F
Faith1960
Guest
Thanks Lily.
- Status
E
ericc
Guest
E
ericc
Guest
Unfortunately or fortunately I don’t have a gang of biblical scholar friends to fall back on LOL. And I am not studying for a degree in Biblical Studies either. BBC had a skimpy article on that Nazareth vs Bethlehem but it was just too newspapery and not scholarly enough to pin it down. I am interested to know how scholars and historians can pin down it is Nazareth and not Bethlehem. What tools do they have to determine that? How would modern day folks determine what ancient folks wrote to be false.
At the moment I am taking the stand that Matthew and Luke are correct unless proven otherwise. I have not heard of ancient reports disputing the birth site of Christ. Only modern ones.
E
ericc
Guest
I have yet to encounter a provable historical error with the qualification of from the point of view of the author. Just because historical evidence is missing is not proof of an error. Just because witnesses have a a different perspective of the story doesn’t make it an error. Just because history is silent doesn’t make it an error. Just because dates don’t jive doesn’t mean it is an error, it depends on which calendar system is the writer using for instance. If you have any interesting problems you have in mind, I’d like to have a go at it before someone start making proclamations about the reliability of the Bible.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Being a good husband, I don’t think Joseph would have dragged Mary, who was ready to deliver her child, across the desert on a donkey. It makes no sense. He would have left her home with her family, which was quite large, where she could deliver her baby safely and have help from the other women. Even today, with medical care readily available almost everywhere, most pregnant women in their last trimester do not travel far from home.Joseph would never have left a heavily pregnant woman nor a newborn home alone.
Family would have travelled together, particularly if there was no other male in the family to stay with the mother and child.
There are so many distressing comments on this thread,
Perhaps a good book on Biblical Exegesis would be in order for the OP.
As one has stated, there are ways that these early writers put things on paper that were all about the Latin and Greek “sense” of expression, and not meant has historical in the sense that we write in the 21st century. We tend to read everything literally. That’s where so many get into trouble trying to “explain away” inconsistences.
The Bible contains the truth of our faith.
It’s lessons and writings come in all forms and reflect the culture of the day, which, of course, many of us find challenging.
As for there being “no room at the inn,” there were no inns. Travelers in first century Palestine stayed at campsites, and there is always room at a campsite.
I believe Jesus is the Son of God, of course, but I think he might have been born in Nazareth, and that is the opinion of most biblical scholars today. A person in ancient Palestine was always known by the place where he or she was born. And, Jesus never made reference to Bethlehem. It’s almost like it didn’t exist for him. He was a Nazarene.
The bible contains historical errors, but no errors of faith.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Is Matthew correct or is Luke? They differ in the details (not in placing Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem). Was Jesus’ ministry one year plus or three years plus? Both are recorded in the Bible. Did he cry out asking why God had deserted him as in Mark, or did he not, as in John?
There are errors, to be sure. They could be errors of recollection or errors of translation, or even other things. These errors do not make the Bible erroneous in matters of faith. In matters of faith, it is inerrant.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Historical errors, errors of recollection, translation errors, errors made by scribes, etc. However, you are right, none of those errors changes the fact that Jesus was the Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. In matters of faith, the Bible is inerrant.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
The authors of Matthew and Luke might have just been going to elaborate means to place Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem. He might have been born in Bethlehem, he might have been born in Nazareth since he is always identified with that city. No one really knows for sure.
I wouldn’t say Mark is the most truthful of all the gospels. I think all are truthful in matters of faith. Mark wrote a very low Christology because he was writing for the first Christians who were being martyred for their faith. He wanted to show them that Christ suffered, too, and horribly. John, on the other hand, wrote a very high Christology. John wrote late, and he probably did not want to write a gospel that just repeated all that was already written about Jesus. John was the “beloved disciple,” who understood Christ even more than Peter. He was the one who wanted to concentrate on Christ’s divinity. Mark concentrated on Christ’s humanity, something that many people overlook these days. Many people are pseudo-Monophysites.
E
ericc
Guest
The embarrassment factor would have motivated Matthew/Luke to exclude this part of the story but they didn’t which increases the likelihood for it to be true. If Mary is an only child, would she be compelled by Roman law to register herself representing her tribal house? If there was a timeline, regardless of the stage of pregnancy, would Roman law excuse her from registering bearing in mind of the poor treatment women faced during those times. Did Joseph have a choice not to bring Mary along? There are a lot of could’s /should’s but we are not privy to those type of details. Not knowing the details does not cause that part of the story to be false or made up. We do not know the circumstances why Mary need to be on the journey since we do know they have an extended family that could have taken care of Mary.
If for this registration exercise Mary and Joseph are compelled to register there, with the intent to return to Nazareth after the event, this can hardly qualify that to be the hometown of Jesus. Home town typically signify the place you were brought up. Births have been given along journeys between towns, in boats, caravans etc.
Luke 2:2-4 All went to their own towns to be registered. Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David.
It is clear that although Joseph is based in Nazareth, he is compelled to do his registration in Bethlehem. And afterward, he went back to Nazareth eventually. From there we can deduced that the Bethlehem trip was not to be a permanent one.
No inns in the whole of Palestine? If there is no inn, there is no manger. And the shepherds didn’t pop into the manger to see the baby Jesus and Herod didn’t send the 3 wise men to check out Bethlehem either. The whole thing is a fabrication! So if Matthew and Luke fabricated this part , then there is no reason to believe other parts of their story either. Take Matthew, Luke and Acts out, the NT has been pretty much hacked to death. No I don’t buy that there are no inns in Palestine, only campsites. If you can prove that right, then God must have put a manger there just for Jesus.
Secondly, if the Bethlehem birth was a fabrication, the Jews who are anti-Christianity would have exposed the fabrication and the new found movement would have died an early death. No Herod slaughtering the 2 year olds, no 3 wise men and the Christian movement would have died very quickly.
If there is no Bethlehem birth, then Matthew’s account of the slaughter of the innocents and the family’s flight to Egypt is really all unnecessary. But rumour of the slaughter of 2 year olds in Bethlehem even reach Emperor Augustus. Macrobius (ca. AD 400), one of the last pagan writers in Rome, in his book Saturnalia, wrote: “When it was heard that, as part of the slaughter of boys up to two years old, Herod, king of the Jews, had ordered his own son to be killed, he [the Emperor Augustus] remarked, ‘It is
better to be Herod’s pig [Gr. hys] than his son’ [Gr. huios]”
P
ProVobis
Guest
When all you have is Greek and Roman mythology to compare against, which would you rather believe?
E
ericc
Guest
Can’t Matthew and Luke be both correct? Are there any areas that preclude the accuracy of their writings to be mutually exclusive? I am looking for win-win here
Jesus ministry was closer to 3 years. John recorded at least 3 passovers.
Absence of recorded events in one account does not prove that it didn’t happen. If I remember correctly, John’s gospel was to primarily bolster the earlier 3 gospels. Provide additional details if you will or those not covered according to Eusebius Church History. I wouldn’t say omission is equivalent to didn’t happen, just unnecessary.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Yes absolutely, and with a name like yours, you need to remember than men are not perfect, they do make errors, but the Bible was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit. Don’t dwell on the small errors - see the big beautiful picture. Jesus Christ was the son of God and he has given his life for the redemption of the whole world. His disciples believed in him and spread his message to every corner of the earth. So if there are a few errors in the Bible, let them be. Don’t let them destroy your faith. :
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
Why are so many posters in this thread ignoring magisterial teaching on this subject?
See my post above:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13382179#post13382179
The Magisterium does teach that the Bible is inerrant, not solely on matters of faith and morals, but on physical science or history or any other subject, about which the Bible makes an assertion.
See my post above:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13382179#post13382179
The Magisterium does teach that the Bible is inerrant, not solely on matters of faith and morals, but on physical science or history or any other subject, about which the Bible makes an assertion.
C
clem456
Guest
This is not so. That is not the proper sense of innerancy.
S
Sirach2
Guest
This is a monumental point that you brought up, Eric. The early scriptures were not written in the later translation of Greek, so this would account for a discrepancy in dates, while still being true.
It also depends on which clock the writer is using. Look at this example, which is only one of many *apparent *contradictions in scripture.
At what hour was Jesus crucified?
Mark 15:25 says it was in the third hour, 9:00 a.m.
John 19:14-15 says that it was during the sixth hour (different clock). He was still not crucified yet but was being judged before Pilate. This was at about 6 a.m.
So three hours later, He was crucified.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts use Hebrew time for their reckoning. John uses Roman time.
All of this bickering over a miniscule detail does not change the truth of Revelation one iota, but serves merely for some to spread their feathers like a peacock, gloating over having secret knowledge unknown to everyone else.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
The three Synoptic gospels only record one Passover, but yes, you are right, the absence of two of them did not mean they did not occur.Can’t Matthew and Luke be both correct? Are there any areas that preclude the accuracy of their writings to be mutually exclusive? I am looking for win-win here
Jesus ministry was closer to 3 years. John recorded at least 3 passovers.
Absence of recorded events in one account does not prove that it didn’t happen. If I remember correctly, John’s gospel was to primarily bolster the earlier 3 gospels. Provide additional details if you will or those not covered according to Eusebius Church History. I wouldn’t say omission is equivalent to didn’t happen, just unnecessary.
John wanted to write a very high Christology, one that concentrated on Christ’s divinity more than his humanity.
I believe the Bible is inerrant in matters of faith, but in places it can seem to contradict itself, with the emphasis on “seem.” I’m sure we can all rely on the Bible as an inspired work of faith. I am sure it was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
True, that’s why I mean by seem. The Bible holds no secrets. It can be difficult to understand without study, but it is a divinely inspired book that welcomes all readers.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
I think Patrick 457 answered you very well in the thread you are alluding to: (Patrick is a great Bible scholar and has many insights into the Bible.)
"IMHO the way our humans brains work that doesn’t make the content of the gospels - based on recollections - not ‘true’. (I mean, it may be just me and my non-Western thinking, but ‘truth’ does not necessarily equate to ‘fact’; something does not have to be ‘factual’ in order to be ‘true’ or to contain truth.) If anything, I’d say that the memories of the apostles and evangelists being ‘influenced’ actually brings out the truth more to the fore than a dispassionate video camera footage that recorded only the bare ‘fact’ could have ever done.
And of course, there’s also the thing about the evangelists being storytellers. They were not just chroniclers, chronicling the events of Jesus’ life in a dry, impersonal, objective way. They are also storytellers telling a story. As such they could adapt and change the story they tell from their original contexts and transplant it to new ones. (Just look at how the synoptic gospels arrange the different pericopes differently.)
I often like to bring up the story of the paralytic in Mark and Luke. Mark talks of the men bringing the paralytic “unroofing” and “[digging] through” the roof of the house, which corresponds more to what we know of actual Near Eastern houses and thus is more likely to be the ‘historically-accurate’ detail. Luke, however, has the men lowering the paralytic “through the tiles” - in other words, he is envisioning a Greco-Roman house (which do have tiled roofs). In this case, it’s probable that Luke was ‘adapting’ his story for his Greco-Roman audience, who would have found it easier to imagine a house with a tiled roof than a Jewish house with a clay/mud-covered flat roof.
The Bible is true. Men have different memories and different spins on things when they tell a story. But the story of Jesus is very true.
R
rose_kelly
Guest
From EWTN. The Interpretation Of The Bible In The Church.- Pontifical Biblical Commission 1994.
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM
P
patrick457
Guest
No, sorry, I’m not.
I think the fact that Mark and Luke differ on the roofing material of the house doesn’t make the gospels ‘erroneous’ at all: I mean, they all still agree on the basics - there was a paralytic, there was a house with a roof involved, this paralytic was healed by Jesus.
To go back to the issue of the Nativity, leaving the whole census issue aside, Matthew and Luke still both agree in essence: Jesus was born somewhere late in the reign of Herod the Great. It’s only the census issue that trips people up, but in this particular assertion, Matthew and Luke still agree.
I might even add the story of the healing of the centurion’s servant in Matthew and Mark and the healing of the royal official’s son in John. Some people would identify these two stories as being about two different instances, but I personally agree with the opinion that the same tradition could be both behind them.
The ‘centurion’ could be the same person as the royal official (note: nowhere does the synoptic version of the story identify the man as being a Roman centurion or hekatontarch; if anything, it’s more likely that this ‘centurion’ was an official in Antipas’ army. We know that Herod the Great modelled his army along Roman lines, and it’s possible that his sons did too: Antipas was an ‘independent’ ruler - he basically pays Rome tribute to allow him self-government in exchange - and so he would have had his own troops; there wouldn’t have been that many, if any, Roman soldiers in the Galilee in Jesus’ day, especially in a village like Capernaum: the Galilee only became a Roman province in AD 44), and there was a ‘kid’ - which John took to mean the official’s yios ‘son’, and which Mark took to mean the official’s doulos ‘servant’ (Matthew uses a Greek word that can mean both ‘child’ or ‘servant’: pais) - which Jesus healed vicariously, at the official’s/centurion’s request. Either way, the story - in either version - is still ‘true’.
It’s actually around two years: the ministry of Jesus in John begins near the first recorded Passover and ends in the third. You only get the idea of a three and a half year of ministry from an early Christian interpretation of the ‘half week’ in Daniel’s prophecy of the Seventy Weeks.
The problem really is that you’re assuming a stable-type of installation - which itself is a late idea (it only came into being in the Middle Ages, in the West). People back then actually kept their animals inside their houses. In fact, the word translated as ‘inn’ in Luke (katalyma) is better translated as ‘(guest) room’ (it’s the same word used for the Upper Room). In other words, Luke presents Jesus as being born in a particular room in a house in Bethlehem, maybe in the part of the house where the animals are kept (which was either the back room or the basement), because ‘there was no room’ in the main part of the house: either because the family they were staying with had other guests or the house or the room where the actual childbirth took place was just too cramped.
Here’s a nice read: The Accommodations of Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem: Κατάλυμα in Luke 2.7.
- Status