I found this video, done by the members of a local United Church and a local amateur video club a few years ago, and I thought I would share it as I think it is really well done:
The first two chapters of the Gospel of Luke indicate the birth of Jesus took place at the time of the census:
In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. All went to their own towns to be registered. Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David. He went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child. (Luke 2:1–7—NRSV)
The passage describes how Jesus' parents, Joseph and Mary, travel from their home in Nazareth, in Galilee, to Bethlehem, where Jesus is born. This explains how Jesus, a Galilean, could have been born in Bethlehem in Judea, the city of King David. However, this passage has long been considered problematic by Biblical scholars, since it places the birth of Jesus around the time of the census in 6/7, whereas both this Gospel and the Gospel of Matthew, which makes no mention of the census, indicate a birth in the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE, at least ten years earlier.[12] In addition, no historical sources mention a census of the Roman world which would cover the entire population. Those of Augustus covered Roman citizens only,[13] and it was not the practice in Roman censuses to require people to return to their ancestral homes.[14][15][16][17][18]James Dunn wrote: "the idea of a census requiring individuals to move to the native town of long dead ancestors is hard to credit".[19]E. P. Sanders points out that it would have been the practice for the census-takers, not the taxed, to travel, and that Joseph, resident in Galilee, would not have been covered by a census in Judaea.[20]
If you didn't read the above, the supposed birth of Jesus is tied to the reign of Herod the Great (died 4 BCE) and a Roman census in 6-7 CE - two things which missed each other by 10 years, and no census required people to travel to their ancestral homes.
The census part of the story is almost surely an edit to satisfy the Jewish prophesy that the messiah was to be born in Bethlehem.
seeler
Posted on: 12/02/2013 17:02
Chansen - great! You agree with most of the Biblical scholars that I have studied.
chansen
Posted on: 12/02/2013 17:13
That the story of Jesus' birth has a 10 year inconsistency? It seems that way. Given that all of this was written decades later puts all versions of the story into question. At least one author just made things up to appeal to Jews. How much more is just fabricated with the intent of satisfying prophesy, or some other criteria? The very existence of Jesus is in question, even if you insist it isn't.
GeoFee
Posted on: 12/03/2013 22:01
Hi "Chansen"....
You rightly observe that the gospel narrative cannot be squared with the facts. "seeler" notices that your observation is common in the realm of academic theology. The text has been put to the test of scientific method, as much as it can be, and found to be impossible as a literal representation of events as they happened objectively. This has caused something of a seismic shift in the trajectory of the institutional church. Hence the struggle for solvency now engaged by the United Church of Canada, as elsewhere.
you wrote:
The very existence of Jesus is in question, even if you insist it isn't.
The existence of Jesus is not in question. In all times and places that existence has been welcomed and embraced. On the other hand, the existence of Jesus has also been resisted and refused. Even a cursory survey of our Western history will validate the unbiquitous presence of Jesus. That presence has quickened creative process in artists, musicians, poets and dramatists. It has also inspired countless quiet lives expressed as loving service to the common good. These have reiterated the existence of Jesus by an ever increasing diversity of representations and names.
Jesus is the protagonist in a drama by which is expressed the dilemma of human freedom and responsibility. He is welcomed by those most in need of some encouraging indication of life's primary goodness. He is refused by those most benefited by the exploitation of creature and creation in the service of profit and power.
Wherever some person steps up to the opportunity for loving care in service to the need of neighbour, whether friend or stranger, there the existence of Jesus is expressed in Spirit and in Truth.
While greatly appreciating your insightful criticism of Christian shortcoming, I wonder if you are not rejecting an overly literal consideration of its Text and Tradition?
Comments
chansen
Posted on: 12/02/2013 03:46
The first two chapters of the Gospel of Luke indicate the birth of Jesus took place at the time of the census:
The passage describes how Jesus' parents, Joseph and Mary, travel from their home in Nazareth, in Galilee, to Bethlehem, where Jesus is born. This explains how Jesus, a Galilean, could have been born in Bethlehem in Judea, the city of King David. However, this passage has long been considered problematic by Biblical scholars, since it places the birth of Jesus around the time of the census in 6/7, whereas both this Gospel and the Gospel of Matthew, which makes no mention of the census, indicate a birth in the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE, at least ten years earlier.[12] In addition, no historical sources mention a census of the Roman world which would cover the entire population. Those of Augustus covered Roman citizens only,[13] and it was not the practice in Roman censuses to require people to return to their ancestral homes.[14][15][16][17][18] James Dunn wrote: "the idea of a census requiring individuals to move to the native town of long dead ancestors is hard to credit".[19] E. P. Sanders points out that it would have been the practice for the census-takers, not the taxed, to travel, and that Joseph, resident in Galilee, would not have been covered by a census in Judaea.[20]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius
If you didn't read the above, the supposed birth of Jesus is tied to the reign of Herod the Great (died 4 BCE) and a Roman census in 6-7 CE - two things which missed each other by 10 years, and no census required people to travel to their ancestral homes.
The census part of the story is almost surely an edit to satisfy the Jewish prophesy that the messiah was to be born in Bethlehem.
seeler
Posted on: 12/02/2013 17:02
Chansen - great! You agree with most of the Biblical scholars that I have studied.
chansen
Posted on: 12/02/2013 17:13
That the story of Jesus' birth has a 10 year inconsistency? It seems that way. Given that all of this was written decades later puts all versions of the story into question. At least one author just made things up to appeal to Jews. How much more is just fabricated with the intent of satisfying prophesy, or some other criteria? The very existence of Jesus is in question, even if you insist it isn't.
GeoFee
Posted on: 12/03/2013 22:01
Hi "Chansen"....
You rightly observe that the gospel narrative cannot be squared with the facts. "seeler" notices that your observation is common in the realm of academic theology. The text has been put to the test of scientific method, as much as it can be, and found to be impossible as a literal representation of events as they happened objectively. This has caused something of a seismic shift in the trajectory of the institutional church. Hence the struggle for solvency now engaged by the United Church of Canada, as elsewhere.
The existence of Jesus is not in question. In all times and places that existence has been welcomed and embraced. On the other hand, the existence of Jesus has also been resisted and refused. Even a cursory survey of our Western history will validate the unbiquitous presence of Jesus. That presence has quickened creative process in artists, musicians, poets and dramatists. It has also inspired countless quiet lives expressed as loving service to the common good. These have reiterated the existence of Jesus by an ever increasing diversity of representations and names.
Jesus is the protagonist in a drama by which is expressed the dilemma of human freedom and responsibility. He is welcomed by those most in need of some encouraging indication of life's primary goodness. He is refused by those most benefited by the exploitation of creature and creation in the service of profit and power.
Wherever some person steps up to the opportunity for loving care in service to the need of neighbour, whether friend or stranger, there the existence of Jesus is expressed in Spirit and in Truth.
While greatly appreciating your insightful criticism of Christian shortcoming, I wonder if you are not rejecting an overly literal consideration of its Text and Tradition?
George