Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[ProfessorDavey]

I think it's interesting that he knows that there was a census in the time when Quirinus was governor of Syria. That is an accurate historical detail.

The clue to the puzzle is I think in the two different words used in verse 1 and verse 2. Augustus issues a decree that everyone should be registered. The registration is what Joseph and Mary travelled to Bethlehem to take part in. The census didn't happen until years later when Judea came under Roman governorship. Luke may have conflated the two as his wording in verse 2 suggests, but that Mary and Joseph registered in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod is accurate.

But Luke's account doesn't even agree with the other account in the bible, from Matthew.

Matthew mentions nothing of a census and a journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem. Indeed the clear implication was that Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem at the time of the birth and only moved to Nazareth some time later, following the 'flee to Egypt' due to fears to safety in Judea.

[Spud]

This chap here suggests otherwise, as well as pointing out various problems surrounding the census story.
 

https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/census.htm

Your chap is responding to Archer, but what I said was that Luke knew about the AD 6 census, and describes it correctly in verse 2 as being the one when Quirinius was Governor (Contrary to Archer I think this census is the same one Luke mentions in Acts 5, not a previous one). Luke mentioned Augustine's decree in verse 1. That decree would have been issued at some point while Judea was under Herod the Great, and is the reason why Joseph and Mary went to register. Judea would have been included in the enrollment, but not for individual taxation to Caesar, which came about in AD 6.

Here is where I saw this theory:

Mr. Whiston and Dr. Prideaux suppose, that the words of the preceding verse, In those days there went out a decree, &c., refer to the time of making the census; and the subsequent words, This enrolment was first made, &c., to the time of levying the tax. “When Judea,” says the latter, “was put under a Roman procurator, then taxes were first paid to the Romans — and Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, who is in Greek called Cyrenius, was governor of Syria: so that there were two distinct particular actions in this matter, done at two distinct and different times: the first was making the survey, and the second the levying the tax thereupon. And the first verse here is to be understood of the former, and the second only of the latter. And this reconciles that evangelist with Josephus; for it is manifest from that author, that Cyrenius was not governor of Syria, or any tax levied on Judea, till Archelaus was deposed. And therefore the making of the description cannot be that which was done while Cyrenius was governor of Syria; — but the levying the tax thereon certainly was.” In accordance with this interpretation of the passage, Dr. Campbell reads the verse, This first register took effect when Cyrenius was president of Syria, observing that, by this translation of the words, divers objections are obviated. “The register,” says he, “whatever was the intention of it, was made in Herod’s time, but had then little or no consequences. When, after the banishment of Archelaus, Judea was annexed to Syria, and converted into a province, the register of the inhabitants formerly taken served as a directory for laying on the census, to which the country was then subjected. Not but that there must have happened considerable changes on the people during that period. But the errors which these changes might occasion, could, with proper attention, be easily rectified. And thus it might be justly said, that an enrolment which had been made several years before, did not take effect, or produce consequences worthy of notice, till then.”

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/luke/2.htm

[Maeght]

or could Luke just be wrong?

[Gordon]

Your chap is responding to Archer, but what I said was that Luke knew about the AD 6 census, and describes it correctly in verse 2 as being the one when Quirinius was Governor (Contrary to Archer I think this census is the same one Luke mentions in Acts 5, not a previous one). Luke mentioned Augustine's decree in verse 1. That decree would have been issued at some point while Judea was under Herod the Great, and is the reason why Joseph and Mary went to register. Judea would have been included in the enrollment, but not for individual taxation to Caesar, which came about in AD 6.

Here is where I saw this theory:

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/luke/2.htm

In the absence of timestamped CCTV footage what do the professional historians say about this - those with no religious bias? Do you have a professional historical perspective that isn't a non-historical (that is not produced by a historian) biblical commentary?

Would this be the Benson that died in 1821? If so, I'm wondering what historians have turned up since then.

 

[Spud]

or could Luke just be wrong?

About what?

[Maeght]

About what?

About anything?

[ProfessorDavey]

That decree would have been issued at some point while Judea was under Herod the Great, and is the reason why Joseph and Mary went to register.

But regardless of all the views of actual historians that Luke's account appears at best to be scribbling up a whole range of non-aligned events, what about Matthew.

In Matthew's version there was no need for a census or a track on a donkey (not that that animal is ever mentioned) to allow Jesus to be born in Bethlehem - why - because he they were already there, only relocated to Nazareth much later, after Jesus' birth. So the two gospel account, on this issue are terminally inconsistent.

[jeremyp]

This is precisely the point of the thread. The detail that the bodies were taken down because the Sabbath was approaching "rings true" because it's not what you would expect for a fictional account. If it was made up it would be more likely the bodies were left.

On the other hand, the detail that Jesus - an executed criminal - was buried in a tomb rings false, because executed criminals were buried in unmarked graves.

You can't cherry pick the bits that ring true and ignore the bits that don't.

[jeremyp]

That's what I did in #473. Though I wouldn't say he was wrong but that the discrepancy is unexplained.

The discrepancy is easily explained. In fact both nativities are almost certainly fiction.

[jeremyp]

Again, the story "rings true". A couple travelling while she is pregnant suggests they were under compulsion. Would details like this be typical of a fictional account?

No, it doesn't ring true. The whole story rings false. Nobody would organise a census in which everybody would up sticks and move to a completely different administrative region to be registered. It would render the census useless. It's just bollocks.

A recently born saviour laid in a feeding trough, shepherds visiting the family etc all suggest authenticity, unless the author was highly imaginative.

I'm sure there were plenty of imaginative people living in the first century.

If the account didn't have this kind of detail I would suggest Luke was wrong, yes.

He is wrong.

[jeremyp]

The clue to the puzzle is I think in the two different words used in verse 1 and verse 2. Augustus issues a decree that everyone should be registered. The registration is what Joseph and Mary travelled to Bethlehem to take part in. The census didn't happen until years later when Judea came under Roman governorship. Luke may have conflated the two as his wording in verse 2 suggests, but that Mary and Joseph registered in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod is accurate.

Where is your evidence that Augustus issued a decree that the whole world should be registered?

Why would this registration apply to client kingdoms?

Why would anybody let you register in a town with which you have no real connection?

Why mention a census that occurred ten years later if you are narrating events that happened during the original registration?

Why are you not listening to anything anybody else here is telling you?

[floo]

On the other hand, the detail that Jesus - an executed criminal - was buried in a tomb rings false, because executed criminals were buried in unmarked graves.

You can't cherry pick the bits that run true and ignore the bits that don't.

Spud and his ilk can.

[DaveM]

On the other hand, the detail that Jesus - an executed criminal - was buried in a tomb rings false, because executed criminals were buried in unmarked graves.

You can't cherry pick the bits that ring true and ignore the bits that don't.

Not sure where this executed criminal bit comes from.  Pilate found no fault in him. Jesus was an innocent man in the eyes of Roman law.  He died a victim of political expediency. And Pilate was only too aware of this. Thus not surprising that Pilate allowed him to be buried in the tomb of a rich man.

[jeremyp]

Not sure where this executed criminal bit comes from.

The clue is in the fact that he was crucified (i.e. executed) as somebody who had broken the law (Jewish law according to the gospels)

Pilate found no fault in him. Jesus was an innocent man in the eyes of Roman law.

Here's another thing that "rings false". According to other sources, Pilate was vicious even by the standards of the day. In reality, he would have had a Jewish troublemaker executed without a second thought.

Another thing that rings false: which Christian would have been inside Pilate's house to witness the verbal exchange between him and Jesus? It's a reasonable hypothesis that all the stuff with Pilate was made up.

He died a victim of political expediency. And Pilate was only too aware of this. Thus not surprising that Pilate allowed him to be buried in the tomb of a rich man.

Utter rubbish. Political expediency would dictate that an innocent man falsely convicted would continue to be treated as a criminal even after death.

Another thing that rings false.

[DaveM]

The clue is in the fact that he was crucified (i.e. executed) as somebody who had broken the law (Jewish law according to the gospels)
Here's another thing that "rings false". According to other sources, Pilate was vicious even by the standards of the day. In reality, he would have had a Jewish troublemaker executed without a second thought.

Another thing that rings false: which Christian would have been inside Pilate's house to witness the verbal exchange between him and Jesus? It's a reasonable hypothesis that all the stuff with Pilate was made up.
Utter rubbish. Political expediency would dictate that an innocent man falsely convicted would continue to be treated as a criminal even after death.

Another thing that rings false.

So you reject the Scripture narrative up until the point where details of his grave are given.  Then you accept that because it suits your argument.  Not sure who is doing the cherry picking but I could hazard a pretty good guess.

[jeremyp]

So you reject the Scripture narrative up until the point where details of his grave are given.  Then you accept that because it suits your argument. 

You seem to be confused.

I'm pretty sure I'm arguing that the details about Jesus' grave are not believable. Neither are the details given about Pilate's encounter with him.

Not sure who is doing the cherry picking but I could hazard a pretty good guess.

Yes, it's Spud.

Just in case what I was doing with the "rings false" stuff is too subtle for you, I'm parodying Spud's "rings true" argument. Spud's MO is to comb the gospels for some detail that "rings true" and then claim that this makes the gospels more likely to be reliable. Notwithstanding that he never defines what "rings true" means or provides objective criteria for telling what things ring true, he argues from the specific to the general.

His MO: find something that rings true and then claim it makes the whole gospel true is exactly mirrored by my new MO of finding something that rings false and then claiming it makes the whole gospel unreliable. The main difference is that I give reasoning about why things ring false.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In the absence of timestamped CCTV footage what do the professional historians say about this - those with no religious bias? Do you have a professional historical perspective that isn't a non-historical (that is not produced by a historian) biblical commentary?

Would this be the Benson that died in 1821? If so, I'm wondering what historians have turned up since then.

 

Bzzzzz Appeal to novelty.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In the absence of timestamped CCTV footage what do the professional historians say about this - those with no religious bias? Do you have a professional historical perspective that isn't a non-historical (that is not produced by a historian) biblical commentary?

Bzzzzzzzzz special pleading.

[Gordon]

Bzzzzz Appeal to novelty.

Bzzzzzzzzz special pleading.

Nope - just asking Spud to back up his commentary with a professional historical assessment.

Or do we conclude that the view of a biblical commentator who died nearly 200 years ago is the last word on the matter?   

[Spud]

You seem to be confused.

I'm pretty sure I'm arguing that the details about Jesus' grave are not believable. Neither are the details given about Pilate's encounter with him.
Yes, it's Spud.

Just in case what I was doing with the "rings false" stuff is too subtle for you, I'm parodying Spud's "rings true" argument. Spud's MO is to comb the gospels for some detail that "rings true" and then claim that this makes the gospels more likely to be reliable. Notwithstanding that he never defines what "rings true" means or provides objective criteria for telling what things ring true, he argues from the specific to the general.

His MO: find something that rings true and then claim it makes the whole gospel true is exactly mirrored by my new MO of finding something that rings false and then claiming it makes the whole gospel unreliable. The main difference is that I give reasoning about why things ring false.

I saw a documentary about debt collectors in which one of the debt collectors when interviewed said that, when he speaks to a debtor, if the story they give about why they haven't paid flows, it's most likely they are telling the truth.
With the gospels I'm not so much talking about whether they flow as whether the details are the kind of details that someone would make up.

[Gordon]

I saw a documentary about debt collectors in which one of the debt collectors when interviewed said that, when he speaks to a debtor, if the story they give about why they haven't paid flows, it's most likely they are telling the truth.

That doesn't mean it is the truth though.

With the gospels I'm not so much talking about whether they flow as whether the details are the kind of details that someone would make up.

If the gospels are made up then, presumably, anyone doing the making up would take care to ensure it seemed convincing to its intended audience - you seem to be saying that the absence of anything that concerns you means you think it is true. That may give you a warm and cozy feeling but you haven't excluded the risks of mistake or lies: if anything your approach leaves you the ideal target for fictitious propaganda.

[jeremyp]

I saw a documentary about debt collectors in which one of the debt collectors when interviewed said that, when he speaks to a debtor, if the story they give about why they haven't paid flows, it's most likely they are telling the truth.
With the gospels I'm not so much talking about whether they flow as whether the details are the kind of details that someone would make up.

And you cherry pick them. I've pointed out a number of details from the gospels that ring false but you ignore them.

Would somebody make up the details of the conversation that Jesus had with Pilate if they weren't there and couldn't possibly know. Yes, they would. That is a detail that rings false. Filling in conversations of which there is no record is exactly the kind of things that the writers of historical fiction and "drama documentaries" do.

[floo]

And you cherry pick them. I've pointed out a number of details from the gospels that ring false but you ignore them.

Would somebody make up the details of the conversation that Jesus had with Pilate if they weren't there and couldn't possibly know. Yes, they would. That is a detail that rings false. Filling in conversations of which there is no record is exactly the kind of things that the writers of historical fiction and "drama documentaries" do.

True.

[Dicky Underpants]

Bzzzzz Appeal to novelty.

Which in Gordon's case is perfectly justified. It might just have occurred to you (but perhaps not) that biblical critics were under certain restraints way into the 19th century. The 18th century philosopher Samuel Reimarus did not dare publish his biblical criticism in his own lifetime.*
The valiant David Friedrich Strauss did publish his "Life of Jesus Critically Examined", and immediately lost his university post, and had difficulty in gaining employment thereafter.

*

Reimarus' main contribution to theological science was his analysis of the historical Jesus, Apologie oder Schutzschrift für die vernünftigen Verehrer Gottes ("An apology for, or some words in defense of, reasoning worshipers of God" — only read by a few intimate friends during his lifetime), which he left unpublished

[Spud]

And you cherry pick them. I've pointed out a number of details from the gospels that ring false but you ignore them.

Would somebody make up the details of the conversation that Jesus had with Pilate if they weren't there and couldn't possibly know. Yes, they would. That is a detail that rings false. Filling in conversations of which there is no record is exactly the kind of things that the writers of historical fiction and "drama documentaries" do.

Aren't you assuming there was nobody in the room with Pilate and Jesus? We know that someone in Herod's household (and therefore possibly other people in high places)became a Christian. Clearly the conversation between Jesus and Pilate could have been overheard by a guard or someone else, and found its way into the disciples' network.
Regarding the conversation itself, Calvin says about Jesus' reply to Pilate ("you have said so"):
<<But as he did not intend to take pains to vindicate himself, as is usually the case with criminals, the Evangelists put down a doubtful reply; as if they had said, that he did not deny that he was a king, but that he indirectly pointed out the calumny which his enemies unjustly brought against him>>
Does this sound made up?
No attempt to vindicate himself, as we would expect if this was fiction.
The details added by John. Are they the kind of thing that is made up? Wake up jeremy.