E
Eliza10
Guest
Yes, it certainly is an untenable position. And its a scandalous position for a “Roman Catholic” Professor of Theology!
- Status
E
ericc
Guest
Matthew and Luke claim Jesus is born in Bethlehem. After Matthew just described Jesus birth in Bethlehem and the magis and the flight to Egypt (and quoting prophecy to support the flight) and the slaughter of the innocents (of which there is some historical evidence) and quoting prophecy again, in Mat 2:23 he ended with another prophecy fulfilled “He shall be called a Nazarene”. The whole chapter would be incoherent if Mat’s account of the birth in Bethlehem is false. Why would he contradict himself? The proper conclusion is he didn’t. If the prophecies are not true , why quote them and open oneself to charges of fraudulent representation? For Matthew, being born in Bethlehem and being called a Nazarene is not contradictory because it actually is not. People can call Jesus a Nazarene and they wouldn’t be wrong because he grew up there. It is like people calling themselves New Yorkers even though they were born elsewhere.
If one accuse Matthew of slotting in the Bethlehem birth just so to comply with prophecy, then one is accusing him of false representation. And one could also accuse him of making things up such as curtain of the temple torn in two, rocks split, tombs opened and bodies of dead saints raised. etc Mat 27:50-53. Where was the evidence for all these? No historical records of these dead saints going to Jerusalem and appearing to many.
These types of reasoning are all suppositions. Most likely, could, should, ought to etc. One shouldn’t create new history just because the NT is silent. Which verse described Mary as “heavily” pregnant? Luke only mentioned she was with child in Luk 2:5. And the next verse said she gave birth in Bethlehem. No mention of how long she was there before she gave birth. Hence conjectural conclusions are not warranted.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I pointed out to you that Clement of Alexandria in his Stromata also mentioned about this registration exercise.
Elsewhere I mentioned that the registration could be an oath taking to celebrate Augustus declaration of the Father of the Nation of which there were some evidence of such an event. johnpratt.com/items/docs/herod/herod.html
2.3 Empire-wide Registration
Until recently, no empire-wide enrollment (Luke 2:1) was known that would have been required of Joseph and Mary; the commonly cited taxation of 8 B.C. applied only to Roman citizens. Now Martin has identified it as a combined census and oath of allegiance to Augustus in 3-2 B.C., perhaps related to the bestowal of the title “pater patriae” (father of thy country) by the senate on Feb. 5, 2 B.C.[10] Josephus records that over 6,000 Pharisees refused to pledge their good will to Caesar (about a year or so before Herod died),[11] probably referring to that oath because the census would have recorded how many refused. Orosius (a fifth century historian) clearly links an oath to the registration at the birth of Christ:
Code:
"[Augustus] ordered that a census be taken of each province everywhere and that all men be enrolled. So at that time, Christ was born and was entered on the Roman census list as soon as he was born. This is the earliest and most famous public acknowledgment which marked Caesar as the first of all men and the Romans as lords of the world ... that first and greatest census was taken, since in this one name of Caesar all the peoples of the great nations took oath, and at the same time, through the participation in the census, were made part of one society."[12]There is no evidence of the Exodus either but the Judaic faith depends on this event and Christianity stands on Judaism. With that reasoning of absence of evidence, both faiths would come crashing down. But history is not based upon solely on these kinds of evidence.
Luke disagree with you. He said “all the world” indicating empire-wide. That oath taking exercise sounds just the right ticket.
Based on which type of registrations? Tax? Census? Others? Jewish customs or Roman?
List them out and let us go through them, line by line. Is it silence, omission or clear contradiction? We need clear contradictions for them to bear any weight. See my previous attempt to make sense of the different approaches between Matthew and Luke. Was that detail enough to present a case? Are there any errors in my analysis?
E
ericc
Guest
Prophetic language is difficult to understand. What does Micah 5:3 mean? Does it mean that the ruler would only come when “the rest of his brethren shall return to the sons of Israel” i.e. all the tribes come back to Israel? If that is so, then that has yet to happen and the clock is still ticking till that day comes. Also see Isa 66:7-8. Micah 5:2 says “who is to be a ruler”. It didn’t say when that reign begins. Till the return of the tribes?
Second, is that an earthly rule? “He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and His kingdom will have no end.” (Luke 1:32-33). If forever is touted, then his rule could be referring to his second coming.
I am not sure all these prophesies indicate that all such things will be accomplished during his 30+ years on earth.
Like I said, prophetic language is difficult to understand.
I don’t think that was high on the priority list. Peter was on the run and persecution of the Church wouldn’t make that a priority. Anyway, Paul and others were on the speaking route, preaching in synagogues, arguing with religious people. If the apostles couldn’t make a case, they couldn’t have gone very far.
I see it differently. Anyone who claims Matthew or Luke 's Gospel contains falsehood would destroy the case for Christianity.
We might not have understood Micah properly. The Word of God is truth or it is not. There is no half way house.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Yes, even as I wrote my post yesterday, I was thinking about the difficulties in understanding prophetic language. I do agree with you that we might not be understanding Micah properly. But what about all the very learned Jewish scholars who say the messiah has to be a warrior-king? How can we be so far apart in understanding? I’ve always found that confusing. Of course the prophecy is that the Messiah would not be recognized even by his own.
If, and I do mean if, because my contention has just been that we don’t know with certainty where Jesus was born, the birth narratives are in error, I don’t think it destroys the case for Christianity. What would destroy the case for Christianity, I think, is if Jesus had not been resurrected. But he was. In all of human history, no one else has been resurrected. Resuscitated, yes, but if one is resuscitated he or she has not experienced true death. Only Jesus was resurrected. He is the Messiah. He is the Christ. He is the Son of God. To me, that is what matters.
Thank you for the information and for the polite way in which you presented it. I will think about it very seriously. Perhaps I will change my mind because I’m not saying Jesus was born in Nazareth. I totally agree with you. There is nothing at all, save the fact that he was called “Jesus of Nazareth,” to indicate a birth in Nazareth. And he was “from” Nazareth. Even if he was born in Bethlehem, he was a Nazarene, which was prophesied. My contention was that we just don’t know. But I will think about your posts.
Thank you again. Great posts!
E
Eliza10
Guest
The thing about theologians is that its like Catholics - there are many of them, and some of them are not who you would go to to learn from. And since there are many people who are Catholic who get degrees and put out the “theologian” shingle, you have to have discernment. Trust your instincts if something does not sound right to you - you don’t need a degree to know if something does not sound right because God speaks to your heart. Pursue the question at hand and you will likely find a theologian whose ideas DO give you the peace of God - and when you do you will probably like what else he/she has to say. There are wonderful theologians to choose from who ideas do not confuse us, leave us wondering, or uncomfortable because they feel as if they are (or in fact they ARE) conflicting with our basic beliefs as Catholics.
Below, the underlined, are links to some highly educated theologians who are well-respected and well-loved among faithful Catholics:
Try John Hardon. Here are some podcasts, and here is an article.
Also Fr. Wm. Most. his theological answers to Catholic questions are archived on the EWTN website by topic, and anyone can see these answers are superior to the “everyday fare” (basically the kind the secular media prefer to quote from!).
Many other theological answers can be looked up on EWTN here.
Also try the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology. Here is a link to other favorite links on their site.
Also Scott Hahn’s writings are pure gold, don’t forget. On this page of this link to his website are his recommended theological resources, and you can be sure he has read many, many more theological works than your average theologian before he narrowed his list down to this, and truly, truly he has the gift of discernment and an admirable, inspiring, uplifting Catholic faith.
After having even a little exposure to such as these, you will likely notice that the average theologian you see interviewed for mainstream news casts, or in the major media outlets, or on the History Channel or BBC is comparably pretty lame in their Catholic faith, and quite uninspiring! (There are occasional exceptions, of course!). And you’ll then know what camp other writers fall into after you have been exposed to the “good stuff”.
Below, the underlined, are links to some highly educated theologians who are well-respected and well-loved among faithful Catholics:
Try John Hardon. Here are some podcasts, and here is an article.
Also Fr. Wm. Most. his theological answers to Catholic questions are archived on the EWTN website by topic, and anyone can see these answers are superior to the “everyday fare” (basically the kind the secular media prefer to quote from!).
Many other theological answers can be looked up on EWTN here.
Also try the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology. Here is a link to other favorite links on their site.
Also Scott Hahn’s writings are pure gold, don’t forget. On this page of this link to his website are his recommended theological resources, and you can be sure he has read many, many more theological works than your average theologian before he narrowed his list down to this, and truly, truly he has the gift of discernment and an admirable, inspiring, uplifting Catholic faith.
After having even a little exposure to such as these, you will likely notice that the average theologian you see interviewed for mainstream news casts, or in the major media outlets, or on the History Channel or BBC is comparably pretty lame in their Catholic faith, and quite uninspiring! (There are occasional exceptions, of course!). And you’ll then know what camp other writers fall into after you have been exposed to the “good stuff”.
E
ericc
Guest
I chuckle when I read this bit.
All the rabbii , famous or not, got their own messiahs wrong. Rabbi Akiba, the father of rabbinic Judaism, proclaimed Bar Kokhba, the leader of the rebellion, to be God’s Anointed, the Messiah. Wrong. Moses Of Crete, wrong again. Abraham Abulafia, wrong. Prominent rabbis of that time (17th century) Isaac da Fonseca Aboab, Moses Raphael de Aguilar, Moses Galante, and Moses Zacuto. were followers of Shabbethai Tzvi, another self-claimed messiah. The only one that the rabbis didn’t recognized was Jesus.The Gospel of Matthew came out around 64/70AD. He wrote about the magis and Herod piece. Herod consulted the priests and scribes to find out Christ would be born. Matthew also listed the genealogy of Jesus. This is before the fall of Jerusalem and these data can be verified by the Jews of the time to sieve out any false claims. (To side track a bit, one of the reasons that Joseph need to go back to Bethlehem is because genealogy records are kept at the tribal city and to obtain witnesses from your kinfolks. How can one claim to be a descendant of so-and-so without evidence? Genealogy tracking is of vital importance to the Jews because of inheritance laws, marriage prohibitions among other things. And since Bethlehem is the tribal city of David, records will be kept there and not in Nazareth . And since all from the line of David need to make their way to register themselves, probably not enough rooms to cater for all the influx of visitors in a small dingy town eh?)
I dug and dug and I just couldn’t find the genealogy of Bar Kokhba. If the priests and scribes can identify Bethlehem as the birth place of the Messiah and of the line of David, then all the messiah claimants have to be born there with genealogy records to prove descent… I can’t argue from silence but I would expect the rabbis to trumpet that if that is factual for the messiah claimants. The obsession with the warrior king could be conditioned by their previous experiences of Saul, David, Solomon. I don’ t know. But how would they reconcile with all the other prophecies of the Suffering Servant, suffered, died and rose again etc. But regardless, if the “experts” couldn’t get their messiahs right, again and again, why should we put any credence on their understanding of these prophecies? If they understood properly, how could they got it wrong?
If you remove Matthew, Luke, Acts as being written by untrustworthy writers, the NT is pretty much crippled. The credibility of the Church to pronounced such writings as inspired is crushed. And hence all other pronouncements about inspired works are also tarnished. Then anyone can pick up a gnostic work and say it is the Word of God too. They will challenge the credibility of the Church to identify inspired works. And it waterfalls down. True, the fact of Jesus may remain intact, but the authority to teach and interpret the word of God by the Church may no longer be there and Christianity becomes a laissez faire affair.
It has been an interesting exchange! Counter claims force me to research and reevaluate my understanding of what was written and how it was (mis)translated. My library to support my beliefs just grew and grew thanks to all these to-and-fro exchanges. Inerrancy so far still remains in good standing in my books.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Those are the theologians who support your beliefs. Other theologians might resonate with other people. The Church, herself, has said to keep an open mind and that the Word of God is not static, but living and evolving.The thing about theologians is that its like Catholics - there are many of them, and some of them are not who you would go to to learn from. And since there are many people who are Catholic who get degrees and put out the “theologian” shingle, you have to have discernment. Trust your instincts if something does not sound right to you - you don’t need a degree to know if something does not sound right because God speaks to your heart. Pursue the question at hand and you will likely find a theologian whose ideas DO give you the peace of God - and when you do you will probably like what else he/she has to say. There are wonderful theologians to choose from who ideas do not confuse us, leave us wondering, or uncomfortable because they feel as if they are (or in fact they ARE) conflicting with our basic beliefs as Catholics.
Below, the underlined, are links to some highly educated theologians who are well-respected and well-loved among faithful Catholics:
Try John Hardon. Here are some podcasts, and here is an article.
Also Fr. Wm. Most. his theological answers to Catholic questions are archived on the EWTN website by topic, and anyone can see these answers are superior to the “everyday fare” (basically the kind the secular media prefer to quote from!).
Many other theological answers can be looked up on EWTN here.
Also try the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology. Here is a link to other favorite links on their site.
Also Scott Hahn’s writings are pure gold, don’t forget. On this page of this link to his website are his recommended theological resources, and you can be sure he has read many, many more theological works than your average theologian before he narrowed his list down to this, and truly, truly he has the gift of discernment and an admirable, inspiring, uplifting Catholic faith.
After having even a little exposure to such as these, you will likely notice that the average theologian you see interviewed for mainstream news casts, or in the major media outlets, or on the History Channel or BBC is comparably pretty lame in their Catholic faith, and quite uninspiring! (There are occasional exceptions, of course!). And you’ll then know what camp other writers fall into after you have been exposed to the “good stuff”.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Thank you for the post.I chuckle when I read this bit.
The Gospel of Matthew came out around 64/70AD. He wrote about the magis and Herod piece. Herod consulted the priests and scribes to find out Christ would be born. Matthew also listed the genealogy of Jesus. This is before the fall of Jerusalem and these data can be verified by the Jews of the time to sieve out any false claims. (To side track a bit, one of the reasons that Joseph need to go back to Bethlehem is because genealogy records are kept at the tribal city and to obtain witnesses from your kinfolks. How can one claim to be a descendant of so-and-so without evidence? Genealogy tracking is of vital importance to the Jews because of inheritance laws, marriage prohibitions among other things. And since Bethlehem is the tribal city of David, records will be kept there and not in Nazareth . And since all from the line of David need to make their way to register themselves, probably not enough rooms to cater for all the influx of visitors in a small dingy town eh?)
I dug and dug and I just couldn’t find the genealogy of Bar Kokhba. If the priests and scribes can identify Bethlehem as the birth place of the Messiah and of the line of David, then all the messiah claimants have to be born there with genealogy records to prove descent… I can’t argue from silence but I would expect the rabbis to trumpet that if that is factual for the messiah claimants. The obsession with the warrior king could be conditioned by their previous experiences of Saul, David, Solomon. I don’ t know. But how would they reconcile with all the other prophecies of the Suffering Servant, suffered, died and rose again etc. But regardless, if the “experts” couldn’t get their messiahs right, again and again, why should we put any credence on their understanding of these prophecies? If they understood properly, how could they got it wrong?
If you remove Matthew, Luke, Acts as being written by untrustworthy writers, the NT is pretty much crippled. The credibility of the Church to pronounced such writings as inspired is crushed. And hence all other pronouncements about inspired works are also tarnished. Then anyone can pick up a gnostic work and say it is the Word of God too. They will challenge the credibility of the Church to identify inspired works. And it waterfalls down. True, the fact of Jesus may remain intact, but the authority to teach and interpret the word of God by the Church may no longer be there and Christianity becomes a laissez faire affair.
It has been an interesting exchange! Counter claims force me to research and reevaluate my understanding of what was written and how it was (mis)translated. My library to support my beliefs just grew and grew thanks to all these to-and-fro exchanges. Inerrancy so far still remains in good standing in my books.
Things force me to research and reevaluate, too. Luckily for me, I read Hebrew and Latin fine. Unluckily for me, my ancient Greek is not “there” yet. I can read some, but I’m far from fluent in Greek although I need to be soon, considering my degree status.
I have to agree that the historical Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but the Jesus of history is not the historical Jesus. Still, I will do more research as time permits.
Thanks again for all the valuable information.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
adrift, the following is an apologist on THIS SITE writing, not me. I didn’t talk about Tradition or tradition at all:
*
catholic.com/magazine/art…ite-his-gospel
The facts are these: The Tradition of the Church, supported by the unbroken line of patristic testimony, as well as internal evidence from the text itself, is that the Gospel is rooted in the testimony of the apostle John, son of Zebedee…So all the evidence points to the accuracy of the Church’s tradition that John published his Gospel in Ephesus in the second half of the first century.*
It is an apologist ON THIS SITE who says the Church’s tradition is that John published his Gospel in Ephesus in the second half of the first century. That is why I italicized his words after the link to his article. I happen to agree with him, but those are HIS words, NOT mine. You said John did NOT write his gospel. I was just saying this site, and the Church, disagree with you.
C
clem456
Guest
I’m just curious if, in the academic institution where you are a theology professor, there are scripture scholars?
We have a scholar as our pastor who taught many years in the seminary. It has been a real eye-opener to learn about the transmission of scripture. Mainstream scripture scholarship, while not detracting from the Church’s traditions of authorship, admits that the transmission of scripture is very, very, messy. The Gospel of John, as precisely as can be told, was written by a community which was somewhat at odds with the Petrine community, and so the flavor and content of John is influenced by this passionate theological thrust, emphasizing points that this community felt were being lost. Maybe someone here is a scripture scholar and can elaborate more on this.
None of these writers wrote in a cave off by themselves. They lived in communities. Maybe we could call them parishes, or diocese. To just say that “John wrote it” is true, but it’s an oversimplification.
It’s not much different than our current evangelization. We have some pastors who are fantastic homilists and spiritual guides. Parishes and dioceses will collect their thoughts, distill them, and propagate materials for the edification of the faithful. There is more to it than one man doing isolated journalism or dictation,
As another example, there is a school of thought centered around JP2. And he is influenced by philosophers from earlier times. He incorporates references from earlier philosophers and theologians, as well as scripture. It’s true, he did write this and that, but he might be the first to say “I hand down what was given to me”. And he of course gives fresh insight to it.
This is not to detract from the tradition of authorship, but rather to give us an appreciation of how alive the Gospels were in the community. They were not the isolated experience of an individual, but were formed and passed on through living Tradition.
E
Eliza10
Guest
NO, Lily, these are EMINENT Catholic theologians of our time whose works are WIDELY acclaimed. Its not about “resonating”, its about TRUTH. If you are an assistant theology professor, you studied some theology. Then how is it you do not recognize today’s GREATS in your field? THESE should be the ones you look up to!
And I don’t know how you, in your field, can refer to these respected theologians as persons supporting someones “personal” beliefs. No. It’s CATHOLIC beliefs.
Who DO you look up to, if its not these?
If these theologians do not support YOUR beliefs than Catholics should take a wide berth around your “professional” opinion on Catholic theology.
E
Eliza10
Guest
Mainstream scripture scholarship thinks the transmission of infallible scripture is messy… I can agree with this statement - it sounds par for the course! But unlike you (assuming from what you say here) - I do think that this notion detracts* very much* from the Church’s tradition of authorship.
So John’s community was “at odds” with Peter’s - with the head of the Church. Do you have any of the historical and scriptural evidence that such theologians base such assumptions on?
I wonder how such theologians describe the Apostle John’s “theological thrust”?I am editing to add my husbands comment, who studied Biblical theology and sat Bible and church history exams in Hebrew, Greek and Latin. So I guess that makes him a “theologian”, too, along with the rest of his classmates… He comments that “The church has always said that John is MORE INTERESTED in theology than the other gospel writers are. That doesn’t mean he disagrees with the other gospel writers. He takes interest in a different aspect.” He also points out that “Nothing John says he seems to be condemning anyone’s errors. He is not speaking of other Christian teachers, in, for example, the way that Jesus distinguishes himself from the Pharisees. He does not define himself against anyone he disagrees with. He just isn’t doing that.”
Sounds like whats in my Bible.
So, Clem, I think it you are talking about John as a man influenced by his disagreements with other Christians, you are taking about a different gospel. (The mainstream secular one, maybe.)
C
clem456
Guest
I am going to have to dig out documents and ask Msgr for resources, unless there is someone here who is a scripture scholar and can elaborate with some authority. (would save a working person a lot of time)Mainstream scripture scholarship thinks the transmission of infallible scripture is messy… I can agree with this statement - it sounds par for the course! But unlike you (assuming from what you say here) - I do this notion detracts from the Church’s tradition of authorship.
So John’s community was “at odds” with Peter’s - with the head of the Church. Do you have any of the historical and scriptural evidence that such theologians base such assumptions on?
Can you at least agree, that the theological tone and thrust of John’s Gospel, is obvious? Why do you think it is like that?.
E
Eliza10
Guest
Its not necessary to look it up. I think its claptrap that got passed on to you. Totally worth ignoring!
See what I edited to the post, just above that you responded to here. Yes, John has a deeper interest in the nature of God and the nature of Jesus than any of the other gospel writers do, so he has a stronger theological bent. But it is not at all polemic. So to say it reflects disagreements with Peter’s community (which implies Peter had his own separate community, which is ANOTHER error, a glaring one) is an error.
St. Paul, in at least one place is drawing attention to and correcting the error of Christians who identify themselves with one apostle or another. But to claim that St. John or St. Peter were in need of that correction is a ridiculous leap!
E
Eliza10
Guest
Mainstream scripture scholarship thinks the transmission of infallible scripture is messy… I can agree with this statement - it sounds par for the course! But unlike you (assuming from what you say here) - I do think that this notion detracts* very much* from the Church’s tradition of authorship.
So John’s community was “at odds” with Peter’s - with the head of the Church. Do you have any of the historical and scriptural evidence that such theologians base such assumptions on?
I am editing to add my husbands comment, who studied Biblical theology and sat Bible and Church History exams in Hebrew, Greek and Latin. So I guess that makes him a “theologian”, too, along with the rest of his classmates… He comments that “The church has always said that John is MORE INTERESTED in theology than the other gospel writers are. That doesn’t mean he disagrees with the other gospel writers. He takes interest in a different aspect.” He also points out that “Nothing John says he seems to be condemning anyone’s errors. He is not speaking of other Christian teachers, in, for example, the way that Jesus distinguishes himself from the Pharisees. He does not define himself against anyone he disagrees with. He just isn’t doing that.”
Sounds like what’s in my Bible.
So, Clem, I think it you are talking about John as a man influenced by his disagreements with other Christians, you are taking about a different gospel. (The mainstream secular one, maybe.)
A
adrift
Guest
For the most part, I disagree with the “modern” thoughts that discredit the more traditional thoughts that were actually closer to the events then these “experts” two thousand years later. However, the NAB footnotes state:
Matthew
Mark
John
Luke, it seems, is the only one who is accepted as the author of a Gospel.
A
adrift
Guest
Please stop misquoting me. I did not call you a progressive which you have not acknowledged and I did not say that John did not write the Gospel.
What I said was that modern biblical scholars say he didn’t and this is in the NAB introduction notes authorized by the United States Bishops. Obviously then the Church does not disagree.
C
clem456
Guest
For me to go further, I will have to dig out class notes and or consult with Msgr to gain authoritative references. And I am not sure it would be productive.
I tend to agree that modern thought can be offensive to traditional sensibilities. In the posts I made, there is no value judgment to be made on the research or the researchers, cause I am not qualified make it. But the gist of what I said is, from what I understand, the way Christian bible scholars look at these issues, reinforced by what you quote above. These are not stupid or ill-intentioned scholars out to defame the Gospel. They simply do research. (well, ok, I am sure there is a wild hair element in there…)
Your post above supports that. (I am not a big fan of the NAB by the way, but, it really doesn’t matter what I think.)
C
clem456
Guest
Of course not. Let’s just assume that it’s…
.
You should think for a second about who you are dismissing. Just because you do not know these scholars or what they do and how they do it, does not give you the authority to use the word “claptrap”.
thanks.
A
adrift
Guest
I want to thank you for the information you have provided. I would be interested in what you would have to write on your class notes. Your post made me consider that it might be correct but like you I am not a fan of the NAB.
- Status