Are there historical errors in the Deuterocanonical Books?

  • Thread starter Thread starter shockerfan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

shockerfan

Guest
A friend of mine gave me a book titled The 10 Most Important Things You Can Say to a Catholic. The book presents the Protestant arguments against Catholic teachings. I have been going throught the book point by point with great success rebutting the arguments, except I currently don’t have a reply for the following point. Please help if you can.

How do I respond to the following?:

“The Apocrypha contains historical errors. Scholars have noted that, unlike the canonical Scriptures, which have consistently proven to be historically accurate, the Apocrypha contains obvious historical and geographical errors. For example, Tobit contains historical errors-- including the idea that Sennacherib was the sone of Shalmaneser (1:15 – he was actually the son of Sargon.) Second Maccabees likewise contains numerous discrepancies in chronological, historical, and numerical matters”
 
Protestants like to play games with ther false doctrineal beliefs. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, and also in Greek (Septuigent). Just from the translations of the two languages minor discrepancies appear in many of the books.

Ask someone what was the very first Bible. I told a Protestant radio preacher that the Latin Vulgate was the first Bible compiled in the year 400. He says, “Yeah but that Bible had the Apocrypha in it”, Well, think about it. Every Bible afterwards up to the Reformation contained the Deutercononical books. I think its pretty clear that Protestants took these inspired books out, 1,100 years later because primarily Macabees didn’t jive well with their distored theology.

All the early Apostles and the early Church accepted these books as scripture. The Palestinian Jews year 100AD rejected these books, they also rejected all the New Testament writings as inspired, and they rejected Jesus as the true Messiah. Which of the two groups would you rather follow as a christian? I’ll put my money on the Apostles, the early Church and the deutercononical books!
 
40.png
shockerfan:
A friend of mine gave me a book titled The 10 Most Important Things You Can Say to a Catholic. The book presents the Protestant arguments against Catholic teachings. I have been going throught the book point by point with great success rebutting the arguments, except I currently don’t have a reply for the following point. Please help if you can.

How do I respond to the following?:

“The Apocrypha contains historical errors. Scholars have noted that, unlike the canonical Scriptures, which have consistently proven to be historically accurate, the Apocrypha contains obvious historical and geographical errors. For example, Tobit contains historical errors-- including the idea that Sennacherib was the sone of Shalmaneser (1:15 – he was actually the son of Sargon.) Second Maccabees likewise contains numerous discrepancies in chronological, historical, and numerical matters”
Click to expand...
Check out this link: Click Here 👍
 
The one that gets me is Judith. Judith asserts that Nebuchadnezzar reigned over the Assyrians in Nineveh (he was king over the Chaldeans in Babylon) and that he ruled after the exile! (Judith 4.3). Can someone help me here?
 
40.png
J_Chrysostomos:
The one that gets me is Judith. Judith asserts that Nebuchadnezzar reigned over the Assyrians in Nineveh (he was king over the Chaldeans in Babylon) and that he ruled after the exile! (Judith 4.3). Can someone help me here?
Click to expand...
Jimmy Akin yells: PARABLE!
 
shockerfan said:
"For example, Tobit contains historical errors-- including the idea that Sennacherib was the sone of Shalmaneser (1:15 – he was actually the son of Sargon.)"

That kind of argumentation is used by skeptics to torpedo the historical accuracy of the Gospel According to Mark:

Mark 2:26 - “…how [David] entered the house of God, when Abi’athar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?”
The event Our Lord is referring to is in 1 Samuel 21:1-7. But Abiathar’s father Ahimelech— not Abiathar— is said to be the priest. Historical error? Hardly. It’s a difficulty, but there are ways to reconcile Mark and 1 Samuel (You can search the web for that).

Similarly, the apparent historical errors in the Deuterocanonicals are just that— apparent. We’ll see what we can do to address the particular case of Tobit.
Click to expand...
 
In the Gospels we read that Jesus the Lord referred to the Holy Scripture (the Old Testament) several times to silence the Jewish religious leaders of His time and teach His apostles that He had come to fulfill the Law & the Prophets. According to the account in all the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus made a reference to “what David had done when he was hungry” when Pharisees accused His disciples of violating the Sabbath by eating heads of grain. (Matthew 12: 1-2; Mark 2: 23-24; Luke 6:1-2). In Mark alone do we hear Jesus mention the “time” (when Abiathar was high priest) of David’s eating the consecrated bread even though both Matthew and Luke follow Mark to repeat that Jesus talked of the place of this incident (the house of God) as well as the people involved (David and his companions) and David’s reason for such an action (being hungry and in need).

The reference made by Jesus to Abiathar’s term is puzzling to many Christians whereas it is considered hard evidence by many unbelievers who assert that Mark knew almost nothing about the Jewish Scriptures and made an obvious mistake by confusing Abiathar with his father Ahimelech (1 Samuel 21:1). Although many biblical scholars do their best to refute such a reckless claim by focusing on the grammatical function of the adjectival clause in Greek, it’s unfortunately impossible to find a convincing solution to the baffling introduction of the name “Abiathar” along with the account of David’s eating consecrated bread.

However, a sound comparison of Jesus’ reference to this historic incident (quoted version) to the original version of this story in 1 Samuel 21:1-9 reveals more complex discrepancies. Actually, such a comparison causes much trouble since none of the elements present in Jesus’ quotation are harmonious with the ones in the original story except for the main character (David) and the act (eating consecrated bread). According to the book of Samuel, David goes to Nob to see Ahimelech the priest not when he feels hungry and in need – as stated by the Lord – but when he tries to escape the wrath and evil plots of Saul the King of Israel. Besides, the way Jesus narrates the story implies that no one gave bread to David since he took the bread and ate it himself with purely personal motives even though in Samuel it is Ahimelech the priest who offers David some of the consecrated bread, and David has the sole role of accepting that offer. Finally, in the original story what David gets is not only some bread but also a spear whilst the story narrated by Jesus leaves that out. In the light of this evidence, it is easy to claim that Jesus deliberately changed some parts of this story as He wished to take it out of its real historical context.

There might be a few reasons why Jesus made those deliberate additions to and deletions from the original story. First of all, Jesus primarily compared what His disciples were doing at His time to what David did centuries ago. Therefore, He wanted His adversaries to see that the act of eating was related to the notion of unlawfulness in both David and the disciples’ case. Secondly, the reason why Jesus gave David as the paramount example of a person violating God’s law was that David was the King of Israel to whom the Messianic promise of an eternal dynasty was granted. Consequently, the name of the high priest Ahimelech would have brought to one’s mind Saul as the official King of Israel rather than David if Jesus the Lord had not deliberately laid emphasis on Abiathar’s term. In other words, the occurrence of the name Abiathar in Mark’s Gospel aims to point at David’s reign since the reference to a King (rather than to a fugitive) makes Jesus’ teaching more effective and His point clearer.

Both Matthew & Luke maintain the same reference to David’s kingdom in Jesus’ version of the story when they relate that David entered the house of God. Actually, the house of God was the temple in Judaic terminology and this temple was directly associated with David and his kingdom. If we acknowledge that Mark made a mistake when he wrote Abiathar instead of Ahimelech, we must also confess that Matthew and Luke made a similar mistake when they used the word “house of God” instead of “the tent of the covenant” while recounting David’s story in 1 Samuel.

At the end of His reference to the account in Samuel, Jesus finally declares Himself greater than David the King of Israel in that David had the authority to eat the bread of the priests and give some to his companions whereas Jesus has the authority to work on Sabbath and allow His followers to do so as the King & Lord of the Sabbath. Saul was Ahimelech’s King, David was Abiathar’s King, Jesus the Messiah is the King and Lord of all!
 
If you do much Bible reading you will find quickly that there are obvious inconsistencies in both the Old and New Testaments. Here are two examples from my edition of the Jerusalem Bible:

The genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke are different.

In Matthew the Magi find Jesus living with Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem. After the visit Joseph took the family to Egypt until Herod was dead. But in Luke, after Jesus was presented at the Temple the family went back to Nazareth (not Bethlehem) where Jesus grew to maturity. And, “every year his parents used to go to Jerusalem for the feast of the Passover.”

These inconsistencies cannot logically be explained away. Either one of the genealogies is right and the other wrong, or both can be wrong, but both can’t be right. Either Jesus lived in Egypt or Nazareth or Bethlehem.

None of this nit-picking detracts from the authority of the Gospels and Jesus’ message of love and redemption. Don’t worry about it.
 
OriginalJS said:
If you do much Bible reading you will find quickly that there are obvious inconsistencies in both the Old and New Testaments. Here are two examples from my edition of the Jerusalem Bible:

The genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke are different.

In Matthew the Magi find Jesus living with Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem. After the visit Joseph took the family to Egypt until Herod was dead. But in Luke, after Jesus was presented at the Temple the family went back to Nazareth (not Bethlehem) where Jesus grew to maturity. And, “every year his parents used to go to Jerusalem for the feast of the Passover.”

These inconsistencies cannot logically be explained away. Either one of the genealogies is right and the other wrong, or both can be wrong, but both can’t be right. Either Jesus lived in Egypt or Nazareth or Bethlehem.

None of this nit-picking detracts from the authority of the Gospels and Jesus’ message of love and redemption. Don’t worry about it.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does matter. One of the fundamental approaches that the prosecution or the defense uses in court is to bring out inconsistencies in various testimonies between witnesses. They do this precisely in order to call into question the credibility of one or more witnesses – to challenge the integrity of the story. The same holds here. If the Gospels are wrong, then how can they be a trustworthy authority?

In Christ,
Irenaeus
 
Angelos said:
In the Gospels we read that Jesus the Lord referred to the Holy Scripture (the Old Testament) several times to silence the Jewish religious leaders of His time and teach His apostles that He had come to fulfill the Law & the Prophets. According to the account in all the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus made a reference to “what David had done when he was hungry” when Pharisees accused His disciples of violating the Sabbath by eating heads of grain. (Matthew 12: 1-2; Mark 2: 23-24; Luke 6:1-2). In Mark alone do we hear Jesus mention the “time” (when Abiathar was high priest) of David’s eating the consecrated bread even though both Matthew and Luke follow Mark to repeat that Jesus talked of the place of this incident (the house of God) as well as the people involved (David and his companions) and David’s reason for such an action (being hungry and in need)…
Click to expand...
I’m unclear why David fleeing from Saul would preclude him from seeking to obtain bread for him and his men due to hunger. Also, the issue concerning Abiathar and Ahimelech has been explained with numerous plausible scenarios. One being that Abiathar was more infamous than his father Ahimelech, and since the Greek epi can be rendered ‘in the time of,’ it does not necessarily mean 'when Abiathar was high priest’ but rather ‘in the time of Abiathar, the high priest.’ This is similar to a person who states, “When President Clinton was a little boy in Arkansas…” This does not mean that Clinton was President while in Arkansas, and it certainly does not mean that Clinton was President when he was a little boy. It’s a title that may be used of him regardless of whether one is actually speaking about him during his actual presidency because that is what he was know for. Similar here with Abiathar. Also, some have claimed that perhaps Abiathar was high priest simultaneous with his father Ahimelech (at least some overlap) as some have thought that Annas and Caiphas may have been.

In Christ,
Irenaeus
 
irenaeus1 said:
Yes, it does matter. One of the fundamental approaches that the prosecution or the defense uses in court is to bring out inconsistencies in various testimonies between witnesses. They do this precisely in order to call into question the credibility of one or more witnesses – to challenge the integrity of the story. The same holds here. If the Gospels are wrong, then how can they be a trustworthy authority?
Click to expand...
Sally says, “A tall man wearing a black shirt and blue jeans robbed the bank, with a revolver.”
David says, “A tall man wearing a brown shirt and blue slacks robbed the bank, with an automatic.”

While a lawyer could attempt to badger the witnesses in order to fluster them, the prosecuting attorney would have little trouble showing the jury that there was absolute agreement as to the fact that a tall man, wearing a dark shirt and blue trousers robbed the bank, using a handgun.

We do not have four Gospels because they are identical in all their details: that would invalidate the need to have four. We have four Gospels because the agree upon the majority of what they describe, despite some variations in detail.
 
Shockerfan,

Ask your friend what time Jesus was crucified. Mark 15:25 says it was at nine in the morning while John 19:14 has Jesus in front of Pilate around noon. Saying that John 19:14 says “the sixth hour,” meaning from midnight, doesn’t help because John 4:6 refers to “the sixth hour” as being noon.
  • Liberian
 
irenaeus1 said:
Yes, it does matter. One of the fundamental approaches that the prosecution or the defense uses in court is to bring out inconsistencies in various testimonies between witnesses. They do this precisely in order to call into question the credibility of one or more witnesses – to challenge the integrity of the story. The same holds here. If the Gospels are wrong, then how can they be a trustworthy authority?

In Christ,
Irenaeus
Click to expand...
Because they transmit the basic teachings of Jesus of love and redemption. The gospels, and most of the New Testament, were written in the first century and employed first century characteristics and literary devices in witnessing to Christ’s authority based on commonly held concepts of the time. The Old Testament was written earlier. Judged by these standards they are not wrong. However, an attempt to apply 20th and 21st century knowledge and standards of accuracy to the Bible will produce considerable frustration.

The Bible is not literally true as we understand what that means. A lot of people believe it is, and they have devoted huge effort and erudition trying to show it is. Their efforts have resulted in huge, commendable, advances in Biblical scholarship but there is much that simply can’t be explained away except in the most strained and improbable manner. Added to this are efforts to support current beliefs of right and wrong. This adds to the complexity.

One example. There is no question that the patriarchs of the Old Testament accepted polygamy as perfectly natural and moral. If you doubt this consider the wives of Jacob in Genesis. Later, see how many wives Solomon had! In spite of this, commentators who favor monogamy will say that the Old Testament supports them.

First century writers had to use their understandings and those of their readers to communicate. At the time many believed that the earth was flat, that the sky was a dome over the earth, and that stars were holes in the sky where the light of heaven shown through at night. With those understandings, it would be believeable to believe a star stopped over a house to designate a place. Today, we know that stars as we understand them don’t lead people from place to place and stop over destinations.

In Christ.
 
Before refuting the general assertion that the Gospel of Luke and Matthew are replete with undeniable contradictions and these discrepancies are obvious in Jesus’ two distinct genealogies, it is necessary to highlight the similarities between the Gospels of these two evangelists. Firstly, Matthew and Luke’s Gospel are alike in that both give an account of Jesus’ nativity and infancy. Secondly, Matthew and Luke apparently concur on the number of the chapters allotted to the relation of the events taking place prior to Jesus’ baptism: neither Matthew nor Luke writes more than two main chapters to incorporate Jesus’ infancy into their Gospel account. Finally, both evangelists follow the same order while narrating Jesus’ nativity and childhood: first chapter depicts the events preceding Jesus’ birth while the second chapter begins with his nativity and comes to an end when Jesus returns to Nazareth.

All these similarities support the presumption that Matthew and Luke knew what as well as how they were writing about Jesus’ nativity. Since they were aware of each other, the major differences in their accounts primarily aimed to serve as complementary, and one wrote whatever the other left out. Moreover, different literary styles peculiar to the evangelists stemmed from their distinct purposes and the type of the audience they addressed. For instance, Matthew highlighted the sorrowful events and the notion of constant fear incurred by the mighty leaders ruling in Palestine (Herod) whereas Luke focused on joyful events such as birth (John the Baptist and Jesus) and meeting someone and finding consolation in the loved and expected one’s arrival (Elizabeth and Mary coming together, Simeon and Anna meeting the savior). Likewise, Matthew demonstrated how the local leaders in Palestine (Herod) acted in accordance with the divine plans and functioned as the indirect fulfiller of some prophecies by conducting massacres whilst Luke pointed out the same instrumental use of world leaders by the divine wisdom when he referred to the issue decreed by the Roman emperor for a census. In the former tragic incident recorded by Matthew, Jesus was forced to leave Palestine, through which two prophecies in the Old Testament were fulfilled; in the latter joyful event Jesus’ parents were compelled to go to Bethlehem so as to be enrolled, through which Jesus’ birth in David’s city was realized.
 
1000 difficulties do not add up to single doubt. I have heard pretty much every “contradiction” in the bible and I could provide a very convincing argument for each one.
 
OriginalJS said:
Because they transmit the basic teachings of Jesus of love and redemption. The gospels, and most of the New Testament, were written in the first century and employed first century characteristics and literary devices in witnessing to Christ’s authority based on commonly held concepts of the time.
Click to expand...
If all that was intended was to transmit basic teachings, then why are the writings considered inspired? We don’t need inspiration for that. Corroboration on major events can be accomplished without requiring inspired scripture (just as it doesn’t take inspired writings to accurately and faithfully tell us that Abrahan Lincoln was President during the Civil War). And inaccurate details are not a first century literary device, especially when often the details are given precisely for the reason of giving details.

In Christ,
Irenaeus
 
Mystophilus said:
Sally says, “A tall man wearing a black shirt and blue jeans robbed the bank, with a revolver.”
David says, “A tall man wearing a brown shirt and blue slacks robbed the bank, with an automatic.”

While a lawyer could attempt to badger the witnesses in order to fluster them, the prosecuting attorney would have little trouble showing the jury that there was absolute agreement as to the fact that a tall man, wearing a dark shirt and blue trousers robbed the bank, using a handgun.

We do not have four Gospels because they are identical in all their details: that would invalidate the need to have four. We have four Gospels because the agree upon the majority of what they describe, despite some variations in detail.
Click to expand...
I gave this analogy to present how, if this is the approach that we would use to scrutinize fallible witnesses, then how much more so would we expect agreement among inspired witnesses. Although, if both witnesses are exactly correct, then we could surmise that a tall man wearing a black and brown shirt with dress blue jeans possessing two weapons – and automatic and a revolver – robbed the bank. Of course, if one of the witnesses pointed out the accused in the court room and said, “It was him,” and his name just happened to be Abiathar, but another witness selected Ahimelech out of a line-up, you can bet that the defense would point that out.

In Christ,
Irenaeus
 
OriginalJS said:
The Bible is not literally true as we understand what that means. A lot of people believe it is, and they have devoted huge effort and erudition trying to show it is. Their efforts have resulted in huge, commendable, advances in Biblical scholarship but there is much that simply can’t be explained away except in the most strained and improbable manner. Added to this are efforts to support current beliefs of right and wrong. This adds to the complexity.
Click to expand...
It depends on what you mean by literally. A person who says that it is raining cats and dogs outside literally means that there is a torrential downpour. That’s what the phrase literally means - not that canines and felines are falling from the sky. Another example, a meteorologist who states that sunrise will be at 6:05am tomorrow morning is not making a scientific error simply because he is not making a scientific statement (even though he is a scientist). He is making a statement based on an acceptable idiom of the English language that expresses an event based on perspective without claiming that the earth is flat and the sun travels over the arch of the sky. Similarly, literary conventions and styles of the ancients need to be properly understood for correct biblical interpretation. So in this regard, I agree with you.

But there are no ancient literary conventions where someone intends to give certain details precisely for the sake of giving details but can be wrong because it’s accepted convention. In the above example concerning Abiathar and Ahimelech, either Mark was wrong in recording it or Jesus was wrong in stating it. Either one is unacceptable. Jesus obviously cannot err. Mark cannot err because he was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and therefore, Mark’s writing had God as its author. Since inerrancy extends to what the biblical writers intended to teach and Mark intended to convey the actual words of Jesus, then the statement must be without error.

In Christ,
Irenaeus
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top