(17 votes, average: 4.94 out of 5)
Loading...Thanks to the incredible generosity of members of the blog, I am happy to announce that there are a limited number of free one-year memberships available. These have been donated for a single purpose: to allow those who cannot afford the annual membership fee to participate on the blog for a year. I will assign these memberships strictly on the honor system: if you truly cannot afford the membership fee, but very much want to have full access to the blog, then please contact me.
Do NOT reply here, on the blog, as a comment. Send me a separate email, privately, at [email protected]. In your email, let me know your situation (why you would like to take advantage of this offer) and provide me with the following information:
1) Your first and last name.
2) Your preferred personal email.
3) Your preferred user name (no spaces).
4) Your preferred password (should be 8 or more characters, no spaces).
The donors will remain anonymous, but here let me publicly extend my heartfelt thanks for such kind and generous donations to help others.
Really impressed with the generosity of members of this blog, and you for organising this, Bart.
Off topic comment – the History Channel (UK version) is running a show ‘Robert Powell on The Real Jesus of Nazareth’ which is said to claim that Jesus was born on Christmas day, Mark and Luke were two of Jesus’ twelve Apostles and that the ‘real’ Jesus spoke Hebrew and Greek, but not Aramaic! Their “quiz” will deduct points if we think Jesus was a carpenter – instead, the show claims he was a stonemason (he could have been either, but if you opt for carpenter – you’re wrong!)
This is being passed off as history, and the show is criticising us Brits for giving the “wrong” answers. Can you use your powers to save us from this Bart?
All the stupidity can be found here: http://www.swnsdigital.com/2017/12/one-in-five-clueless-brits-does-not-know-that-jesus-was-born-on-christmas-day/
Oh dear. I think I may have been one of the talking heads for this show. But I certainly didn’t embrace any of *those* points!!
Hi, I have a question though I don’t know if this is the right spot for it.
I’ve read in different places what Bart wrote about problems with Luke’s census (starting in Luke 2:1)–about how far-fetched it is about Caesar Augustus saying “all the world should be registered” and about Quirinius as governor of Syria and about Joseph going to register in the town of an ancestor (David) who lived 1,000 years earlier.
I agree with everything Bart says in books and lectures about the census. Luke’s census account can not be historical.
But I don’t know if anyone has addressed this: was Luke possibly sort of joking? Could this be humor? Did Luke describe something that Luke himself knew would have seemed preposterous even to Luke’s original readers?
Luke had to place Jesus in Bethlehem to fulfill prophecy, but maybe Luke gives the story with a kind of wink–like he expected readers to be “in” on how silly the story is. Is it possible Luke did not intend to be too taken too seriously?
Maybe Matthew did the same with the star that stopped above a house. Maybe Matthew didn’t mean to be taken too seriously with this star?
I guess there would be no way to know. Nothing in the text itself suggests a nod and a wink.
A lot of people seem to get tripped up by this. The following is the sequence of historical events that put the entire narrative in context.
— Herod the Great’s son Herod Archelaus is given rule (i.e. ethnarchy) over “Judea” (includes Judea, Palestine, Idumea and Samaria) ca. 4 BCE.
— ca. 6 CE the Jewish aristocracy of Judea complain to Emperor Augustus about the misrule of Herod Archelaus; moreover, they request a Roman governor in lieu of a Jewish ethnarch. Archelaus is deposed and exiled to Gaul (while Galilee and Perea remain under Herod Antipas’ ethnarchy).
— Emperor Augustus orders the governor of Syria, Quirinius, to take a census of “Judea” (again, this includes Judea, Palestine, Idumea and Samaria, but not Galilee!), so that the new Roman governor can properly levy taxes.
— Some Jews rebel (e.g. Judas of Gamala) against a direct Roman rule of Jerusalem and against the Roman levy.
At no point are Galileans subject to this census. At no point are any Jews ordered to return to ancestral cities. All of that is conveniently made up to rationalize the story.
You give an excellent summary of facts needed to understand Luke’s census. Thanks.
As you say, “At no point are any Jews ordered to return to ancestral cities.” That’s the crazy part. Bart has said in lectures and in books that if such a census were held today (all people must go where an ancestor lived 1,000 years earlier), where would YOU go?
(By the way, why should Joseph register in the town were David was born? Why not go to Jerusalem where Solomon was born?)
How did Luke think he could “get away” with describing a census that could not have happened? It is a type of census that would have meant chaos in the Roman Empire, with everyone uprooted and living in hotels. Romans aren’t known for chaos.
In 85 A.D., readers or listeners of Luke’s gospel must have looked at each other and said, “Huh? I never heard of any such census. Grandpa never mentioned any such thing”
In a sense, Luke did get away with it since plenty of readers today take Luke’s census seriously, but what about Luke’s original audience? I would think Luke’s original readers would LAUGH at this census that obviously did not happen the way Luke describes.
I also think Christians should view Joseph as cruel for making Mary ride a donkey for the 3 days of travel from Galilee to Bethlehem.
One of Bart’s books first opened my eyes to how silly Luke’s census is. Thanks, Bart. The whole thing is so preposterous that I have to wonder if Luke EXPECTED his audience to see it as preposterous–a type of humor.
I have a question completely off topic, but curious to hear your input.
Starting in Numbers 5:11, there are instructions for what a man could do if he suspected his wife was unfaithful. When we get to verses 22, 23, and 27, we get descriptions of what happens to the woman, and the descriptions vary by translation. The NRSV mentions the womb and uterus, but other translations use the word “thigh”. Do you know what anatomical parts are being affected, and what is happening to them exactly?
The Hebrew words translated “womb” and “uterus” in the NRSV are literally “thigh” and “belly” (respectively). But given the nature of the case, part of the leg and the stomach do not seem to be in view, and so the assumption that it is talking about distinctively female organs connected with pregnancy. Others on the blog are proficient in Hebrew and can chip in here.
The Hebrew word used in verses 22 and 27 is yorekh, which refers to the upper leg region in general, and, therefore, when in reference to women, is a euphemism for vagina. The Hebrew verb used there that is usually translated as “fall away” is naphal, which is the passive form of yaphal, which literally means to fall. But in the passive form — naphal — it means something more like “dropped”. So what that passage is saying, euphemistically, is that the woman’s “thigh” (read: vagina) will “drop” (read: abort the fetus). Within the context of the time this passage was written (ca. 5th century BCE), a reader would understand that the priest’s concoction was an abortative.
You probably are getting bombarded with this question:
Pope Francis said Lead us not into temptation should be Let us not fall into temptation.
How do you translate the line in the Our Father prayer?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/pope-francis-wants-to-change-line-of-our-father/ar-BBGnr4G?OCID=ansmsnnews11
It is the verb EISPHERO, which literally means something like “bring into.” Since it is active, and second person singular, it is literally translated “do not bring us into temptation.”
Prof, did you receive enough gift memberships to meet all requests?
Yes, we are well-stocked now, thanks. If we need more, I’ll put out a plea.
I’ve also heard it said the the line “give is this day our daily bread” was originally “give us this day our bread of the morrow” in the original Aramaic version – implying, receiving spiritual sustenance from the messianic age, before it’s fully there.
It is a notoriously difficult line to translate, as it turns out. Even in the early church scholars weren’t sure what it meant exactly.
Thanks “a million” as my mom would sometimes say back in the ’60s and ’70s.