Christian Apologetics - Methodological Problems

[imperator332]

According to Raymond Brown:

"this information is dubious on almost every score, despite the elaborate attempts by scholars to defend Lucan accuracy."

Most scholars chalk this up to Luke either making a mistake, or embellishing the story for other purposes.

I'm not saying your interpretation and attempt to reconcile the accounts is wrong, but I would like some explanation for why you've interpreted in this way.

[stakz1]

the truth will set us free... christ said that we are all god and cildren of the most high.

john 10;33-38 ,we are the ressurection of christos,christ iesus,hazeus luke 20 ;34

[tzephon]

Where in the Bible is there conflicting testimony which cannot be reconciled? What in the Bible is contradictory? And what is a neutral observer?

[epaminodas]

@tzephon good questions - depending on your epistemology you see contradictions or you don't; however there is one instance that clearly doesn't make sense to me - the bible says God is love, that love is not jealous and yet another verse says that God is a jealous God. i don't see how you can say that's not a contradiction

[tzephon]

@epaminodas I would say it is not a contradiction because I don't think the Bible says "love is not jealous". It says "charity (love) envieth not" (1 Cor 13:4). The difference between envy and jealousy is where the focus is. Jealousy is focused on the beloved, envy on the "rival". Jealousy requires three parties, envy only two. The terms are often conflated in English.

I'm standing on the proposition that the Bible contains no contradictions so I take interest in your idea that it might.

[tzephon]

@epaminodas And what is a neutral observer?

[epaminodas]

@tzephon i'll go with the classical definition - someone who has no vested interest in the matter before him and willing to consider both pro and con arguments on the matter

[tzephon]

@epaminodas And who is that person in relation to Christianity? It isn't someone such as an atheist. They actually have have a vested interest in the Bible not being true. And that should go for every worldview outside of Christianity.  The only exception I can think of is someone who is completely ignorant of the Christian worldview. However, once they gain sufficient knowledge to assess the truth of scripture they've lost that neutrality that was occasioned by ignorance.

[epaminodas]

@tzephon i'm not sure that's necessarily true - for example look at Paul - he was aware of christianity, its tenets etc yet remained unconverted until he had a revelation. why isn't everyone granted such visions/miracles/revelations? - again if you're a calvinist this isn't a problem due to election but all other denominations do

[tzephon]

@epaminodas Is your response in regards to "worldviews" or "no contradictions"?

[imperator332]

@tzephon

If you're looking for a specific example, the date, place, and circumstances of Jesus' birth are conflicting among existing accounts. In particular Luke and Matt give contrary and irreconcilable accounts.

There are also translation issues, manuscript corruptions and errors, etc.

Of course, all this depends on what Bible we're talking about. There are a lot of different canons, and non-canonical scripture to consider.

[tzephon]

@imperator332 In what way do Matthew and Luke give contrary and irreconcilable account?

[imperator332]

@tzephon

Well Matt says:

Τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ γεννηθέντος ἐν Βηθλέεμ τῆς Ἰουδαίας ἐν ἡμέραις Ἡρῴδου τοῦ βασιλέως

But Luke says:

Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις ἐξῆλθεν δόγμα παρὰ Καίσαρος Αὐγούστου ἀπογράφεσθαι πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην. αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου.

Unfortunately, one of those has to be wrong, because the represent a difference of about 10 years.

If you don't read the Greek, it's Matt 2:1, and Luke 2:1-2.

[imperator332]

@tzephon

*they represent.

Blah, typo.

But to continue, it's kinda like having one guy say "Imperator was born when Clinton was in office", and then having another guy say "Imperator was born when Reagan was in office". There's not really any way to reconcile these dates, all the more because the Romans were top notch record keepers.

[tzephon]

@imperator332 Caesar Augustus ruled from 27 BC to 14 AD. That envelopes the birth of Christ very neatly. Harod the Great ruled until 4 BC and was followed by Harod Archelaus.  What exactly is the point you are making?

[imperator332]

@tzephon

Herod the Great died in 4 BC.

The Census of Quirinius happened in 6/7 AD.

That's a 10 year difference. The dates do not coincide. Either Matthew was wrong, or Luke was wrong.

[tzephon]

@imperator332 According to "Dictionary of New Testament Background" by Evans and Porter a census was held on seven year intervals which would include the years 11-10 BC, 4-3 BC, and 4-5 AD 11-12 AD. AConsider "ἡγεμονεύοντος". This is saying the first time he governed Syria. "Res Gestae - The Deeds of Augustus" place him as a consul as early as 12 BC. He was assigned militarily to Syria between 12-2 BC. Also consider "πρώτη" which could read 'prior'.

[imperator332]

@tzephon

"a census was held on seven year intervals which would include the years 11-10 BC, 4-3 BC, and 4-5 AD 11-12 AD.". We have records for all Censuses held under Augustus.

" AConsider "ἡγεμονεύοντος". This is saying the first time he governed Syria". That's a tenuous conclusion. Is there an explanation as to how they reached this?

" place him as a consul as early as 12 BC." Irrelevant.

"Also consider "πρώτη" which could read 'prior'.". Also tenuous. Explanation?

[tzephon]

@imperator332 "ἡγεμονεύοντος" That should be obvious to you; look at the grammar. "as early as 12 BC." Irrelevant." Relevant - he was serving in Syria. More specifically he is listed as having been over the legions in Judea from 6-4 BC and 6-9 AD (zondervan) Luke also uses the term "hegemon". This places him at the level of propreator or or Procurator like pilot. The term for a Roman Governor would be legatus. "ἡγεμονεύοντος" is a verb, not a noun.

[imperator332]

@tzephon

" "ἡγεμονεύοντος" That should be obvious to you; look at the grammar" What about it?

" More specifically he is listed as having been over the legions in Judea from 6-4 BC and 6-9 AD (zondervan)" Where is this listed?

" "ἡγεμονεύοντος" is a verb, not a noun." Well aware.

I'm not sure what you've written actually resolves the problem. Could you elaborate?

[imperator332]

@tzephon

"More specifically he is listed as having been over the legions in Judea from 6-4 BC and 6-9 AD (zondervan)"

Come to think of it, that really doesn't make much sense. Varus was governor of Syria at this time, and Judaea was not yet a province. Moreover, wasn't Quirinius supposed to be in Galatia at this time?

[tzephon]

@imperator332 He was in Judea at those times and the Greek doesn't say he was THE governor, does it? It says he governed.

[imperator332]

@tzephon

1. Really? I can't seem to find any information about that, could you point me to where you found that out? You can pm me if it's easier that way.

2. Romans kept pretty good records, and Josephus helps us confirm the date for his administration of the province as well as the census. Besides which, it would be silly to name it the Quirinius Census then, and Luke was a better historian than that. Moreover, I don't think he would have had the imperium unless he was the gov.

[tzephon]

@imperator332

1. Zondervan KJV Study Bible p1448

2. Who called it the Quirinius Census?

[imperator332]

@tzephon

1. Does the Zondervan KJV Study Bible offer a source? Josephus?  Res Gestae? Tacitus? Some inscription or coin? I don't own a copy.

2. Josephus. Book 18, Ch. 1.

And, well.....Luke. Unless Luke used Quirinius' name when he wasn't the governor, which is a very weird thing to do.

[D3PyroGS]

I just want to point out that the gospels weren't written hundreds of years after the fact. I agree that they aren't reliable, but I also realize they were written at the latest 110 (John).

[epaminodas]

you're right - that was a mistake

[TheHonestTheist]

/watch?v=fFH0khjgA0U

[migkillertwo]

"we dont know for sure who wrote the Gospels"

the church fathers who attest to the authorship of the synoptics are evidence. furthermore, they are unanimous in agreement over the authorship of Luke, Mark, and Matthew. Further, the testimony of the church fathers IS evidence of the authorship of the Gospels.

[epaminodas]

evidence that is itself QUESTIONABLE (at least for me and a lot of others) why?

- it depends on oral tradition, tradition which dates back a long ways...

let's take Mark's gospel

- our source relies on Eusebius around 300 who relies upon Papias who in turn relied upon a presbyter when he wrote his belief that Mark wrote the 1st gospel

- Eusebius himself doubts Papias

is this circumstantial evidence? sure! is it enough to PROVE apostolic authorship? depends on what you believe!

[migkillertwo]

epaminodas, the evidence is actually pretty strong. The universal conviction of the later christians indicates that these traditions are very old, and hence are very strong evidence.

"who relies upon Papias" Eusebius is outright quoting the extant portions of Papias' work. Furthermore, Papias being on a road to Ephesus was in a prime position to gather traditions flowing out from the Jerusalem church.

[epaminodas]

"pretty strong"??? that depends on YOUR definition of "strong",doesn't it?

- we know that Eusebius held Papias in low regard when it came to Papias' claims

- we know Papias was reproducing what he had been told by another xtian through oral traidtion before he finally set it down around 100-110

- Eusebius is including one viewpoint from a man of suspect reliability ( i encourage you to look into this yourself)

all we have is oral tradition, questionable one even for Eusebius =not strong!

[migkillertwo]

"depends on your definition of 'strong'"

we have an epistemic obligation to accept their claims. That's how strong it is

"held papias in low regard" that's because Eusebius didn't like Papias' eschatology

"papias was reproducing what he had been told by another xtian" and those christians (it was several sources, not just one guy) were in, once again, a prime position to know.

"a man of suspect reliability" at tertullian . org. Roger Pearse wrote an article on this subject.

[epaminodas]

- not just b/c of eschtology but b/c of Papias regard when it came to what we now consider apocryphal stories

- yes, Papias got it from several sources he does not mention; we can't know whether or not they were "in a prime position to know"

- i'll check out your article; thanks for the pointer

[migkillertwo]

"all we have is oral tradition"

oral tradition rooted in eyewitness testimony. It seems that his statement that he had a preference for "a living and surviving voice" indicates that he relied on non-anonymous formal oral tradition from people like Philipp the Evangelist, John the Elder, John the presbyter, Aristion, etc.

[migkillertwo]

I would suggest you check out chapter 2 of Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses at books . google . com. The chapter is called "Papias on the eyewitnesses".

[epaminodas]

thanks again for the pointer

PS - i don't know if you're familiar w/ tooltime9901 - he has a series on teh resurrection if you're interested

[epaminodas]

LOL - nevermind - i'm gonna take a look at your series lol

[migkillertwo]

"if you're interested"

Tooltime is sometimes pretty brilliant, but his series on the resurrection is filled with ignorance. just about every single one of his claims are addressed in my Contra JohnLArmstrong series, my contra tooltime series, and my Christian origins series.

[epaminodas]

yeah i'm watching both side by side

one thought - do you hold Matthew 52 to be a later insertion? if so how do you still have faith in the matthean account? i saw you said it's apocalyptic but this doesnt address the issue that this was given as an evidence to Christ's resurrection

[migkillertwo]

ummm, matthew 52?

or do you mean matthew 27:52, the account of the saints rising from the dead?

[epaminodas]

yeah - sorry about that -

[migkillertwo]

no it certainly is not a later insertion. I woulden't doubt that there was some tradition circulating around when Matthew wrote his Gospel.

[epaminodas]

i don't either - but then how do you explain 1. no historical record of this amazing occurrence 2. no mention in either Luke or John 3. no mention of this in early church literature (at least none that i'm aware of) - it seems incredible proof that Jesus did rise from teh dead - and i dont see how anyone could ignore this given this public confirmation (esp given that Jesus only appeared to disciples)

[epaminodas]

- i don't disagree w/ you BUT notice that you rely on "IT SEEMS" - this is speculative, meaning that we don't know for sure (it doesn't necessarily make it unreliable but there aren't any indications that point us to the "sources" of the oral tradition) - Papias to my knowledge does not mention his sources

[VulcanForge]

The reason Papias doesn't mention his sources is because Papias is lost to us. We only have Papias though Eusebius, which is unfortunate. I'm fascinated by Mark, and Papias is cited as the only source.

[sockpuppetsfromhell]

To ask anyone to accept oral tradition in the context of cult members supporting their cult is "SPECIAL PLEADING."