Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

How God Does His Taxes


Roz

Recommended Posts

I remember posting this before, but this is going a bit deeper than the last one.

 

Let's begin with Luke 1 (NIV). 

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

 

For the record, all the christians that I've come in contact with all believe in the historicity of the birth of their jesus.  There might be some christian sects that will say that the birth of jesus was metaphorical, or that he wasn't born just as the gospels said, but they're the outliers.

 

http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/42-1/luke-physician-and-historian

This is real history accurately recorded. It is sound theology logically developed. Luke identifies what he writes in verse 4 of chapter 1 of exact truth...exact truth. It isn't fantasy, it isn't his own spiritual musings. It isn't some effort on his part to concoct a tale or to build a legend. What he is giving is history and theology that is exact.

 

http://missionomission.org/2014/01/20/luke-a-credible-historian-2/

Yes, Luke is reliable and an invaluable resource for understanding the development of the early church, and the ministry of Paul in particular.

 

And so on and so forth.  Christianity stands by the credibility of Luke as a historian, giving not his own fantasy but an accurate depiction of events. 

Let's move on to Luke 2...

 

Luke 2 (NIV)

In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to their own town to register.

So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David.

 

Just for the record, the approx. distance between Nazareth and Bethlehem is 100 miles.

http://jesustrail.com/blog/hiking-the-nativity-trail-from-nazareth-to-bethlehem

 

For context, why is this census important?  For taxation.

The Census of Quirinius was the enrollment of the Roman provinces of Syria and Judaea for tax purposes taken in 6/7 CE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius

 

Let's take another widely accepted fact by Christians:  David lived approx. 1000 years before jesus.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Believer%27s%20Corner/bible_timeline.htm

 

Now, let's think about how taxes were collected in Palestine and in Rome.  We see that Rome's principle income was derived from her taxes levied on conquered territories.  So, in Caesar's mind, this is by far the most important tax to collect. 

 

8. The tribute imposed upon foreign countries was by far the most important branch of the public revenue during the time of Rome's greatness. It was sometimes raised at once, sometimes paid by instalments, and sometimes changed into a poll-tax, which was in many cases regulated according to the census (Cic. c. Verr. II.53, 55, &c.; Paus. VII.16). In regard to Cilicia and Syria we know that this tax amounted to one per cent. of a person's census, to which a tax upon houses and slaves was added (Cic. ad Fam. III.8, ad Att. V.16; Appian, de Reb. Syr. 50). In some cases the tribute was not paid according to the census, but consisted in a land-tax (Appian, de Bell. Civil. V.4; cf. Walter, Gesch. des Röm. Rechts, p224 &c.).

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Vectigalia.html

 

Now, how are tax collectors generally perceived in Palestine?

 

As the burdens of taxation became ever more intolerable, so did the tax farmer or collector become a more hateful and dreaded personality (cf., Sanh. 92b, where a gabbai is likened to the bear in Amos 5:19). At times they even contrived to extract payments by torture (see Num. R. 17:5; cf. Philo, Spec. 3, 153–63). Being so unpopular, the collector's job was no easy one; indeed at times he ran great personal risk, as an enraged populace was quite likely to lynch him (Gen, R. 42:4).

 

They're not highly regarded by the people.  Why?  Generally because they want to get as much money from the population as possible in order to pocket the difference.  They will even lynch tax collectors, something to keep in mind.

 

Now, let's gather all the information together:

  • Christians by and large take the birth of jesus as something that literally happened
  • Christians by and large take Luke's account to be accurate
  • David and jesus lived approx. 1000 years apart
  • Rome largely financed herself with tax money collected from the conquered provinces (the link gave an example of 1% tax to Syria)
  • The tax collection were handed to the regional governments who had their own people collect taxes
  • Those collectors had an inclination to pocket any money above and beyond the required tax

Think about society back then.  There's no computerized record for people's income, no central servers housing tax data history.  Imagine yourself as a tax collector in the Roman province of Iudea.  You need to have the required tax money sent to Rome on X date.  You have an incentive to be as efficient as possible.

 

Luke says that Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem to be registered and taxed because he's of the house and lineage of David.  This is for taxation purposes, so he's not the only one.  Everyone else in Iudea had the same criteria, so they also must go to the place of their ancestor in order to be registered and taxed.  Imagine the amount of recordkeeping above and beyond what's necessary. 

 

Let's suppose the tax rate for Iudea is the same as Syria, 1% (damn...)What is this 1%?  It's a percentage of that person's wealth / earnings.  That guy might have a lot of land, or his business might have a lot of customers.  If you were going to fleece people like Joseph for as much tax money as possible, would you trust them to just verbally report their status?  Or would you order the population to go to their own homes so you can inspect their property/shop?

 

Here's an example of tax receipts in Greece during the Roman era.  Very thorough.  Now imagine trusting the population to just verbally report their income / profits to you.  That would put the power in the hands of the people, and they would all report to be poor bastards.

http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/demotic_tax_receipts.htm

 

You have 3 essential forces at play here.  1 = Rome.  2 = provincial tax collectors.  3 = general populace.  Both 1 and 2 want as much money as possible for themselves.  3 want to give 1 and 2 the least amount they can get away with. 

 

One thing to also note is that we have the actual standing orders for collecting taxes for an Egyptian province:

The census by household having begun, it is essential that all those who are away from their nomes be summoned to return to their own hearths so that they may perform the customary business of registration

http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/greek/census.html

 

Not the homes of their long dead ancestors 100 miles away, their own hearths. 

1.  the floor of a fireplace, usually of stone, brick, etc., often extending a short distance into a room.
2.  home; fireside:
 
For this story to be historically accurate, there must be a census or series of in the Roman world that required people to go to the land of their long dead ancestors.  Remember, Joseph was a normal citizen of Iudea, and anything that applied to him applies to any other tax registrant. 
 
Christians, do you believe that there was a point in time where the Roman census required people to do that?  Maybe jehovah performed a mass hypnosis spell that magically made everyone to do as Joseph did, and made all the officials in the Roman world think that's a good idea when collecting money. 
 
...
 
Or maybe it's just a story that the author concocted in order for his messiah to fit ancient jewish prophecies?
 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the way the Fergus Millar explains it: "Only Matthew and Luke take the story back to the birth of Jesus, and do so in wholly different and incompatible ways...Both birth narratives are constructs, one historically plausible [Matthew], the other wholly impossible [Luke], and both are designed to reach back to the infancy of Jesus, and to assert his connection to the house of David...and his birth in Bethlehem." Luke's narrative around the birth of Christ was not written with the intention of being rigorously accurate. Here's why. Luke was actually Greek. Matthew was a pharisee and therefore very well versed in Jewish culture and also the history of the region. Matthew's writings are far more accurate historically relating to the birth of Jesus. Furthermore, Luke was not an eyewitness to much that he wrote about. His account was secondhand (aside from the book of Acts which is firsthand, and significantly more historically accurate.) I think that the contradiction you've taken the effort to compile is correct. The sources of info that Luke had for that particular time period were wrong. He was misinformed. By tracing back to the birth of Jesus in his narrative, he establishes a connection to the ancient Jewish tradition. I also think that man was fallible and made mistakes (Acts 4:4 is an example).

 

Just like any other piece of ancient literature, we should definitely be critical, but not unreasonable. We need to find what the author was trying to do with his message and interpret it in the lens of that message, as Millar explained in the quote above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please clean the lens, Wololo.

 

It's been fogged by the Book of Genesis.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wololo, do you believe that your god jesus was NOT born in bethlehem?  Do you believe that his parents did not return to Nazareth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does god get to write off missing tithes as lost revenue? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wololo, do you believe that your god jesus was NOT born in bethlehem?  Do you believe that his parents did not return to Nazareth?

 

You didn't read my response very carefully.

 

Does god get to write off missing tithes as lost revenue? 

 

No, tithing is not obligatory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After that whole revelation of what you believe as RO, you're found to be not much more than an advocate for christian theocracy.  Credibility -> down the drain on that thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did they tax the Frankincense? Was it taxed differently from the Myrrh? Did Joseph and Mary have land? Or did they rent? Did they have to bring their livestock with them to be counted? How did that work with the cleanness laws for women giving birth?  ;p

 

Rome NEVER expected people to travel to somewhere they didn't live for a census.. that's just stupid. Why would they want that many people moving around the countryside? NOT working, or trading, making a mess all over - spending money to travel. No.. the entire story is ridiculous.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh look!

 

Cut-n-pasted from post # 59 (by Wololo) this thread... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/65359-the-prefailure-of-apologetics/page-3#.VEm84PnF8uk

 

"Not really, because every time I make a historical argument you just wave your hand and dismiss it. There is plenty of literal history in the Bible, but the entire thing is not. Each of the gospels serves its own purpose and is written with its own goals and style. That needs to be taken into account first. For example...I've been questioned about slavery in the Bible. I explained its cultural place and how telling the people to stop would have accomplished nothing (considering how difficult it was to get rid of it so much later). Nope. That obviously wasn't good enough. It's easier just to dismiss."

.

.

.

It looks like Ravenstar (our resident historian) has just taken the easy way out and dismissed the raison d'etre for the census as ridiculous.

 

 

tongue.png

 

 

BAA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hehe…  I admonish anyone to show me a precedent (just one?) for the Roman Empire ever asking people to return to their ancestral or birth home for a census. It never happened. Tiberius did not lose any sleep over Judea… he had people for that. I'm sure he was much more concerned with Aegyptus, or Germanica(!), or Capadociaea… at least until 66 AD.

 

bwahahahahahaaaa…. come on now. Rome was a master at governing it's provinces (well, until it became just too large) they were… efficient, and sensible. They didn't waste resources, they didn't care about the religion or inner squawkings/traditions/culture of their subjects… just keep the peace and pay your taxes and levies… Judea was not a slave nation.

 

There was that incident with Prefect Pilate and Samaria, but I don't think that applies here.

 

The last Roman census before the common era was taken in 8 BCE and the next after that was 14 AD. Just an interesting fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The parts of the bible that don't fit, well obviously it's a metaphor or the human writer made errors (or in this case lied about the circumstances?).

 

If it's plausible that it could've happened, then it's literal and true.

 

(same christian tune, different key)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please clean the lens, Wololo.

 

It's been fogged by the Book of Genesis.  

 

Still waiting on you to clean the lens with the historicity of Genesis, Wololo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The questions about Luke's account have not been answered by modern Bible scholars.

 

So what? I'm not loosing any sleep over it. I don't expect my every question about the Bible to be answered. This does nothing to diminish or cause me to doubt my faith in Christ.

 

Here's an honest explanation from Bible.org:

 

One of the greatest difficulties in the Bible, in terms of its accuracy, is the census mentioned in Luke 2:2—a census that purportedly led Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, where Jesus would be born. The Greek text reads as follows: αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου.This text casts serious doubts on Luke's accuracy for two reasons: (1) The earliest known Roman census in Palestine was taken in AD 6-7, and (2) there is little, if any, evidence that Quirinius was governor of Syria before Herod's death in 4 BC. 

 

In light of this, many scholars believe that Luke was thinking about the census in AD 6-7, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. At the same time, Luke demonstrates remarkable historical accuracy overall, and even shows both an awareness of this later census (cf. Acts 5:37) and an understanding that Jesus was not born this late (cf. Luke 1:5).

 

This issue cannot be resolved with certainty, though a couple of views are unlikely.  First, it is rather doubtful that πρώτη here is used superlatively: “first of at least three.”  Not only is the usage of πρῶτος for a comparative well established in the NT (cf., e.g., Matt 21:28 [“a man had two sons; he came to the first. . .”]; John 20:4 [“the other disciple came first to the tomb”]), but it is unnecessary to compound the historical difficulty this text presents. 

 

Second, it has sometimes been suggested that the text should be translated, “this census was before the census which Quirinius, governor of Syria, made.”2 It is argued that other comparative expressions sometimes have elided words (as in John 5:36 and 1 Cor 1:25) and, therefore, such is possible here. In spite of the ingenuity of this translation, the basis for it is insufficient, for the following reasons: (a) In both John 5:36 and 1 Cor 1:25, the genitive immediately follows the comparative adjective, making the comparison explicit, while in this text Κυρηνίου is far removed from πρώτη and, in fact, is genitive because it is part of a genitive absolute construction.3

 

 Thus, what must necessarily be supplied in those texts is neither necessary nor natural in this one.4  (B) This view presupposes that αὕτη modifies ἀπογραφή.  But since the construction is anarthrous, such a view is almost impossible (because when a demonstrative functions attributively to a noun the noun is almost always articular);5 a far more natural translation would be “This is the first census . . .” rather than “this census is . . .”

 

Third, πρώτη is sometimes regarded as adverbial: “this census took place before Quirinius was governor of Syria.”6  The advantage of this approach is that it eludes the historical problem of Quirinius’ governorship overlapping the reign of Herod.  However, like the previous view, it erroneously presupposes that αὕτη modifies ἀπογραφή.  Further, it ignores the concord between πρώτη and ἀπογραφή, making the adjective most likely to function adjectivally, rather than adverbially. Actually, the adjective functions similarly to John 1:15, 30, but in both places a genitive immediately follows.

 

Also, if this governed the participial phrase, as Hoehner believes, a number of other constructions would be far more natural (and we might justifiably expect Luke's grammar to be somewhat “natural,” especially in his editorial sections [since such sections are not from other sources, but are in Luke’s own words]).

 

In conclusion, facile solutions do not come naturally to Luke 2:2. This does not, of course, mean that Luke erred. In agreement with Schürmann, Marshall “warns against too easy acceptance of the conclusion that Luke has gone astray here; only the discovery of new historical evidence can lead to a solution of the problem.”7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's customary to provide a url for quoted text, and quotation marks.  Even better is using one's own brain (however limited that may be) to write one's own words and use quoted text sparingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's customary to provide a url for quoted text, and quotation marks.  Even better is using one's own brain (however limited that may be) to write one's own words and use quoted text sparingly.

 

 

https://bible.org/article/problem-luke-22-ithis-was-first-census-taken-when-quirinius-was-governor-syriai

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. So that one part in Luke isn't accurate. But the rest of the Bible is the inspired inerrant Word of God, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The questions about Luke's account have not been answered by modern Bible scholars.

 

So what? I'm not loosing any sleep over it. I don't expect my every question about the Bible to be answered. This does nothing to diminish or cause me to doubt my faith in Christ.

 

Here's an honest explanation from Bible.org:

 

One of the greatest difficulties in the Bible, in terms of its accuracy, is the census mentioned in Luke 2:2—a census that purportedly led Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, where Jesus would be born. The Greek text reads as follows: αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου.This text casts serious doubts on Luke's accuracy for two reasons: (1) The earliest known Roman census in Palestine was taken in AD 6-7, and (2) there is little, if any, evidence that Quirinius was governor of Syria before Herod's death in 4 BC. 

 

In light of this, many scholars believe that Luke was thinking about the census in AD 6-7, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. At the same time, Luke demonstrates remarkable historical accuracy overall, and even shows both an awareness of this later census (cf. Acts 5:37) and an understanding that Jesus was not born this late (cf. Luke 1:5).

 

This issue cannot be resolved with certainty, though a couple of views are unlikely.  First, it is rather doubtful that πρώτη here is used superlatively: “first of at least three.”  Not only is the usage of πρῶτος for a comparative well established in the NT (cf., e.g., Matt 21:28 [“a man had two sons; he came to the first. . .”]; John 20:4 [“the other disciple came first to the tomb”]), but it is unnecessary to compound the historical difficulty this text presents. 

 

Second, it has sometimes been suggested that the text should be translated, “this census was before the census which Quirinius, governor of Syria, made.”2 It is argued that other comparative expressions sometimes have elided words (as in John 5:36 and 1 Cor 1:25) and, therefore, such is possible here. In spite of the ingenuity of this translation, the basis for it is insufficient, for the following reasons: (a) In both John 5:36 and 1 Cor 1:25, the genitive immediately follows the comparative adjective, making the comparison explicit, while in this text Κυρηνίου is far removed from πρώτη and, in fact, is genitive because it is part of a genitive absolute construction.3

 

 Thus, what must necessarily be supplied in those texts is neither necessary nor natural in this one.4  (cool.png This view presupposes that αὕτη modifies ἀπογραφή.  But since the construction is anarthrous, such a view is almost impossible (because when a demonstrative functions attributively to a noun the noun is almost always articular);5 a far more natural translation would be “This is the first census . . .” rather than “this census is . . .”

 

Third, πρώτη is sometimes regarded as adverbial: “this census took place before Quirinius was governor of Syria.”6  The advantage of this approach is that it eludes the historical problem of Quirinius’ governorship overlapping the reign of Herod.  However, like the previous view, it erroneously presupposes that αὕτη modifies ἀπογραφή.  Further, it ignores the concord between πρώτη and ἀπογραφή, making the adjective most likely to function adjectivally, rather than adverbially. Actually, the adjective functions similarly to John 1:15, 30, but in both places a genitive immediately follows.

 

Also, if this governed the participial phrase, as Hoehner believes, a number of other constructions would be far more natural (and we might justifiably expect Luke's grammar to be somewhat “natural,” especially in his editorial sections [since such sections are not from other sources, but are in Luke’s own words]).

 

In conclusion, facile solutions do not come naturally to Luke 2:2. This does not, of course, mean that Luke erred. In agreement with Schürmann, Marshall “warns against too easy acceptance of the conclusion that Luke has gone astray here; only the discovery of new historical evidence can lead to a solution of the problem.”7

 

Since Bible.org declares that there IS a problem, the only honest position to take on this matter is one of skepticism.

 

We should disbelieve Luke's problematic account until new historical evidence is forthcoming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the lurkers and those members who aren't familiar with Ironhorse's s.o.p.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/65391-what-defines-and-drives-a-relationship/page-16#.VGBtE_msUul (post #318)

 

He breaks his promises, can't be trusted and is a troll.

 

Be warned!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

The questions about Luke's account have not been answered by modern Bible scholars.

 

So what? I'm not loosing any sleep over it. I don't expect my every question about the Bible to be answered. This does nothing to diminish or cause me to doubt my faith in Christ.

 

Here's an honest explanation from Bible.org:

 

One of the greatest difficulties in the Bible,

This is just a long and overly verbacious way of saying that the bible doesn't mean what it says.  If the bible doesn't mean what it says, then it is NOT the inspired word of an omniscient god.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.