"Notorious historical problems" in Luke?

[HelenRose]

I am a “Family Historian” and a Genealogist. I deal in “dates, places and facts”. I also deal in family stories, identity and dreams. When I visit with an elderly “eyewitness” of a past event I listen careful the tone of the story and how it meant to the individual who tells me the story. When I visit with another elderly “eyewitness” of the same event, the story will be the same but many of the details may be different. Did the event happen in 1933 or was 1939. Was in it Phoenix or was is in Scottsdale. Did Aunt Hope drive all the way from Yuma to make sure Mother was okay or was it from Tuscon.

The love, the accuracy and the meaning of the story will be the same. This is the truth of the event. Dates and facts may be important but they don’t tell the meaning of a family. The Bible is the story of my Catholic Family.

There are people on both sides of the issue: those who believe the Bible and take it absolutely literally and those who disbelieve the Bible and take it absolutely literally. Often on a forum it can be less than entertaining to listen to these people of like minds but different beliefs struggle with their differing views.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Let’s not get any facts in the way now.

The saddest sight in the world is the brutal murder of a beautiful theory by a gang of ugly facts.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The Bible is without error on any subject, however the text should not always be taken literally.

The past teaching of the Magisterium was not invalidated by Vatican II.

I believe that the teaching of Providentissimus Deus on the absence of error in Scripture meets the criteria for papal infallibility:
catholicplanet.com/TSM/papal-infallibility.htm

The early Church Fathers also held the Scriptures to be without error,
as did St. Thomas Aquinas. Several different Popes (quoted above) clearly and emphatically taught, in no uncertain terms, that the Bible is without error.

The beliefs of the Catholic Faith are based on Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium. If one holds that Scripture contains errors, whenever scholars say that it contains errors; and if one holds that the Magisterium erred in the past, whenever scholars say that it erred; then the Faith would be based on whatever modern scholars teach. It would no longer be based on Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The Bible is without error on any subject, however the text should not always be taken literally.

The past teaching of the Magisterium was not invalidated by Vatican II.

I believe that the teaching of Providentissimus Deus on the absence of error in Scripture meets the criteria for papal infallibility:

Perhaps you’d like to explain what exactly is an error in a poem, or in a work of fiction, or in a infancy narrative, or in a myth. We all know what an error is in a historical text.

Being a bible expert, you should be able to explain to us what counts as errors in every genre, not just a history text.

Here’s an example of a poem: Tell us if it has an error:

“Jack be nimble, Jack be quick, Jack jumped over the candlestick.”

 

[Pete_Holter]

Can anyone comment on this footnote please?

nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/luke/luke2.htm#foot1

“Journeying to Bethlehem for the census in obedience to the orders of legitimate authority, Joseph fulfilled for the child the significant task of officially inserting the name ‘Jesus, son of Joseph of Nazareth’ (cf. Jn 1:45) in the registry of the Roman Empire. This registration clearly shows that Jesus belongs to the human race as a man among men, a citizen of this world, subject to laws and civil institutions, but also ‘savior of the world.’ Origen gives a good description of the theological significance, by no means marginal, of this historical fact: ‘Since the first census of the whole world took place under Caesar Augustus, and among all the others Joseph too went to register together with Mary his wife, who was with child, and since Jesus was born before the census was completed: to the person who makes a careful examination it will appear that a kind of mystery is expressed in the fact that at the time when all people in the world presented themselves to be counted, Christ too should be counted. By being registered with everyone, he could sanctify everyone; inscribed with the whole world in the census, he offered to the world communion with himself, and after presenting himself he wrote all the people of the world in the book of the living, so that as many as believed in him could then be written in heaven with the saints of God, to whom be glory and power for ever and ever, Amen.’” (John Paul II, Redemptoris Custos, 9).

May God bless you!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

It seems to me that we have a Catch 22 dilemma here.

When the books of the Bible agree word for word, they are using a single source. Therefore, according to a skeptic, the writings are not reliable because we have only one source on which to base our thinking.

One source may or may not raise questions. This examination is done for all historical documents in any case, and I see no one picketing their kids schools because such analysis is conducted. This is simple historical, literary criticism. The fact that it is done to the bible seems the issue, not that it is done regarding every other document in the world we find.

If books do not agree word for word they are, according to a skeptic, not reliable because they contradict one another.

Books that agree word for word are merely copies. We would expect different writings not to be exactly the same. As to much in the synoptic gospels, it is clear that some of the same writings were used by all three, mostly because there is some exactitude in some sayings between them. We know a great deal about the individual writing styles and word choices and usages of all of the writers of the NT expecially.

I believe that the Books of the Bible are honest and accurate accounts written – through the Holy Spirit – by ordinary men (howbeit holy ordinary men) who are recalling to the best of their abilities what they saw, what they believed and what they heard. As such, the writings can not be identical because individuals will always see and experience events in different ways.

I fully agree

I am fully convinced, in my own mind, that the fathers of the Holy Catholic Church thoroughly examined and studied all aspects of these Books and came to the correct interpretation as to their validity.

I would place less reliance on what our religious ancestors concluded about these documents since they had none of the means of analysis common today. Their opinions are valuable insofar as they reflect documents now lost or other information which we cannot locate. Beyond that, while interesting their opinions are not generally controlling as such. Documented opinion of course is always subject to review of the basis and if found reasonable, adopted.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

So is Luke faking it when he claims to have obtained his material from eyewitnesses?

The first error is that Luke is based on Matthew. The majority opinion today as far as I know, is that Mark was written first, based on both oral and written material, and that Matthew and Luke were written around the same time in different places. It is not apparent that Luke had Matthew, but it does appear he had Mark and the ever questionable Q at his disposal as far as written material. It is unclear who his eye witnesses were I believe. Matthew had Mark apparently and Q. Such is the present state of affairs as I understand them according to the academic world.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I think we get upset by this stuff because even a single error in scripture could be the counter-example which proves that God did not author scripture (since God is assumed to not make mistakes).

Anyway, you’ve seen the quotes from pre-vatican II popes on things like infallibility of scripture. Do you think those popes suffered from the same fundamentalist neurosis that some people have today? Or was it more understandable for them to see things so black and white because they lived before modern exegesis?

But God did not author scripture. That is not Catholic teaching. Catholic teaching is that he inspired it, and has always allowed for the human element in the texts. It has always been taught that as to the important principles of faith, God “directed” the various authors such that they committed no error. I doubt a census date is central to any faith necessary to be Christian.

If faith is based on the validity of some divine writing, then I submit such faith is weak and insubstantial, and the proof of the inaccuracy in making infallible claims serves now to threaten that faith.

The determinations of several popes can have and no doubt do have many reasons. One that was paramount was in protecting the faithful from things that might cause them to question their faith. When you insist that people believe in what is not logical nor rational based on objective facts, you breed that type of weak faith. If they get ahold of the truth, they tend to drop religion alltogether. The fact of it is that most fundamentalists who “see the light” become atheists. In the last number of years, a surprising number have not found the light of rational thought, but have found a tiny fundamentalist segment of Catholicism to hang with. It is unfortunate and further dilutes the rationality of our faith.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The Bible is without error on any subject, however the text should not always be taken literally.

The past teaching of the Magisterium was not invalidated by Vatican II.

I believe that the teaching of Providentissimus Deus on the absence of error in Scripture meets the criteria for papal infallibility:
catholicplanet.com/TSM/papal-infallibility.htm

The early Church Fathers also held the Scriptures to be without error,
as did St. Thomas Aquinas. Several different Popes (quoted above) clearly and emphatically taught, in no uncertain terms, that the Bible is without error.

The beliefs of the Catholic Faith are based on Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium. If one holds that Scripture contains errors, whenever scholars say that it contains errors; and if one holds that the Magisterium erred in the past, whenever scholars say that it erred; then the Faith would be based on whatever modern scholars teach. It would no longer be based on Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium.

So its better to remain deluded and continue in belief about things that are most certainly wrong? How does this bring me closer to God? The danger of modernity and relativism. Those two words are the buzz words of CAF. But I am criticized rather often for using words like fundamentalism and ultra conservative! What is one persons perjorative is not anothers I guess.

 

[Pete_Holter]

But God did not author scripture. That is not Catholic teaching.

Welcome back, SpiritMeadow! Where’d you go?

“For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their Author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself” (Dei Verbum, 11).

 

[Pete_Holter]

Believing that Jesus performed miracles is a matter of faith, especially since there is no documented evidence that He did so outside the stories written by those who were already His followers and believed Him to be God.

Hello patg,

Earlier in this thread you recommended A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus by John Meier. In these books he proposes the following as the authentic core of Josephus’ “Testimony”:

At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of the people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.

I do not own these books, so I do not know how Meier takes “a doer of startling deeds.” Josephus uses the term, here translated as startling, of Elisha as well (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 9, Chapter 8: “He also performed wonderful and surprising works by prophecy”). Considering that this description of Jesus is coupled with a positive assessment of Him - “a teacher of the people who receive the truth with pleasure” - it flows well to understand this as an extrabiblical witness for at least some of His miracles. What do you think?

May God bless you!

 

[buffalo]

The first error is that Luke is based on Matthew. The majority opinion today as far as I know, is that Mark was written first, based on both oral and written material, and that Matthew and Luke were written around the same time in different places. It is not apparent that Luke had Matthew, but it does appear he had Mark and the ever questionable Q at his disposal as far as written material. It is unclear who his eye witnesses were I believe. Matthew had Mark apparently and Q. Such is the present state of affairs as I understand them according to the academic world.

Did you read this? Or won’t you read it? Do you reject it?

The Authors of the Gospels

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. . … It is unclear who his eye witnesses were I believe. Matthew had Mark apparently and Q. Such is the present state of affairs as I understand them according to the academic world.

In view of Luke’s emphasis on the role of women I would suggest that Mary and the other women were his eye witnesses. I would suggest that, while the men were out fishing and/or preaching, Luke sat down by the stream, where the women were washing clothes, and let them relate their memories.

 

[patg]

Hello patg,

Earlier in this thread you recommended A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus by John Meier. In these books he proposes the following as the authentic core of Josephus’ “Testimony”:

I do not own these books, so I do not know how Meier takes “a doer of startling deeds.” Josephus uses the term, here translated as startling, of Elisha as well (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 9, Chapter 8: “He also performed wonderful and surprising works by prophecy”). Considering that this description of Jesus is coupled with a positive assessment of Him - “a teacher of the people who receive the truth with pleasure” - it flows well to understand this as an extrabiblical witness for at least some of His miracles. What do you think?

May God bless you!

John Meier actually devotes an entire chapter to a discussion of this text from Josephus. The consensus of many scholars, including Meier, is that it contains three very obvious Christianizing insertions by later copyists. It is precisely these insertions that interrupt the flow of what is otherwise a concise text carefully written in a fairly neutral tone. It is also important ti note that we have only three Greek manuscripte of Book 18 of *The Antiquities , *the earliest of which dates from the 11th century. In addition, the implied Christology aside, the author of the core of the Testimonium seems ignorant of certain basic material and statements in the four gospels.

There is a whole lot more on this – I’ve just mentioned a couple of the points Meier makes. We could have a very long thread just discussing Josephus.

 

[Pete_Holter]

John Meier actually devotes an entire chapter to a discussion of this text from Josephus. The consensus of many scholars, including Meier, is that it contains three very obvious Christianizing insertions by later copyists. It is precisely these insertions that interrupt the flow of what is otherwise a concise text carefully written in a fairly neutral tone. It is also important ti note that we have only three Greek manuscripte of Book 18 of *The Antiquities , *the earliest of which dates from the 11th century. In addition, the implied Christology aside, the author of the core of the Testimonium seems ignorant of certain basic material and statements in the four gospels.

Thanks!

“At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of the people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.”

So with this reconstructed text being the one that has those interpolations removed and, according to Meier, perhaps original to Josephus, what do you think of the bolded material in light of the immediate context and in comparison with the reference to Elisha?

Have a good night!

 

[Neil_Anthony]

But God did not author scripture. That is not Catholic teaching. Catholic teaching is that he inspired it, and has always allowed for the human element in the texts. It has always been taught that as to the important principles of faith, God “directed” the various authors such that they committed no error. I doubt a census date is central to any faith necessary to be Christian.

If God really directed what the authors wrote, wouldn’t God have saved them from all errors, not just errors of faith and morals? To say that there aren’t errors in faith and morals seems like a cop-out because, after all, no one can disprove it. So the text is full of other types of errors, but we assume no errors in faith and morals. It just seems suspicious to me.

I much prefer modifying our understanding of what constitutes error. For example, recognizing that facts stated as assumptions rather than as assertions, whether accurate or not, are not errors.

It might sound like playing word games, but we’re talking about something we love here. When we talk about a person we love, if we must point out a flaw, we do it in the kindest way possible.

Also, if we can determine which types of errors the text really is preserved from (if any) then we can know which theological messages might be erroneous too. For example some of the old testament teachings on morals seem erroneous.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

All I am saying is that there is so much to be learned from the bible that it is wasteful to continue trying to deny obvious truths. The bible was written by fallible people. They made errors about historical facts. They did math incorrectly from time to time.

So if the bible is full of mistakes written by regular people, then does that make it into basically an inspiring story book? It’s still very inspiring I guess. But if it’s just something some regular people made up then it’s hard to take it seriously. Was Jesus really “the way the truth and the life” or is that just something some poet thought we’d find inspiring? It is inspiring. But if it’s not true then maybe I should look elsewhere. Why spend all this time trying to get to know Jesus if maybe he isn’t “the way”?

Or the guy who wrote the psalm that says “The Lord hears the cry of the poor”… does the Lord really hear the poor? Or is it just something that makes us feel good? I’d like to know. Otherwise it might be just a bunch of wishful thinking. If any old guy can just start writing poems and thats what the bible is then… maybe its just the wishful thinkings of the Hebrews? If so, why is that any better than my own wishful thinkings? I hope the Lord hears the cry of the poor too. But does He really?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

But God did not author scripture. That is not Catholic teaching.

SpiritMeadow, I really sincerely hope this doesn’t drive you away from the Church… but I feel I have to show you this from the Catechism

136 God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth (cf. DV 11).

Here’s some more context:

II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

 

[didymus]

Can anyone comment on this footnote please?

nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/luke/luke2.htm#foot1

Footnotes

1 [1-2] Although universal registrations of Roman citizens are attested in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and A.D. 14 and enrollments in individual provinces of those who are not Roman citizens are also attested, such a universal census of the Roman world under Caesar Augustus is unknown outside the New Testament. Moreover, there are notorious historical problems connected with Luke’s dating the census when Quirinius was governor of Syria, and the various attempts to resolve the difficulties have proved unsuccessful. P. Sulpicius Quirinius became legate of the province of Syria in A.D. 6-7 when Judea was annexed to the province of Syria. At that time, a provincial census of Judea was taken up. If Quirinius had been legate of Syria previously, it would have to have been before 10 B.C. because the various legates of Syria from 10 B.C. to 4 B.C. (the death of Herod) are known, and such a dating for an earlier census under Quirinius would create additional problems for dating the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (Luke 3:1, 23). A previous legateship after 4 B.C. (and before A.D. 6) would not fit with the dating of Jesus’ birth in the days of Herod (Luke 1:5; Matthew 2:1). Luke may simply be combining Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem with his vague recollection of a census under Quirinius (see also Acts 5:37) to underline the significance of this birth for the whole Roman world: through this child born in Bethlehem peace and salvation come to the empire.

It seems to depend on what version of the NAB you have. I was at Border’s* today & the footnotes of the Catholic Answers Bible (any relation?) NAB don’t cast dout on Luke’s memory, though I can’t recall them exactly.

Then I stopped at a library and picked up a “Catholic Study Edition” NAB. The footnote for 2:1-5 states:

Luke uses the census to explain the time of Jesus’s birth at Bethlehem. Scholars interpret inscriptions found near Tivoli in 1764, and at Antioch in Pisidia in 1912, to point ot Cyrinius as governor of Syria between the years 10 and 8 BC. The census may have been inaugurated by him and named for him, even if it was completed under Saturnius, his successor.

I may switch to the “study edition” permanently. It will fit in my backpack better.

*Border’s has five full sets of shelves of Bibles – and one shelf of Catholic Bibles. On the bottom shelf, of course – I had to sit on the deck to look at them. I was ready to get my Irish up but then I realised that if their sales figures showed Catholics bought the most Bibles they’d be on the top shelf.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Did you read this? Or won’t you read it? Do you reject it?

The Authors of the Gospels

Yes, I have read it, Yes I reject it. Mr. Barton is simply inaccurate even in his brief claims. The authors of the Gospels are not largely unknown. Mark existed. His name was Mark. there is disagreement whether he was a follower of Peter or rather Paul and was the John Mark mentioned as a traveler with Paul. The majority opinion remains what it is. ECF’s had not the literary techniques available to us today. I am not surprised they might have erred on issues that are of no particular importance to faith. I do not care which side ends up prevailing on who wrote first. It has zero to do with my faith. That is does for some is unfortunate nd is probably the result of being told that the bible was literal much in the fundamentalist tradition. that is simply not Catholic.