Can the Bible be in Error, Historically?

[patrick457]

I recall having this discussion with Mr. Patrick, St. Jerome wrote an inspired translation, so, in general, (e.g. excluding Baruch which Jerome didn’t translate), I’m going to assume the Vulgate uses the correct work and correct translation regardless of the current modernist thinking on the topic. I’m will assume from your background that you are absolutely correct on the Greek, but I will also assume that the Vulgate translation was made to “penance” by St. Jerome, not as an error in translation, as you suggest, but because St. Jerome, inspired by the Holy Spirit, translated the word in the most suitable way for the Catholic population going forward.

Jerome didn’t translate 1-2 Maccabees, Wisdom, or Ecclesiasticus, either. (And, some people think, the rest of the New Testament apart from the gospels - and even then, the gospels, assuming that they were the ones Pope Damasus ordered him to work on the 380s, were really revisions of preexisting translations of them than a fresh translation.) In other words, the ‘Vulgate’ as we have it today is really a combination of Jerome’s actual works (the OT protocanonicals + Tobit, Judith and the ‘extra’ Greek bits of Daniel and Esther + the gospels?) and preexisting Latin translations (aka Vetus Latina).

For the record, I didn’t really get to reply in the other thread, but when you’re speaking of the Vulgate as being an ‘inspired’ translation (correct me on this) I assume you’re referring to the Council of Trent’s declaration of it as ‘authentic’.

I haven’t seen an instance where the Church declared that the Vulgate is an ‘inspired’ translation (if there is anything in that regard, please point it out). IMHO the Vulgate is ‘authentic’ in the sense that the council declared that it is a (sufficiently) reliable translation, but that didn’t mean that the Vulgate was completely untouchable (the council itself ordered that the text be revised and corrected) or that the council had outlawed any other translation - only that the Vulgate is to be the standard text in the liturgy and in scholastic disputation. (You also have to remember the context; this was a time when Protestants were touting the Greek and Hebrew texts - from late, medieval manuscripts - as being more ‘correct’ than the Latin version. The council fathers were aware that the text of the Vulgate was in need of correcting - especially at that time - and was far from being a ‘perfect’ translation; however, in the end they still declared that the translation was reliable - ‘authentic’ - because really, if they were too choose a text other than the Vulgate, which would it be? Were the problems with the text really so serious to prevent its use in the council and the Church at large?)

There aren’t any contradictions in the Bible, there are some copyist errors (some of which, such as changes to the Masoretic text from the original, may be deliberate), I cited the best example I’m aware of from the Douay/Jerome Vulgate that could be a copyist error with the father/son names reversed, however, I appreciate that it is possible that the reversal was to make a point that I’m simply not smart enough or wise enough to understand. But in general, if someone thinks there is a contradiction they just don’t understand the passage(s) properly.

Yes, there aren’t contradictions in the sense of ‘error’, but there is a very rich polyvocality in Scripture, differences in perspective that can at times conflict with each other: the ‘good is rewarded, evil is punished’ worldview of Deuteronomy vs. the more ambiguous ‘the good can also suffer’ worldview of Job, the skepticism of Ecclesiastes, the apostles as bumbling idiots in Mark vs. the smarter, more reliable apostles in Matthew, and so on.

I believe clem456’s post really answered it. The problem is really that many people nowadays see ‘different’ and ‘conflicting’ perspectives as a bad thing: it implies deception and lying. But again, why should we impose a specific standard onto something that doesn’t share it?

The way I see it, these ‘different’, ‘conflicting’ perspectives actually complement each other. It’s not as bad as some people make it out to be.

With respect to the bolded part: we live in the same Cosmos with the same rules as the human authors (and ultimately Divine author) of the Bible.
…]

Point being: same world, same rules, same standards, but the Bible is a tesseract and we’re stuck in a three-dimensional worldview thinking it is a cube.

I was really making that comment from a cultural perspective. As you’re probably aware, we might all be the same human beings and yes, we do live in the same world, but we can’t deny that we are different: different languages, different cultures. What is ‘common sense’ in one culture might not be in another; what might be normal in a given culture might be a grave faux pas in another. Different rules are at play.

There’s this Jewish saying: “Turn the Torah over and over, for everything is in it.” I could extend that to the whole Bible: I believe the Bible is a mirror of the world, in that it has multiplicity in it. It isn’t just one book, it’s a library of books. God doesn’t just speak to us in one voice, but in many different voices. It would be foolish of us to stifle this polyvocality in favor of just ‘one’ voice.

To indulge in a bit of mysticism myself: so in the Bible (different perspectives and points of view among different writers), so in the Church (the different churches, rites, liturgies and theologies that comprise the Catholic Church), so in the world (different languages, cultures, peoples). Unity in diversity, you might say.

 

[Ron_Conte]

You seem to be claiming that inerrancy requires a belief in the literalist historic and scientific accuracy of the bible. Is that correct?
Of course, we are required to believe the historical value of the bible. For instance:
Jesus Christ was born, lived, died, and rose in the fullness of time. He is part of history.

That is not the same thing as requiring belief in scientific and historic factual details, like which exact day and time the crucifixion took place (cause the Gospel accounts vary in details).

Are you claiming the bible is historically and scientifically factual?

Jesus stated a truth using a figure: Lazarus is sleeping. The disciples mistakenly thought the assertion was literal. Jesus stated a literal truth, that he would be crucified, die, and be raised from the dead. The disciples mistakenly thought the assertion was figurative.

Once we correctly determine whether the direct meaning is literal or figurative, we are required by faith to believe that it is true.

Are the details and timing of the Crucifixion figurative? The “three days and three nights” expression is figurative. Some Christians mistakenly think it is literal, so they place the last supper on Wednesday, rather than Thursday. But most of these assertions about the timing of events are literal.

You are mistaken when you think that the Gospels contradict one another in any way. Such a claim is contrary to the dogma of inerrancy. Properly understood, every assertion in Scripture is true.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Very true and very important. But it does extend only to matters the author intends to assert as true, and I’m sure you know that doesn’t always mean “every single affirmative statement that appears in the text.”

Yes, I am saying that the article of faith on Biblical inspiration and inerrancy implies that every single assertion of the Bible is necessarily true. Each verse as a direct meaning, either literal or figurative. This direct meaning is always true.

Scripture uses figures to express truths. We misunderstand if we think a figure is literal. For example, the ages of persons described in the first 11 chapters of Genesis, and many of the details of those events are figurative. Many figures occur in the rest of Scripture, but those chapters are highly figurative, as are many passages in the last book, Revelation.

I don’t believe that Jonah is fictional. He story is told using some figures, and we can reasonably and faithfully debate which details of Scripture are figurative and which are literal. But depicting the whole book as a comedic fiction is beyond such a faithful discussion. If you cannot believe that a whale could swallow a man, and that he could be rescued on the third day by God, how is it that you believe a man died, and was raised from the dead on the third day? The latter assertion of Scripture is, from a human point of view, harder to believe (harder to swallow).

I believe that Adam and Eve were two real historical persons, but their story is told in figures. I believe that a great flood event occurred, and Noah did build a literal Ark to save his family from it. But the details are told in figures so as to favor the spiritual meaning of the story. David really did fight Goliath and win. But the description of Goliath and his weapons are figurative. And so on.

 

[patrick457]

Scripture uses figures to express truths. We misunderstand if we think a figure is literal. For example, the ages of persons described in the first 11 chapters of Genesis, and many of the details of those events are figurative. Many figures occur in the rest of Scripture, but those chapters are highly figurative, as are many passages in the last book, Revelation.

It’s interesting you bring up the ages of the patriarchs in Genesis. You might already know this, but the various versions of Genesis - the (Masoretic) Hebrew, the Greek, the Samaritan - all disagree on the ages of the patriarchs. And that’s the reason why calendars based on a literalistic reading of Genesis - the current Jewish anno mundi system (established in the Middle Ages), the Byzantine calendar, and James Ussher’s chronology - all arrive at different dates for the year the world was supposedly created: 3761 BC, 4004 BC, 5509 BC.

I don’t believe that Jonah is fictional. He story is told using some figures, and we can reasonably and faithfully debate which details of Scripture are figurative and which are literal. But depicting the whole book as a comedic fiction is beyond such a faithful discussion. If you cannot believe that a whale could swallow a man, and that he could be rescued on the third day by God, how is it that you believe a man died, and was raised from the dead on the third day? The latter assertion of Scripture is, from a human point of view, harder to believe (harder to swallow).

Speaking of which, it doesn’t even have to be a literal ‘whale’ as we define whales now: even if we assume a literal reading of the story, the text just says that it was a ‘big fish’, which could have been anything. (The word used in the NT is kētos ‘sea monster’ - Cetus, pretty much something along the lines of the aquatic monstrosities in Greek mythology - which might be based on actual sea creatures; it’s only in the medieval period that it came to specifically mean ‘whale’.)

I think some people out there are wasting time trying to identify which exact species of whale (or some other aquatic creature) can swallow a human being whole and yet keep the human alive for three days. The actual text isn’t specific, and they’re applying a modern definition onto kētos, a word that could mean something broader or something else than the common translation would have it. And more importantly, that kind of investigation just misses the whole point of the story.

I believe that Adam and Eve were two real historical persons, but their story is told in figures. I believe that a great flood event occurred, and Noah did build a literal Ark to save his family from it. But the details are told in figures so as to favor the spiritual meaning of the story. David really did fight Goliath and win. But the description of Goliath and his weapons are figurative. And so on.

Again, it’s very good bringing up Goliath here. The Hebrew and the Greek texts of 1 Samuel actually preserve two surviving versions of the David and Goliath story. The version represented by the Greek Septuagint is the shorter, smoother one. The longer Hebrew version, on the other hand, has a number of ‘continuity errors’ that seems to give it away as a combination of two originally different versions of the David-Goliath story. (It wouldn’t be too unusual: the Masoretic Hebrew text of Samuel is notoriously ‘corrupt’ and shows signs of interpolations on it - the ‘extra’ bits of the Goliath story could be one such interpolation.)

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=960251

 

[Ron_Conte]

Patrick457

We have to distinguish inerrancy of Scripture from errors outside of inspiration. Copyists, translators, editors, and printers (other than inspired authors of the original text) do not work under inspiration. So it does not affect inerrancy to point out differences between manuscripts.

Ages of persons prior to Abraham are clearly figurative. Ages from Abraham on are literal, but may well be approximations. Ages seem to avoid using a value ending in one:

None of the Biblical figures has a one as the last digit of his or her age. None of the ages at death, and the ages at the time of the birth of a child, for anyone from Adam to Joseph, end in a one. Later in the Old Testament, there are ages at the time of the start of a king’s reign, and the number of years of a king’s reign, ending in a one. But I could not find any stated ages given with a one as the last digit. This result is highly improbable, unless the authors of the Old Testament saw a certain symbolism in the number one, referring to the One true God, and therefore they avoided using a one as the last digit in an age. A king has his authority from God, and so a king’s reign can have a one as the last digit, but not the stated age of a Biblical figure.

Scholars today are too quick to say that a text is “corrupt” because they do not understand the meaning, or it is not to their liking. For example:
[1 Samuel 13]
{13:1} When he began to reign, Saul was the son of one year, and he reigned over Israel for two years.

The text says Saul was one year old when he began to reign. Most scholars assume the text is corrupted or the correct number is lost. But what it means is that it had been one year since the spiritual event whereby he became a prophet and in a sense a new man: “God changed him to another heart” (1 Samuel 10:9).

 

[Tim_D]

Ages of persons prior to Abraham are clearly figurative. Ages from Abraham on are literal, but may well be approximations.

And where does this determination arise? Does the Church teach it? And couldn’t the same be said for Jonah that you accept as literally “real?” What argument can be made against one who decides to see it as a fictional work designed to instruct?

 

[Ron_Conte]

And where does this determination arise? Does the Church teach it? And couldn’t the same be said for Jonah that you accept as literally “real?” What argument can be made against one who decides to see it as a fictional work designed to instruct?

Ages of persons prior to Abraham are in the hundreds of years, so this would indicate the number is figurative, not literal. From Abraham onward, the stated ages are within what is possible.

The Magisterium has yet to rule on certain points in this area of discussion. But i would argue that Church teaching on original sin requires a literal historical Adam and Eve.

The argument against Jonah’s story and Noah’s story as fictional teaching stories is the words of Jesus, speaking of these as real historical events:

[Matthew]
{12:39} And answering, he said to them: "An evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign. But a sign will not be given to it, except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
{12:40} For just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three days and three nights, so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights.
{12:41} The men of Nineveh shall arise in judgment with this generation, and they shall condemn it. For, at the preaching of Jonah, they repented. And behold, there is a greater than Jonah here.

Jesus describes Jonah’s story as a real set of events, comparable to the events of His own ministry. It would not make much sense for Jesus to describe himself as greater than Jonah, if Jonah is fictional, or for Him to say that the men of Nineveh would arise at the Judgment, if they never heard the preaching of Jonah (because he’s a fiction).

The same argument applies to Jesus speaking about the great Flood:

{24:37} And just as in the days of Noah, so also will be the advent of the Son of man.
{24:38} For it will be just as it was in the days before the flood: eating and drinking, marrying and being given in marriage, even until that day when Noah entered into the ark.
{24:39} And they did not realize it, until the flood came and took them all away. So also will the advent of the Son of man be.

How can the advent of Jesus’ return be like the Flood of Noah, if there was no Flood and no Noah?

That’s the argument. But it is still an open question, in many cases, as to which verses are literal and which are figurative.

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

I was really making that comment from a cultural perspective. As you’re probably aware, we might all be the same human beings and yes, we do live in the same world, but we can’t deny that we are different: different languages, different cultures. What is ‘common sense’ in one culture might not be in another; what might be normal in a given culture might be a grave faux pas in another. Different rules are at play.

We’ll have to agree to disagree, the Bible is normative (where it is didactic) and reflects the fact that we live in a normative universe. Polygamy is wrong, as is adultery, theft, false witness, abortion, murder, and the like. Being kind to others is good, as is giving alms to the poor, spreading the Gospel, raising children, working for peace, and the like. The Universe is ordered and hierarchical, Trinity, Virgin Mary, Angels and Saints (above) and Pope, Bishops, Priests (below) and similar. All of which is to say, at the end of time we will be judged, and judged by the rules given us in the Bible and we won’t be able to plead ignorance or ask for leniency based on cultural relativism.

Certainly there are differences between people, but those differences are only superficial, we all share in Adam’s heritage, have the same possibility of redemption through Christ, are subject to God and must abide by His rules.

 

[patrick457]

Trevor, to be honest with you I don’t know if we’re even thinking/talking about the same thing.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Jesus stated a truth using a figure: Lazarus is sleeping. The disciples mistakenly thought the assertion was literal. Jesus stated a literal truth, that he would be crucified, die, and be raised from the dead. The disciples mistakenly thought the assertion was figurative.

Once we correctly determine whether the direct meaning is literal or figurative, we are required by faith to believe that it is true.

Are the details and timing of the Crucifixion figurative? The “three days and three nights” expression is figurative. Some Christians mistakenly think it is literal, so they place the last supper on Wednesday, rather than Thursday. But most of these assertions about the timing of events are literal.

You are mistaken when you think that the Gospels contradict one another in any way. Such a claim is contrary to the dogma of inerrancy. Properly understood, every assertion in Scripture is true.

People in ancient Palestine - and some other places - used “three days and three nights” to mean “a short time,” so you are right, it is figurative language.

 

[adrift]

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.

Dragged her? First it is an assumption that she was about to give birth. Luke only states “While they were there, the time came for her to have her child,”
It is unlikely that Joseph would leave Mary behind. People didn’t go for a day or two. Speculating but he might have wanted to spare Mary the gossip knowing that she was virtuous. Nope it is unlikely that he would have left her at home. I know lots of women who travel in the last trimester. Women of that time were more hardy then those of today.

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 never heard of this. When I was in Bethlehem I asked about this. I was told that they would never “camp” out as was too dangerous. The inns of that time were rooms in private homes. The explanation I was given is that Mary giving birth would have been declared unclean for forty days. She would not have been able to leave the room for forty days. Persons renting out their room would not have been inclined to have there house declared unclean but it would have been acceptable for their manger.

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.

Really. Jesus being born in Nazareth would have been an error in faith. It was one of the predications that He would be born in Bethlehem and be called a Nazarene. Most people did not travel around a lot so that the town they were born in would also be the town they were raised in. It would be more likely that they would be associated with the town that they were raised in. To say that they were always known by the town of birth is an over reaching statement. It was more likely that they were know by the town of birth because that is where they always lived.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Dragged her? First it is an assumption that she was about to give birth. Luke only states “While they were there, the time came for her to have her child,”
It is unlikely that Joseph would leave Mary behind. People didn’t go for a day or two. Speculating but he might have wanted to spare Mary the gossip knowing that she was virtuous. Nope it is unlikely that he would have left her at home. I know lots of women who travel in the last trimester. Women of that time were more hardy then those of today.

I never heard of this. When I was in Bethlehem I asked about this. I was told that they would never “camp” out as was too dangerous. The inns of that time were rooms in private homes. The explanation I was given is that Mary giving birth would have been declared unclean for forty days. She would not have been able to leave the room for forty days. Persons renting out their room would not have been inclined to have there house declared unclean but it would have been acceptable for their manger.

Really. Jesus being born in Nazareth would have been an error in faith. It was one of the predications that He would be born in Bethlehem and be called a Nazarene. Most people did not travel around a lot so that the town they were born in would also be the town they were raised in. It would be more likely that they would be associated with the town that they were raised in. To say that they were always known by the town of birth is an over reaching statement. It was more likely that they were know by the town of birth because that is where they always lived.

Sure, some women in their last trimester of pregnancy travel today, but most do not, and even those who do know that hospitals are close by. Joseph, if he were a loving husband, would not have taken Mary on a trip through the desert when she was so close to giving birth, and of course we know she was close to giving birth. She gave birth, didn’t she? The child survived. Joseph wouldn’t have risked Mary’s life. He would have left her at home where she could be looked after by her family.

If you never heard of people camping in the Bethlehem area, how did you ask anyone about it? And if they never camp, why would they say they never did unless you brought it up? I know several biblical scholars who teach this very thing. They even have drawings of campsites. That part of your post is very confusing.

People of the time were almost always known by the town of their birth. I didn’t say Jesus wasn’t born in Bethlehem, just that many biblical scholars believe he was not. And they do.

The bible is not inerrant. The two nativities do not match, so either Matthew or Luke is in error. The crucifixion narratives do not match. Someone is in error. The resurrection stories do not match. Again, someone is in error. It could be an error of translation or an embellishment by a scribe, but there are inconsistencies.

One thing I do agree with you on is that any woman who had given birth would be ritually unclean for a period of time.

 

[adrift]

Sure, some women in their last trimester of pregnancy travel today, but most do not, and even those who do know that hospitals are close by. Joseph, if he were a loving husband, would not have taken Mary on a trip through the desert when she was so close to giving birth, and of course we know she was close to giving birth. She gave birth, didn’t she? The child survived. Joseph wouldn’t have risked Mary’s life. He would have left her at home where she could be looked after by her family.

Joseph would not have thought of it as risking her life that is a modern concept. Scripture says that she was great with child. It does not say that she was close to giving birth. It does not say, as it is popular to portray, that she gave birth upon arrival. Only that while she was there she gave birth. The understanding I have is that the Greek word Luke used indicates a room. The inn referred to could have possibly been a relatives house. What ever it was we know that there was no room. I will believe the Church above any “Biblical Scholar”. Joseph had thought that she was an adulterer. There must have been a lot of gossip in the town of Nazareth. Joseph would not have exposed her to that situation. One did not go for a couple of days. As we know, Joseph and Mary stayed quite awhile. There is an indication that Jesus was two when they fled to Egypt.

If you never heard of people camping in the Bethlehem area, how did you ask anyone about it? And if they never camp, why would they say they never did unless you brought it up? I know several biblical scholars who teach this very thing. They even have drawings of campsites. That part of your post is very confusing.

Your post that stated that they camped and that was an Inn was the first I heard of it. I was in Bethlehem just two days ago. I had read your post so I asked about it from people who are well versed in how people lived then. They said they didn’t have what amounts to a campground. The caravan did have places they camped as they traveled and is more than likely what your “biblical scholars” referred to.

People of the time were almost always known by the town of their birth. I didn’t say Jesus wasn’t born in Bethlehem, just that many biblical scholars believe he was not. And they do.

They aren’t much of a scholar but unbelievers who are trying to cast doubt. You do indicate that you don’t believe Jesus was born in Bethlehem when you state Joseph would have left her behind in Nazareth.

The bible is not inerrant. The two nativities do not match, so either Matthew or Luke is in error

The crucifixion narratives do not match. Someone is in error. The resurrection stories do not match. Again, someone is in error. It could be an error of translation or an embellishment by a scribe, but there are inconsistencies.

One thing I do agree with you on is that any woman who had given birth would be ritually unclean for a period of time.

They do not match but they are telling the story from different angles and for different purposes. It isn’t suppose to be a biography. Neither is in error it is your understanding that is.
I don’t disagree that there are those who have no faith and wish to destroy those who do by making outlandish claims.
They will say that Jesus was born in Nazareth. Why? because He was called an Nazarene. Where do they get this information from? The Bible and yet they use it as source while ignoring that same Bible states clearly both Gospels that He was born in Bethlehem.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Joseph would not have thought of it as risking her life that is a modern concept. Scripture says that she was great with child. It does not say that she was close to giving birth. It does not say, as it is popular to portray, that she gave birth upon arrival. Only that while she was there she gave birth. The understanding I have is that the Greek word Luke used indicates a room. The inn referred to could have possibly been a relatives house. What ever it was we know that there was no room. I will believe the Church above any “Biblical Scholar”. Joseph had thought that she was an adulterer. There must have been a lot of gossip in the town of Nazareth. Joseph would not have exposed her to that situation. One did not go for a couple of days. As we know, Joseph and Mary stayed quite awhile. There is an indication that Jesus was two when they fled to Egypt.

Your post that stated that they camped and that was an Inn was the first I heard of it. I was in Bethlehem just two days ago. I had read your post so I asked about it from people who are well versed in how people lived then. They said they didn’t have what amounts to a campground. The caravan did have places they camped as they traveled and is more than likely what your “biblical scholars” referred to.

They aren’t much of a scholar but unbelievers who are trying to cast doubt. You do indicate that you don’t believe Jesus was born in Bethlehem when you state Joseph would have left her behind in Nazareth.

They do not match but they are telling the story from different angles and for different purposes. It isn’t suppose to be a biography. Neither is in error it is your understanding that is.
I don’t disagree that there are those who have no faith and wish to destroy those who do by making outlandish claims.
They will say that Jesus was born in Nazareth. Why? because He was called an Nazarene. Where do they get this information from? The Bible and yet they use it as source while ignoring that same Bible states clearly both Gospels that He was born in Bethlehem.

Some of the people who taught me that information are biblical scholars within the magisterium, so I would call them “within the Church.” As part of my education, I worked in Vatican City for a little more than a year and lived in Rome. I became acquainted with many biblical scholars, several of whom I still email and talk to frequently. You don’t need to put biblical scholar in scare quotes. They are TRUE biblical scholars, with PhDs, working within the magisterium, the teaching arm of the Church. They certainly aren’t “unbelievers!” No one who is an unbeliever gets to work in the magisterium. And so what if Jesus was born in Nazareth rather than Bethlehem? If that little fact, if it is a fact, would destroy anyone’s faith, he or she didn’t really have true faith to begin with.

I still don’t believe Joseph would endanger Mary’s life by having her travel across the desert when she was close to delivering a child. I have been in the Holy Land six times now, and I know I would never leave home and travel across that expanse of nothingness if I were “great with child.” And if there were a census, only Joseph would have to go. The truth is, no one really knows where Jesus was born. Does it matter? No, not really, not to people of faith. He was the Messiah no matter where he was born. I do not know where Jesus was born. I really have no opinion right now. Both sides present convincing arguments, but I don’t care where he was born. For me, that is not a significant fact of Jesus’ life, passion, death, and resurrection. I have faith in Christ because I have had a personal relationship with him for years. I don’t need for him to be born in Bethlehem to have that faith.

The Synoptic Gospels place Jesus’ ministry at a little over one year. John places it closer to three. It probably was closer to three, but who really knows? No one. There are discrepancies in the Resurrection stories. Some say there was one angel present, some say more, etc. Just about the only thing they have in common is the Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene, and “the women” found the tomb empty. Who composed “the women” is also up for grabs. The gospels do not agree.

Karl Rahner, a German Jesuit, is thought of as one of the greatest of the modern theologians. He was a believer in Christ and always called himself a Christian, yet he did not believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Neither do some other very prominent theologians. Were they trying to destroy faith? No. They were doing their job. The job of the theologian is to enlarge the faith and find new ways of looking at the same truths.

When one delves deeply into theology one has to keep an open mind, and one has to have an unshakable faith because challenging things, like Rahner’s disbelief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus will, inevitably, come along. Compared to that, where Jesus was born is nothing at all to get upset about.

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

Karl Rahner, a German Jesuit, is thought of as one of the greatest of the modern theologians. He was a believer in Christ and always called himself a Christian, yet he did not believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Neither do some other very prominent theologians. Were they trying to destroy faith? No. They were doing their job. The job of the theologian is to enlarge the faith and find new ways of looking at the same truths.

There is a word for not believing in the bodily resurrection of Christ. That word is heresy. I assure you, non-theologian though I am, heresy does not enlarge the faith, and while it is, in a sense, certainly a “new way” of looking at a truth, that’s not a positive thing when the new way is to assert a falsehood contrary to that truth. I can also assure you, again non-theologian though I am, that part of the job of a Catholic theologian is to suppress and argue against heresies, not to advocate them.

Yours in Christ,

Trevor

 

[Lily_Bernans]

There is a word for not believing in the bodily resurrection of Christ. That word is heresy. I assure you, non-theologian though I am, heresy does not enlarge the faith, and while it is, in a sense, certainly a “new way” of looking at a truth, that’s not a positive thing when the new way is to assert a falsehood contrary to that truth. I can also assure you, again non-theologian though I am, that part of the job of a Catholic theologian is to suppress and argue against heresies, not to advocate them.

Yours in Christ,

Trevor

They do not believe it is heresy. They lay out all the reasons for their belief. They have not been condemned by the Church, and their writings are still used in colleges and seminaries. They are not among my favorite theologians, I will say that.

As for me, I do definitely believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ. To a first century Jew, “resurrection” meant nothing but bodily resurrection.

 

[adrift]

Some of the people who taught me that information are biblical scholars within the magisterium, so I would call them “within the Church.” As part of my education, I worked in Vatican City for a little more than a year and lived in Rome. I became acquainted with many biblical scholars, several of whom I still email and talk to frequently. You don’t need to put biblical scholar in scare quotes. They are TRUE biblical scholars, with PhDs, working within the magisterium, the teaching arm of the Church. They certainly aren’t “unbelievers!” No one who is an unbeliever gets to work in the magisterium. And so what if Jesus was born in Nazareth rather than Bethlehem? If that little fact, if it is a fact, would destroy anyone’s faith, he or she didn’t really have true faith to begin with.

Jesus being born in Nazareth would not be a little fact. It would be a lie told through the centuries.

Micah 5:2
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”

It would mean that Jesus could not be the Messiah as the Messiah had to be born in , Bethlehem.

I still don’t believe Joseph would endanger Mary’s life by having her travel across the desert when she was close to delivering a child.

This was their way of life. You are putting your 21st century mind to people that had a very different thought process. I don’t know why you would think it would endanger her life on the contrary it would have been beneficial to her. But again she probably wasn’t nine months but closer to six. Such traveling took time and Joseph would have not left her to go a trip that would take him a way from her to give birth while he was gone. The fact that they did not return right away but stayed at least two years should give you a clue.

I have been in the Holy Land six times now, and I know I would never leave home and travel across that expanse of nothingness if I were “great with child.” And if there were a census, only Joseph would have to go. The truth is, no one really knows where Jesus was born. Does it matter?

We know where Jesus was born both Matthew and Luke agree. I have already stated why it matters.

No, not really, not to people of faith. He was the Messiah no matter where he was born

.
Not true. If Jesus was born anywhere else than He was not the Messiah.

I do not know where Jesus was born. I really have no opinion right now. Both sides present convincing arguments, but I don’t care where he was born. For me, that is not a significant fact of Jesus’ life, passion, death, and resurrection. I have faith in Christ because I have had a personal relationship with him for years. I don’t need for him to be born in Bethlehem to have that faith.

I suppose you believe that the Church does not know or that you are free to believe that he was not born in Bethlehem.

 

[adrift]

I suggest you read the Catechism 437 514,and 525

The Synoptic Gospels place Jesus’ ministry at a little over one year. John places it closer to three. It probably was closer to three, but who really knows? No one. There are discrepancies in the Resurrection stories. Some say there was one angel present, some say more, etc. Just about the only thing they have in common is the Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene, and “the women” found the tomb empty. Who composed “the women” is also up for grabs. The gospels do not agree.

No men interpret it that way. Unless you can point to scripture that says how long Jesus ministry took place it is all conjecture. Not all was written and yet people try to make this out to be a biography. Each writer had a purpose for what he wrote and it wasn’t to give us curiosity details. They left out much of what Jesus did and said. Have you ever witnessed an accident and then listened to eye witnesses?

Karl Rahner, a German Jesuit, is thought of as one of the greatest of the modern theologians. He was a believer in Christ and always called himself a Christian, yet he did not believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Neither do some other very prominent theologians. Were they trying to destroy faith? No. They were doing their job. The job of the theologian is to enlarge the faith and find new ways of looking at the same truths.

When one delves deeply into theology one has to keep an open mind, and one has to have an unshakable faith because challenging things, like Rahner’s disbelief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus will, inevitably, come along. Compared to that, where Jesus was born is nothing at all to get upset about.

EWTN

Emphasis mine

Since this question is so similar to one previously asked by Stephen Sanchez on 09-21-2000, I will cut and paste the answer by Colin B. Donovan, STL, on 09-28-2000:

Karl Rahner was an encyclopedic theologian, writing on most topics, and if not writing personally, editing the works of others into compendiums of theology. He should receive his due praise for all that he did in this regard and for his contributions to systematic theology. However, his interpretations of the Council and his ideas on salvation and ecumenism (the “anonymous Christian” concept) were considered dangerous by orthodox theologians, and were censured informally by the Holy See. This occured after his death when the Vatican’s newspaper condemned a book published posthumunously on salvation outside the Church. If the Church has had to correct many false ideas in this regard, by documents such as the recent Dominus Jesus on the uniqueness of Christ and the Catholic Church, it has Fr. Rahner to thank, in part. Also, one of his disciples, Metz, was the father of liberation theology, another pernicious error that caused great damage in the Church.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Jesus being born in Nazareth would not be a little fact. It would be a lie told through the centuries.

It would mean that Jesus could not be the Messiah as the Messiah had to be born in , Bethlehem.

This was their way of life. You are putting your 21st century mind to people that had a very different thought process. I don’t know why you would think it would endanger her life on the contrary it would have been beneficial to her. But again she probably wasn’t nine months but closer to six. Such traveling took time and Joseph would have not left her to go a trip that would take him a way from her to give birth while he was gone. The fact that they did not return right away but stayed at least two years should give you a clue.

We know where Jesus was born both Matthew and Luke agree. I have already stated why it matters.

.
Not true. If Jesus was born anywhere else than He was not the Messiah.

I suppose you believe that the Church does not know or that you are free to believe that he was not born in Bethlehem.

Well, your suppositions are all wrong, but I’m not going to argue with you. There are many books out there on the historical Jesus, who is not the Jesus of history, by the way, that you could read to catch up. Books by very learned scholars who studied the Bible and Jesus their entire lives, in an academic setting. Ed Sanders, N.T. Wright (he’s Anglican, but he’s so conservative he’s more Catholic than Anglican), Gerald O’Collins, and Raymond Brown. All present wonderful portraits of Jesus that take into account the historical-critical method of reading the Bible as well as the literary method.

Rahner and Metz are taught in theology classes at some of the world’s most prestigious colleges and universities including Notre Dame, Marquette, Trinity College, Franciscan University, the University of Paris, etc. What they have contributed to theology is very important. JP II even quoted them on occasion and he admired at least parts of their writing.

Surely you’re not a fundamentalist who takes the Bible literally, word-for-word? I thought you were Catholic? Maybe not. My mistake.

 

[brittrossiter]

Origen (yes, that Origen) has some fascinating things to say about this issue, and more generally about other apparent stumbling-blocks in the Scriptures:

If at anytime in reading the Scripture you stumble at something which is a fair stone of stumbling, and rock of offence, blame yourself; for you must not despair of finding in this stone of stumbling and rock of offence thoughts to justify the saying, “He that believeth shall not be ashamed.” First believe, and thou shalt find beneath what is deemed a stumbling-stone much gain in godliness. For if we really received a commandment to speak no idle word, because we shall give account of it in the day of judgment; and if we must with all our might endeavour to make every word proceeding out of our mouths a working word both in ourselves who speak and in those who hear, must we not conclude that every word spoken through the Prophets was fit for work? and it is no wonder if every word spoken by the Prophets had a work adapted to it. Nay, I suppose that every letter, no matter how strange, which is written in the oracles of God, does its work. And there is not one jot or tittle written in the Scripture, which, when men know how to extract the virtue does not work its own work.

Basically, the seeming inaccuracies and confusing bits are there for a reason, and that reason is not necessarily to document historical events, but to offer words that are “fit for work.”

Source