in
time when Quirinius/Cyrenius was Governor, Herod was King,and
Augustus was Emperor. 




>>>c. There is no secular evidence that Augustus decreed this census and
>>>in this manner, but it was consistent with what we do know of him from
>>>history. He was known to be very sensitive to the nationalistic
>>>feelings of his subjects, and thus desires that they return to their
>>>cities of family origin for the census. 
>>
>>Wishful thinking. 
>>The purpose of a census was/is taxation and control. A census
>>where people left their homes and travelled to the village of
>>their ancestors would be pointless. 

>Luk 2:3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. 

>Nigel it is written. Believe.

What would be the purpose of a census where everyone returned to their
ancestral city? Why would the Roman administration go to the great
expense and inconvenience of doing such a thing? Why is there no
record of such an event happening in 8BCE, 4BCE, or ever!?

>>>>Matthew has them living in
>>>>Bethlehem, but travelling to Nazareth via Egypt two years after
>>>>the birth of Jesus.
>>>
>>> The only difference I can see here is an omission regarding the Egypt
>>>trip on Luke's behalf.
>>
>>If they travelled to Bethlehem for a census, why did they hang
>>around there for two years, and then go home via Egypt? 

>For two years? please explain how you deduce this?
>Nowhere can I deduce they stayed in Bethlehem for two years from the
>account of Matthew. In fact I think a re read is in order.

Herod asked when the star appeared, and he had all the male children
under two killed (Matthew 2:16). If he was wrong about the timing, how
can you be so certain he was right about the place?

If Nazareth was their home town, why didn't they just go straight
there? They would have been safe from Herod, because Galilee DID come
under the administration of the Roman governor of Syria. Matthew says
that they went first to Galille, then to Nazareth, in order to fulfil
scriptures - if Nazareth was their home town anyway, this seems very
strange. Matthew also seems unaware that "Out of Egypt I call my son"
and "He will be called a Nazorene" do not appear in the OT, as
Messianic verses or anything else.

>>Please read what I wrote last time. What we would call lying or
>>plagiarism (or false witness, if you like) was commonplace in the
>>ancient world. 

>Yes , I read it but I don't believe it.
>It comes down to that Nigel..what you believe and what you have faith
>in.

I have faith in God.
To put my faith in a book that human beings have written about God
would be idolatry.

>>Would you like me to give you some more examples?
>>The Bible is full of them.

>Prove to me that Mathew and Luke are consistent massagers of the
>truth? ..You can't.

I can, and easily. I will do so if you like, but once again this backs
me into a corner where I seem to be attacking scripture. 

Pointing out errors, discrepanceis etc. in scripture is easy. The fact
that, as you know, there are many "defending the bible" websites, and
people from the second century to this one have expended huge amounts
of energy "explaining" and "harmonising" these discrepancies shows you
just how many there are. 

Please read everything I write on this subject with the disclaimer
that I do believe in God, and I do believe that the Holy Spirit of God
inspired the biblical authors. The difference between us is that I
believe that the authors, translators, interpreters and those who
authorised the Bible were fallible human beings, and the Bible itself
is far from perfect as a result. That is why we need the fellowship
and teaching of the Church, and the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit,
to make use of it. 

cheers


N+

Nigel B. Mitchell