Ernest Martin points out that from about 10BCE to 6AD is something of an historical black hole throughout the Roman Empire. Relevant to the Christian origins aspect is that there was a major war in Judaea following the political upheavals of Herod’s death, which is virtually ignored in Josephus, and (like events in Rome itself) is pretty hard to study in other records.
Martin actually (and not uniquely) makes some helpful suggestions about Quirinius, who seems to have been a general “Mr Fixit” in the province of Syria during much of that time.
So it’s not so much that we have all the copies of the Rome Post and yet no mention of Luke’s registration, but that we’re trying to reconstruct a politically tumultous period from comparative scraps. A little agnosticism 2000 years after the event is not that unreasonable, therefore.
How long does that agnosticism last before we say Scripture is in error? How many lost 1st century histories do we expect to turn up? History doesn’t owe us complete records. If there’s a deadline, then one supposes there ought to be a similar final date set before lack of progress on the origin of life means that “natural causation” is concluded to be an error… but I don’t see many scientists submitting to that, even though science, unlike history, is about the repeatable.
Have you been reading responses, George? There are those here who are not so stuck on being able to checkmark the ‘inerrancy box’ that they need to dance around with words like ‘affirm’ or other qualifications; and then there are those of us who do have some obligation to carve out a stand on this issue, and so we do. But all of us are Christians – none of us dismissing Scriptures as a result – and … get this --it’s very important: NONE of us are stuck thinking we have to accept slavery now as a result, or that the Bible ever really endorsed it, either now, or a couple centuries ago, or even all the way back then!
It’s like your saying “there is no such things as animal x”. And here we all are … animals ‘x’ all of us as living counter-examples, our very existence proving false your claim whether as young-earthers or not.
Luk 2:1-4 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)
[END QUOTE]
There has never been a Roman tax where people had to go to the city of their Birthplace to pay taxes. Taxes were paid where the taxed economic activity occurred. Can you imagine the chaos of people moving their flocks to the birth cities of the owners?
Joseph and Mary obviously don’t have any property in Judea… or they wouldn’t be staying in an inn, let alone a manger.
This is a contrived story … starting with something that looks factual (Augustus issues a tax decree). And then linked to the birth mythology by saying the tax decree required Joseph to go to the city of Joseph’s birth.
If a YEC wants to argue that this is true/true/true . . . so be it. But for a non-YEC to be caught up in this twisting and turning text - - well, I’m not surprised at this triggering a crisis in faith.
This is nothing compared to the problem between the Synoptics and the G. of John:
The Synoptic Gospels say Jesus ended his career by overturning the money changer tables at the Temple. The G. of John says this was the beginning of his career!!
The Catholic Church, inspired by genius in this matter, likes to argue that Jesus overturned the tables twice! If this had happened, I think someone would have mentioned the wrath of Jesus “bookending” the greed of the money changers …
I guess that would matter more if the Greek said “taxed”, but it doesn’t - it’s απογραφεσθαι, enrolled. People were also enrolled for oaths of loyalty to the emperor.
“Inn” = “καταλυμα”, guestroom private or public - Luke uses “πανδοχηιον” for the public inn in the Good Samaritan parable. For Joseph to have a landholding in Bethelehem does not necessarily mean he had a house there too (and in any case for all we know ancestral seat was the requirement), and as many including N T Wright have pointed out, the likely meaning is a guestroom in the small house of, perhaps, a relative, in which one would scarcely wish to have a baby if others were present.
Quite what young earth creationism has to do with the birth narrative in Luke you’ll have to explain. But I really think you ought to engage with some of the literature on this (and on the compositional priorities of John v the synoptics), before pronouncing with the assurance of a Richard Carrier on narratives that you’ve not, clearly, studied much.
Yes and no. We are fallible interpreters of both the Bible and the historical/scientific information at our disposal. But you should not fall into the error of seeing the work of historians and scientists as some sort of vast conspiracy aimed at discrediting the Bible. Is Swamidass’ work on cancer an attempt to discredit the Bible, since the implications of his work support evolution? There are some conservative Christians who would say “yes,” but they are fools. These forums are populated by many scientists, and I doubt that a single one is motivated by an attempt to discredit the Bible. Beware of conspiracy theorists in every area, not just apologetics.
The Greek katalyma was formerly translated as “inn,” but recent archaeological evidence has shown that it was actually a guestroom. Palestinian houses of that era were laid out in a rectangle with a katalyma on one end and a stable on the other, with the main room in the middle. The guestroom of the house was full, so they laid Jesus in the manger. The stable was separated from the main room by just a half wall, so that the occupants could feed their animals without going outside. Thus, the manger would have been within sight and easy reach of anyone inside the main room of the house.
Interestingly, this clearly indicates that Joseph stayed with relatives in Bethlehem, which leaves open the possibility that he indeed could have owned property (or a share, by inheritance) in the area.
This is a tough one, but my own careful study led me to conclude that Jesus most likely did cleanse the temple at both the beginning and end of his ministry.
They were enrolled… but they were enrolled for taxes. Nobody ever had to travel to their home town to burn incense to the Roman emperor.
The Latin version of that text is:
“Factum est autem in diebus illis exiit edictum a Caesare Augusto ut describeretur universus orbis”
The Latin word “describeretur” is the word for Census. Even in the Old Testament, a census was used in territorial/tribal taxation.
I don’t believe there was any kind of similar bureaucracy for loyalty oaths; these tended to be defacto public spectacles, where the few who refused to sacrifice drew attention to themselves for immediate persecution.
Here’s how 1 Maccabees 2:23+ describes a similar event under the Greek rule:
“… there came one of the Jews in the sight of all to sacrifice on the altar which was at Modin, according to the king’s commandment.”
“Which thing when Mattathias [the Maccabee] saw, he was inflamed with zeal . . . neither could he forbear to shew his anger according to judgment: wherefore he ran, and slew him upon the altar. Also the [Greek] King’s commissioner, who compelled men to sacrifice, he killed at that time, and the altar he pulled down.”
So…you are going official with this, right? Joseph had a share in property. But the Bible doesn’t tell us this. It tells us he has to go there because he was born there. Pretty sloppy news writing…
And you have concluded that Jesus overturned the money changer tables in the beginning of his career - - even though the Gospel of John doesn’t mention it at all … and you have concluded that Jesus also overturned the tables at the temple just before his death – even though Mark, Mathew and Luke don’t mention this momentous event at all!
So… then… you must have the answer as to the Bible’s position on Slavery; I’m ready for it!
You are going to tell me that Slavery is acceptable to the Bible, right?
I’m not familiar with Martin’s work, but I’ll venture to say that he overstates his case when he calls that period a “black hole.” Quirinius’ career is pretty well documented from inscriptions and literary sources. Just putting him in Syria in 4 B.C. doesn’t seem possible given our current knowledge, leaving questions of the census aside.
However, as my scholarly friend pointed out to me, we should not be overconfident in our assertions of how much we know in regard to the distant past. (Are you listening, George?) Historians of the 19th century once confidently asserted that the city of Nineveh and the Hittite empire never existed. Ooops! So, further developments may alter our understanding of the Quirinius dilemma, but for now, no solution is in sight.
@Jay313 and @Jon_Garvey… you two are making me blush! Shucks… I should have quit long before you two put me in your cross-hairs!
By the way, this summer I collected a sample of the blood of Jesus from one of those treasured thorns in Eastern Europe… turns out it’s the real thing. Not only was Jesus authentic Samaritan … but he has the matching “Y” chromosome from Yahweh too !
But surely you recognize a difference between believing scholarship and unbelieving scholarship? I recognize that there are people with good intentions whose conclusions end up in tension with the Bible, but none of us is without his or her own bias. Objectively sifting through historical artifacts is nigh on impossible.
I am the last person to believe in conspiracy theories. I have always been a healthy skeptic when it comes to those. But still, I am cautious of unbelievers who claim to know this or that historical fact that goes directly against what the Bible claims because of my precommitment to inerrancy; you can call that foolish, or you can call it wise. Don’t believe everything you read.
One question, though. It seems as though you are saying that other historical sources point to the impossibility of Quirinius being governor of Syria during the time of Jesus’ birth and that the census happened much later, according to other contemporary records. Might I ask, is Luke’s testimony (and his claim as an accurate historian) not enough to place Quirinius in Syria around 6 BC or so? I recognize that a harmony of two or three historians/artifacts would be nice, but is not Luke’s testimony enough? Also, I am confused as to the date of Herod’s death; most seem to place it in 4 BC, but I’ve read somewhere that the earliest records (specifically of Josephus) are consistent in saying that he died in 1 BC. So Jesus’ birth could easily have occurred not in 7 or 6 BC, but in 4 BC. What would happen if that were the case?
No, I don’t recognize a difference. You are right that perfect objectivity is impossible, but neither should we place so much emphasis on bias that we reject all scholarship from unbelieving sources. It is similar to what C.S. Lewis said about other religions. Some are closer to the truth than others. We should not hold the position that everything an unbeliever says is completely and utterly false. This is throwing out the baby with the bath water. An overemphasis on “bias” is why far too many Christians reject science altogether. It is also an aspect of the problem that leads many Christians to think they cannot listen to secular music, watch secular movies, read secular books, etc., which denies our common humanity.
I will give you an example we just discussed. The “Jesus Seminar” inspired a lot of research into the history and culture of Galilee. We have learned an incredible amount about that subject in the last 20-25 years, including the correct translation of “katalyma” discussed above. And … much of the research was done by unbelieving skeptics inspired by a group of heretics. The fact that most of their work actually helped, not hurt, our understanding of Scripture is to the glory of God. As Christians, we would have been fools to ignore their work. [quote=“AdCaelumEo, post:91, topic:5757”]
But still, I am cautious of unbelievers who claim to know this or that historical fact that goes directly against what the Bible claims because of my precommitment to inerrancy; you can call that foolish, or you can call it wise.
[/quote]
Like you, I have commitments that I am not willing to give up. Also like you, I was taught that inerrancy was an essential part of the doctrine of the word of God, being taught directly in Scripture. I am not ready to give up that belief, but I am questioning whether inerrancy is a necessary aspect of the doctrine of the word of God, or whether it is an unnecessary addition. Is it sufficient, in other words, to say that the word is infallible and authoritative, leaving off the inerrant part? This is the question that I haven’t adequately studied. I’ll get to it one day, but there are more pressing matters on my plate right now.
Let’s consider the case of the book of Mormon. It makes historical claims, and not a shred of evidence has ever backed up those claims. Is Joseph Smith’s testimony enough? Surely not to you and me, but millions of Mormons take him at his word. Are they correct to ignore counter-evidence? To my mind, no. Let’s consider the case of Luke. In fact, he has proven himself an excellent historian. Pretty much every other name, date, place, etc., that can be factually checked has proven correct, even the incidental details. He has earned some benefit of the doubt in the matter of Quirinius, regardless of my own qualms.
Herod’s death was 4 B.C. Jesus birth was most likely that same year. Herod’s final will named his son Archelaus as ruler of Judea and Samaria, giving Galilee to Antipas and a smaller territory to Philip (the Tetrarch). Archelaus ruled poorly for about 10 years before being removed by Augustus in A.D. 6. This was when Judea became a province ruled directly by Rome through a governor. Quirinius, the governor of Syria, conducted the census to establish direct taxation by Rome, rather than paying taxes through Herod (or one of his descendants) in the form of tribute, which was the previous arrangement. All of this is pretty well documented, which is what makes it a difficult problem to overcome.
Strangely, my honest response to discovering the full extent of the Quirinius problem was a resounding, “So what?” If (yes, still an “if”) Luke has made a historical error, it makes zero difference to my faith or doctrine or practice. So, why is it so important to maintain inerrancy? For me, it may not be anymore.
I’m wondering if persons with a ‘precommitment’ to inerrancy (presupposition) would ever agree that some difficult text is anything more than an apparent contradiction - or that problem texts await further information or other texts just go under the category of mystery.
I think I understand where they are coming from, however, from where I sit the term inerrancy finally “dies the death of a 1000 qualifications” and becomes so malleable that the term looses its meaning.
This is pretty active thread and given how the software lays out the replies it becomes difficult (at least for me) to track who is talking to whom about what.
That being said, earlier in the thread a poster warned me about using “true myth” to categorize Gen 1-3. Since I’m using this thread as way to muse I’ll respond to that with the following re: the Creation narratives.
From my perspective I can go with an Early Earth (universe) and an literal A/E. As a non-scientist, I accept the experts who tell me the the universe is many many billions of years old and that biological evolution best explains the evidence. This was cemented for me recently when Ans In Genesis and its’ Ark started producing information about super speed specization following the very recent world-wide flood (that and distant starlight - deep time - and the history of how the universe developed).
I’m not at all convinced that positing Adam and Eve sometime in the distant past works and I’ve never found a concordist approach to merging science with biblical texts convincing.
So assigning ‘true myth’ to the Creation narratives works well.
Maybe you have a higher tolerance for cognitive dissonance than others. In my experience it is kind of a spiritual gift among Calvinists. How else can you live with double predestination by an all-loving God?
One person’s “clearly deduced from Scripture” is sometimes another person’s “just wrong.” For some people throughout history, it was clearly deduced from Scripture that Africans and Native Americans were inferior humans, women were soulless malformations of men, slavery was sanctioned by God, and the sun revolved around the earth. Human deduction is just as fallible as human induction.
Inerrancy, at least in the form it is often presented in American Evangelicalism, is a twentieth century conceptualization, and goes beyond the historic doctrines of the church concerning inspiration and infallibility. And it is not just secular scholars with no skin in the game who note discrepancies between what the Bible actually is and says and our artificial construct of “the inerrant Word of God.” When Bible scholars note incongruities between our expectations based on the doctrine of inerrancy and certain passages in the Bible, it’s not fair to automatically label that an “attempt to discredit the Bible.” As often as not it is an attempt to understand the Bible.
I’m trying to understand your preference for conclusions arrived at deductively versus conclusions arrived at inductively. It seems to me you are saying that with conclusions we arrive at inductively, we take a bunch of observations (which may or may not be correct, because it is fallible humans making them) and then we add them up to a conclusion, which may or may not be the right one because we have our human assumptions and agendas driving us to certain conclusions over others. But with deductive conclusions, at least those based on Scripture, we start with Truth (which is assuredly correct) and then we put stuff together and follow it to its logical conclusions. As long as our reasoning is sound, we can be assured our conclusions are sound, because we started with Truth not observations. Am I representing you right?
Cuz the Bible tells me so! Haha. Sorry, George, you’ll have to wait til tomorrow for the slavery thing. (I can hear the disappointed sighs all the way here!) Blessings to all. Good thoughts!
The misuse of Scripture does not imply the impossibility of determining it’s intended meaning. No, those things have never been “clearly deduced” from Scripture. Only under a wildly off-base hermeneutic can that be possible.
Substantiation might be nice.
Okay then.
That’s a pretty fair summary of what I mean by “induction.” For example, if I become a studier of swans, and all my career, I only view white swans in all of the places that I visit and I am the only one in my field, by inductive reasoning, I can conclude that the only swans that exist are white. This hypothesis is only tentative, and later, if I discover a black swan, I will have to revise my understanding. Even then, I am unsure if there are green swans, or yellow swans, or pink swans.
Another example: no one on earth has ever seen a unicorn. We can therefore reasonably conclude that they do not exist. However, unicorns may exist elsewhere in the universe on some far-off planet; we cannot, with absolute certainty, conclude that unicorns do not exist.
Pretty much. I’m not the only person to point out the difference. Scripture, for the most part, is interpreted deductively, what the Reformers called “good and necessary consequence.”
Haha. Touche! Actually, I do believe the word of God is self-authenticating. “My sheep hear my voice.” But Van Til (and others) push the idea of the noetic effects of sin too far for me.[quote=“AdCaelumEo, post:97, topic:5757”]
Well, that’s a misrepresentation. I said I was cautious, not that I threw out everything unbelieving scholars claimed.
[/quote]
Yes, I realize that. As before, I was making a general point, not trying to ascribe that view to you specifically. Nevertheless, it happens. Norman Geisler, for example, will completely discount an entire approach to hermeneutics because it uses some ideas from unbelieving philosophers (as he did with Thiselton’s “Two Horizons”).
As I said, their work inspired a lot more research, but even though the new research was prompted by an unbelieving and antagonistic viewpoint, it ended up making a positive contribution to our understanding of the Bible.
