C
- Status
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
Those notes are problematic for me too. First of all, if Luke had only a “vague recollection” of who ordered the census and when it was done, would not his contemporaries have been instant in uncovering this error? Most especially, the enemies of Christianity which were already numerous by the time of Luke’s Gospel, would have siezed on any factual errors to discredit the Gospel. So if in fact Luke is wrong, or was working from a fuzzy vague recollection, I’m sure it would have been corrected quite early. Secondly, of all the evangelists, we are given to understand that Luke was perhaps the MOST educated and learned. Would Luke really have just written something specific like that without having his facts straight?
Although the worshipful and all-knowing modern biblical scholars are befuddled and unable to account for the words of Luke, I haven’t the slightest doubt of its Truth. It seems egregious to me that the USCCB would even include such a footnote in Luke. It only accomplishes sowing seeds of doubt. How helpful is it to say they can’t explain such a time frame, and that it seems like Luke was just making stuff up?
Although the worshipful and all-knowing modern biblical scholars are befuddled and unable to account for the words of Luke, I haven’t the slightest doubt of its Truth. It seems egregious to me that the USCCB would even include such a footnote in Luke. It only accomplishes sowing seeds of doubt. How helpful is it to say they can’t explain such a time frame, and that it seems like Luke was just making stuff up?
P
patg
Guest
Most of the stories of Jesus’ birth in Matthew and Luke are in the literary form known as an Infancy Narrative. While this implies that most of the details are fictional, it also clearly implies that the authors are using this fiction to teach great truths about who Jesus was. There has been tremendous debate on this subject on these forums - a simple search will turn up thousands of posts. If you are interested in details on what the Chruch’s scholars have published in this area, I recommend:
The Birth of the Messiah by Raymond BrownS.S.
The 3 volumes of *A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus *by John Meier
The Pontifical Biblical Commission’s Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels (available online).
And if you want to read the answers to your questions in the form frequently taught to the average Catholic, read the book used in many adult scripture classes, **And God Said What?: An Introduction to Biblical Literary Forms **by Margaret Ralph.
F
Fidelis
Guest
Except for The Pontifical Biblical Commission’s Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels . , I would not recommend ANY of these works. The anti-supernaturalist assumptions these works are based on have driven more average Catholics from reading the Bible than any other factor. When one reads that “Well, this stuff didn’t really happen–these are just pious reflections from later Christians that were attractive in teaching unsophisticated early believers” one just shuts the book, puts the Bible back on the shelf, and with Flannery O’Connor says “Just a myth? To hell with it then.”
As I never tire of pointing out, these people are not “the Church’s scholars” but individuals who, knowledgable though they may be, do NOT speak for the Church.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
The idea that information should be kept from the masses because it might be misconstrued or misunderstood has seldom worked in the Church’s favor in the past. Difficult passages are just that, difficult. That fact that we may well suspect that the infancy narratives are not factually correct means very little. They are meant to convey certain important principles about Jesus. All the gospel writers took information either from oral or written sources and fashioned it in such a way to convey the image of Jesus they wished to put forth. Mark had his own ideas about Jesus, and skipped the infancy period completely. One might have thought he would not have done this, since his was the first Gospel written. Perhaps he was unaware of this. In any event, he ignored Jesus birth totally. That should not trouble anyone, nor should problems in accuracy in the texts at various points. The writers had nothing like the sort of research advantages we do today.Except for The Pontifical Biblical Commission’s Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels . , I would not recommend ANY of these works. The anti-supernaturalist assumptions these works are based on have driven more average Catholics from reading the Bible than any other factor. When one reads that “Well, this stuff didn’t really happen–these are just pious reflections from later Christians that were attractive in teaching unsophisticated early believers” one just shuts the book, puts the Bible back on the shelf, and with Flannery O’Connor says “Just a myth? To hell with it then.”
As I never tire of pointing out, these people are not “the Church’s scholars” but individuals who, knowledgable though they may be, do NOT speak for the Church.
F
Fidelis
Guest
Lots of speculation here:
Maybe to you, it doesn’t, but to the average Catholic looking to the Bible for guidance and inspiration, it means a great deal.
Correction. What passes for modern biblical scholarship is not “information,” let alone timeless truth: it is speculation --speculation based on a particular scholars opinion from his findings and that is only as valid as the newest book. In twenty years, books will be written with new theories refuting those of today.
That’s right. However, to take the automatic “hermenuetic of suspicion” that modern scholars engage is not the solution. Past generations were not dumb—they saw these same difficulties in Scripture and faced them not with an anti-supernaturalist mindset, but using “the anaolgy of faith” (as Vatican II and the Catechism tells us to do).
Maybe to you, it doesn’t, but to the average Catholic looking to the Bible for guidance and inspiration, it means a great deal.Absolutely, but there is no need to de-spiritualize or de-historicize the Scriptures to believe so.
This is what’s known as “chronological snobbery”-- the belief that we can know better than people of ancient times because we think we know so much more. Personally, I think their being inspired by the Holy Spirit and being closer in time to biblical events counts for a lot more than 2000 years removed 20/20 hind-sight. But that’s just me.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
You are mostly conflating scholarship with apologetics. One seeks objective truth, insofar as that can be done, the other attempts to make the best case scenario for what is accepted as truth. All historical truth as any other is subject to newer and better analysis and new and better theories. There will always be new conclusions draw. That does not mean that there are many areas where scholars have been in agreement for a significant period of time, and feel quite sure of their claims. Many have indeed stood the test of time as well as later evidence.Lots of speculation here:
Correction. What passes for modern biblical scholarship is not “information,” let alone timeless truth: it is speculation --speculation based on a particular scholars opinion from his findings and that is only as valid as the newest book. In twenty years, books will be written with new theories refuting those of today.
That’s right. However, to take the automatic “hermenuetic of suspicion” that modern scholars engage is not the solution. Past generations were not dumb—they saw these same difficulties in Scripture and faced them not with an anti-supernaturalist mindset, but using “the anaolgy of faith” (as Vatican II and the Catechism tells us to do).
Absolutely, but there is no need to de-spiritualize or de-historicize the Scriptures to believe so.
This is what’s known as “chronological snobbery”-- the belief that we can know better than people of ancient times because we think we know so much more. Personally, I think their being inspired by the Holy Spirit and being closer in time to biblical events counts for a lot more than 2000 years removed 20/20 hind-sight. But that’s just me.
While there are no doubt scholars who have a anti-supernatural mindset, many are practicing believers. They seek truth. If a “miracle” is suseptible of rational logical explanation today, it simply is. We cannot simply refuse to acknowledge it.
Furthermore, the methodology used by biblical scholars is no different than that used by other literary scholars and historians.I see no similar ranting about how we should ignore new textual analysis of Don Quixote or War and Peace because twenty years from now there will be new analysis.
The only reason anyone could be upset if Luke made a mistake is if one’s faith is based on the infallibility of a sacred text rather than God. I expect mistakes, they simply did not have the resources we do. Everyone for example knows that Herodotus wrote an excellent book and is touted as the father of History, however no one doesn’t agree that his history was indeed poor and often inaccurate.
The last argument always is that taking advantage of modern methods of dating and chemical analysis as well as the wonders that computers offer is somehow denigrating to those in the past. I’'ve never heard this argument except in a religious context in order to decry some modern theory in favor of an old one.
No one decries people of the past. We are of the same species for heavens’ sake. Da Vinci was a genius. St. Augustine was too. But so was Aristotle and he certainly got a number of things wrong. Einstein was a genius and he got a few things incorrect as well. better tools lead to more accurate results.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
This kind of footnote: “Luke may simply be combining Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem with his vague recollection of a census under Quirinius”
assumes that Scripture can contain falsehoods; it treats the Bible as if it were merely a human book, one that has many errors.
Since Scripture is written under Divine inspiration, everything asserted by Scripture is asserted by the Holy Spirit; there can be no falsehoods in Scripture. So no verse can be the result of a vague and incorrect recollection by one of the authors. Scripture cannot contain errors on any subject. The idea that certain passages are a type of literature does not allow for false assertions on historical details, nor on any other subject.
assumes that Scripture can contain falsehoods; it treats the Bible as if it were merely a human book, one that has many errors.
Since Scripture is written under Divine inspiration, everything asserted by Scripture is asserted by the Holy Spirit; there can be no falsehoods in Scripture. So no verse can be the result of a vague and incorrect recollection by one of the authors. Scripture cannot contain errors on any subject. The idea that certain passages are a type of literature does not allow for false assertions on historical details, nor on any other subject.
As for the Quirinius question, he need not have had the title of governor. Luke calls Pilate governor, even though his title was Procurator. The term governor is being used by Luke as a description of the role, not as a title. So Quirinius need only have had authority over Syria (which was grouped with Galilee and Israel by the Romans for various purposes, included a census). Vardaman dates this census to the same year as when Quirinius was Roman Consul (usually dated to 12 B.C.). Finegan discusses the problem intelligently in Handbook of Biblical Chronology.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
But if there was a mixup in the historical setting of Luke’s infancy narrative, i.e. the names of governors and the real historical events in the background (the census) don’t you think someone would have pointed it out to Luke for correction? Or are you saying that it really had no significance at all for Luke’s purposes, even to bother correcting an obvious mistake?
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
Note that Scott Hahn discusses this in the notes to Luke’s Gospel andMatthews Gospel. 'There are reasonable explanations.http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_g...ias=aps&field-keywords=Hahn+Matthew&x=19&y=17
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
So, what does he say?
F
Fidelis
Guest
Hahn’s essay on this is not available on-line (as far as I know) and it is probably too long to type out.
If you go to the archives of the Catholic Answers page, you can find these:
Here are some articles that also may be helpful.
What Is Biblical Criticism—and Should We Trust It?
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0504fea1.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0504fea1sb1.asp
SCOTT HAHN ON THE POLITICIZED BIBLE
catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9609fea1.asp
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Well it is certainly one way to handle contradictions and discrepancies by simply willing them away with simplistic doctrinal statements. The Holy Spirit directed the writings,there can be no error, end of issue. Of course, it does not one thing to remove an contradition except by definition. There are lots of maybe’s and perhaps’s in your attempt to protect a sacred text and keep it as you need it to be, but you of course answer no questions. Stop reading fundamentalist “explanations” and actually read real scholarship.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
You know as a move around throughout this forum and see the lengths people are willing to go to deny truth in favor of some manufactured truth they feel is required by their faith, one is saddened that some feel that this is what religion and faith is all about. Adopting positions against the great weight of evidence pro-offered by scholars and theologians in favor of a tight little box of perfection contained within a book, translated hundreds of ways is a feat I must say. If it’s not the infallibility of scripture in some fundamentalist sense, it’s evolution and YEC also a fundamentalist phenomenon overtaking the Catholic Church. I look at the numbers and wonder. Is this simply because nearly 1 in 10 has left the Church to be replaced largely by converts from southern baptists protestants who have left none of their fundamentalism behind? Happily, this segment is at last count well under 15% of Catholic membership. Unfortunately it is way to vocal and is now making the Church look as silly as the bible thumpers have always been in the deep south. Anti-intellectualism seems the rule of thumb to many. Any idea how that idea got us out of caves?
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
Matt 11:25
You might want to meditate on that. Sadly for the wise and intelligent “of this world” heavenly things are hidden by Divine Authority and Design. They will ever be frustrated in their vain attempts to straight-jacket the Divine within their base artifices. The Pharisees and Scribes could not believe the miracles of Jesus were signs, as they were all considered errors and even sins for working them on the Sabbath. This is the effect of human wisdom and intelligence upon the Divine.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Yes, its a well known fact that the world has progressed on the shoulders of those who reject objective truth and reality. Especially those who go out of their way to twist and turn facts to conform to a personal ideology. If that is how you view God then of course, go with it. The whole world is wrong, the bible is this perfect God substitute and therein lies all the information ever needed. There is so much wrong with such a conclusion, one has no where to start. It is of course recognized that people believe in such bizarre and convoluted explanations more out of need that intellectual pondering.Matt 11:25
You might want to meditate on that. Sadly for the wise and intelligent “of this world” heavenly things are hidden by Divine Authority and Design. They will ever be frustrated in their vain attempts to straight-jacket the Divine within their base artifices. The Pharisees and Scribes could not believe the miracles of Jesus were signs, as they were all considered errors and even sins for working them on the Sabbath. This is the effect of human wisdom and intelligence upon the Divine.
I have no need to straightjacket the divine. No, quite the opposite. It is you that do that. I merely expect the divine to be at least as logical as I am. But then, you are probably the one who would also claim that there is no salvation outside but this one sect of one faith alone. All others have missed the boat.
What is ironic is your failure to see that what you propose is pharisidic, not what I and scholars and theologians propose. We merely sift through the evidence and construct a rational explanation. You are the ones intent on pushing form over substance. I figure God is big enough and can take the adjustment in thinking as I learn more. You feel God is some how offended by using the very brain you would claim he gave us. Non-use to you apparently is evidence of rightness. We simply disagree on how to view the world.
F
Fidelis
Guest
Reading over this thread (and others) I am simply confirmed in my conviction that it is the condescending attitude of those who fancy themselves “progressive” or scholarly that continue to drive the average Catholic away from being nourished by God’s Word. To label someones approach to Bible reading as “fundamentalist” or “Protestant” is a snotty and lazy way of dismissing those whom one looks down on.
The ironic thing is that people who have this attitude truly believe they are “cutting edge” and mainstream, when in fact they are isolated in little ivory towers where more realistic Catholics are bored to tears or put off by stultifying skepticism. They further fail to see that looking at the Scriptures “scientifically” and “progressively” is often every bit as agenda driven (from an ant-supernatulist point of view) and full of condescenting pre-suppositions as any fundmentalist. That’s why so many Catholics don’t read the Bible (or go to Protestant churches or join the JW’s) when they are offered views from modernist sources. It kills the spirit rather than nourishes it.
.
The ironic thing is that people who have this attitude truly believe they are “cutting edge” and mainstream, when in fact they are isolated in little ivory towers where more realistic Catholics are bored to tears or put off by stultifying skepticism. They further fail to see that looking at the Scriptures “scientifically” and “progressively” is often every bit as agenda driven (from an ant-supernatulist point of view) and full of condescenting pre-suppositions as any fundmentalist. That’s why so many Catholics don’t read the Bible (or go to Protestant churches or join the JW’s) when they are offered views from modernist sources. It kills the spirit rather than nourishes it.
.
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
I think that is unfair. My Biblical quote does not give license to anyone to twist and turn “facts” to conform them to personal ideology. It is just a warning to those worldly wise people who ARE calling Biblical statements foolish, mis-informed, or unhistorical to suit their own scientific and worldly-wise ideology. As the Quote continues… “and have revealed them to infants.”
That doesn’t mean that only imbeciles and idiots can understand the Bible, which you seem to be implying, but that only the TRULY HUMBLE and OBEDIENT are shown the Truths. The proud, the strong, the sleek and arrogant will be sent away empty.
For all I know you are merely taking the part of devil’s advocate, and don’t really deny Biblical realities like the Census at the Nativity of Jesus. That is a self-evident fundamental Truth. If science can’t figure it out, then maybe they haven’t found the evidence they need yet. The point is, the Bible should not be doubted based on SCIENTIFIC IGNORANCE.
P
patg
Guest
It doesn’t matter - it is an INFANCY NARRATIVE which no one who was aware of the genre would have assumed to be teaching history. As the Church specifically instructs, one*** must*** consider the literary form of the story in order to properly interpret it.
- Status