Justin and Tertullian refer to the census archives

[Stephan Huller]

It is harder to figure out why Tertullian arguing from Luke doesn't identify the census with Cyrenius. But there are many passages like this in Book 4

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Why would a census record say anything about Jesus anyway? At most, it might list the name Joseph, but why would it mention anything about children except possibly a number? Even the name "Yeshua" was common as dirt.

There's also no reason that these records would be shipped to Rome. For what? Who would read them? How would they find them?

There's also the issue that Bethlehem was uninhabited in the 1st century. Nothing in Irenaeus' claims are credible. I agree with Stephan that it sounds like he was just bluffing.

[Roger Pearse]

We have some papyri from Egypt regarding census-taking in the second century AD.

What we don't have is anything from Rome - or practically any other region.

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

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/pr ... m_4_1_1372

Thank you - interesting.

We owe a lot to the sands of Egypt. I wonder if the Vindolanda tablets contain anything on the subject?

[Andrew]

Why would a census record say anything about Jesus anyway? At most, it might list the name Joseph, but why would it mention anything about children except possibly a number? Even the name "Yeshua" was common as dirt.

There's also no reason that these records would be shipped to Rome. For what? Who would read them? How would they find them?

There's also the issue that Bethlehem was uninhabited in the 1st century. Nothing in Irenaeus' claims are credible. I agree with Stephan that it sounds like he was just bluffing.

I've seen you mention this a few times. Bethlehem is mentioned in a few places in the Old Testament, in books that were written before the 1st century A.D. Did something happen to it, is the Bethlehem of the OT different than the Bethlehem of the gospels, or is there some other reason to believe it wasn't inhabited back then?

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Peter,

Rathbone, in the article you directed us to, "Egypt, Augustus and Roman taxation" http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/pr ... m_4_1_1372says,

The male head of each household had to declare to the censors or their representatives – in person and on oath, and hence orally – the members of his household and their ages, and also his property and its value, which determined his census classification for taxation, military service and voting. ..When Augustus held censuses (in 28 and 8 B.C. and A.D. 14) he broke with tradition by including women and children in the official published total.

Romans were not data collectors. The purpose of the census was to collect taxes. It was a record of who owned what and how much. As soon as a new census was taken, the information in the old census would have been obsolete. It would have been thrown away in the garbage.

The writers are being rhetorical when they bring up the census. They knew that nobody could actually look up old census records. Therefore they could say anything they wanted. It is kind of like saying, My great, great grandfather invented bubble-gum. You can check the records. There is no evidence as far as I know of anybody ever checking any census records. This is because there were none to check.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Today I got the question: "I've been told that Justin and Tertullian both refer their readers to the official records in Rome regarding the census that is mentioned in Luke. I was wondering how I could go about searching your site to find those references?"

So I pulled up a few of these references.

"Now there is a village in the land of the Jews, thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judaea." (Justin Martyr, First Apology, 34)

"the Roman archives preserve the census of Augustus as a very reliable testimony to the birth of the Lord" (Against Marcion, 4.7.7)

"But it is also certain that under Augustus censuses were held in Judea by Sentius Saturninus: in these censuses one could verify his humanity" (Against Marcion, 4.19.10)

For each writer, there seem to be at least 3 possibilities:

(1) Records regarding the census were in fact checked, and it was the census described in Luke.
(2) Records regarding the census were in fact checked, and it was a different census under Augustus in a different year.
(3) Records regarding the census were not checked, but it was common knowledge that census data were recorded.

And then a fourth:

(4) These records actually mention Jesus. (as that is apparently implied in Tertullian's Against Marcion)

What do you think?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Why would a census record say anything about Jesus anyway? At most, it might list the name Joseph, but why would it mention anything about children except possibly a number? Even the name "Yeshua" was common as dirt.

There's also no reason that these records would be shipped to Rome. For what? Who would read them? How would they find them?

There's also the issue that Bethlehem was uninhabited in the 1st century. Nothing in Irenaeus' claims are credible. I agree with Stephan that it sounds like he was just bluffing.

I've seen you mention this a few times. Bethlehem is mentioned in a few places in the Old Testament, in books that were written before the 1st century A.D. Did something happen to it, is the Bethlehem of the OT different than the Bethlehem of the gospels, or is there some other reason to believe it wasn't inhabited back then?

Bethlehem had existed in prior centuries (like 7th Century BCE), but according to the Israeli Antiquities was no longer inhabited in the 2TP:

But while Luke and Matthew describe Bethlehem in Judea as the birthplace of Jesus, "Menorah," the vast database of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), describes Bethlehem as an "ancient site" with Iron Age material and the fourth-century Church of the Nativity and associated Byzantine and medieval buildings. But there is a complete absence of information for antiquities from the Herodian period--that is, from the time around the birth of Jesus.

Bethlehem appears to have been rebuilt in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries, but no sign of occupation is found in the 1st Century CE or 1st Century BCE.

[Andrew]

Interesting, thank you. Is it possible that the archaeological evidence for Bethlehem being inhabited at that point in history has not survived, or has yet to be discovered? I seem to recall entire cities that had been dismissed as fiction, only to be discovered later. I just want to know if this is a definite fact, or if it's an "as far as we know" kind of thing.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Bethlehem has never been dismissed as fiction, as far as I'm aware.

In the archaeological layers, you have habitation for a few centuries, then a few layers of nothing, then more layers of habitation. That's the data. It's not for lack of motivation or effort either. There are a lot of people who would love to find a 1st Century layer of Bethlehem.

[Andrew]

So does that mean there is no possibility of Bethlehem having been inhabited at that time?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

So does that mean there is no possibility of Bethlehem having been inhabited at that time?

I don't think we can be that absolutist about it, but that's the way it looks. We've been unable to find any artifacts from that period.