And if that is what they are saying, then because John doesn't throw in a "even though Jesus was really born in Bethlehem" to set the record straight, that we are to assume (from this passage) that John thought Jesus was born in Galilee?

No, but I think it would be safe to say that John doesn't have a good answer for it, especially in light of the non-answer given in chapter 8.

At one point the crowd says the messiah should be born in Bethlehem. At another point the crowd says they won't know where the messiah is from (this is actually posed first). It seems as though there is either a misconception about where the messiah where be from, or that the people who originally thought it could not be known went back and did some research (asked a rabbi or something) and found out the messiah should be born in Bethlehem.

What's your point?

Also, I find it interesting that the crowd first claims we won't know where the messiah will be from, John then gives the answer to that in Ch 8.

Not really.

Anyway, no one has yet tackled the question of where the evidence of 4 BC and 6 AD come from. I'm sure I could "find" information, but I'd like to examine the text offered as evidence in this discussion. (As if the dates do line up, then it seems that much of the criticism here would disappear)

Probably because no one else is still reading.
Josephus speaks of Archelaus coming to power after Herod's death, which is dated to 4 BCE. After ten years of rule by Archelaus, and Cyrenius takes over. This would put the census at 6 CE (earliest).

Ok. So you're saying the crowd said "Jesus was born in Galilee, the messiah should be born in Bethlehem, so Jesus can't be the messiah", right?

And if that is what they are saying, then because John doesn't throw in a "even though Jesus was really born in Bethlehem" to set the record straight, that we are to assume (from this passage) that John thought Jesus was born in Galilee?

"Got what wrong?"

At one point the crowd says the messiah should be born in Bethlehem. At another point the crowd says they won't know where the messiah is from (this is actually posed first). It seems as though there is either a misconception about where the messiah where be from, or that the people who originally thought it could not be known went back and did some research (asked a rabbi or something) and found out the messiah should be born in Bethlehem.

Also, I find it interesting that the crowd first claims we won't know where the messiah will be from, John then gives the answer to that in Ch 8.

Anyway, no one has yet tackled the question of where the evidence of 4 BC and 6 AD come from. I'm sure I could "find" information, but I'd like to examine the text offered as evidence in this discussion. (As if the dates do line up, then it seems that much of the criticism here would disappear)

(4) because people assume since Jesus is from Galilee that He was born in Galilee (making the prophecy of the messiah coming from Bethlehem not applicable to Jesus)

You're making the same mistake that cl made - you're reading things into the text that aren't there. In order for this to be true, the crowd would be saying, "Jesus lives in Galilee but the messiah is supposed to be born in Bethlehem." This makes no sense.

From this text we see that the crowd definately got it wrong at least once.

Got what wrong?

It seems that John gives what he felt was better proof of Jesus being the messiah than simply answering the question of where Jesus was born.

And he fails to answer the mail in that regard.

If you see the point of John 7 being that of Jesus birthplace, then I guess you'll disagree with my assessment wholeheartedly.

No one is saying that point of John 7 is the birthplace of Jesus - it is a relatively small part of it.

However, and I've probably done a horrible job of trying to say this, I feel the point of John 7 is more of Jesus' Lordship than anything else, His birthplace just being a small part of the perception in the crowd's mind.

The point of John 7 is to relate a story of Jesus attending a feast. The crowd is referring to a well-known prophecy that Jesus will be born in Bethlehem. If that is not the case, and the prophecy is correctly understood, then John is invalidating the OT and calling the Bible into question. Plus, the other gospel writers surely believed the prophecy meant Bethlehem, else they would not have gone through such mental gymnastics to get Jesus to Bethlehem.

Again I might not be typing clearly. I don't think John brought up the birthplace of Jesus as the central issue he was dealing with. In John 7:15 the Jewish leaders question Jesus on the grounds of His official schooling. In John 7:20 the crowd question Jesus' sanity because of His teaching. In John 7:27 the crowd questions Jesus as the messiah as they believe no one will know where the messiah comes from. In John 7:32 Jesus was almost arrested as the crowd attributed Jesus' miraculous acts as the overarching qualifier for Him as the messiah. In John 7:42 the crowd again is awed by Jesus' words leaving some to believe he is the messiah, this is where His birthplace in Bethlehem is brought into question.

As I see it Jesus is questioned because of: (1) His teaching (2)the fact His birthplace is known (some think it should be unknown) (3) His 'miraculous signs' as 'proof' of His being the messiah (4) because people assume since Jesus is from Galilee that He was born in Galilee (making the prophecy of the messiah coming from Bethlehem not applicable to Jesus)

From this text we see that the crowd definately got it wrong at least once. Either the messiah's birthplace should be known or it shouldn't. I believe we also see that Jesus' messiah-ship was in question on more grounds than JUST His birthplace. It seems that John gives what he felt was better proof of Jesus being the messiah than simply answering the question of where Jesus was born.

If you see the point of John 7 being that of Jesus birthplace, then I guess you'll disagree with my assessment wholeheartedly. However, and I've probably done a horrible job of trying to say this, I feel the point of John 7 is more of Jesus' Lordship than anything else, His birthplace just being a small part of the perception in the crowd's mind. Jesus often answered people's questions not in the way they would have liked.

For my own research, where do the dates of the Roman Census and Herod's death come from? (Which reliable historical resource is being referred to for the dates of 4 BC and 6 AD?)

I don't remember off the top of my head; I'm sure that someone else here probably does know off the top of their head. I could dig up some sources, however, if no one else jumps in.

It is only theologically significant that this story would appear here. As there is a question of Jesus personhood, and then the answer. Right in the middle of this exchange the author includes a story which SHOWS Jesus' relationship to sinners. Again, only significant theologically, and certainly not a story included in all the manuscripts.

Actually, it breaks up the flow of John. John certainly didn't write the story of the adulterous woman, it was added later by someone else.

I think you're absolutely right, but I don't know that this implies that there was 'no good answer'.

Except none is given. Like I said, maybe there was a Jesus who was born in Bethlehem and was an itinerant preacher, but we don't have accurate records that display this, and the Bible certainly doesn't lend itself to this.

What I meant to imply (and perhaps I argued for it horribly) is that the author meant to answer the larger question of who Jesus was and where He was from instead of answering the question posed by the crowd in John 7. IE: By occasion of a question of Jesus earthly heritage, the author instead takes advantage of the controvery to tell us of Jesus heavenly heritage.

And that may very well be the case, which makes it pretty stupid for the late addition of the adulterous woman story to have been inserted right there. Either way, if this is correct, John seems to be trying to diffuse the problems with Jesus not being born in Bethlehem by saying that he is god and therefore not subject to having a birthplace, ignoring the supposed prophecy.

For my own research, where do the dates of the Roman Census and Herod's death come from? (Which reliable historical resource is being referred to for the dates of 4 BC and 6 AD?)

"After the late-added story of the woman in adultery and casting the first stone, Jesus doesn't really tackle the place of his birth."

It is only theologically significant that this story would appear here. As there is a question of Jesus personhood, and then the answer. Right in the middle of this exchange the author includes a story which SHOWS Jesus' relationship to sinners. Again, only significant theologically, and certainly not a story included in all the manuscripts.

"What he's claiming is that he is part of god, which either doesn't say anything about his birthplace, or it says that he still does not fulfill the prophecy since he wasn't "born" per se at all."

I think you're absolutely right, but I don't know that this implies that there was 'no good answer'. What I meant to imply (and perhaps I argued for it horribly) is that the author meant to answer the larger question of who Jesus was and where He was from instead of answering the question posed by the crowd in John 7. IE: By occasion of a question of Jesus earthly heritage, the author instead takes advantage of the controvery to tell us of Jesus heavenly heritage.

A horrible first comment, but I'm tired. Apologies.

BTW, Ebon, I just discovered (and subscribed) to this site. I'd bookmarked dozens of posts of yours I found elsewhere a couple years ago. Nice to re-discover you and this site.

What I wonder though... is does it matter WHY Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem (in Luke's account)? If so, why?

Yes, for the simple reason that the why gives us insight into whether it actually happened, and it's pretty obvious that the story is made up. Maybe someone named Jesus did exist and maybe that person was born in Bethlehem, but the story of Luke certainly doesn't lend any evidence to that.

In John 8 Jesus answers the question of WHO He is and WHERE He came from, but not in the way it was questioned in chapter 7.

After the late-added story of the woman in adultery and casting the first stone, Jesus doesn't really tackle the place of his birth. He claims, actually, that he was here before Abraham. What he's claiming is that he is part of god, which either doesn't say anything about his birthplace, or it says that he still does not fulfill the prophecy since he wasn't "born" per se at all.

Perhaps some of you will disagree with my assessment, but it seems to me that the Book of John is a complete work, and we must look at the author's intent for the Book to understand why he may have left some things out.

And it still doesn't make sense, it still contradicts other gospels, etc.

Scholars on both sides of the debate write books about this, but just so I can see where each of you stand, what exactly is it you feel is so damning to Luke's account of the census? The alleged 10-year discrepancy? The scope of the census? A combination of these and/or other pertinent facts??

I suggest reading the article windy linked to. And also this section of the Wikipedia article, also linked to above. Raymond Brown, E.P. Sanders, and Joseph Fitzmeyer, and John P. Meier, all excellently regarded scholars, agree that the Lucan account of the census is faulty. From my own studies in theology, I gather the general scholarly census is that Luke is incorrect, and that only certain Evangelicals, determined to save the historicity of the gospel accounts for doctrinal reasons, argue otherwise. I would cite other scholars as well, if I had my collection of theology and biblical studies books with me.

"1Now in those days a decree went out from (A)Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of (B)all [a]the inhabited earth. 2This was the first census taken while [b]Quirinius was governor of (C)Syria. 3And everyone was on his way to register for the census, each to his own city. 4Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because (D)he was of the house and family of David, 5in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child. 6While they were there, the days were completed for her to give birth."

1. I think it's agreed upon that some sort of census was ordered. (v1)

2. It seems clear that the census was the reason for Joseph and Mary's trip. (v4,5)

3. Because the were in Bethlehem for the census, Jesus was born there. (v6)

Again, just to clarify so maybe I can follow along... is the dispute in Luke over whether or not Joseph HAD to go (by reason of a decree) to Bethlehem to register, or whether or not he CHOSE to go?

The problem if he HAD to go, is the Jews were discontent with Rome and not always willing to 'go with the flow' of Roman rule. (ultimately leading to the destruction of Jerusalem after Jesus' life) If Joseph hated Rome, and was ordered by Rome to take his pregnant wife on a ridiculous journey for the purpose of a census... I'm not sure he would have been so quick to oblige. (of course those were different times...)

The problem if he DIDN'T have to go, is that the only reason for him going would be his Jewish pride. (according to the arguments set forth so far) To me that's a pretty poor reason for taking a rough journey with your pregnant-and-soon-to-deliver wife. (it seems she had the baby soon after they arrived in Bethlehem)

What I wonder though... is does it matter WHY Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem (in Luke's account)? If so, why?

Windy:
"Now "their own city" is listed as Nazareth. So Luke does not seem self-consistent. If everyone was required to go to "his own city", and Joseph went to B-hem, why is "his own city" later named as Nazareth?"

The Bible seems to clarify this in v4, that the first 'their own city' refers to the city of their ancient heritage and since we know that the second 'his own city' refers to Galilee (and Galilee is where Joseph and Mary lived (see Luke ch. 1)) then it is (I think) safe to say the second their own city refers to where they currently lived. I'll admit that this is confusing in the English, and I wonder (as others have pointed out) if there's something we're not missing here from the original language. (I don't know there is.)

As for the John debate. Looking in John 1, the author chooses to reveal Jesus in a much different way. Not beginning with his humble earthly existence, but rather by stating that Jesus existed before all creation. In John chapter 1 the author states that all things were made by Him and through Him, showing Jesus preeminence in all of creation.

When we come to John chapter 7, it seems that Jesus legitimacy as a 'prophet' was called into question based upon his human birthplace. And I think it is very fair and correct to state that the author does NOT correct this. There is certainly a climax being presented in the text which I think is important.

In John 1 the author presents Jesus as Lord over all Creation. In John 7 people don't even think Jesus is qualified to be 'the prophet'. In John 8 Jesus answers the question of WHO He is and WHERE He came from, but not in the way it was questioned in chapter 7. As the author of John's purpose (as stated in chapter 1) was to reveal Jesus as Lord over all Creation, then isn't it fitting that he answers the question of Jesus origin by revealing what Jesus Himself had to say about the subject. To me, it seems like the question of whether or not Jesus was a prophet or not was meant to call into question the words of Jesus, instead of simply revealing that Jesus was a prophet (therefore valid) the author chooses to reveal Jesus as the Son of God (making his Words all the more worthy of note). Perhaps some of you will disagree with my assessment, but it seems to me that the Book of John is a complete work, and we must look at the author's intent for the Book to understand why he may have left some things out.

Clearly, some of the people talking thought he was [born in Bethlehem]; others thought he wasn't, and their remarks paraphrased are basically, "This ain't the dood! The dood isn't supposed to come from Galilee," but it's very reasonably that somebody would say that if they were under the impression.

[Emphasis mine]
The part I bolded, unfortunately for you, is not supported by the text of John. No one claims that Jesus really was born in Bethlehem; Jesus doesn't claim it, John doesn't claim it, the people at the feast don't claim it. You have no reason to suspect that people in John's story thought Jesus came from Bethlehem. This is a case of you reading context into the story that simply isn't there in a bid to buttress your argument. It is wholly unmerited, however.

First you allege I quote mine by failing to cite Dawkins in full, then I prove you wrong, and now you claim that I actually just don't understand it?

Man, if you can misinterpret me, you will. I'm beginning to think it's being done on purpose.

You quoted me saying that you quote mined Dawkins to get the result you want, not failing to cite in full. If you over-emphasize part of what he said in order to skew his meaning it's still a quote mine. Then, you claim that I'm saying you don't understand Dawkins' argument, which is true, you don't understand it (or at least you haven't shown that you understand it) but you fail to recognize that I was talking about you not understanding my argument! Once again, it's your inability to understand what others are saying that is the stumbling block.

Contrary to your protestations, I've understood and quoted the man in context and entirety since comment #1, just like I said.

No, you haven't. You've entirely missed his argument, harping on inconsequentials such as who said what. The fact remains that whether it was Jesus's supporters, his detractors, or Arthur Fonzarelli who noted that Jesus was born in Galilee and not Bethlehem, John doesn't dispute it and it supports Dawkins' assertion that there are inconsistencies in the place of Jesus's birth. (Not to mention your assertion that somehow having 2 Bethlehems is pertinent to the argument, when in reality it doesn't matter if there were 1, 2, or 10,000 Bethlehems!) That you can't or won't understand this means that you don't have a grasp on the actual arguments at hand, preferring instead to wallow in inconsequential attempts at "gotchas." And, now you are simply trying to gotcha me.

Move the goalpost all you want, but if you expect me to buy this load of chutzpah you're gonna have to include some actual evidence (in the form of my own words indicating the misunderstanding) for your assertion that I don't or didn't understand Dawkins passage.

There's no goalpost moving here, it's simply what is and has been. And, I've been arguing for a while now that you don't understand Dawkins. Maybe you do, but you haven't shown it, as evidenced by your harping on the number of Bethlehems, your confusion over the words in Luke and the census, and your confusion over what he's saying about John and why.

To be clear, I threw out the hypothetical scenario of Joseph and Mary first getting counted then going up to Bethlehem only to show that the text itself makes no implication of a requirement. It was in a "for all we know they could have" type context. My argument was and is that Luke's text does not support Ebonmuse's contention that there was a requirement.

Except that it does. "Also" in this sense does not mean that Joseph was counted and "also" went to Bethlehem. It means that everyone was required to "go to his own town" and Joseph "also" did this.