Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think you have this entirely the wrong way around - the issue being those with faith being unable to assess elements of their religion objectively, and resorting to special pleading that they would never accept in other arenas.

Really! When the default delusion held by many atheists is the Torvill and Dean of special pleadery.

[Spud]

Hmmm - does it actually say anything in the gospels about Mary riding on a donkey.

Point being that if you are finding a description so compelling that doesn't even exist in the gospels, but is clearly a much later embellishment, then why should we take your comment seriously.

Oops!!

Nobody has yet suggested (though I think jeremy hinted at it) that Luke made up the story in order to engineer a fulfillment of the prophecy of Micah 5:2, that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.
My point is that it's a very imaginative detail to put in a made-up story, a man travelling 85 miles with his pregnant wife (probably on a donkey). So it has to do with the thread topic: we have a fine detail that only a very imaginative author would think to insert if it was made up.

[Spud]

It says that the census was taken while Quirinius was governor of Judea. That firmly dates it to 6CE or later. More to the point, the decree allegedly emanates from Augustus and is a census of the whole World (Roman empire presumably). There's no evidence that this census ever took place.

More problems for the census:

Galilee was a client kingdom not directly under control of Rome.

If Jews had been allowed to travel from a client kingdom (Galilee) to a Roman province (Judea) to register, it would have rendered the census useless. Not only that but the economic disruption would have been a disaster.

The census is merely Luke's plot device to get Jesus to be both born in Bethlehem and from Nazareth.

It may have been something to do with the land allotted to each patriarchal tribe having to be kept within the same tribe throughout successive generations. It would have only applied for the Jewish territory within the empire.

[Spud]

Then you have archeological evidence that Quirinus could have been in Syria in a high up position at that time. (Will post that shortly).

To quote John MacArthur,
"A fragment of stone discovered at Tivoli, which is near Rome, in A.D. 1764, a ... contains an inscription in honor of a Roman official who it states was twice governor of Syria and Phoenicia during the reign of Augustus.  Now we're starting to make sense.  Somebody was governor twice.  That could be just what we need.  Once in A.D. 6 to 9 and another time previously back in the B.C. time when that first census took place as what Luke says.  The name of the official is not given on that fragment, but among his accomplishments are listed details that as far as is known can fit no one other than Quirinius, and we do have some historical records about him."

https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/42-22/jesus-birth-in-bethlehem-part-1

 

[Alan Burns]

I think you have this entirely the wrong way around - the issue being those with faith being unable to assess elements of their religion objectively, and resorting to special pleading that they would never accept in other arenas.

But my own journey in faith has long since gone past any need for special pleading in order to sustain it.  I do try to post arguments which can be used objectively for people to at least acknowledge the possibility of God's existence.

[Enki]

AB,

That’s a falsehood commonly used by Christian apologists. In fact Morrison (whose real name by the way somewhat pleasingly was Albert Ross) was a believer in the Christian Jesus all along, and he just set out to examine the reported events leading up to and after the crucifixion.

Reminds me of the black browed albatross which was first seen in the Firth of Forth in the 1960s, and found at different locations in Scotland over the next forty years. Some bright birder named him Albert Ross. Unfortunately he used to frequent gannet colonies in the forlorn hope of finding a mate, although his nearest best chance was at least 8000 miles away. I missed it when travelling to Unst.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-453705/The-albertross-looking-love-40-years-wrong-world.html

As you were.

[Gordon]

But my own journey in faith has long since gone past any need for special pleading in order to sustain it.  I do try to post arguments which can be used objectively for people to at least acknowledge the possibility of God's existence.

Nope - your arguments, for want of a better term, are fallacious in a variety of ways. I'm sure you've found ways to sustain your arguments to your personal satisfaction: but I'm equally sure, since you rehearse them here regularly, that they are bad arguments by dint of, as noted, being fallacious.

[Gordon]

To quote John MacArthur,
"A fragment of stone discovered at Tivoli, which is near Rome, in A.D. 1764, a ... contains an inscription in honor of a Roman official who it states was twice governor of Syria and Phoenicia during the reign of Augustus.  Now we're starting to make sense.  Somebody was governor twice.  That could be just what we need.  Once in A.D. 6 to 9 and another time previously back in the B.C. time when that first census took place as what Luke says.  The name of the official is not given on that fragment, but among his accomplishments are listed details that as far as is known can fit no one other than Quirinius, and we do have some historical records about him."

https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/42-22/jesus-birth-in-bethlehem-part-1

Spud

This is yet more Christian apologist drivel that I've just wasted a few minutes of my life reading - that it includes this sentence is a clue that this chap isn't a historian: 'Little did Caesar Augustus know that he was being moved by the Spirit of God to do exactly what he did on time, on schedule to effect exactly the result God wanted.'

What do the professional historians say about this chap's 'theories'?

[ProfessorDavey]

But my own journey in faith has long since gone past any need for special pleading in order to sustain it. 

Regardless of whether you are able to recognise this or not your faith is entirely sustained on the basis of special pleading - if not you would accept the countless myriad of other gods purported to exist as the evidence for them is just as compelling (or rather just as lacking) as that for your god. The only reason you accept your god's existence and reject the others despite equally lacking evidence for either is, of course, special pleading.

I do try to post arguments which can be used objectively for people to at least acknowledge the possibility of God's existence.

Except that, of course, you fail to provide any objective evidence. I take an objective and consistent approach that doesn't rely on special pleading. Namely if compelling and objective evidence arises for the existence of god or gods I will those to believe in the existence of that god or gods. In the current absence of objective evidence for the existence of any gods I choose not to believe in their existence.

[Walter]

Look it's very simple , if it were true we would ALL know about it .

[Alan Burns]

Could you give some examples of these conversions please Alan

more examples here:

http://askawiseman.com/skeptics/

[ProfessorDavey]

more examples here:

http://askawiseman.com/skeptics/

Quickly looked at the link, and it is hardly a convincing site.

Most notably it comes from entirely the wrong perspective - the onus isn't on sceptics to 'disprove christianity' - the onus is on those who believe to prove their extraordinary claims. And the very notion of a site titled '5 sceptics who tried to disprove christianity ...' reveals an overt bias in the first place - namely that the default is that it is true and is there to be disproved.

And of course you'll find some people who become convinced over time that the bible claims are true - so what - there are countless other, often brought up to believe they are true, who over time reject that notion and conclude that they aren't true.

[jeremyp]

I think you overestimate the literary prowess of the writers from this period.

And incidentally Gordon, how would you consider the possibility that your supposed healthy scepticism might be hiding you from the truth?

I frequently hear claims that the Bible is Great Literature, sometimes even from such arch-atheists as Richard Dawkins. Were the writers of the Bible capable of creating great literature or were they not?

I reject your hypothesis that people in the first century were somehow simpletons in modern terms. Some of them had very great literary prowess.

[jeremyp]

There is data that shows a census was taken in Egypt every 14 years beginning from the time of Augustus

What about the Lukan census of the "whole world" that allegedly took place in 6CE? I do not doubt there were censuses in those time and it would make sense for Quirinius to take a census of his province when he took over, but that is not the whole World and Nazareth wasn't even in his province.

So this could have applied across the Roman empire.

There is no evidence at all that it did.

If we know there was a census in Syria in 6 AD there could have been one 14 years before that, 8 BC, and the Jews were particularly obstinate about that sort of thing so they may have resisted for several years.

Luke explicitly frames the census as being cast the beginning of the reign of Quirinius which was 6CE.
 

The description of Mary riding to Bethlehem to be registered on a donkey heavily pregnant is not something that you could easily say was made up

It was made up. There I said it and it was easy.

Then you have archeological evidence that Quirinus could have been in Syria in a high up position at that time. (Will post that shortly).

Don't bother. I've heard that bollocks before.

[jeremyp]

Hmmm - does it actually say anything in the gospels about Mary riding on a donkey.

Point being that if you are finding a description so compelling that doesn't even exist in the gospels, but is clearly a much later embellishment, then why should we take your comment seriously.

Dammit. I can't believe I missed that. So not only was it easy to make up. It actually was definitely made up.

I wonder where the tradition of Mary riding on the donkey comes from.

[jeremyp]

Oops!!

Nobody has yet suggested (though I think jeremy hinted at it) that Luke made up the story in order to engineer a fulfillment of the prophecy of Micah 5:2, that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.

I thought I did more than hint.

My point is that it's a very imaginative detail to put in a made-up story, a man travelling 85 miles with his pregnant wife (probably on a donkey). So it has to do with the thread topic: we have a fine detail that only a very imaginative author would think to insert if it was made up.

But it wasn't put in the story at least not by Luke. Your whole argument is based on a falsehood. Furthermore, the logic of your argument is false: people who are lying embellish more than people who are telling the truth.

[jeremyp]

It may have been something to do with the land allotted to each patriarchal tribe having to be kept within the same tribe throughout successive generations. It would have only applied for the Jewish territory within the empire.

Why would the Romans care about patriarchal tribes of a conquered culture?

[jeremyp]

To quote John MacArthur,
"A fragment of stone discovered at Tivoli, which is near Rome, in A.D. 1764, a ... contains an inscription in honor of a Roman official who it states was twice governor of Syria and Phoenicia during the reign of Augustus.  Now we're starting to make sense.  Somebody was governor twice.  That could be just what we need.  Once in A.D. 6 to 9 and another time previously back in the B.C. time when that first census took place as what Luke says.  The name of the official is not given on that fragment, but among his accomplishments are listed details that as far as is known can fit no one other than Quirinius, and we do have some historical records about him."

https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/42-22/jesus-birth-in-bethlehem-part-1

Yeah that's a load of bollocks.

Firstly, the evidence that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria consists only of wishful thinking

https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#II

Secondly, even if Quirinius was governor of Syria twice, once during the time of Herod the Great, and once later, he could not possibly have been governor of Judea twice because the first time Herod was the King of Judea. Judea was a client Kingdom at that point. It wouldn't have been in any Roman census.

[Dicky Underpants]

jeremyp,

Well, each to his own I guess. Me, I find "It rings true to me" type statements to be vapid and dull, to be ploughed through looking for an actual argument that never comes. Others though have different tastes.

I'm supposed to be retired here by the way ; - ) All best, over and out.

Hi blue of happy memory,

One wonders just what 'ringing truth' he perceived when comparing Mark's account with Matthew's. The latter says an angel came down in front of them and did the job, Mark's says the stone was already rolled, and the ladies went inside the tomb and saw a young man. Morrison's critical faculties seem very limited.
That's supposing there was any bloody tomb in the first place. If Jesus was indeed crucified, he may well have been left to decompose on the cross, and had his corpse picked away by vultures. That happened often enough. Not the sort of thing you want told about your hero after he's been deified.
St Paul made something of the less salubrious aspects of crucifixion, by saying that "Jesus had become a curse for us" (referring to some text in Leviticus, I believe). This was one way he tried to present Jesus as a scapegoat, atoning for the sins of the world.

[Spud]

Firstly, the evidence that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria consists only of wishful thinking

I take your point. I can't find anything that proves Luke correct; one thing I have seen is that the Greek word rendered 'Cyrenius' in Luke 2:2 is Κυρηνίου (the ending being changed in Strong's Concordance 2958 to 'os') which when plugged into google translate is translated, 'Cyrene'. Is it therefore possible that Luke was not referring to a person but simply someone from the town of Cyrene?

[jeremyp]

I take your point. I can't find anything that proves Luke correct; one thing I have seen is that the Greek word rendered 'Cyrenius' in Luke 2:2 is Κυρηνίου (the ending being changed in Strong's Concordance 2958 to 'os') which when plugged into google translate is translated, 'Cyrene'. Is it therefore possible that Luke was not referring to a person but the town of Cyrene?

"When the town of Cyrene was governor of Syria"

I don't think so, although I'd be interested if you can find an expert in Koine Greek who supports your hypothesis.

Also Cyrene is in Libya.

[Nearly Sane]

"When the town of Cyrene was governor of Syria"

I don't think so, although I'd be interested if you can find an expert in Koine Greek who supports your hypothesis.

Also Cyrene is in Libya.

Spud seems to have updated his post to say a Cyrenian rather than the actual town itself. Still doesn't make much sense.

[Nearly Sane]

I take your point. I can't find anything that proves Luke correct; one thing I have seen is that the Greek word rendered 'Cyrenius' in Luke 2:2 is Κυρηνίου (the ending being changed in Strong's Concordance 2958 to 'os') which when plugged into google translate is translated, 'Cyrene'. Is it therefore possible that Luke was not referring to a person but simply someone from the town of Cyrene?

So which of the known list of governors was a Cyrenian?

[Spud]

"When the town of Cyrene was governor of Syria"

I don't think so, although I'd be interested if you can find an expert in Koine Greek who supports your hypothesis.

Also Cyrene is in Libya.

I've checked and apparently a lot of Greek male names end in S.
Κυρηνίου ends in ou because it's the genitive case. So it is the name of a person, Cyrenius

[Nearly Sane]

I've checked and apparently a lot of Greek male names end in S.
Κυρηνίου ends in ou because it's the genitive case. So it is the name of a person, Cyrenius

Who was governor when?