Opinions on the "historical-critical method"?

[steve53]

Steve, sorry, but money doesn’t really seem to have been central to Second Temple Jews, the priestly caste included. By the mid 60s a goodly number of them were giving up their lives in a gallant but utterly idiotic war against the chief power of the time, the Evil Romans, and they ended up starved to death, crucified, or roasted alive for their efforts.

The temple priests were also hardly a group with a firm grasp on power; they were forever being tossed out.

And the Romans put “King of the Jews” on the cross, indicating they thought of Jesus as a clear threat from the line of David. The other clear mention of the line of David and Jesus was the fact that Domitian had all Jesus’ family dragged to Rome to be examined. The poor dim soul had them released right away, after seeing that they had the calloused hands of poor.

May God flood you with light and miracles, Anne m

Of course, they didn’t want the common Jews to think that money was the objective. But they had fees for everything, and all adult Jewish males were expected to tithe a half-shekel a year to the Temple. Josephus states they were rich. And the High Priest position was controlled by 2-3 families. All five of Ananus’ sons became High Priest’s at one time or another.
Ananus was clearly a shill of Rome, and dominated the Temple up until his death in the rebellion. He was the very definition of a master politician.
Lucius Vitellius, Roman Syrian legate, tossed out Caiaphas and his successor Jonathan from the position. Hagan says Caiaphas was removed because of Jesus, and Jonathan was removed because of Stephen and the early Christian persecution. This was in the A.D. 36-7 period.
The High Priests were treated benevolently by the Romans even during the rebellion thirty years later, the Romans giving them clemency and protecting their families. Some were killed by the Zealots or other Jewish factions. Two Roman generals (one a king) in the war were actually Jews.
Pilate actually thought Jesus was a harmless joke, but he had to execute him at Caiaphas’ request. Pilate was corrupt and was paid off by High Priests from Temple money, according to Hagan.
At the time of Domitian, there was no High Priesthood. It had been long outlawed.

If you don’t read Hagan, at least sit down with Josephus’ Wars, or read the last few books of Josephus’ Antiquities.

 

[patrick457]

Actually, it is 3.3, not 3.4

I intentionally made that mistake to see if someone here would pick up on it.

I thought at least Patrick would!

Please don’t expect me to reply on questions concerning mathematics, either elementary or advanced.

 

[annem]

Patrick457 On the other hand, Ehrman’s view is of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet (a view originally expressed by Albert Schweitzer), in agreement with people like Ed Sanders, Gerd Theissen, Paula Frederiksen, Geza Vermes, and Fr. John Meier. These scholars interpret Jesus’ message about “the kingdom of God” as an imminent, cataclysmic divine intervention in human affairs, in line with Jewish apocalyptic thinking, with Jesus seeing Himself as its harbinger. This difference between this view and that of Crossan et al.'s idea is that the latter do not see Jesus as being “apocalyptic” in any way (Crossan allows for the possibility that Jesus held such views at an early stage, but he holds the idea that Jesus was non-apocalyptic during His ministry proper).

Dear Patrick, thanks, thanks, thanks for replying! I always learn so much every time I have a chance to read your posts.

And I didn’t know anything at all about Ehrman seeing Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet. I’ve only read 'Forged" and “Misquoting Jesus” (if I remember the name properly) and I thought both were not well reasoned. I mean beyond even the fact that he is on one side and I am on the other, I still just didn’t like his style at all, which is pretty much the opposite of every biblical scholar I’ve ever read. Of course his books were aimed at a general audience. Even so, I really thought that, again and again, he slanted the facts so badly that he was downright lying. Maybe I shouldn’t say that. That’s just the way it seemed to me.

And he always makes so many mean comments about his former Fundamentalist church.

I

: if you’ve ever hung around New Testament / historical Jesus / Christian origins academia you’ll find that Ehrman is mainly just rehashing certain ideas that others have already been talking about in journals and scholarly works." And that’s what probably I dislike about Ehrman: all that hype. He may have exposed a wider audience to these already long-standing ideas (that is something I think one should value in a scholar: the ability to express one’s views into terms that the average joe could understand), but he’s hardly brought anything new to the table. Seriously, I only think that the reason why Ehrman is apparently so into it himself is because he once adhered to a strict, literalist kind of Fundamentalism.at

I am afraid I have no connection at all to biblical scholarship and academia. My background in college was in English lit. Then my brother published a book attacking early Christianity. In fact, my mother and all my brothers and sisters are atheists. I simply started reading biblical scholars as a way to refute my brother.

Ha, didn’t work. Not only will he not listen to me (I am regarded as the family crank due to my belief in Catholicism). But furthermore, since I didn’t start reading biblical scholarship with any real idea of what to read or who was orthodox and who hated Christianity, I simply have read all over the place with no real was design or purpose and there are, obviously, huge gaps in my knowledge. ’

I am so happy you even bothered to reply to me because, after a decade of reading book after book after book, I know of not one other person who is interested in biblical scholarship.

Patrick457 Well, given how the word ‘Christian’ and ‘Catholic’ could pretty much mean anything these days (like many other labels) I’m not surprised. I mean, look at all those ‘Catholic’ politicians who are Catholic in name only.

Alas, no kidding. It is so painful to hear people like Caroline Kennedy, who gave a speech at the Democratic convention, say that her ‘Catholic’ beliefs led her to a support for abortion.

God bless you Patrick for replying, and may he grant you miracles, Anne m

 

[annem]

Steve53 If you don’t read Hagan, at least sit down with Josephus’ Wars, or read the last few books of Josephus’ Antiquities.

Hi, actually, I have. But I am afraid the impression I took away was very different. Josephus described the nature of the Jewish community as a ‘theocracy’, with God in charge.

The Second Temple Jews looked for signs of God everywhere, in the clouds and in the ravings of the mentally ill. Their literature was God centered, soaked and saturated with prophecies and allegories, all from God. In fact, from the time of the Maccabees, doesn’t the evidence point to the Second Temple Jews growing increasingly religious, even militantly religious? And didn’t one million of them die for just that reason?

I know in the 70s there were some scholars who argued that the Zealots were freedom fighters. But where is the evidence even there?

Every little hamlet that’s been dug up shows an absence of pork bones. Those only appear in the cities where the Gentiles lived. And what caused a riot? They rioted and were willing to put their lives on the line for an attack on their monotheism from Caligula.

On the other hand, when the Temple workers went on strike, there was no riot. Money as a main issue? I just don’t see it. What evidence does Hagan talk about?

Pilate actually thought Jesus was a harmless joke, but he had to execute him at Caiaphas’ request. Pilate was corrupt and was paid off by High Priests from Temple money, according to Hagan.

And so the reason Pilate had “King of the Jews” put on the cross would be…?

And the reason Caiaphas wanted Jesus killed had nothing to do with Jesus proclaiming himself God? The gospel authors as liars?

Please explain.

May God flood you with joy and miracles, Anne m

 

[cornbread_r2]

I thought you all might be interested in this 34-part review of Ehrman’s book *Did Jesus Exist? *by Earl Doherty, one of the so-called mythicists that Ehrman’s book was supposed to take down to size.

 

[annem]

            cornbread_r2I thought you all might be interested in this 34-part review of Ehrman's book Did Jesus Exist? by Earl Doherty, one of the so-called mythicists that Ehrman's book was supposed to take down to size.

I’ve leafed through that book by Ehrman - the first time he managed to be polite. Since he was talking to t fellow atheist/agnostics/The Dark Side, etc.

But come on, DOHERTY??? I mean…I mean…Atlantis and aliens and radiation from Planet Z, that’s the level of scholarship of Doherty. Yes, I have read his book.

However, I suppose it’s interesting. At least it’s amusing. i Here;s one of his really funny mistakes: "Doherty (this is a man who can’t write two sentences without making major errors) pens these immortal words: "Make no mistake, Ehrman is not a regular, even liberal, Christian. He does not believe in the resurrection. In fact, he declares: “I certainly do not mean to say that I consider myself either a Christian or an apologist for Christian causes. I am neither.”

Ehrman not a liberal Christian???

Really funny –

May God bless you and flood you with joy and miracles, Anne m

 

[farpinho]

Ehrman might not be the best academic out there, but his fundamentalist background makes his arguments sound like big thing. For a source of Ehrman rebuttals, ehrmanproject.com/index.

 

[cornbread_r2]

I’ve leafed through that book by Ehrman - the first time he managed to be polite. Since he was talking to t fellow atheist/agnostics/The Dark Side, etc.

But come on, DOHERTY??? I mean…I mean…Atlantis and aliens and radiation from Planet Z, that’s the level of scholarship of Doherty. Yes, I have read his book.

However, I suppose it’s interesting. At least it’s amusing. i Here;s one of his really funny mistakes: "Doherty (this is a man who can’t write two sentences without making major errors) pens these immortal words: "Make no mistake, Ehrman is not a regular, even liberal, Christian. He does not believe in the resurrection. In fact, he declares: “I certainly do not mean to say that I consider myself either a Christian or an apologist for Christian causes. I am neither.”

Ehrman not a liberal Christian???

Really funny –

May God bless you and flood you with joy and miracles, Anne m

If you think that Earl Doherty’s thesis has anything to do with Atlantis, aliens or radiation from Planet Z – or anything even remotely as goofy – you could not have possibly read any of his books – a feature common to many of his critics.

From the wikipedia article on Ehrman:

He remained a liberal Christian for fifteen years but later became an agnostic after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering.[2]

Please note that that statement is referenced to one of Ehrman’s books.

If Ehrman believes in the resurrection why did he spend so much time and effort trying to convince William Lane Craig otherwise?

I’m starting to think you know less about Ehrman than you do about Doherty.

 

[steve53]

Hi, actually, I have. But I am afraid the impression I took away was very different. Josephus described the nature of the Jewish community as a ‘theocracy’, with God in charge.

The Second Temple Jews looked for signs of God everywhere, in the clouds and in the ravings of the mentally ill. Their literature was God centered, soaked and saturated with prophecies and allegories, all from God. In fact, from the time of the Maccabees, doesn’t the evidence point to the Second Temple Jews growing increasingly religious, even militantly religious? And didn’t one million of them die for just that reason?

I know in the 70s there were some scholars who argued that the Zealots were freedom fighters. But where is the evidence even there?

Every little hamlet that’s been dug up shows an absence of pork bones. Those only appear in the cities where the Gentiles lived. And what caused a riot? They rioted and were willing to put their lives on the line for an attack on their monotheism from Caligula.

On the other hand, when the Temple workers went on strike, there was no riot. Money as a main issue? I just don’t see it. What evidence does Hagan talk about?

And so the reason Pilate had “King of the Jews” put on the cross would be…?

And the reason Caiaphas wanted Jesus killed had nothing to do with Jesus proclaiming himself God? The gospel authors as liars?

Please explain.

May God flood you with joy and miracles, Anne m

As the revolt approached, people stopped tithing to Second Temple. Temple priests had to steal from the wealthy to get by, saying it was theirs by law. Ananias even had his own gang to procure goods.
When Jonanthan was murdered in the Second Temple by assassins sent by Felix, Josephus is clear that God left the Temple, which was his hoouse, and abandoned the Jewish nation.
Many in the High Priesthood were viewed as Roman collaborators, and they did have their power at the benevolence of Rome.
The High Priesthood only loosely was in control of the rebellion. There were many other factions organized in outlying towns, and the Zealots had their own leaders an army.

Read Josephus again.

To Pilate, Jesus was a joke. hence the sign. it was a jibe at both Jesus and Caiaphas.

Caiaphas was more concerned with Vitellius seeing unrest in Jerusalem for the Passover than any threat Jesus might have had towards Judaism.

 

[Faith1960]

So, how did they pass on oral tradition? You have to imagine a culture that is rooted in, and saturated with, rote memorization. This is pretty much the opposite of how we are taught today, so it is rather alien to us. However, rote memorization was the basis for all education in the ancient world. Students learned entire poems by heart. You could even be considered well educated if you knew some of your culture’s long poems by heart, but couldn’t actually read it.

Second Temple Jews would have known and noted when Paul and the others used such words. They would have been quick to (perhaps, although we have no ironclad proof of it) take notes and certainly they would have understood the binding nature of what Paul was saying.

At any rate, this is very, very different from merely telling a story which someone remembers 20 years later.

May God grant you miracles, Annem

I have to wonder about that, though, after reading some articles by Sean D. Harmon.

I started a thread about how reliable the NT is, last night.

seandharmon.webs.com/

From the article: <<<<<<<<<With these aside, how can we really be sure the stories in the gospels are not a result of Christian propaganda, or a community that got carried away with zealous admiration towards their goals of evangelizing to a hostile world by editing, reshaping, embellishing, even inventing the traditions around the church as they saw fit? We know for a fact the New Testament works are bias works. They weren’t written by skeptics or even critics of the faith, but adherents to the faith. And even if we don’t take the unlikely aggressive stand and assume them outright liars or conspirators driven by willful deceit, it would be ridiculous and unrealistic to assume that the early Christians, before and during the gospels were written, were not influenced by a least some, possibly even a good deal of good-intentioned propaganda or a natural fluidity to meet the needs of the church or even conform the traditions to their creedal and doctrinal beliefs that had evolved at the time. Even though Judeo-Christians thrived within a conservative Jewish system, just how strict this system actually was has been questioned by some, and we must also factor in that the traditions may have circulated for thirty or forty years orally (presupposing a post-70 gospel date here), and possibly told and retold from Aramaic to Greek before written texts were even conceived. We also need to keep in mind that the authors of the gospels were not writing for the sole purpose of chronicling accurate history specifically for public archives, even though accurate history is obviously contained therein, nor were they writing to those outside the Christian church but to other adherents who had already been familiar with the traditions and thus partial to them.

We have good evidence that the gospels were constructed from oral stories (discussed here: The Q Conundrum, Problem #6), or that the authors had collected patches of oral tradition and strewn them into written texts, so we could certainly expect telescoping of certain accounts, selection of accounts over others, omissions, condensing and even conflation of certain accounts to make it easier as an oral construct. We could also assume that there was a certain amount of paraphrasing or rearranging at the discretion of each gospel author either out of convenience, clarification of an account and its theological significance, or to emphasize particular viewpoints, and we also know that the latter is significant in most major historical material, even more so in religious material. With that said, however, there is a line, even if but a thin one, between bias and fiction, omission and invention, paraphrasing and fabricating, rearranging and embellishing, theological expression and falsification. So how can we be sure that the apostles and eyewitnesses who conveyed and administered these traditions orally, the community of Christians who orally told and retold these traditions as the apostles conveyed them, and the gospel authors who eventually picked these traditions and transcribed them into a written outline called the gospels didn’t cross that line?
t his work last night. >>>>>>>>>

 

[farpinho]

I have to wonder about that, though, after reading some articles by Sean D. Harmon.

I started a thread about how reliable the NT is, last night.

seandharmon.webs.com/

From the article: <<<<<<<<<With these aside, how can we really be sure the stories in the gospels are not a result of Christian propaganda, or a community that got carried away with zealous admiration towards their goals of evangelizing to a hostile world by editing, reshaping, embellishing, even inventing the traditions around the church as they saw fit? We know for a fact the New Testament works are bias works. They weren’t written by skeptics or even critics of the faith, but adherents to the faith. And even if we don’t take the unlikely aggressive stand and assume them outright liars or conspirators driven by willful deceit, it would be ridiculous and unrealistic to assume that the early Christians, before and during the gospels were written, were not influenced by a least some, possibly even a good deal of good-intentioned propaganda or a natural fluidity to meet the needs of the church or even conform the traditions to their creedal and doctrinal beliefs that had evolved at the time. Even though Judeo-Christians thrived within a conservative Jewish system, just how strict this system actually was has been questioned by some, and we must also factor in that the traditions may have circulated for thirty or forty years orally (presupposing a post-70 gospel date here), and possibly told and retold from Aramaic to Greek before written texts were even conceived. We also need to keep in mind that the authors of the gospels were not writing for the sole purpose of chronicling accurate history specifically for public archives, even though accurate history is obviously contained therein, nor were they writing to those outside the Christian church but to other adherents who had already been familiar with the traditions and thus partial to them.

We have good evidence that the gospels were constructed from oral stories (discussed here: The Q Conundrum, Problem #6), or that the authors had collected patches of oral tradition and strewn them into written texts, so we could certainly expect telescoping of certain accounts, selection of accounts over others, omissions, condensing and even conflation of certain accounts to make it easier as an oral construct. We could also assume that there was a certain amount of paraphrasing or rearranging at the discretion of each gospel author either out of convenience, clarification of an account and its theological significance, or to emphasize particular viewpoints, and we also know that the latter is significant in most major historical material, even more so in religious material. With that said, however, there is a line, even if but a thin one, between bias and fiction, omission and invention, paraphrasing and fabricating, rearranging and embellishing, theological expression and falsification. So how can we be sure that the apostles and eyewitnesses who conveyed and administered these traditions orally, the community of Christians who orally told and retold these traditions as the apostles conveyed them, and the gospel authors who eventually picked these traditions and transcribed them into a written outline called the gospels didn’t cross that line?
t his work last night. >>>>>>>>>

I still didn’t get what’s the big problem about it That’s just the introduction the website owner used to his apologetics. He first presented the arguments against the reliability of the Gospels and then, in the rest of the website, he starts to explain why he disagrees with them.

 

[Faith1960]

---

I still didn’t get what’s the big problem about it That’s just the introduction the website owner used to his apologetics. He first presented the arguments against the reliability of the Gospels and then, in the rest of the website, he starts to explain why he disagrees with them.

He sounds uncertain about just how reliable the Gospels are or how much their assembly can be trusted, in the following points:

<<<<<<<We know for a fact the New Testament works are bias works. They weren’t written by skeptics or even critics of the faith, but adherents to the faith. And even if we don’t take the unlikely aggressive stand and assume them outright liars or conspirators driven by willful deceit, it would be ridiculous and unrealistic to assume that the early Christians before and during the gospels were written were not influenced by at least some, possiblt even a good deal of good-intentioned propaganda-or a natural fluidity to meet the needs of the church or even conform the traditions to their creedal and doctrinal beliefs that had evolved at the time. Even though Judeo-Christians thrived within a conservative Jewish system, just how strict this system actually was has been questioned by some, and we must also factor in that the traditions may have circulated for thirty or forty years orally (presupposing a post-70 gospel date here), and **and possibly told and retold ** from Aramaic to Greek before written texts were even conceived. We also need to keep in mind that the authors of the gospels **were not writing for the sole purpose of chronicling accurate history ** specifically for public archives, even though accurate history is obviously contained therein, nor were they writing to those outside the Christian church but to other adherents who had already been familiar with the traditions and thus partial to them. >>>>>>>
<<<<<< We have good evidence that the gospels were constructed from oral stories (discussed here: The Q Conundrum, Problem #6), or that the authors had collected patches of oral tradition and strewn them into written texts, so we could certainly expect telescoping of certain accounts, selection of accounts over others, ommisions, condensing and even conflation of certain accounts to make it easier as an oral construct. We could also assume that there was a certain amount of **paraphrasing or rearranging ** at the discretion of each gospel author either out of convenience, clarification of an account and its theological significance, or to emphasize particular viewpoints, and we also know that the latter is significant in most major historical material, even more so in religious material.>>>>>>

 

[patrick457]

---

He sounds uncertain about just how reliable the Gospels are or how much their assembly can be trusted, in the following points:

<<<<<<<We know for a fact the New Testament works are bias works. They weren’t written by skeptics or even critics of the faith, but adherents to the faith. And even if we don’t take the unlikely aggressive stand and assume them outright liars or conspirators driven by willful deceit, it would be ridiculous and unrealistic to assume that the early Christians before and during the gospels were written were not influenced by at least some, possiblt even a good deal of good-intentioned propaganda-or a natural fluidity to meet the needs of the church or even conform the traditions to their creedal and doctrinal beliefs that had evolved at the time. Even though Judeo-Christians thrived within a conservative Jewish system, just how strict this system actually was has been questioned by some, and we must also factor in that the traditions may have circulated for thirty or forty years orally (presupposing a post-70 gospel date here), and **and possibly told and retold ** from Aramaic to Greek before written texts were even conceived. We also need to keep in mind that the authors of the gospels **were not writing for the sole purpose of chronicling accurate history ** specifically for public archives, even though accurate history is obviously contained therein, nor were they writing to those outside the Christian church but to other adherents who had already been familiar with the traditions and thus partial to them. >>>>>>>
<<<<<< We have good evidence that the gospels were constructed from oral stories (discussed here: The Q Conundrum, Problem #6), or that the authors had collected patches of oral tradition and strewn them into written texts, so we could certainly expect telescoping of certain accounts, selection of accounts over others, ommisions, condensing and even conflation of certain accounts to make it easier as an oral construct. We could also assume that there was a certain amount of **paraphrasing or rearranging ** at the discretion of each gospel author either out of convenience, clarification of an account and its theological significance, or to emphasize particular viewpoints, and we also know that the latter is significant in most major historical material, even more so in religious material.>>>>>>

I’m afraid I also don’t see anything wrong here. Why should we expect the gospels to read like a modern-day historian’s dispassionate account? I know words like ‘bias’ or ‘propaganda’ may have negative connotations, but I don’t think that this is always the case. The Evangelists themselves somewhat admit it:

The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

They’re not so much concerned with writing an ‘objective’ biography (in the modern sense) of a person called Jesus, but trying to convince people that this person called Jesus is who Christians say He is. Think of it as early Christian apologetics.

 

[patrick457]

I am afraid I have no connection at all to biblical scholarship and academia. My background in college was in English lit. Then my brother published a book attacking early Christianity. In fact, my mother and all my brothers and sisters are atheists. I simply started reading biblical scholars as a way to refute my brother.

Ha, didn’t work. Not only will he not listen to me (I am regarded as the family crank due to my belief in Catholicism). But furthermore, since I didn’t start reading biblical scholarship with any real idea of what to read or who was orthodox and who hated Christianity, I simply have read all over the place with no real was design or purpose and there are, obviously, huge gaps in my knowledge. ’

I am so happy you even bothered to reply to me because, after a decade of reading book after book after book, I know of not one other person who is interested in biblical scholarship.

I’m afraid I don’t either.

 

[patrick457]

historical-critial is probably, no it *is *the weakest of the three forms that I know that are used (Theological, Historical and Literary) not much has been hammered out conclusively re historical critical other than Matt and Luke used some material from Mark.

Can I comment on your post a second time?

You’re correct: the various forms of historical criticism (such as source criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, tradition criticism, and radical criticism), is not the end-all be-all, since other methods do exist.

 

[Faith1960]

I’m afraid I also don’t see anything wrong here. Why should we expect the gospels to read like a modern-day historian’s dispassionate account? I know words like ‘bias’ or ‘propaganda’ may have negative connotations, but I don’t think that this is always the case. The Evangelists themselves somewhat admit it:

The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

They’re not so much concerned with writing an ‘objective’ biography (in the modern sense) of a person called Jesus, but trying to convince people that this person called Jesus is who Christians say He is. Think of it as early Christian apologetics.

In reading up on this topic, trying to learn a few things, one long-winded article by that writer led to another article, to yet another and another… you get the idea. Eventually it led me to the Gospel of Luke and the Nativity. Which led to the discrepancies about when the census took place and who was governor at the time. More confusion for me, wondering of that particular Gospel is accurate or not.
IF the historical details about the census and who was governor at the time are inaccurate, doesn’t that discredit Lukes version of the Gospel altogether?

 

[patrick457]

In reading up on this topic, trying to learn a few things, one long-winded article by that writer led to another article, to yet another and another… you get the idea. Eventually it led me to the Gospel of Luke and the Nativity. Which led to the discrepancies about when the census took place and who was governor at the time. More confusion for me, wondering of that particular Gospel is accurate or not.
IF the historical details about the census and who was governor at the time are inaccurate, doesn’t that discredit Lukes version of the Gospel altogether?

Just my opinion. I would say that we moderns are being too hard on Luke. There have been a lot of suggestions on how to harmonize Luke’s passage with known historical data, but I think that even if Luke proves to be the one that stumbled on his dates for some reason, I don’t think it necessarily negates the whole gospel. The lack of a common calendar meant that ancient historians, who were accustomed to their own peculiar ways of dating (most often dictated by the calendars in use in their respective areas), had a harder time than modern historians do in recording and remembering dates. They had few fallbacks to rely on: there were no newspapers or Wikipedia or Google searches to keep track of accurate dates. As it is Luke seems to have done a pretty good job for an ancient writer. It’s kinda like Dionysus Exiguus, the monk who invented the Anno Domini system: his calculations weren’t 100% exact (it is now thought to be more likely that Jesus is born, somewhat oddly, during the last decades ‘Before Christ’!), but he did a good enough job that there is only a discrepancy of four to six years at the least.

 

[Faith1960]

Just my opinion. I would say that we moderns are being too hard on Luke. There have been a lot of suggestions on how to harmonize Luke’s passage with known historical data, but I think that even if Luke proves to be the one that stumbled on his dates for some reason, I don’t think it necessarily negates the whole gospel. The lack of a common calendar meant that ancient historians, who were accustomed to their own peculiar ways of dating (most often dictated by the calendars in use in their respective areas), had a harder time than modern historians do in recording and remembering dates. They had few fallbacks to rely on: there were no newspapers or Wikipedia or Google searches to keep track of accurate dates. As it is Luke seems to have done a pretty good job for an ancient writer. It’s kinda like Dionysus Exiguus, the monk who invented the Anno Domini system: his calculations weren’t 100% exact (it is now thought to be more likely that Jesus is born, somewhat oddly, during the last decades ‘Before Christ’!), but he did a good enough job that there is only a discrepancy of four to six years at the least.

If Luke made a mistake on the dates and/or who was governor, wouldn’t that cast at least some doubt on the Nativity, Jesus’ virgin conception etc?

 

[patrick457]

If Luke made a mistake on the dates and/or who was governor, wouldn’t that cast at least some doubt on the Nativity, Jesus’ virgin conception etc?

I may be being thick here, but why would dates cast doubt on facts?

I should add that Matthew and Luke both agree that Jesus was born around the end of Herod the Great’s reign: Matthew explicitly states it (cf. Matthew 2:1), while Luke implies it (in 1:5, Gabriel appears to Zechariah “in the days of Herod, king of Judaea,” and appears to Mary six months afterwards). It is really only Luke’s later mention of the census of Quirinius (2:1-2) which complicates things.

 

[Faith1960]

I may be being thick here, but why would dates cast doubt on facts?

I should add that Matthew and Luke both agree that Jesus was born around the end of Herod the Great’s reign: Matthew explicitly states it (cf. Matthew 2:1), while Luke implies it (in 1:5, Gabriel appears to Zechariah “in the days of Herod, king of Judaea,” and appears to Mary six months afterwards). It is really only Luke’s later mention of the census of Quirinius (2:1-2) which complicates things.

These articles could explain things. :newidea:

www3.telus.net/trbrooks/firstcensus.htm

ankerberg.com/Articles/editors-choice/EC1205W3A.htm