Seemingly inconsistent bible passages

[Pete_1]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_of_the_Bible#New_Testament

Synoptic Gospels

Main article: Two-source hypothesis
One of the most substantial examples presented as inconsistency within the synoptic gospels is that of two nativity stories, one in the Gospel of Matthew, and another in the Gospel of Luke. In some cases, critics state the inconsistencies take the form of contradictory details, but in other cases, criticism points to an absence of shared detail between the accounts.citation needed]
Both Gospels, for example, give a genealogy of Jesus, but the names, and even the number of generations, differ between the two. Apologists explain the genealogical differences are the result of two different lineages, Matthew’s from King David’s son, Solomon, to Jacob, father of Joseph, and Luke’s from King David’s other son, Nathan, to Heli, father of Mary.[20] [21]
Both accounts describe Jesus as being born in Bethlehem, but while the Gospel of Luke account says that Jesus’ parents travelled there to register for a census, the Gospel of Matthew implies that the family actually lived in Bethlehem.citation needed] The Gospel of Matthew places the birth during the reign of Herod the Great, but while the Gospel of Luke implies that the conception of Jesus took place during the reign of Herod, the census with which the events of the birth are linked is known to have taken place in 6 AD, ten years after the death of Herod.citation needed]
In addition, most of the details are unique to each story.citation needed] Matthew has the magi, the Star of Bethlehem, the Massacre of the Innocents, and the flight to Egypt; Luke mentions none of these, but mentions the census, the birth in a manger, and the shepherds, none of which appear in Matthew. In Matthew, an angel appears to Joseph; in Luke, an angel appears to Mary.citation needed]

Can anyone point me to any apologetic sites, discussing this?

 

[patg]

Can anyone point me to any apologetic sites, discussing this?

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.

 

[rpp]

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.

Great caution must be used when reviewing many of these sources, especially Raymond Brown. One must also recall that the Pontifical Biblical Commission is not magisterial.

As for the quote, look it was from Wikipedia which is notorious for inaccuracies. I would give it little heed. There are lots of ideas about the source of various books in the Bible and to think that there are not people, including some who claim to be Catholics, who have an interest in debunking Scripture is to be naive.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

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. . …

Saint Luke writes:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, 2* **just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, 3 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, 4 that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.

It seems strange to use eyewitnesses to produce fiction and then publish it so that someone may know the truth of the things of which they have been informed.

 

[robert_ambrose]

With Wiki. One Must Be Careful ,anyone Can Edit Passages On Their Page To Suit Their Own Philosophy Etc.

 

[patg]

Saint Luke writes: It seems strange to use eyewitnesses to produce fiction and then publish it so that someone may know the truth of the things of which they have been informed.

I suggest the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s *Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels *to help clear this up. It clearly states that the gospels are far removed from eyewitness accounts.

As for Luke, he was writing in a common literary form known as an Infancy Narrative which all readers at the time would have known as fiction teaching truth.

 

[rpp]

Those who refer to the Gospel accounts as “fiction” are not saying what the Church teaches. That is an inappropriate word. Not everyone who claims to be Catholic write posts which are consistent with Church teachings. And like the Bible itself, will cherry pick or use non-Magisterial sources, some which may seem authoritative but in fact are not, to support their heterodox point of view.

But that is not a new trend. People have been doing that since Simon Magus.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission is not a Magisterial body. That means that what they say can sometimes be helpful, but they are neither infallible nor speak for the Church.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I suggest the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s *Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels *to help clear this up. It clearly states that the gospels are far removed from eyewitness accounts.

As for Luke, he was writing in a common literary form known as an Infancy Narrative which all readers at the time would have known as fiction teaching truth.

Your statements are quite accurate. Only literalists cling to the idea that the bible is factually inerrent in all matters. Wikipedia may be in error because of its sourcing problems, but similar works can be found everywhere, including in book form.The sources you cited are excellent. Any serious student knows them quite well.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Those who refer to the Gospel accounts as “fiction” are not saying what the Church teaches. That is an inappropriate word. Not everyone who claims to be Catholic write posts which are consistent with Church teachings. And like the Bible itself, will cherry pick or use non-Magisterial sources, some which may seem authoritative but in fact are not, to support their heterodox point of view.

But that is not a new trend. People have been doing that since Simon Magus.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission is not a Magisterial body. That means that what they say can sometimes be helpful, but they are neither infallible nor speak for the Church.

It seems that whenever church documents do not say what some wish them to, they become not infallible teaching and not speaking for the Church. Of course they are not infallible but the name attached to the published work carrys weight, and just happens to be the name of the present Pope noted for being an extraordinary scholar in his own right. I am sure that if what is said in that document differs in any major way from current Vatican scholarship, it would be so stated, or it would not have been approved for print. It is simply common Catholic biblical exegetics that the books of the bible treat subjects from a particular point of view, and have distinct purposes, which means that sometimes they conflict with one another. Most are not eyewitness accounts any how.