Vinnie

Can I get an autograph?

"Extraordinary" claims can be true historically. Do you mean "miraculous" instead?

I probably understand it even better than you

Well here is an example where a modern "historian" or "reader" might be more accurate, makes a major booboo even with archives at his disposal

You claimed that "modern historians" do not claim inspiration and my comment was that neither did Luke. So I asked you specifically where Luke claimed to be inspired by God.

That passage refers strictly to some books of our now current OT which wasn't fully set at the time. I think most critical scholars would date 2 Timothy before Luke so it obviously could NOT be referring to it!

That statement in 2 Tim, historically, has NOTHING to do with GLuke which most likely was not even in existence at the time!

Actually, if you read my piece, I do not dispute that. There can be historical, scientific and doctrinal errors in the Bible. I don't believe in partial inerrancy which is restricted to "faith and doctrinal inerrancy". I don't consider that view as being tenable. Qualitative inspiration is somewhat different than that. Read the link for more information.

Not at all. It said that historians WITH archives make more serious historical errors than did Luke's conflation That should be blatently obvious. What is so hard to grasp about that?

Yes, Luke who was not alive at the time and is writing at least 80 years after these events with no archives should remember perfectly what happened? The human mind would never conflate two such things! Did you say something before about not having bias ?

Birth Messiah, Raymond Brown p. 413

Luke also makes an error in Acts 5 on the uprising of Theudas.

Of relevance is Brown's quotation of Theudas R. Syme:

It is not very hard to imagine Luke conflating these two events despite what you claim. This is only a minor and excusable error on the part of Luke. it does not undermine his gospel or anything like that despite what some over-zealous skeptics might think.

Given that Luke's blunder is so minor I do not consider it worth pursuing. If Sander's writes back I'll post on it.

Vinnie

Geoff Hudson

In fact Meier might as well have said, Lk.2:1-16 was a complete fabrication. Then the child presented in the temple (Lk.2:21-40) is John, not Jesus . The child who "grew and became strong" (Lk.2:40) is John, not Jesus (the editor backtracks to apply the same phrase to John in the INCORRECT position - Lk.1:80). The boy at the temple (Lk.2:41-51) is John, not Jesus. The person who grew in wisdom and stature (Lk.2.52) is John, not Jesus. Then the story continues naturally at Lk.3:1-3, with John grown up, when the [word] {Spirit} of God came to him in the desert.

The date of John's birth doesn't seem to be a problem. What was really important was the time when John started his ministry of the Spirit.

Tertullian in Apologeticus 5.2 has: "It was in the age of Tiberias, then that the Christian name went out into all the world". This age could have been between AD 14 and AD 37, the period of Tiberias' rule.

I understand Christian to mean "anointed one" - one anointed by the Holy Spirit.

Geoff

Geoff Hudson

More to the point, (Lk.3:2), the time was during the high priesthood of Annas, and one CAIAPHUS whose name was JOSEPH.

Geoff

Vinnie

An update: E.P. Sanders emailed me back today:

I'll be sending out the envelope tomorrow.

Vinnie

malookiemaloo

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sauron
[B]To follow up on Layman's problematic dating for the nativity:



Meier first admits that no such Lucan census took place. Then he goes on to contradict Layman's claim for the date:

Luke's solution is a world-wide census decreed by Caesar Augustus when Quirinius was governor of Syria (2:1) -- unfortunately, such a census (which would have to occur ca. 5 BC) cannot be documented in any other ancient source. According to ancient records, Quirinius, who became governor of Syria in AD 6, conducted a census of Judea, but not of Galilee, in AD 6-7. Attempts to reconcile Luke 2:1 with the facts of ancient history are hopelessly contrived. Moreover, Mary would not have had to accompany Joseph to register, and her advanced pregnancy would have positively argued against accompanying him when there was no obligation to do so.

This is an absolutely absorbing subject.

I by no means possess a detailed knowledge of history at that timebut it seems clear that Jesus was born circa 2-4bc. This would be in accord with Matthews account.

How then does Luke appears to be around 10 years out? Clearly he did not deliberately lie and it is difficult to believe that one who ''has carefully investigated everything from the beginning'' could have made a simple error.

Could it be that Quirinius had the status of governor much earlier but only became de facto governor around 6bc? It was not unknown for 'governors' to be based in Rome but delegate the day to day on-site governing to someone else.

Alternatively he could have been delegated the role himself but did not become governor till later but was actually 'governing' at the time of Jesus birth.

I know this sounds like special pleading but I think non-theists and some Christians are too quick to jump to the conclusion that the Bible has got it wrong.

Finally on the subject of the census, it is not really anything new for the Bible to contain historical facts which are not mentioned elsewhere.


m

Sauron

Who says he carefully investigated? Himself? Circular witness.

No. Carrier makes it clear that we *knew* who the governor was for those years anyhow. Quirinius couldn't have held the status while someone else de facto and de jure occupied the position.

Why would he have delegated himself such a role, when a real governor already existed? Sounds like a way to get himself knocked off by the real Roman governor.

That's because it *is* special pleading. You're the one creating these ad hoc explanations without a shred of evidence to support any of them.

On the contrary. Historians would never go to the extreme lengths that christians do, to save an ancient document from being branded as wrong.

If a historian encountered a similar error in Herodotus, for example, you wouldn't see entire books and articles written in a spirited defense of what was plainly a historical error. Instead, reputable historians would simply recognize that the ancient source could not always be trusted for accuracy.

But when it comes to the bible, the conclusion that there's a mistake in it - well; that's simply not acceptable. So christians engage in all kinds of unrealistic gymnastics to rescue the bible from being incorrect.


You think so? Give five examples of such 'facts'.

Benjamin Franklin

Catholic scholar Fitzmyer is even more thorough in debunking the idea that Quirinius was governor during King Herod's reign. As he pointed out, Quirnius's career is pretty well documented and nowhere does it show that he was governor, of whatever type, of Syria during King Herod's regin. Thus we have independent confirmation of the fact Quirinius was never governor of Syria during King Herod's reign. It would really be special pleading to claim that both sets of records are wrong, especially for something that has no precedent in the Roman Empire i.e no one has ever been governor of the same region twice

And no historians are not too hasty to jump to conclusion that the Bible is wrong, not in this instance. Catholic Scholars like Raymond E Brown and Fitzmer have carefully investigated all the attempts to resolve this contradiction and have concluded that it cannot be done.

To use a quote extracted from an essay by Lowder

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...robel-rev.html

"Historian Larry Taylor writes, "Fitzmyer, in the Anchor Bible, surveys the wreckage of all the attempts to save the accuracy of Luke. All of the approaches are failures."


BF

malookiemaloo

OK I know it's a faith stance but just as non theists 'have faith' that everything will eventually be known through scientific research (without recourse to a deity) , so I believe that the Quirinius issue will be solved.

Sauron, you say that Christians go to greater lengths than 'ordinary' scholars to reconcile difficulties. Surely this cannot be right? World historians must spend at least the same amount of time is researching world history. Not very good scholars, in my opinion, if they don't.


m

malookiemaloo

One further point. Are we all agreed that the 'problem' lies in Luke and not Matthew?


m

Jayhawker Soule

Actually, I believe that he said:

• "Historians would never go to the extreme lengths that christians do, to save an ancient document from being branded as wrong."

There is a difference between 'reconciling difficulties' and 'rationalizing discrepancies'. You might find Farrell Till's Evaluating Historical Claims to be relevant.