Biblical history - contradictions?

[razeontherock]

Couldn't help but notice a lack of sources for that cut-and-paste job. Seems odd.

IOW, you didn't really read the post. That habit could explain a lot ...

 

[DR.Martin Luther]

Nathan,

Sorry for the cut and paste job, but since I am the author of the material I didn't think I should reinvent the wheel.

I thought a wise historian such as yourself would be familiar with these historical references. But I can understand why, most humanistic universities of today shy away from teaching their students anything that verifies the Bible.

I gave references to many quotes I used. I also list my sources on the biblehistory.net site.

I tried post a bunch of web links to those sources here, but since I am a relatively new member and don't have enough posts, I guess they won't allow me to post external links since I get an error message page.

But if you are really interested go to my website and email me from my contact button on my book order page and I would be glad to send those links to you via. email.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Nathan,

Sorry for the cut and paste job, but since I am the author of the material I didn't think I should reinvent the wheel.

I thought a wise historian such as yourself would be familiar with these historical references. But I can understand why, most humanistic universities of today shy away from teaching their students anything that verifies the Bible.

I gave references to many quotes I used. I also list my sources on the biblehistory.net site.

I tried post a bunch of web links to those sources here, but since I am a relatively new member and don't have enough posts, I guess they won't allow me to post external links since I get an error message page.

But if you are really interested go to my website and email me from my contact button on my book order page and I would be glad to send those links to you via. email.

Well, why don't we keep it simple -- What really interests me is this alleged tradition of having people return not to their homes, but to their ancestral homes during registration for taxation -- the reason Luke claims Joseph traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem (a trip Matthew didn't seem to think he ever made, btw).

I do recall something in that tl;dr about actual sources supporting that this was actually expected. Shall we start with those?

 

[razeontherock]

(a trip Matthew didn't seem to think he ever made, btw).

This is only one of many mistakes you have shown in your thinking throughout this thread. Many people jump to conclusions via thinking the Bible was written as some sort of textbook. Whether that be history, science or any other typical curriculum, it's a very error prone way of thinking about it. It would be good if you could recognize it for what it is; something man has been given to have a relationship w/ G-d. Barring that, you should at least be able to recognize that just because one of the books fails to mention something doesn't mean they're stating it never happened - they just failed to mention it.

 

[Snow Phoenix]

Couldn't help but notice a lack of sources for that cut-and-paste job. Seems odd.

It's from a book called Bible Believer's Archaeology...

 

[Nathan Poe]

This is only one of many mistakes you have shown in your thinking throughout this thread. Many people jump to conclusions via thinking the Bible was written as some sort of textbook. Whether that be history, science or any other typical curriculum, it's a very error prone way of thinking about it. It would be good if you could recognize it for what it is; something man has been given to have a relationship w/ G-d. Barring that, you should at least be able to recognize that just because one of the books fails to mention something doesn't mean they're stating it never happened - they just failed to mention it.

I'm sure you don't mean it this way, but it sounds to me like an excuse for Christians to have carte blanche to add whatever they want to the Bible in order to have it mean whatever they want it to mean. I'm constantly debating with people who claim that the Bible is exactly that -- a historical document that is not to be tampered with or edited in any way.
I've even dealt with people in the past who've have the appalingly bad theology to call it things such as "God's autobiography," who lash out quite passionately when anything that theatens their understanding of the text is introduced. On the other hand, they have no objections adding any of their own inventions (sometimes from whole cloth) to justify thir own ideas.

All I'm trying to do is look objectively at what is and is not there, and draw conclusions which I think are reasonable, with no personal or spiritual stake in the matter.


Consider: Both Matthew and Luke have a prohpecy to address -- Jesus of Nazareth needs to be born in Bethlehem.

If Joseph lived in Bethlehem, no explanation would be necessary for his being there for Jesus' birth, but a serious explanation would be required for moving to Nazareth -- After all, Bethlehem is only a stone's throw from Jerusalem, the political, social, economic, and religious center of the Jewish nation, whereas Nazareth is out in the boonies, as it were -- 100 miles across the desert, crossing through Samaria (hostile territory) to get there.


Matthew offers no explanation as to how Joseph's family arrived in Bethlehem -- indeed, they're living there from the beginning of his story. You're correct in saying that this, in and of itself, doesn't indicate that there was no trip. However, Matthew offers up a ridiculously contrived story (which, in his signature style, is ripped from the Old Testament) to explain Joseph's movement from Bethlehem to Nazareth via Egypt (that Jospeh does it this way was is theologically crucial, but historically implausible).


Of course, if Joseph lives in Nazareth, he's going to need the opposite -- a very compelling reason to put his 9-month pregnant wife on a donkey and take her on a desert hike. Whatever that reason may be, Nazareth would still be his home, so all that's needed for his return is for whatever situation occurred to be over; then Joseph can return home at his leisure.

Luke does exactly this. He has Joseph start out in Nazareth, and comes up with a story to explain his move to Bethlehem, but his story requires no explanation for the return trip, so Luke offers none.

What I find interesting is that in both of these stories, Joseph is the central character in both stories, and yet, he disappears utterly from the Gospels after the Birth Narratives. I find Matthew's portrayal of him to be especially interesting -- in Matthew, Joseph is almost an exact match for the Joseph in Genesis, and our common understand of Joseph's occupation (carpenter) comes from Matthew 13:55 -- which is a deliberate rewrite of Mark 6:3.

I find that very interesting, and have heard a couple of interesting theories which fit the facts, and explain what was and wasn't said -- but I've found that some Christians refuse to discuss them becuase 1. they find them offensive and 2. they disagree with their own conclusions about what the Bible says and means.

Sadly, 1. usually occurs because of 2., which makes Biblical discussions rather one-sided.

 

[Nathan Poe]

It's from a book called Bible Believer's Archaeology...

Which is the book our friend here was cutting and pasting from -- the book he says he wrote.

I saw that much; I was asking about his sources.

 

[DR.Martin Luther]

Thanks for mentioning my book so often Nathan Poe and Snow Phoenix. I always like free advertising

Below is my cut and paste job of some of my sources I have on file from when I researched my book concerning Cyrenius and the census. I tried to keep it simple, but theres just so much overwhelming sources for the evidence that I hope it doesn't overload your simple little minds.

Census Order 104 AD requiring return to their homes for the census,, Mitchell, T.C. former curator of the British Museum "The Bible in the British Museum; Interpreting the Evidence. London: British Museum Press, 1988. photo page 111

Seutonious - The Twelve Caesars - Book 5 Claudius - In regard to Claudius census of 48 AD. requiring people to be in their homeland for the census, Seutonius wrote: "He placed black marks against large numbers of people on the census list, much to the surprise of some who were censured on the novel charge of going abroad without consulting him or asking leave of absence: in one case the man involved had simply escorted a king to his province."

Res Gestae Divi Augusti 10 (Deeds of the Divine Augustus inscription) - Augustus account of Quirinius as consul in 12 B.C.

Res Gestae Divi Augusti 8 - Census ordered by Augustus in 28, 14 and 8 B.C.
Lives of the Twelve Caesars - Tiberius XLIX - by Suetonius mentions Quirinius held the title of consul.


Tacitus Annals- Book III - Records the tribute of Tiberius Caesar to Qurinius before the Senate, Account of Quirinius as advisor to Caius Caesar.

Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae (ILS-2683) by Herman Dessau- Volume 1 page 531 - Inscription mentioning Quirinius as legate of Caesar, A Legate was a legion commander of centurion quality as well as being a Roman Senator. Quirinius commanded Quintus Aemilius Secundus to conduct a census in the district of Apamea.

‘Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius collected by V. Ehrenberg & A.H.M. Jones p.73 - Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (CIL3-6687) Aemillius Secundus Inscription mentioning Quirinius as legate to Syria and ordering a census.

Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae by Herman Dessau Volume 3 page cixii - Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae (ILS9502 & 9503) L’Annee Epigrahique (AE1913, 0235 and AE1914, 0260) Two inscriptions mentioning Quirinius as being a Duumvir (one of two men appointed as joint magistrates governing over colonies)

Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae by Herman Dessau- Volume 1 page 202 (ILS918) & Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (CIL14-03613) - although no specific man is mentioned in the inscription, the early translators attributed the deeds to be that of Quirinius.

Jewish Antiquities by Josephus Chapter 17 (Account of pharisees refusing to take an oath to Caesar that was required of all Israel),

Jewish Antiquities by Josephus Chapter 17:200 - The speech of Archelaus after Herod’s death and the peoples cry for their taxes to be reduced. Chapter 17:188-193 Herod’s payment to Caesar of 10 million

Jewish Antiquities by Josephus Chapter 14: 271-176 Cassius taxes Judea from Syria.
Chapter 16: 150-170 Herod’s taxing of the people.

Jewish Antiquities by Josephus Chapter 18- Account of Quirinius being sent to govern Syria and assessor of property there and in Judea

And of course that Source that is above all others, The Gospel of Luke chapter 2

 

[Supreme]

What I find interesting is that in both of these stories, Joseph is the central character in both stories, and yet, he disappears utterly from the Gospels after the Birth Narratives. I find Matthew's portrayal of him to be especially interesting -- in Matthew, Joseph is almost an exact match for the Joseph in Genesis, and our common understand of Joseph's occupation (carpenter) comes from Matthew 13:55 -- which is a deliberate rewrite of Mark 6:3.

I find this odd too- he mysteriously disappears from the narrative. Who knows what happened to him afterwards? The Gospels don't mention anything else about him.

 

[Snow Phoenix]

DR. Martin Luther, is there any kind of proof or confirmation that you are in fact the author of the book that you could provide us?

I think a picture of your driver's license with everything blacked out (in photoshop) except your name, beside a piece of paper with 'christianforums.com' and the date would be perfectly sufficient.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I find this odd too- he mysteriously disappears from the narrative. Who knows what happened to him afterwards? The Gospels don't mention anything else about him.

Well, the theory I've heard goes like this -- There never was a "Joseph."

What if Jesus was illegitimate, and nobody knew who his father was?

Consider -- there's no mention of Joseph -- or any father, in the two earliest suorces: Paul's letters and Mark's Gospel.

Joseph first comes onto the scene in Matthew, and Matthew, looking for Old Testament heroes to wrap the Jesus story in, tells us that this "Joseph"had a father named Jacob, Received messages from God only through through dreams (Matt. 1:20, 2:13, 2:19, and 2:22),and rescued Jesus from certain death by taking him down into Egypt.

It's Genesis 37-50 all over again -- it's the same Joseph.

Now, look at Mark 6:3 -- Jesus preaches to a hostile crowd and heckle him with, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary?"

When Matthew relates the same incident, he edits the crowd's jeer in 13:55 -- "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary?"

See the difference? The carpenter becomes the carpenter's son, and since we can reasonably assume that Mary sn't the carpenter, Matthew has managed to bring Joseph back into the picture (but without naming him).

Why?

It could be because Mark's version contains in it a serious insult -- Children are identified via their fathers in Hebrew society (check any geneology in the Bible for support of that) -- to identify a child via the mother is to imply that the child has no (known) father.

Mark knows nothing about "Joseph," so he writes the line as he did -- Matthew copies Mark, but since he's already added a "Joseph" character into the story, he smooths over Mark's accusation by assigning "Joseph" the occupation Mark gave to Jesus -- but without naming him; Matthew isn't about to completely butcher Mark.


On a more speculative note, I wonder if even Luke was suspicious about Joseph's existence/paternity -- when he gives his geneology, he includes (3:23) "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph..." Could it be that "as was supposed" is not a reference to Jesus being the "Son of God," but an acknowledgement of a more mundane controversey?

 

[razeontherock]

Nate, what you're saying is we've followed cunningly devised fables. Is that your final answer?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Nate, what you're saying is we've followed cunningly devised fables. Is that your final answer?

Not really -- it sounds like you're using "cunningly disguised fables" as though there was some kind of deliberate attempt to deceive you; I'm not suggesting anything quite so sinister.

What I'm saying is that you've based a large part of your faith on a misconception: That the gospels were meant to be read and interpreted as literal history, when, in fact, they were liturgical interpretations.

Suppose for a moment that some early Christian leaders, who had the gospels but were unaware of their historical/cultural context, originally made this mistake, and Church tradition propagated this mistake, then the Jesus myth would easily overshadow the historical Jesus.

Robert Wuhl originally described this as "The Liberty Valance Effect": "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

 

[razeontherock]

Suppose for a moment, that the eyewitnesses of the events in question passed on what they saw, and the Church retained it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Suppose for a moment, that the eyewitnesses of the events in question passed on what they saw, and the Church retained it.

Ok, let us suppose that the eyewitnesses did manage to preserve such information orally over a few decades without getting any of it wrong.

If you want to run with that theory, then you have to explain those things which necessarily had no eyewitnesses:

The virgin birth is a good example: who witnessed Mary not have sex with Joseph (or anyone else, for that matter)?

According to Matthew, both Joseph and the Magi received their messages from God through dreams -- so who exactly witnessed a dream?

Jesus fasted in the desert and was tempted by the Devil -- since he went alone, did Jesus write his own account of that one, or did Satan?

The list goes on and on. You have a theory which explains some of the facts, ignores others, and is contradicted by still others. My theory explains all the facts.

 

[razeontherock]

Why do I have to explain those things that necessarily had no eye witnesses? I find your burden to be both heinous and ridiculous. Why would you doubt the dreams? I've posted several visions; all you're saying is you'd scorn those too. They've benefited countless. Why is it significant that Jesus' temptation was even written down? That we receive the message is all that matters, as is what we choose to do with it.

My Faith ignores no facts, has no contradictions, and doesn't find anything you present to be threatening or enlightening in the least. All it shows is a novice in the Word, making a mess of everything. I'm not one to support formalized stuff like ordination etc., but you're making a good case in favor of it.


In summary, I just got done posting this (plus more) elsewhere, and it fits almost as well here:

If you want to define Faith I have to refer you here:

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

3 things to notice: now, substance, evidence. My heart breaks when I see so many unbelievers on CF all crying out for the same thing: evidence, NOW, preferably with some substance.

 

[IbrahimFahim]

My Faith ignores no facts, has no contradictions, and doesn't find anything you present to be threatening or enlightening in the least. All it shows is a novice in the Word, making a mess of everything. I'm not one to support formalized stuff like ordination etc., but you're making a good case in favor of it.

Just as an FYI, you're pointing the finger in the wrong direction.

Theologically, faith is something to supplement study and knowledge not substitute for it. If you are unaware of the problems of the Bible, it is not the fault of others.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Why do I have to explain those things that necessarily had no eye witnesses?

Because you claimed that the Bible was an eyewitness account.

I find your burden to be both heinous and ridiculous.

I suppose you would.

Why would you doubt the dreams? I've posted several visions; all you're saying is you'd scorn those too. They've benefited countless.

So whether or not the dreams and visions are beneficial overshadows whether or not they're true. That's my point exactly.

Why is it significant that Jesus' temptation was even written down? That we receive the message is all that matters, as is what we choose to do with it.

Have you noticed here how you have (at least temporarily) abandoned the pretense that the events actually happened? I have.

My Faith ignores no facts, has no contradictions, and doesn't find anything you present to be threatening or enlightening in the least.

And that's not surprising, considering I'm not here to threaten anyone's faith -- nor do I expect to "enlighten" anyone who isn't interested.

All it shows is a novice in the Word, making a mess of everything. I'm not one to support formalized stuff like ordination etc., but you're making a good case in favor of it.

And why is that, novice?

In summary, I just got done posting this (plus more) elsewhere, and it fits almost as well here:

If you want to define Faith I have to refer you here:

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

3 things to notice: now, substance, evidence. My heart breaks when I see so many unbelievers on CF all crying out for the same thing: evidence, NOW, preferably with some substance.

And we get nothing but the same old verse posted as an excuse.

A pity, really -- I thought you might say something different.