Can the Bible be in Error, Historically?

[rose_kelly]

A lot of these replies are over my head, but in answer to my question, can the Bible be in error, historically? Yes? No?

That’s something you have to discern yourself with the enquiring individual mind God has given you.

As for replies, this thread has adequately provided some intelligible explanations from people for you to reflect on, and if I can understand them I’m sure you can.

 

[Faith1960]

The Bible is a history book, it is the history of salvation. However, it is not written in the modern style. Quotes in the Bible are not exact word quotes, as it expected today. This is clear from some OT passages, where the same events are recounted repeatedly in dialogue. It is also clear by a comparison of the four Gospels, where they overlap in content.

The Bible speaks in terms accessible and understandable to the people of every age. Some passages contain figurative elements, such as creation in 7 days. There is always a question of correct interpretation of the true statement. Jesus said Lazarus was asleep, and the disciples misunderstood, so the then stated more plainly that Lazarus was dead.

It seems to me that what motivates the claim that the Bible contains errors is a desire to find some way to undermine the authority of Sacred Scripture, so that any teaching on faith or morals which are disliked and be discounted.

The only problem with historical and scientific content in the Bible is the weakness of faith of the person reading the text.

But would there be errors in things like Quirinious?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

A lot of these replies are over my head, but in answer to my question, can the Bible be in error, historically? Yes? No?

Yes. The Bible is not a history book. Some of it is accurate history and other is embellished. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true in it’s teachings. Here is a good synopsis of Bible historical errors and accuracy:

wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=The_Bible_is_not_a_reliable_historical_source

 

[Ron_Conte]

But would there be errors in things like Quirinious?

No, there are no errors in things like the census of Quirinius, and other events of Roman history, or Jewish history for that matter. I’ve researched the subject of Biblical chronology, and (without getting into details) I can assure you that there are many different opinions among scholars about Quirinius and other questions of chronology. But most scholars take the point of view that the Bible is reliable on historical matters. They find ways to reconcile apparent contradictions, rather than just proclaiming that these things are errors.

Here is a common argument against inerrancy: “Look here, I found an error in the Bible, and some scholars agree with me!”

And here is the reply: “It is an article of faith that the Bible is inerrant. So if it seems like an error to you, and to 100 scholars standing behind you, it only seems that way. Faith takes precedence over reason.”

See the quotes I gave above from the Popes. Inerrancy is a definitive teaching of the Magisterium.

 

[seagal]

But would there be errors in things like Quirinious?

If you had read Jimmy Akin’s article as I suggested in post #10 you would have seen that the Quirinius census issue is not an issue at all. Jimmy quotes noted scholar N.T. Wright:

The question of Quirinius and his census is an old chestnut, requiring a good knowledge of Greek. It depends on the meaning of the word protos, which usually means ‘first’.

Thus most translations of Luke 2.2 read ‘this was the first [protos] census, when Quirinius was governor of Syria’, or something like that.

But in the Greek of the time, as the standard major Greek lexicons point out, the word protos came sometimes to be used to mean ‘before’, when followed (as this is) by the genitive case (p. 89).

A good example is in John 1.15, where John the Baptist says of Jesus ‘he was before me’, with the Greek being again protos followed by the genitive of ‘me’.

I suggest, therefore, that actually the most natural reading of the verse is: “This census took place before the time when Quirinius was governor of Syria.”

Wright is not the only scholar who adopts this position, as is mentioned in the article. Going from other known events the suggested year of the census is A.D. 6. He goes on to say

My guess is that Luke knew a tradition in which Jesus was born during some sort of census, and that Luke knew as well as we do that it couldn’t have been the one conducted under Quirinius, because by then Jesus was about ten years old. That is why he wrote that the census was the one before that conducted by Quirinius.

 

[Sirach2]

Oh! Glad you brought that up!
Because the quote you give above says he was born during the reign of Herod (who died in 4BC)…and yet, “Luke”'s writing says he was born approx ten years later.
So right here, we have a historical discrepancy/error for the OP to check out.
Thanks!

But why do you think most scholars are wrong?
They (and I) are obviously aware of the above excerpt from “Matthew”…but that does not mean it is factually/historically correct.

If Jesus was indeed born years later, as per Luke, then he would not even be born during Herod’s reign. So Herod’s quotes that you give above would make no sense.

There were other successors named Herod, but it does not disprove Luke’s account as being in error. thegoodbookblog.com/2014/mar/03/how-many-herods-are-there-in-the-bible/

There is an interesting article on Herod and Jesus’ birth here. St. Luke gave the most complete details of His birth, which he most probably learned from Mary herself.

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

The Church teaches that there are no errors in Sacred Scripture on any subject about which Scripture makes an assertion.

The Bible can be read literally, figuratively, mystically or prayerfully, but not necessarily all at the same time. There are no errors in Sacred Scripture providing you are reading it correctly. If you read Genesis 1, literally, and not figuratively or mystically, and think it says that that the creation of the world took God 144 hours (6 days) then you’re doing it wrong.

If you think there is a historical “error” in Scripture then it is likely the writer, inspired by the Holy Ghost, is making a figurative, mystical or prayerful point and not a historical point.

 

[edwest2]

The Bible can be read literally, figuratively, mystically or prayerfully, but not necessarily all at the same time. There are no errors in Sacred Scripture providing you are reading it correctly. If you read Genesis 1, literally, and not figuratively or mystically, and think it says that that the creation of the world took God 144 hours (6 days) then you’re doing it wrong.

If you think there is a historical “error” in Scripture then it is likely the writer, inspired by the Holy Ghost, is making a figurative, mystical or prayerful point and not a historical point.

The Catechism tells us how to read and interpret the Bible. Strange that Genesis gets brought up so often.

"The senses of Scripture

"115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

"116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

"117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

"118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87

"119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89"

---

"The Time Question

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

Ed

 

[Sirach2]

Oh! Glad you brought that up! (Glad? Why? Because you can now prove the scripture is “errant?”)
Because the quote you give above says he was born during the reign of Herod (who died in 4BC)…and yet, “Luke”'s writing says he was born approx ten years later.
So right here, we have a historical discrepancy/error for the OP to check out.
Thanks!

If Jesus was indeed born years later, as per Luke, then he would not even be born during Herod’s reign. So Herod’s quotes that you give above would make no sense.

After further study of this scripture from Luke 3:1, “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar–when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, **Herod Tetrarch of Galilee … **” and checking my reference page with the many “Herods”, it was said that THIS Herod, Tetrarch of Galilee, ruled from 4 BC to 39 AD. It would seem to me that Jesus was therefore born during the reign of Herod, as scripture records. It may be that you were thinking of Herod the Great, his father, who died in 4 BC.

BTW, it is good to be a scholar of the Sacred Word, for one’s own enrichment and enlightenment, but when scripture is studied purely for the sake of disproving its veracity, then I fail to understand the worth of these types of discussions. As St. Paul stated in his famous quote, “If I have all knowledge and understand all mysteries, but I have not love, it profits me nothing!” ! Cor. 13.2

 

[seagal]

BTW, it is good to be a scholar of the Sacred Word, for one’s own enrichment and enlightenment, but when scripture is studied purely for the sake of disproving its veracity, then I fail to understand the worth of these types of discussions. As St. Paul stated in his famous quote, “If I have all knowledge and understand all mysteries, but I have not love, it profits me nothing!” ! Cor. 13.2

 

[ericc]

It can, and it does. The bible has a lot of historical errors–hundreds, say some historians.

The example you give of the census is one of the most well-known ones; there is no record of any Roman Empire-wide census at that time.

We have good records kept for the reign of Caesar Augustus at that time, and there is no mention anywhere, in any of them, of a census like that where everyone had to go back to their ancestral home from a thousand years earlier to register. In fact, there has never been a census that required such a thing.

Imagine the pandemonium. And not a single reference to it in any ancient source except in the gospel named Luke.

.

askelm.com/star/star014.htm
comereason.org/roman-census.asp

Extracted from the articles above.

1a) It wasn’t a census. It was a registration. There are proposals that suggest the registration was an oath-taking of loyalty to Augustus celebrating his Silver Jubilee and the senate award of “Pater Patriae” (Father of the Country) to him. It wasn’t a tax registration because under King Herod rule, taxes were paid to him and not to Rome.

There is evidence of this oath taking in Paphlagonia dated to 3 BC .

“taken by the inhabitants of Paphlagonia and the Roman businessmen dwelling among them.” The inscription states that Romans as well as non-citizens took the oath. And importantly, the whole of the population were required to swear it. “The same oath was sworn also by all the people in the land at the altars of Augustus in the temples of Augustus in the various districts.” * Lewis and Reinhold, Roman Civilization.
*

1b) On another occasion, an enrollment of all the people of the empire happened to swear an oath of allegiance to Caesar. In Chapter 34 of Res Gestae Augustus also notes, “When I administered my thirteenth consulate (2 B.C.E.), the senate and Equestrian order and Roman people all called me father of the country, and voted that the same be inscribed in the vestibule of my temple”. Josephus also mentions a time “When all good people gave assurance of their good will to Caesar”. These types of tributes would also require an enrollment of individuals from across the empire. Orosius, a fifth century Christian, links this registration with the birth of Jesus saying that “all of the peoples of the great nations were to take an oath”.

1. Luke simply said that Quirinius was ruling or administrating this first registration from Syria, not that he was the governor of the province. The Greek word Luke used to show the rulership of Quirinius was hegemoneuontos. It is a present participle which simply means that Quirinius was ruling or administrating his duties from the region of Syria.

In stating that Quirinius controlled the Syrian area, Luke doesn’t use the official political title of “Governor” (“legatus”), but the broader term “hegemon” which is a ruling officer or procurator. Justin Martyr’s Apology wrote that Quirinius was a “procurator”, not a governor of the area of Judea.

I apologise for the cut/paste job but these 2 articles do offer the explanation for Luke’s account. Luke is reputed to be a first rate historian and not expected to goof up on dates.

 

[ericc]

Yes, most of the scholars I know say he was born in Nazareth, too.

.

And the evidence to support this view? Perhaps you have a tendency to surround yourself with people who agrees with you?

You should surround yourself with people who vote for Bethlehem. That would give you a more balanced perspective.

Birthtown is where you were born. Home town is where you grew up.

 

[Sirach2]

Interestingly enough, I find most scholars and historians are convinced he was born in Nazareth…and it’s usually the theologians who think he was born in Bethlehem.

And your sources are more qualified than theologians, St. Luke, and the Church Who approved them ??? Trust me, they are more certain than just to “think”…

Consider this verse, if you will, “Mary treasured all these things and pondered them in her heart.” [Lk 2:19] How would St. Luke know this personal detail, had Mary not told him? Who would make such a bold statement without having personal knowledge of it? No other evangelist had such intimate details of Jesus’ birth and early life.

What faith are you? “May the force be with you” does not give the reader an honest sense of who you are. I believe the OP asked the same question here, but you did not respond.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The Bible can be read literally, figuratively, mystically or prayerfully, but not necessarily all at the same time. There are no errors in Sacred Scripture providing you are reading it correctly. If you read Genesis 1, literally, and not figuratively or mystically, and think it says that that the creation of the world took God 144 hours (6 days) then you’re doing it wrong.

If you think there is a historical “error” in Scripture then it is likely the writer, inspired by the Holy Ghost, is making a figurative, mystical or prayerful point and not a historical point.

Saint Thomas states that the text always has a literal meaning (which in his terminology also includes figurative expressions), and the spiritual level of meaning is always based on a true literal/figurative meaning. So basically, there is a direct level of meaning (literal or figurative) and an indirect level of meaning (spiritual). But the direct meaning is always true. A true spiritual level of meaning is never based on a false assertion.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Specifically on the Quirinius question, the opinion cited and adopted by Akin is a minority view. Indeed, it is a small minority of scholars who take that view.

The more common view, expressed in Jack Finegan’s Handbook of Biblical Chronology is that Quirinius was not governor in the traditional sense, but he had authority over the region for the purposes of a census. And two censuses were conducted, which is why Luke says this was the “first” census. The 6 AD census was the second one, and very few scholars think that Luke was referring to that census.

Also, the dating of each census is not without controversy and uncertainty.

 

[Wesrock]

The Church doesn’t cling to the historical accuracy of every book in the Bible, but it does teach that the Gospels are historically accurate, and not even simply true to what the gospel writer thought really happened, but that they are true to what really happened.

 

[pianistclare]

Interestingly enough, I find most scholars and historians are convinced he was born in Nazareth…and it’s usually the theologians who think he was born in Bethlehem.

It’s true, I do hang out with a lot of biblical scholars…guilty as charged! That’s because I’m studying for a degree in the subject and one of my best friends is a top New Testament historian, so I steal his books and read them all night. They make for interesting dreams.

I’ll get some information for you, as per your request, and I’ll post it here.

I assume you want to surround yourself with more people who vote for Nazareth?
To keep a balanced perspective?

.

OK TWICE you’ve said this.
Citations please.

 

[pianistclare]

Twice I’ve said what?
About the historians I’ve read believing Jesus was born in Nazareth?

Sure, I’ll give you some names if that is what you’d like. But they are also quoted all over the place, in case you wanted to find some before I get back to you.

.

I’ll wait.

 

[pianistclare]

I don’t understand what you are asking.
I don’t say my “sources” are more qualified. I just say people disagree on this question–the place Jesus was born–and that there are discrepancies and questions about accuracy…because the OP is asking if there are any historical errors in the bible and this is one of many that a lot of people think is an error.
Would it be so terrible if he was born in Nazareth and not Bethlehem?

I am well aware of the quotes in the book called “Luke”…but I’m also aware that there is solid evidence that it was written anywhere from 50-70 years after Jesus died and that there is textual evidence that it may have been altered for several decades after that…and that it was probably not written by the disciple Luke himself.

I don’t believe something* only* because someone wrote it–especially someone unknown from 2000 years ago–I try to check and do research on it first and look at all the facts.
My career as a journalist/fact-checker compels me to research “facts” that people give or write…I know well enough from behind the scenes that just because something is written, it doesn’t mean it is correct or accurate.

I would hope that most people check and research the facts of a belief system or religion or the ideas that are important to them if they are to base their life on them.

Do you do that yourself?

.

Your experience of being a fact checker tells you that adhering to a source that comes along 70 years AFTER the fact, is more reliable than an eyewitness account?
Because that’s what makes them Gospels. Wow.
If you actually did research and checked facts, you would come to the same conclusion as the Magisterium.

I’m out.

 

[Sirach2]

Because she’s been trying to answer that question for herself and has asked a few times…and we’ve been looking for examples to give her to help.

So your “help” is to blow her mind with outlandish deviations and elaborating on how very errant the scriptures are??? Good job! Even mature Catholics who responded in this thread are disturbed by your insinuations of non-truth.

Again, I fail to understand the worth of these types of discussions.

Faith is a gift, and the revelation in scripture is meant to draw us close to Our Lord and follow His teachings — NOT to insinuate doubts (especially with someone whose faith is tottering a bit) … that what we read is perhaps a faulty gospel full of errant facts.

Again, are you a Christian? Or do you adhere to star-wars and the “force.”