Birth place of Jesus.

[Digit]

http://news.sky.com/skynews/picture_gallery/0,,30200-1298238,00.html

From Sky news.

[Minimalist]

I fixed it for you, Dig.

Bethlehem of "Galilee" would make more sense than Bethlehem of "Judaea."

Except it does not save the story because "Galilee" remained under the rule of Herod Antipas until 39 AD and he would not have been taking a Roman "census" in his kingdom.

[Digit]

I could be totally wrong on this one Min, but I think for census purposes the birthplace of the father is what counted.
Women and children were of no account.

[kbs2244]

There are some scriptural problems with his idea.

First, while Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth of Galilee at the time of conception according to Luke 1:26-38, Luke also tells us at Luke 2:4-7 the story of, after marring Mary, Joseph having to go to his birth place to register for the censes and hence Jesus being born in Bethlehem of Judea.

Secondly is Matt. 2:3-6 This the story of the “Wise Men.”
When Herod asked where the Messiah was to be born the Priests responded that it was expected it to be it Bethlehem of Judea based on their understanding of what we now call the “Old Testament” scripture.
The only scripture they had at the time.

BTW Two important things to note here:
First, Matthew doesn’t say how many there were,
Second, he says only “After Jesus had been born in Bethlehem,” not the same night that he had been born.
“From the East” most often means from Babylon. If they saw a new star on the night he was born, it would take them months to get their things together and travel from Babylon to Jerusalem. By this time the family would be back in Nazareth.

I do think there are a lot of problems with the traditional Christmas story.
The three biggest problems are:
First, The year is wrong. It was most likely in one BC.
Second, The time of year is wrong. It would be 6 months after his cousin John the Baptist was born, in the fall. At that time of year shepherds would still have sheep in pasture. By winter they would be penned up.
Third, The wise men didn’t get there until he was a couple of months old and they visited the family in Nazareth not in Bethlehem. Note that they didn’t go back the next day to Herod, as he requested, but followed the directions of their dream and slipped out of town quietly. And the number three is completely made up.

[Digit]

Based on these calculations I read somewhere that Jesus was a Virgoan and would have been born about September the 19th.
A mismatch of dates, places etc in no way invalidates an element of truth in stories so old.
An example is the number of English kings who were born circa something or other. Same with Muhammed, and all are much more recent in time.
There is evidence that Edward the fourth was conceived whilst the King was away campaigning, but dates etc were fiddled to fit.
As they say in Oz, the first child comes when it's ready, the rest take 9 months!

[Minimalist]

I could be totally wrong on this one Min, but I think for census purposes the birthplace of the father is what counted.
Women and children were of no account.

Bethlehem of Judaea and Bethlehem of Galilee were in separate countries.
After 6 AD, Judaea was a Roman Praefecture and we know for a fact that P. Sulpicius Quirinius did indeed conduct a census in 6 AD....a date which causes no end of problems for Christians on the other end as Jesus would then not have been 30 until 36 AD which is when Pilate was recalled.

Bethlehem of Galilee was in the tetrarchy of HErod Antipas until 39 AD...3 years after the latest date at which Jesus allegedly died. Antipas would not have been taking a Roman census during his reign. No need for it. Any money due Rome was tribute set by treaty.

You are correct that women and children would not have counted.

[Forum Monk]

I just find it immensely amusing to think the early church may have been celebrating Christmas in the wrong place all along. Dunno why its so funny, but it is.

Cheers -

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all my Archaeologica friends.

[Digit]

Welcome back Monk, I've missed you. Hope all is well with you.

[Minimalist]

I just find it immensely amusing to think the early church may have been celebrating Christmas in the wrong place all along. Dunno why its so funny, but it is.

Cheers -

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all my Archaeologica friends.

Along with everywhere else. It was Constantine's mother who took a trip to Palestine after 312 in order to find the Christian Holy Places.....which had been burned down twice over (66-70 and 135 AD) by those same Romans.

One can certainly not blame some junior aedile for not wanting to be the guy who tells the emperor's mother that her "holy places" had been turned to ashes centuries earlier. Not a good career move! So, anything she asked for he said: "Oh, yeah....that's over here!"

[Beagle]

I fixed it for you, Dig.

Bethlehem of "Galilee" would make more sense than Bethlehem of "Judaea."

Except it does not save the story because "Galilee" remained under the rule of Herod Antipas until 39 AD and he would not have been taking a Roman "census" in his kingdom.

Luke 2, 1-4 states that Joseph went to Judaea because he was of the house of David.

[Minimalist]

Luke says a lot of stuff that doesn't make any sense.

[Digit]

That may be true Min but all old or ancient writings must be read and understood within context. Many people find Shakespear incomprehensible, but his words were the vernacular of the day and perfectly understood by his audiences.
If we don't understand what Shakespear was saying it is not the bard's fault.
'Tis the same with the King James Bible, which is itself a translation by people who very probably had no understanding of what was important to the intended audience at the time of writing.
Take Numbers, to most people it is a mind numbing series of names and relationships, but to an illiterate audience it was very important as it expressed their relationships and their belonging, their roots.
Take this and throw it at people and see what they make of it:

"In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God" (John 1:1).

For the benefit of any readers it does make sense, within context.
A merry Yuletide Min.

[Beagle]

Plus, I think, it's important to examine certain things in the context of "common sense", that is, do the presented facts ring true?

In my logic, there has never been a government where taxes have not been imposed. So - of all possible scenarios of the birth of Jesus, I can accept that taxes were involved.

I don't believe in miracles. By that, I mean that I don't think that the laws of physics and biology were suspended in Biblical times. Of course there is the one exception in 1980, when the US ice hockey team won the gold medal in the winter olympics. They made a movie called "Miracle on Ice". Indeed it was. Except for that I don't believe in them.

[Digit]

A real miracle Beag would be if Lord Gord Brown's mob ever manage to get the Olympic Games venue up and running on time and at less cost than our national debt.
If that happens then I will definitley be a believer!

[Beagle]

I'm not aware of all you're talking about Dig, but I know you've got a two party system that is as messed up as ours. There are actually lots of folks on both sides in this country that believe it makes a difference which party is in power.

Anyway, I belong to a third party. But we're not growing fast enough to save us from the Amero. Similar to the Euro dollar. I was going to wait till after the Holidays to post it in the other forum, but I may go ahead today.

I hope Christmas has been good for you and your family. We're leaving now to deliver presents to our son's houses.