Luke 2:2 says that the census that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. The problem is that Quirinius didn't become governor of Syria until 6 CE, long after the birth of Jesus. This has been recognized as a problem for the accuracy of the Luke account for centuries. We know Herod was alive when Jesus was born (Matthew makes no sense at all if he was not). According to Wierwille, Herod dies in 1 B.C. (historical scholars are more inclined to offer 4 BC as the date of his death, but whichever is correct, it's long before 6 CE). So how do we reconcile the problem?
I know I have to be wrong about this because I look at this too simply. God inspired Luke to write a historical account, and to communicate along with the facts a unique spiritual perspective. Luke mixed up a detail in his memory writing about it. A human error in the midst of an inspired storytelling account.
In spite of VP saying "your whole Bible would fall to pieces", somehow it doesn't. In spite of the human error. Or maybe it falls apart to the scribes, who could never get past their paralysis by analysis anyway to live the stuff.
quote: The Bible never actually declares itself to be without error or contradiction. That's an assertion made by PFAL about the Bible, not an assertion made by the Bible itself.
Luke 1:3 - It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto the in order, most excellent Theophilus.
Where did he get that perfect understanding? Where's God in your suppositions? You're right back where VP was in the 40s. Didn't think the words 'holy bible' should be on the cover.
Luke 1:3 - I wanted to take on a couple projects of writing about my time with Jesus and the apostles, because I keep a detailed medical journal and I believe that God energized within my soul a unique spiritual perspective. So here is my account, beloved of God.
This comes down to whether you believe Luke was writing Acts (and later the gospel of Luke) as an automaton (you know, the "automatic writing" of the spiritualists), or as a human that had a blend of an idea on his own and God inspiring him throughout the journal writing and subsequent consolidation.
In my experience with God, I don't think He controls people to do automatic writing.
Let me clarify something Chockfull said, because I cited two different writers in the course of this thread. He is referring to an author I cited in post #38 (it's actually one of several authors, and I don't know which, nor am I particularly concerned about it).
In later posts, discussing a completely different issue, I cited Daniel Wallace. Chockfull is NOT referring to Daniel Wallace.
As for Luke 2, I have a healthy respect for Chockfull's approach, as well as Wallace's. If there's further historical research that will one day clarify the issue and rescue the position of inerrancy, so be it. I have no reason to think any further information will be forthcoming, but who am I? I have no problem with Chockfull being right and inerrancy being wrong (at least in this particular point).
If Luke is mistaken about them living in Nazareth in the first place, the accounts become a bit easier to harmonize. Luke leaves out the visit of the Magi and the Egyptian sojourn because they're not important to his story. Matthew leaves out the shepherds because they're not important to HIS story. Otherwise, there's very, very little conflict -- IF you allow Luke to be mistaken about this whole census thing and the timing of the holy family's residence in Nazareth. Luke knows the Nativity story ends there. He is mistaken in believing it begins there.
But we're not allowed to even think such a thing if the gospels are inerrant.
Wallace's proposed solution is, I think even he would agree, a dodge.
I'll wait.
Luke could be mistaken. Or some other reason. When I'm recounting stories, sometimes who was in office at the time I get wrong. Or somebody translating it somewhere could have added a section or details in mistakenly due to their beliefs about it. Or a myriad of other options. I guess it's a mental exercise to chase down and frame what possible error options there would be. Not a mental exercise I'm interested in.
I, like most mainstream Christians, don't have my knickers in a wad about forcing harmonies of the gospel accounts. I view them as cool stories from unique spiritual perspectives.
After re-examining Luke's words in the "perfect understanding" verse, I think you could make a legitimate case for saying that writing the books of Luke and Acts was Luke's idea - God didn't tell him to write those books. But God did energize him when recording events in his journals and in consolidating those events into the two books.
Maybe we are killing off TWI's narrow-minded sacred cows here of "every word and the order of words in The Word™ is perfect". Good. It needs to happen.
Look everyone! Chockfull and I in basic agreement about something controversial! We'll be celebrating the anniversary of this next year.
In any event, it just occurred to me that Wierwille's explanation of Luke 2:2 can ONLY make sense if the Bible is not inerrant. It leaves too many other questions unanswered, though.
I liked Daniel Wallace's Epilogue in that article. I'll repost it here:
Evangelicals often have a tendency to find implausible solutions to difficulties in the Bible and to be satisfied that they have once again vindicated the Word of God. On the other hand, critical scholars tend to find errors in the Bible where none exist. At bottom, our belief in the infallibility and authority of scripture is a faith-stance, just as our belief in the Deity of Christ is a faith-stance. This does not mean that we have no basis! Nor does it mean that we are obligated to solve all problems to our satisfaction before we can believe. As B. B. Warfield argued long ago, we believe in the accuracy of the Bible, first of all, because the biblical writers themselves both held and taught this view. And if we consider the biblical writers to be trustworthy as doctrinal guides, then their doctrine of the Bible must also be trustworthy. Certainly we need to make many adjustments in how we define that accuracy (allowing the biblical writers themselves to shape our understanding8); but if we were to deny their accuracy at one point, then we must either (a) deny that they held and taught such a view of the Bible, or (b) assume that they might not be trustworthy in other doctrinal areas as well. There is much to be done in this aspect of bibliology, not just in terms of vindication, but also in understanding.9 Responses that are implausible on their face certainly do not help the evangelical faith in the long run.
What's interesting is that after delving into all that in (more) original texts, Wallace admits that the beliefs about scripture are faith-based.
People seldom re-examine the underlying tenets of their beliefs.
Wallace strikes me as someone who is an inerrantist in principle but not in practice. He probably would agree that God-breathed implies inerrancy, but is not willing to twist existing evidence into a pretzel to force it to conform to his conclusion.
While I no longer consider myself an inerrantist (and have not for more than a decade, which is part of why you don't see me in Doctrinal as much as you used to), I think Wallace's honesty is the best one can expect from someone who still holds to that position. It is a matter of faith, a faith in "original" documents we no longer have.
Reading the Bible on its own terms, without forcing it to conform to my preconceived notions about it, leads me to believe that its writers never claimed to be producing something inerrant in the first place. So while I may be impressed if further information validates Luke's account, I'm not expecting it and I won't lose sleep if it never happens. Nobody's perfect.
Questioning inerrancy may not stir up much ruckus in the ex-wayfer community, but it certainly still does in the broader evangelical community (and can get you fired from a lot of positions).
Also, most organizations like to have their people think they're already
at the pinnacle of accuracy, that they've "arrived" already.
VP was clever enough to claim that, if any of "his" research proved to be wrong, he would willing change his position, though he never actually did on anything of real consequence.
The Bible records things that happened from a number of different perspectives. The most obvious example is the fact that there are four different gospels relating Jesus' activities between the time of his birth and the time of his resurrection. These four different accounts enable us to form an in depth understanding of what Jesus was doing.
By "harmonizing" the gospels, the depth perception is lost.
It's interesting to note Ephesians 3:18 "[that ye] May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;"
There are 4 -- count 'em -- 4 dimensions in the Bible!
I left TWI in 1987, but as early as 1986 I was thinking that there were differences in the Bible that the principles of PFAL could NOT reconcile. Specifically, the two different accounts of how David came to the attention of Saul. It is impossible to construct a consistent timeline of the transitions of power from Samuel to Saul to David.
And there are places where I believe the Bible is deliberately ambiguous, such as Acts 19. It says the certain disciples had believed and were baptized before Paul got there, but Paul baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit came on them. Were they or were they not "saved" before Paul got there? I believe I was "saved" when I was seven, but I never spoke in tongues until I was thirty. I believe there are a big percentage of Christians who have been "saved" who never have and never will speak in tongues. I think the ambiguity of Acts 19 makes allowances that the Pentecostal idea of "no tongues, no salvation" neglects.
I think it's important to distinguish several things and to evaluate claims accordingly.
Bart Ehrman is a former evangelical believer in inerrantism who is now an agnostic. His popular books have sensational titles, but the books themselves don't quite live up to them. Forged, for example, is packaged to give you the impression that the New Testament is a bunch of forgeries. His actual argument is more nuanced: he thinks some books are flat-out forged (written by someone claiming to be someone else). Others he claims were originally anonymous and later attributed to known authors (he puts the gospels, Acts and Hebrews into this category). Still others were written by people mistakenly believed to be OTHER people with the same name (James, Revelation). Others were actually written by their attributed authors. This is all according to Bart Ehrman.
His agnosticism comes into play because of the possibility that it makes him more willing to discard traditional authorship even though the evidence for that position might not warrant it.
As for those who have "rebutted" Ehrman, their bias comes into play, too. The field of Biblical research is overwhelmed by professing Christians who have a vested interest in upholding traditional views (and in some cases, a vested interest in upholding inerrancy), even if the evidence does not warrant maintaining that position. If Ehrman's agnosticism is fair game for consideration in evaluating his claims, the faith of his critics is also fair game in evaluating their rebuttals of his claims.
That's why Wallace (mentioned in earlier posts regarding Luke 2:2) is so valuable. Here is a guy whose bias is clear: he is a Bible-believing inerrantist who believes all scripture is God-breathed, without error or contradiction. He's got a vested interest in dispelling the doubt raised by the traditional interpretation of Luke 2:2. He's got the knowledge base and expertise to render an informed opinion. Yet he refuses to change the text to get it to say what he wishes it had said. He recognizes that Luke 2:2 is a problem for his position, yet he refuses to change Luke 2:2 to salvage his position. Where I come from, we call that integrity.
I don't place inordinate trust in Ehrman, nor do I put inordinate trust in his critics. Both sides have an agenda. It's important when weighing both their claims that we recognize their agenda and evaluate them accordingly.
All of this is to say: just because Ehrman has been rebutted doesn't make those rebuttals valid. They are in many ways as tainted as what they're criticizing, and it's important to evaluate the claims, not just the people who are making them.
I'll say this against Ehrman, for what it's worth: His popular books express his opinion and his understanding of the consensus of Biblical scholarship and textual criticism. What he does not do, except in a very cursory manner, is set out to prove his case (in those books). It doesn't mean that he is wrong, or that he doesn't have proof. It just means what is says: his books don't present the proof. You'll see sentences like "the majority of Bible scholars have known this for more than a hundred years. This isn't just my opinion." He may be correct, but he has not shown why. He has only shown that he is not alone in claiming what he claims.
It's also worth noting that Bart Ehrman's criticisms have been rebutted by other researchers,
so one should look at that before drawing any conclusions as to what Ehrman said was true.
It's too easy to latch on to what someone WANTS to believe and never look at what the
opposing POV says. (This, of course, goes for wanting to automatically disagree
with Ehrman as well-I mention this to save time for anyone who was going to point out
Somehow I expected a more, I don't know, vigorously antagonistic response.
Well...let's not forget that the Gospels were written after the epistles and everything else as a response that nothing was written while Jesus was walking the earth...a problem when you take into consideration what was written to whom. Blows dispensationalism out of the water. The probability that no gospel was written by a person who actually knew Jesus or was present at any of these events is rather high. The Gospels are probably more along the lines of compilations of stories and oral traditions that weren't as far "out there" as the ones that didn't make the canon.
But what do I know? I never "progressed" any further than than PFAL.
(added in edit mode)
I went back and read the other 2 pages of comments. I have my own ideas about why there are such discrepancies. It has to do with searching scriptures to "prove" that Jesus was who he said he was. The story line was that the messiah had to come from David, be born in Bethlehem, and be called a Nazarene. Plus he's on the "wanted" list practically from birth. His conception, birth, and the fact that he wasn't killed as a baby would be considered supernatural. These stories circulated after the death, but all you have to do is look at the diversity of belief even in Paul's time to come to the conclusion that stories had become larger than life. I don't believe (anymore) that any of it was written with inerrancy in mind. I believe the gospels came about so that a cohesion of belief could begin.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
30
8
11
9
Popular Days
Sep 18
16
Sep 19
13
Sep 14
11
Sep 17
9
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 30 posts
WordWolf 8 posts
Steve Lortz 11 posts
waysider 9 posts
Popular Days
Sep 18 2013
16 posts
Sep 19 2013
13 posts
Sep 14 2013
11 posts
Sep 17 2013
9 posts
Popular Posts
WordWolf
I'm giving this a good, long think. it doesn't warrant a "shoot from the hip" reply. Either you're correct, or you're not. If you're not correct, and I reply with something cogent, but it's unpopu
chockfull
I know I have to be wrong about this because I look at this too simply. God inspired Luke to write a historical account, and to communicate along with the facts a unique spiritual perspective. Luke
chockfull
I know I have to be wrong about this because I look at this too simply. God inspired Luke to write a historical account, and to communicate along with the facts a unique spiritual perspective. Luke mixed up a detail in his memory writing about it. A human error in the midst of an inspired storytelling account.
In spite of VP saying "your whole Bible would fall to pieces", somehow it doesn't. In spite of the human error. Or maybe it falls apart to the scribes, who could never get past their paralysis by analysis anyway to live the stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Luke 1:3 - I wanted to take on a couple projects of writing about my time with Jesus and the apostles, because I keep a detailed medical journal and I believe that God energized within my soul a unique spiritual perspective. So here is my account, beloved of God.
This comes down to whether you believe Luke was writing Acts (and later the gospel of Luke) as an automaton (you know, the "automatic writing" of the spiritualists), or as a human that had a blend of an idea on his own and God inspiring him throughout the journal writing and subsequent consolidation.
In my experience with God, I don't think He controls people to do automatic writing.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Let me clarify something Chockfull said, because I cited two different writers in the course of this thread. He is referring to an author I cited in post #38 (it's actually one of several authors, and I don't know which, nor am I particularly concerned about it).
In later posts, discussing a completely different issue, I cited Daniel Wallace. Chockfull is NOT referring to Daniel Wallace.
As for Luke 2, I have a healthy respect for Chockfull's approach, as well as Wallace's. If there's further historical research that will one day clarify the issue and rescue the position of inerrancy, so be it. I have no reason to think any further information will be forthcoming, but who am I? I have no problem with Chockfull being right and inerrancy being wrong (at least in this particular point).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Luke could be mistaken. Or some other reason. When I'm recounting stories, sometimes who was in office at the time I get wrong. Or somebody translating it somewhere could have added a section or details in mistakenly due to their beliefs about it. Or a myriad of other options. I guess it's a mental exercise to chase down and frame what possible error options there would be. Not a mental exercise I'm interested in.
I, like most mainstream Christians, don't have my knickers in a wad about forcing harmonies of the gospel accounts. I view them as cool stories from unique spiritual perspectives.
After re-examining Luke's words in the "perfect understanding" verse, I think you could make a legitimate case for saying that writing the books of Luke and Acts was Luke's idea - God didn't tell him to write those books. But God did energize him when recording events in his journals and in consolidating those events into the two books.
Maybe we are killing off TWI's narrow-minded sacred cows here of "every word and the order of words in The Word™ is perfect". Good. It needs to happen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Look everyone! Chockfull and I in basic agreement about something controversial! We'll be celebrating the anniversary of this next year.
In any event, it just occurred to me that Wierwille's explanation of Luke 2:2 can ONLY make sense if the Bible is not inerrant. It leaves too many other questions unanswered, though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I liked Daniel Wallace's Epilogue in that article. I'll repost it here:
What's interesting is that after delving into all that in (more) original texts, Wallace admits that the beliefs about scripture are faith-based.
People seldom re-examine the underlying tenets of their beliefs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Wallace strikes me as someone who is an inerrantist in principle but not in practice. He probably would agree that God-breathed implies inerrancy, but is not willing to twist existing evidence into a pretzel to force it to conform to his conclusion.
While I no longer consider myself an inerrantist (and have not for more than a decade, which is part of why you don't see me in Doctrinal as much as you used to), I think Wallace's honesty is the best one can expect from someone who still holds to that position. It is a matter of faith, a faith in "original" documents we no longer have.
Reading the Bible on its own terms, without forcing it to conform to my preconceived notions about it, leads me to believe that its writers never claimed to be producing something inerrant in the first place. So while I may be impressed if further information validates Luke's account, I'm not expecting it and I won't lose sleep if it never happens. Nobody's perfect.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Interesting how much debate this is not generating. Am I the last one to this party?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
No.
I'm considering this very carefully and deliberately.
I'm also looking for errors, since big changes overnight are how groups
like ces/stfi ended up with spiders up people's noses.
I'll post about some things Paul said in a bit-I'd like to discuss what
he did and didn't say. I'm curious where we'll end up afterwards.
So far, the closest thing to an objection was a cheap shot that
inadvertently ended up supporting your case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Questioning inerrancy may not stir up much ruckus in the ex-wayfer community, but it certainly still does in the broader evangelical community (and can get you fired from a lot of positions).
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Way to encourage intellectual honesty and integrity!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Well,
if intellectual honesty and integrity is the main thing,
that's a big problem.
It does not surprise me that some religious organizations see it more
important to maintain order-and enforce conformity- in the organization.
Of course, if the entire staff was encouraged to seek new directions,
success could mean anarchy in the group.
Then again, it could mean discovering a lot of new ground.
Either way, it's a lot of work and most organizations wouldn't want
that-not just to maintain day-to-day order.
If they're responsible to their denominations, I could see getting
static for letting staff veer from the Official Party Line.
Also, most organizations like to have their people think they're already
at the pinnacle of accuracy, that they've "arrived" already.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
VP was clever enough to claim that, if any of "his" research proved to be wrong, he would willing change his position, though he never actually did on anything of real consequence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
The Bible records things that happened from a number of different perspectives. The most obvious example is the fact that there are four different gospels relating Jesus' activities between the time of his birth and the time of his resurrection. These four different accounts enable us to form an in depth understanding of what Jesus was doing.
By "harmonizing" the gospels, the depth perception is lost.
It's interesting to note Ephesians 3:18 "[that ye] May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;"
There are 4 -- count 'em -- 4 dimensions in the Bible!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I left TWI in 1987, but as early as 1986 I was thinking that there were differences in the Bible that the principles of PFAL could NOT reconcile. Specifically, the two different accounts of how David came to the attention of Saul. It is impossible to construct a consistent timeline of the transitions of power from Samuel to Saul to David.
And there are places where I believe the Bible is deliberately ambiguous, such as Acts 19. It says the certain disciples had believed and were baptized before Paul got there, but Paul baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit came on them. Were they or were they not "saved" before Paul got there? I believe I was "saved" when I was seven, but I never spoke in tongues until I was thirty. I believe there are a big percentage of Christians who have been "saved" who never have and never will speak in tongues. I think the ambiguity of Acts 19 makes allowances that the Pentecostal idea of "no tongues, no salvation" neglects.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Yanagisawa
Raf: If you haven't already I would suggest checking out a few of Bart Ehrman's books.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It's also worth noting that Bart Ehrman's criticisms have been rebutted by other researchers,
so one should look at that before drawing any conclusions as to what Ehrman said was true.
It's too easy to latch on to what someone WANTS to believe and never look at what the
opposing POV says. (This, of course, goes for wanting to automatically disagree
with Ehrman as well-I mention this to save time for anyone who was going to point out
I hadn't mentioned it.)
He's also been discussed on and off, here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I think it's important to distinguish several things and to evaluate claims accordingly.
Bart Ehrman is a former evangelical believer in inerrantism who is now an agnostic. His popular books have sensational titles, but the books themselves don't quite live up to them. Forged, for example, is packaged to give you the impression that the New Testament is a bunch of forgeries. His actual argument is more nuanced: he thinks some books are flat-out forged (written by someone claiming to be someone else). Others he claims were originally anonymous and later attributed to known authors (he puts the gospels, Acts and Hebrews into this category). Still others were written by people mistakenly believed to be OTHER people with the same name (James, Revelation). Others were actually written by their attributed authors. This is all according to Bart Ehrman.
His agnosticism comes into play because of the possibility that it makes him more willing to discard traditional authorship even though the evidence for that position might not warrant it.
As for those who have "rebutted" Ehrman, their bias comes into play, too. The field of Biblical research is overwhelmed by professing Christians who have a vested interest in upholding traditional views (and in some cases, a vested interest in upholding inerrancy), even if the evidence does not warrant maintaining that position. If Ehrman's agnosticism is fair game for consideration in evaluating his claims, the faith of his critics is also fair game in evaluating their rebuttals of his claims.
That's why Wallace (mentioned in earlier posts regarding Luke 2:2) is so valuable. Here is a guy whose bias is clear: he is a Bible-believing inerrantist who believes all scripture is God-breathed, without error or contradiction. He's got a vested interest in dispelling the doubt raised by the traditional interpretation of Luke 2:2. He's got the knowledge base and expertise to render an informed opinion. Yet he refuses to change the text to get it to say what he wishes it had said. He recognizes that Luke 2:2 is a problem for his position, yet he refuses to change Luke 2:2 to salvage his position. Where I come from, we call that integrity.
I don't place inordinate trust in Ehrman, nor do I put inordinate trust in his critics. Both sides have an agenda. It's important when weighing both their claims that we recognize their agenda and evaluate them accordingly.
All of this is to say: just because Ehrman has been rebutted doesn't make those rebuttals valid. They are in many ways as tainted as what they're criticizing, and it's important to evaluate the claims, not just the people who are making them.
I'll say this against Ehrman, for what it's worth: His popular books express his opinion and his understanding of the consensus of Biblical scholarship and textual criticism. What he does not do, except in a very cursory manner, is set out to prove his case (in those books). It doesn't mean that he is wrong, or that he doesn't have proof. It just means what is says: his books don't present the proof. You'll see sentences like "the majority of Bible scholars have known this for more than a hundred years. This isn't just my opinion." He may be correct, but he has not shown why. He has only shown that he is not alone in claiming what he claims.
Dutifully recognized and expanded upon.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Raf, you sound like a good journalist! Just like my Pop did!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Well...let's not forget that the Gospels were written after the epistles and everything else as a response that nothing was written while Jesus was walking the earth...a problem when you take into consideration what was written to whom. Blows dispensationalism out of the water. The probability that no gospel was written by a person who actually knew Jesus or was present at any of these events is rather high. The Gospels are probably more along the lines of compilations of stories and oral traditions that weren't as far "out there" as the ones that didn't make the canon.
But what do I know? I never "progressed" any further than than PFAL.
(added in edit mode)
I went back and read the other 2 pages of comments. I have my own ideas about why there are such discrepancies. It has to do with searching scriptures to "prove" that Jesus was who he said he was. The story line was that the messiah had to come from David, be born in Bethlehem, and be called a Nazarene. Plus he's on the "wanted" list practically from birth. His conception, birth, and the fact that he wasn't killed as a baby would be considered supernatural. These stories circulated after the death, but all you have to do is look at the diversity of belief even in Paul's time to come to the conclusion that stories had become larger than life. I don't believe (anymore) that any of it was written with inerrancy in mind. I believe the gospels came about so that a cohesion of belief could begin.
Edited by TzaiaLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.