This was the post I was talking about. It’s not like you made a huge logical error, but this mindset is dangerous and suggests a problem in use of logic. Especially the first sentence. You have proven to have the knowledge, you just need to make sure you make proper use of it.
There are very few general things you can say you know for sure about this time, such as “I know the Romans existed”. It is different to make specific claims, such as these.
You can’t always hope to put a puzzle together if you don’t have all the pieces. Or even worse, the pieces you have might be from another similar puzzle. Accept this and we’ll have a much more constructive time analyzing these facts.
I don’t think you understand where I am coming from here. And you have been here all along. Funny.
I never made any sort of claim at all, in any fashion. Never said the Bible has no errors, or made any claim even close to that. I only want what everyone else here wants, to take the supposed errors of the Bible and analyze them in the hopes of debunking them or solidifying them. I have stated that I actually think, even know that there are errors in the Bible, I just haven’t seen solid evidence for them (probably because I haven’t researched them enough)
Where in the heck did you get this idea that I claimed the Bible was inerrant in fact? Right now, right here, quote me.
A) Thanks for reading my mind, I certainly don’t have that power. I never mentoned any names nor tried to imply they weren’t men of faith, I just stick to my point that science is not “Immaculately conceived” it comes from people with pre-comceptions and ideas. OTOH, many times I hear “I believe, but I just don’t believe in all that crap about miracles, resurection or Virgin Birth”. I, like all good Catholics, am all for scientific study of the Bible, but I think that ALL those who study these matters have strong ideas that are very hard to banish.
B) The minimalistic dogma, which governed much of Biblical studies in the 20th century was that the Bible was wrong until proven true.
C) By Orthodox I meant faithful and I enclosed in brackets the same word so confusion wouldn’t arise and there are also plenty of Catholics in that camp too). What is “truly believe in the NT”? Is it belive with all the miracles and as the Word of God? If it is so, I have nothing further to say, I’ll shut up and they can talk about Q or F or any letter they want; they’d be on my team (or I in theirs).
I want to make myself clear. I couldn’t care less if Q existed or not or if Luke copied form Q, Mark, Matthew, John the Baptist or Noah. My “beef” with Q is the same I have with those scientists who use Q in order to deny Divine Inspiration. Those scientists who espouse Q without denying Devine Inspiration nor inerrancy are kosher with me.
Having said all that, there is not a shred of evidence that Mark was composed any time before the late 60’s.
Nor any that would satisfy. 7Q5 is very clear despite your protest.
Father O’Callaghan (and Fr. Ignace de la Potterie supports him)has showed that even if those letter which aren’t that clear are discarded, the passage can only be Mark. Of ocurse there are objectors, but this is science. Some people just can’t believe in early dating. I bet that if the fragment had been dated in the 150s, no one would’ve objected, hey, but that’s me. I’l admit that, like eveyoen else, I need less confirmation for things that match my idea that for thosde who contradict it, but, I’m only human.
I am a Christian and I fully believe that IF the other religious writings are on the same level of credibility, cohesiveness, validity, ect. as the Bible seems to be, then I believe that those other supernatural events recorded therein are just as likely as the Bible’s events. Why would I believe otherwise?
I agree with your post, it’s a good point to make. But I pride myself very much on being able to be doggedly objective. It’s a gift, you could say!
But I do believe a have a duty to be the Bible’s defender if I feel as if it’s not getting a fair consideration, so it’s possible some of what I have said could be construed as subjective. I assure you, subjectivity is blindness and I want to see the truth here… it’s my motivation here.
Please, let’s make this post’s subject matter factual, not human. Please, separate the person from the problem and focus. Maybe we can salvage this thread, as I have found a good chunk of free time to post (and more importantly learn).
Objective scholarship necessitates the rejection of alleged supernatural events without evidence. It also follow that a text which alleges such things cannot be taken as historically reliable. Matthew has historical credibility problems elsewhere too. His passion narrative, in particular the trial before the Sanhedrin, is shot through with logical, procedural and factual errors. Need less to say, a religious agenda by an author is another liability as to factual reliability.
I’ve addressed Quirinius pretty thoroughly already. I have absolutely judged it on the merits. I don’t know what you’re talking about here.
You’ve got this backwards. Matthew’s slaughter cannot be accepted without corroboration because Matthew is not reliable as a factual history and because he has a plausible religious motive for inventing it.
Historical scholarship in this case means applying a variety of analytical methods to the text in question as well as comparing it to other contemperaneous texts and drawing educated inferences about the context, intent and historical reliability of that text. It’s not “just talk” and asserting that it is is just non-responsive hand-waving.
I’ve already addressed this above but let me say it again. Objective scholarship necessitates the rejection of supernatural assertions without evidence. It is incumbant upon those who make those assertions to prove them, not on anyone else to disprove them.
Yes, I presume that the impossible is impossible until proven otherwise. That is the only course that can be taken if one is to make an empirical assessment.
I am more disposed to take the word of a relatively scrupulous historian like Josephus, in spite of some of his biases, than I am to take the word of religiously motivated mythicist whose intent was to write a liturgical work, not an objective biography.
It’s not a question of simply disbelieving the Quirinius census, it has actually been proven otherwise. Matthew’s slaughter is unsupported elsewhere. The flight to Egypt is contradicted by Luke and Matthew cannot be taken as factually reliable in any case.
What are my “issues” btw?
No, the worst I can say is that we can prove it didn’t happen. The best you can do is make unsupported assertions.
Right back at you, sir.
No corroborating evidence + religious literary intent + supernatural assertions + factual errors in other places = unreliability is all narrative details.
I concede that it would not be inconsistent with Herod’s personality to kill babies.
An alternative theory is that Matthew, who did not know Jesus and who was writing many years after the fact, searched the OT for clues about the Messiah and incoroporated those clues into his text. He did not have any dishonest or deceptive intent. He truly believed that he could extropolate information about Jesus’ birth from what he perceived to be Messianic references in the OT.
BTW, why does Luke say that Jesus and his folks returned to Nazereth after Jesus was circumcized (eight days after birth) without any mention of the slaughter or the flight to Egypt?
I agree.
I prefer not to wade through a bunch of apologetic sites trying to guess what you think is a solid argument. Please post a specific thesis or paste what you think is a particularly sound defense for your side of the census argument and I will be happy to respond to it.
I do not claim to have read your mind. I am pointing out that you are parroting the comments of people who have expressed those ideas. What is in your head is your business, but what you post can be associated with actual works and claims.
Your second statement is simply false. There were a very few scholars at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries who initiated the “Historical Jesus” studies (Schweizer prominent–but almost alone–among them) who came to the study of Scripture with a skeptical or agnostic view. However, the giants of 20th century biblical scholarship were clearly persons of faith. There was no “minimalist” approach in mainstream scholarship. Are you suggesting that Karl Barth was not mainstream? Or that he was a skeptic? (Hiding behind your “no names” stance is not acceptable. You have made a broad (and erroneous) generalization that is easily destroyed by looking at the actual persons involved. I will grant you (with a caveat) one major scholar: I am sure that many people consider Bultmann to have been a skeptic, although I suspect many people would view his faith as different, not absent. However, his influence was not such that the whole tribe of scholars hastened after him; indeed, many monographs were written in opposition to his ideas.
Name the “minimalist” scholars and the trends that they have created, or stop spreading erroneous generalizations.
The problems with your current claim regarding Q and youre initial statment is that your initial claim bundled together all those (overwhelming majority of) faith-informed scholars who recognize the reality of Q with those few people outside the faith community who make an additional statement that Q might invalidate inspiration. By conflating the two groups in your original post, you appeared to place yourself among those who believe that all scholarship is evil. That may be unfair to you, but we can only respond to what you post, such as this false claim: ‘most of which, like “Q” for instance, is going down the drain.’
Who passes muster as an objective historian without motives?
Can you prove that objective scholarship necessitates the rejection of supernatural events? On what evidence do you discard the (possibility of the) supernatural?
Your “educated guess” is my leap of faith and vice-versa.
**
Let’s address this. I am inclined to believe you, as you have obviously researched this tremendously, but objectivity begs for analyzation.
Here are all the movements of the family I can see in Luke:
Luke 2:4 - “And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem;”
Luke 2:39 - “And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city of Nazareth.”
Here are the movements in Matthew I can see"
Matt. 2:1 - “Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem.”
Matt. 2:12 - “And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country [Galilee/Nazareth] another way”.
Matt. 2:14-15 - (Angel of the Lord appeared and told them to go the Egypt)"When he [Joseph] arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod [the king].
Matt. 2:21-23 - “And he arose and took the young child and his mother and came into the land of Israel, but when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judea in the room of his father Herod, he was afriad to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: …”
Ok, the two books are right about where Jesus was born. Luke then seems to skip everything that Matthew says and goes straight to the time when they finally settled down back in Nazareth. Matthew goes through one dream, an angel and another dream, in the midst of travels from Bethlehem, starting to go Nazareth, veering off to Egypt, then moving to the land of Israel, but veering back towards Nazareth.
Please point out where the contradiciton for me?
By the way DtC, I do agree with you about judging Matthew more harshly because of the nature of his book not being historically inclined… but I believe Luke’s book is on that level of historicity, don’t you? Just thought I would get that levelled out between us. (Sorry dad)
DtC, those sites Actuary posted, some of them are short. Read through some of the short ones, they really do have good points. (The third one might not be wroth reading)
One or two of them claims that Luke’s translation should say “governing” not “the governor of”. There seems to be a disagreement between people here with this and we really need to get this straightened out before we go any further. I will try to look back in this post for where you spoke about this, but that’s gonna be a tough task at this point.
1.) historical scholarship is kept honest by peer review and intermural criticism just like any other empirical discipline. A historian who is not rigorous in his/her methods and cannot defend his/her conclusions from the scrutiny of other scholarship will quickly be discredited.
2.) The scientific standard is that extraordinary claims equire extraordinary evidence. It is axiomatic from an empirical standpoint that the laws of physics cannot be violated. If you want to assert that they can be then you have the burden of proof.
3.) Nonsense. Faith, by definition, is belief without evidence. What I’ve been posting is conclusions drawn from evidence. I’m not guessing and I’m not taking anything on faith.
DtC, those sites Actuary posted, some of them are short. Read through some of the short ones, they really do have good points. (The third one might not be wroth reading)
One or two of them claims that Luke’s translation should say “governing” not “the governor of”. There seems to be a disagreement between people here with this and we really need to get this straightened out before we go any further. I will try to look back in this post for where you spoke about this, but that’s gonna be a tough task at this point.
According to Luke, Jesus is circumcized eight days after his birth and then he is brought to Jerusalem so that he can be “presented to the Lord” at the temple (which was not an actual Jewish tradition, btw) and so that Mary can undergo the ritual purification process which all women were subjected to after childbirth. Maternal purification took place 40 days after childbirth. Luke then says that after the purification process was satisfied they all returned to Nazereth. Skipping over a desperate flight to Egypt to escape the clutches of Herod’s henchmen is a pretty major step to skip at that point. A plain reading of Luke does not suggest that he was skipping past anything but that he was completely unaware that any such episode had occurred.
Luke is dependant on Mark and Q so his historicity with regards to that material is only as reliable as those two sources. Luke also incorporates some of his own special material (called “Lucan” by scholars) whose source is unknown. Tradition is that he interviewed apostles but as I said earlier in this thread Luke was composed in 90 CE which would indicate some pretty aged interview subjects. Luke is also undermined by the the same supernatural claims as the other Gospels. Let’s not forget either that he blew the call on Quirinius’ census.
Actually, if you talk to Polycarp on this issue he would agree with you more than I would. Poly is rather more inclined to accept traditional claims that Luke talked to Mary, etc. Poly DOES accept Q, though and largely agrees with much that I have posted on Matthew. I bring him up as an example of a liberal Christian who accepts much of contemporay biblical criticism but does not feel that it undermines his faith.
I looked at Actuary’s links and they don’t provide anything that I haven’t already addressed above.
The nitpick on the particple vs. the noun is really, really specious, IMO. The Greek in question can actually be translated as “…when Quirinius was being governor in Syria.” So we can nuance the Greek any way we want to. Even at it’s most generous, the distinction is slim to the point of non-existent. Furthermore, this argument fails to address the fact that there is no evidence of Quirinius having any leadership role at all in Syria prior to 6 CE, does not address the fact that there is no evidence of a census in Judea before 6 CE, (an event that would have precipitated great resistence had it occurred) does not address the fact that Judea was not even subject to a census before 6 CE and does not address the fact that Judea was not subject to Syrian authority before 6 CE. Even if Quirinius had been Governor of Syria prior to 6 CE, he would have had no authority in Judea.
Many historians, scientists, and news reporters approach their respective disciplines with the presumptions that the supernatural does not exist. Or even scarier, if they cannot explain an event from purely naturalistic causes, they say it did not happen. Many don’t even say they cannot prove it but they say that it could not have happened and, thus, did not happen. Small thinking minds. Yes, I know who I am talking about. Very smart people can get the wrong answers when the look in the wrong places.
Wrong answers are more likely to result from asking the wrong questions, from not asking the right questions, from eliminating certain answers before asking the question or collecting the information.
The presumption that there is no supernatural makes for a very limited search for the truth. It is narrow-minded. “I’ll believe a thing only if it fits into what I already believe”. Sounds circular. If you continue to apply the scientific method without all the tools, you’ll only get what you already want to get. Break out of your box!
There’s a whole world out there that makes this world make more sense. Why do ya think many are chasing Einstein’s general theory of relativity?
There’s another whole realm out there waiting to be explored. Stretch your mind. No, open your mind.
This goes way beyond this thread. To Mulder and Scully, to the evening news, to discussions of origins, to human evil, to international politics, to your sense of personal purpose, to your eternal destiny…
Yes, it suggests as much. But, you said they were in contradiction to each other, and now you seem to only be saying that Luke left something out. Big difference, no?
It’s not as if the two books made it so that the family was in two places at once! This is not an error in fact but an error contingent on a certain basis of judgement. Objectively, I do concede that it is curious why he didn’t mention it, but this might be another example of the Bible as a whole getting the story right (if you want to accept that general idea). Besides, there might have been a reason for Luke’s silence, unbeknownst to us at this time. Unsolved mystery, not error in fact.
**
Luke was composed in 90 CE, but that’s not to say it wasn’t compiled when the interviewees were much younger. Did you even think of this possibility?
I wish I could say I have an opinion on Q but I have never read it (by Q you mean Quran, right?). Been too busy getting a Finance degree and all, and sitting in Bapist churches… one day though (I am still young).
About the cites, I swear there is some info in there that you have not addressed, or at least considered. They are some of the same arguments, but some different citations are in there. I will read them and attempt to analyze your thoughts herein. Or maybe we should not beat a dead horse… yeah.
So, is it your contention that historians should be closely examining the works of Nostradamus or Madame Blavatsky for information? How about paleontologists examining the writings of Joseph Smith to discern the history of the Americas prior to the arrival of Europeans? How much credence should historians place in the story of Romulus and Remus?
Where do you draw the line and, more importantly, what are your criteria?
Well put. I wouldn’t call anyone “small minds” however. I would call their so-called closed-mindedness “a product of living in a logical world”. Asking a human to even consider, let alone believe, in the illogical is too much in most “cases”. (Heck, as a Christian, I can’t even say I believe logically that the Flood or plagues happened, but I can say that I’ll go along with it (assume it could have happened), if it means I can have a relationship with the Creator of the universe! I will go along with it if, for the most part, the rest of the Bible has good, viable things to say, as it does.) But most of these “cases” (people) are far too immersed in a mindset that is narrowly assuming that “seeing is believing” is always the case.
It’s not like we don’t have at least some sense of the unbelievable existing. This world and universe, being so complex and outrageous, screams of the possibiity of extra-physical occurrences happening thousands/millions of years ago. Sure, we have a decent explanation of how our world works (evolution) but do we have an answer about how matter was formed? Do we have an explanation for how big the universe is? No. Which begs the question: Maybe something else is going on behind the scene?
Search for the truth should be unbridled consideration of all possibilties, no matter how far fetched.
**
Well put. But it does imply, through a short string of logical thoughts, that one can ever know anything. I don’t know if I am ready to go that far… I ain’t no spaced out Philosophy professor!
Way outside the scope of this thread. Sorry. If someone wants to converse further about this topic, be my guest with another thread.
Q, from the German Quelle, “source,” is the hypothesized source of those verses that are common to Matthew and Luke that are not found in Mark. While it is a hypothetical document, (no copies having been found, as Rodrigo* has noted), the extraordinary closeness of the texts, in which the language is identical for most of the passages and the fact that even when some passages are rearranged in sequence, the re-ordered passages are kept in the same internal sequence, makes a strong case that there was some physical document, writtren in Greek, from which the authors of Matthew and Luke borrowed. This does nothing to disparage divine inspiration and, contrary to Rodrigo’s earlier contention, I know of no reputable biblical scholar who rejects the probability that some Q existed, (although, in scholarly fashion, there is a lot of wrangling over the details of its proposed original version).
