Inerrancy of scripture?

Tim_Murphy

I asked this question of PDN on a thread in the A&A forum but the thread went off in a different direction and my question was unanswered. I’ll ask it again here, the question not being aimed at anybody in particular.

PDN said:

Inerrantists believe that the original manuscripts of Scripture were without error - not any subsequent copy.

I’m not certain as to how common this opinion is within Christianity but as I said on the other thread I've just started reading Karen Armstrong's "The Bible: a biography" in which she states that early versions of the Old Testaments were edited and changed regularly and were of course originally handed down orally.

With this being the case, how can anybody say that the ‘original’ versions of these manuscripts are inerrant if they were freely edited and added over time? According to Armstrong at least, the manuscripts were updated depending on political and social circumstance and it was quite a long time before they became ‘scripture’. Does it really make any sense to even talk about the ‘original’ version at all?

Joe1919

I'm far from knowing anything about the bible but perhaps you are talking about the idea of 'Bible Hermeneutics' which is the science and methodology of Bible study interpretation.
There are dangers of literal interpretation, and it's obvious, For example is says in Matthew 5:29 "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you." but we dont hear about this taken place very often.
St Thomas Aquinas also seems to interpret the bible metaphorically stating in his Summa Theoligica 1.Q1a9 " Poetry makes use of metaphors to produce a representation, for it is natural to man to be pleased with representations. But sacred doctrine makes use of metaphors as both necessary and useful. " http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm

PDN

No, I don't think the question is to do with hermeneutics at all. Those who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture recognise that the Bible contains poetry, parables, figures of speech etc. The only people on these boards that I have seen trying to interpret Scripture over-literally are atheists setting up silly strawmen (eg claiming that the Bible teaches that the sun orbits the earth etc.)

The question is to do with textual criticism. How close is the Bible that we hold in our hands to the texts as they were written by their first authors.

Obviously inerrantists do not believe that inerrancy extends to every translation of the Bible. Translators can, and do, make mistakes. Also, no text retains exactly the same meaning when translated from one language to another.

Neither do inerrantists claim that copyists or scribes never make a mistake. For example, there was a famous edition of the Bible a few centuries ago where the word 'not' was accidentally (?) omitted so that it read "Thou shalt commit adultery." The printers of this 'Adultery Bible' were heavily fined and, if you are lucky enough to find a copy in your attic, they are worth a fortune. Now, nobody would claim that the concept of inerrancy extends to the Adultery Bible - so, logically, it would be silly to think that it extends to other copyists (whether they be an atheist misquoting Scripture in a post on boards.ie or a manuscript copied by a Fourth Century Syriac monk.

Therefore inerrantists fully support the practice of textual criticism. That is comparing manuscripts and employing every tool at our disposal (linguistics, history, archeology etc) to determine as closely as possible how the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts must have looked.

Oral transmission of information does not affect the issue of inerrancy at all. We all know that oral reports can be very accurate, and they can also be full of junk. The doctrine of inerrancy declares that God so guided and superintended the authors of Scripture so that they only chose to commit to writing those oral histories that were accurate.

Karen Armstrong's assertion about Scripture being edited is her opinion - but there is little or no evidence to support it. Religions, by their very nature, tend to be much more concerned with preserving sacred writings than they are with changing them. All the manuscript evidence we have (including the Dead Sea scrolls) demonstrates that changes that occurred were copyists' errors and were very minor.

Christians can, with a good degree of confidence, know that the Hebrew and Greek texts on whioch our modern translations are based are almost certainly very close to the original manuscripts, and that no major belief or doctrine is affected by any variant readings. Where there is any doubt as to the original text most modern translations add a footnote or editorial comment alerting readers to that fact.

Schuhart

PDN wrote: »

The only people on these boards that I have seen trying to interpret Scripture over-literally are atheists setting up silly strawmen (eg claiming that the Bible teaches that the sun orbits the earth etc.)

I don't want to mention the war, nor do I want to detract from any over-literal interpretations by atheists.

But haven't we seen at least some Christian posters defending a literal interpretation of Genesis?

Fanny Cradock

Schuhart wrote: »

I don't want to mention the war, nor do I want to detract from any over-literal interpretations by atheists.

But haven't we seen at least some Christian posters defending a literal interpretation of Genesis?

In fairness, I don't believe that PDN is trying to be the voice for all Christians.

PDN

Schuhart wrote: »

I don't want to mention the war, nor do I want to detract from any over-literal interpretations by atheists.

But haven't we seen at least some Christian posters defending a literal interpretation of Genesis?

Indeed, and that is a very legitimate area of discussion. Biblical scholars are divided as to whether the first few chapters were intended to be understood literally or not by their original readers.

However, that does not in itself affect the issue of inerrancy. I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, even though I may be unsure as to the correct interpretation of some biblical passages.

rockbeer

PDN wrote: »

For example, there was a famous edition of the Bible a few centuries ago where the word 'not' was accidentally (?) omitted so that it read "Thou shalt commit adultery."

That just has to be a heretical printer having a laugh.

Tim_Murphy

Hi PDN,

Thanks for the response.

Obviously inerrantists do not believe that inerrancy extends to every translation of the Bible. Translators can, and do, make mistakes. Also, no text retains exactly the same meaning when translated from one language to another.

Neither do inerrantists claim that copyists or scribes never make a mistake. For example, there was a famous edition of the Bible a few centuries ago where the word 'not' was accidentally (?) omitted so that it read "Thou shalt commit adultery." The printers of this 'Adultery Bible' were heavily fined and, if you are lucky enough to find a copy in your attic, they are worth a fortune. Now, nobody would claim that the concept of inerrancy extends to the Adultery Bible - so, logically, it would be silly to think that it extends to other copyists (whether they be an atheist misquoting Scripture in a post on boards.ie or a manuscript copied by a Fourth Century Syriac monk.

Therefore inerrantists fully support the practice of textual criticism. That is comparing manuscripts and employing every tool at our disposal (linguistics, history, archeology etc) to determine as closely as possible how the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts must have looked.

This makes sense.

Oral transmission of information does not affect the issue of inerrancy at all. We all know that oral reports can be very accurate…

Oral reports handed down over time maintain their accuracy in relation to the original? What examples of this do you have?

The doctrine of inerrancy declares that God so guided and superintended the authors of Scripture so that they only chose to commit to writing those oral histories that were accurate.

So am I right in saying that your position is that only the versions of stories that were committed to what later became scripture as subject to the doctrine of inerrancy? I ask this because Armstrong mentions some specific examples of differing versions of myths that were handed down orally, versions of which eventually made it into scripture.

Religions, by their very nature, tend to be much more concerned with preserving sacred writings than they are with changing them.

Yes, but only once there is a specific religion to speak of and there is specific scripture.

All the manuscript evidence we have (including the Dead Sea scrolls) demonstrates that changes that occurred were copyists' errors and were very minor.

Compared to the earliest known writings yes, but compared to the myths and oral traditions before that? Who knows.

PDN

rockbeer wrote: »

That just has to be a heretical printer having a laugh.

It was an expensive laugh. He was fined two year's salary.

The government tried to recall and burn all copies of the Adultery Bible - and only twelve copies are known to exist today. One of them can found in the York Minster Library.

Rockbeer, you would also probably appreciate the 'Fool Bible' - a specially printed copy of the KJV presented to Charles I. It contained a misprint so that Psalm 14:1 read "The fool hath said in his heart there is a God."

rockbeer

PDN wrote: »

It was an expensive laugh. He was fined two year's salary.

He probably figured nobody would ever actually read it

PDN wrote: »

IThe government tried to recall and burn all copies of the Adultery Bible - and only twelve copies are known to exist today. One of them can found in the York Minster Library.

I take it this was in the UK? How things change. It's hard to imagine it becoming government business to defend the faith these days.

PDN wrote: »

Rockbeer, you would also probably appreciate the 'Fool Bible' - a specially printed copy of the KJV presented to Charles I. It contained a misprint so that Psalm 14:1 read "The fool hath said in his heart there is a God."

Excellent (I know, I'm easily entertained). It makes you wonder what other mistakes might be creeping by unnoticed.

hivizman

rockbeer wrote: »

It makes you wonder what other mistakes might be creeping by unnoticed.

There's a collection of bible misprints here. Enjoy!

One distinction that may be worth mentioning is between inerrancy and infallibility. Inerrancy implies that all statements in scripture, including historical, geographical and scientific-type statements, are without error. Infallibility is somewhat weaker - this implies that all statements that relate to matters of religious faith and practice are without error, but that "factual" statements may contain errors. The issue of interpretation cuts across both of these positions, and it may not be easy (or possible at all) to untangle "faith" statements from "factual" statements. For example, are the creation narratives in Genesis supposed to be factual scientific statements about the creation of the world, or faith statements about the creative role of God in the universe (or both)?

Húrin

rockbeer wrote: »

I take it this was in the UK? How things change. It's hard to imagine it becoming government business to defend the faith these days.

It happened in the days when the Church of England's establishment status was taken much more seriously than today, which also caused so many sectarian problems on this island.

Zombrex

I'm curious what you guys mean by the "original manuscripts" in the context of the Old Testament?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm curious what you guys mean by the "original manuscripts" in the context of the Old Testament?

'Original' as in the first of something.
'Manuscripts' as in something written by hand.

Therefore, in this wonderful English language we use, 'original manuscripts' means the first written copy of each book in the Old Testament and New Testament. So, the first written copy of Isaiah = the original manuscript of Isaiah.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

'Original' as in the first of something.
'Manuscripts' as in something written by hand.

Therefore, in this wonderful English language we use, 'original manuscripts' means the first written copy of each book in the Old Testament and New Testament. So, the first written copy of Isaiah = the original manuscript of Isaiah.

But the stories could have existed in various forms for hundred or thousands of years. Are you saying that the first person, no matter who they were or why they wrote down the story, that becomes automatically infallible through the process of being written down?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

But the stories could have existed in various forms for hundred or thousands of years. Are you saying that the first person, no matter who they were or why they wrote down the story, that becomes automatically infallible through the process of being written down?

No, not the first person. We know that some of the accounts were written down in non-inspired books. For example, the authors of Joshua and 1 Samuel refer to a 'Book of Jasher' where some of their subject matter was already recorded.

I think it more than likely that events in the life of Abraham or Joseph were written down by many people prior to the writing of Genesis. However, these would not have been inspired by God and so may well have included errors and untruths.

Then the author of Genesis, inspired by God, wrote down accounts covering a period of many years. He may have used written and oral sources, and may even have had stuff revealed to him directly by God. Either way, we believe that the Holy Spirit ensured that the resulting manuscript was without error.

PDN

rockbeer wrote: »

I take it this was in the UK? How things change. It's hard to imagine it becoming government business to defend the faith these days.

Well, strictly speaking it was in England - since it was long before the Act of Union the UK didn't exist.

At that time the monarch took a very personal interest in the religious beliefs of his subjects and in the translation and publication of the Scriptures. Divine right of kings and all that jazz.

If you want a good perspective of how kings used to meddle in these affairs then I recommend Adam Nicholson's excellent history of the KJV - God's Secretaries. It is a great read.

hivizman

PDN wrote: »

If you want a good perspective of how kings used to meddle in these affairs then I recommend Adam Nicholson's excellent history of the KJV - God's Secretaries. It is a great read.

Is this the same as Adam Nicolson's Power and Glory: Jacobean England and the Making of the King James Bible (Harper Perennial, 2004)? I've checked on Amazon.co.uk, but it's not at all clear (different publisher, year of publication, number of pages seems to suggest a different book, unless it's a cynical marketing exercise).

Another book on the same subject is Alister McGrath's In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible (Hodder & Stoughton: 2002), but I thought that this was a bit of a "pot-boiler", written quickly and not very well. Adam Nicolson's Power and Glory was much better.

PDN

hivizman wrote: »

Is this the same as Adam Nicolson's Power and Glory: Jacobean England and the Making of the King James Bible (Harper Perennial, 2004)? I've checked on Amazon.co.uk, but it's not at all clear (different publisher, year of publication, number of pages seems to suggest a different book, unless it's a cynical marketing exercise).

Another book on the same subject is Alister McGrath's In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible (Hodder & Stoughton: 2002), but I thought that this was a bit of a "pot-boiler", written quickly and not very well. Adam Nicolson's Power and Glory was much better.

I think it's the same book - so don't bother buying both. It was originally published in 2003 in the UK as Power and Glory and in the US as God's Secretaries. However, my copy of God's Secretaries is British - so I'm guessing it became a hit in the US first and they then gave it the better known title on subsequent reprints in Britain.

philologos

I think it would be very rare to find a Christian who thinks that the Bible is indeed error if they are seeking to abide by it's precepts. Why would you abide by precepts which were likely to be erroneous?

Tim_Murphy

Hi PDN,

Thanks for the responses, I understant the believe a bit better now. Cheers.

Then the author of Genesis, inspired by God..

and what was his name again?

I think it would be very rare to find a Christian who thinks that the Bible is indeed error if they are seeking to abide by it's precepts. Why would you abide by precepts which were likely to be erroneous?

I recented chatted to a mate of mine who would describe him as a christain who tend went on to explain his various problems with the bible and who certainly doesn't think the bible is error free. I know plenty of other people who would be of a similar mindset.

I'm still not sure 'error free' actually means anything in terms of a collection of books written over a diverse time period by different authors but anyway.

PDN

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

and what was his name again?

You mean what was the name of the author of Genesis? We don't know. The author is more concerned with talking about God than he is about himself - so the book is written anonymously.

Tradition has ascribed the authorship to Moses, but the text itself neither confirms that or denies it. Even those who think Moses wrote it must believe that somebody else wrote the bits that detail Moses' death and burial.

I recented chatted to a mate of mine who would describe him as a christain who tend went on to explain his various problems with the bible and who certainly doesn't think the bible is error free. I know plenty of other people who would be of a similar mindset.

We could easily get sidetracked into a discussion about how to define a 'Christian'. Many of the atheist posters argue that anyone who thinks of themselves as a Christian and calls themselves "Christian" is and that nobody has the right to say otherwise. In that case Richard Dawkins (having described himself as a cultural Christian) is numbered among the Christians.

If we limit the description of 'Christian' to those who believe the basic beliefs of orthodox Christianity and are genuinely trying to live as followers of Christ, then a large proportion of them believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. However, others prefer the concept of infalllibility to inerrancy, while others hold to a looser definition of inspiration that allows for mistakes and errors.

I'm still not sure 'error free' actually means anything in terms of a collection of books written over a diverse time period by different authors but anyway.

I don't think that the number of authors or the period over which it is written has any necessary bearing at all on whether it is error free or not.

For example, a publisher of an encyclopedia may claim that their book is carefully researched and free from factual errors. I would think that statement is as likely (probably more likely) to be correct if the articles are written by different authors, expert in their respective fields, rather than by one individual who considers themselves to be a polymath. Similarly, the encyclopedia may contain articles that are quite old - but have been checked for accuracy by the editors.

Tim_Murphy

You mean what was the name of the author of Genesis? We don't know. The author is more concerned with talking about God than he is about himself - so the book is written anonymously.

So we don’t even know the name of the version who wrote it but we know that this person was inspired by God, ok.

We could easily get sidetracked into a discussion about how to define a 'Christian'. Many of the atheist posters argue that anyone who thinks of themselves as a Christian and calls themselves "Christian" is and that nobody has the right to say otherwise.

Well the simple fact is that it is a term that will mean different things to different people. I’ll leave that discussion to somebody else though.

I don't think that the number of authors or the period over which it is written has any necessary bearing at all on whether it is error free or not.

Well if they contradict each other then yes I think it would have a bearing.

For example, a publisher of an encyclopedia may claim that their book is carefully researched and free from factual errors. I would think that statement is as likely (probably more likely) to be correct if the articles are written by different authors, expert in their respective fields, rather than by one individual who considers themselves to be a polymath.

Yes, that is true. However in the case of something like an encyclopedia if they state that for example something is made in 7 days then that will be meant to be taken at face value. The same cannot be said in the case of the bible. Of course we know that the world was not created in 7 days but Genesis says it is. In any regular book that would be considered an error but not so with the bible. How about the nativity stories in Luke and Matthew? There are certainly discrepancies between them so how they both be ‘error free’? If you read the stories at face value then they can’t.

What if what we know from historical research differs from what is said in the bible? The bible tells the story of Herod ordering the dead of all new borns yet there is no evidence that such an event ever happened (Interesting piece on Herod in last months National Giographic). How do we maintain that this story from the bible is ‘error free’ when it is widely accepted by historians that it didn’t happen at all?

As far as I can see, the only way somebody can say it is error free is if they start with that assumption and work backwards, analysing and interpreting everything based on that assumption.

Tim_Murphy

Similarly, the encyclopedia may contain articles that are quite old - but have been checked for accuracy by the editors.

Who were the corresponding editors of the bible?

PDN

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

So we don’t even know the name of the version who wrote it but we know that this person was inspired by God, ok.

That's right. The important thing for Christians is the content of Scripture, not who wrote it.

Yes, that is true. However in the case of something like an encyclopedia if they state that for example something is made in 7 days then that will be meant to be taken at face value. The same cannot be said in the case of the bible. Of course we know that the world was not created in 7 days but Genesis says it is. In any regular book that would be considered an error but not so with the bible.

I think you're trying to overstretch the details of an illustration. However, I think even an encyclopedia will use figures of speech etc.

The key thing with Scripture is determining how a passage would have been understood by its original hearers (parable, poetry or literal prose). In most cases this is pretty obvious due to context and our knowledge of linguistics etc. The first few chapters of Genesis are more problematic due to their age. There is genuine disagreement among biblical scholars as to whether they should be interpreted literally or metaphorically.

How about the nativity stories in Luke and Matthew? There are certainly discrepancies between them so how they both be ‘error free’? If you read the stories at face value then they can’t.

Maybe you could point out these 'discrepancies'?

What if what we know from historical research differs from what is said in the bible? The bible tells the story of Herod ordering the dead of all new borns yet there is no evidence that such an event ever happened (Interesting piece on Herod in last months National Giographic). How do we maintain that this story from the bible is ‘error free’ when it is widely accepted by historians that it didn’t happen at all?

There is a huge difference between there being no evidence of an event happening and there being evidence that an event never happened. What is 'widely accepted' by historians of one generation can easily be discarded by the next generation.

Tim_Murphy

I think you're trying to overstretch the details of an illustration. However, I think even an encyclopedia will use figures of speech etc.

I don’t think I am. Figures of speech are fine. The first few chapters of Genisis are not a figure of speech way of describing how the world came into being. It is a creation myth.

The key thing with Scripture is determining how a passage would have been understood by its original hearers (parable, poetry or literal prose). In most cases this is pretty obvious due to context and our knowledge of linguistics etc. The first few chapters of Genesis are more problematic due to their age. There is genuine disagreement among biblical scholars as to whether they should be interpreted literally or metaphorically.

Indeed there is. Which would lead me to wonder if people debating whether a creation myth is meant to be taken literally are people can say with any certainty that their holy book is error free. But I suppose that’s just me trying to look at it from a rational point of view, not from a religious one.

Maybe you could point out these 'discrepancies'?

Well I am certainly no expert but I know that Matthew tells us that Jesus was born when Herod was king in Judea. From historical records, we know that Herod died in 4 BC.
Luke also mentions that Jesus was also born when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Again from historical records, we know that Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until 6 or 7 AD.
Matthew appears to believes that Mary and Joseph live in Bethlehem.
Luke, on the other hand, believes that Mary and Joseph live in Nazareth.

The literalness of this story is also called into question by the fact that there are no indications anywhere that there ever was a census that required people to return to their ancestral homes.

Of course whether one reads Matthew or Luke, the story has all the hallmarks of something of mythology not of historical fact.

There is a huge difference between there being no evidence of an event happening and there being evidence that an event never happened. What is 'widely accepted' by historians of one generation can easily be discarded by the next generation.

Yes true, this can happen. This is a would say unlikely in this case, given that there is quite a lot known about Herod, and quite a lot was written about him. Again if goes back to what I said “the only way somebody can say it is error free is if they start with that assumption and work backwards, analysing and interpreting everything based on that assumption.“ In which case people can say that the Herod stories is true, they historian just haven’t found the evidence yet. It comes back o how something can be called 'error free'? It makes no sense from a non-faith point of view, but I guess you know that.

PDN

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

I don’t think I am. Figures of speech are fine. The first few chapters of Genisis are not a figure of speech way of describing how the world came into being. It is a creation myth.

How do you know they're not an extended figure of speech (as in a parable)? We know from other parts of the Bible that Hebrew writers could use language in such a way (eg Ezekiel 16).

Indeed there is. Which would lead me to wonder if people debating whether a creation myth is meant to be taken literally are people can say with any certainty that their holy book is error free. But I suppose that’s just me trying to look at it from a rational point of view, not from a religious one.

No, I don't think you're looking at it from a rational point of view at all. Disagreement as to how something should be interpreted is an entirely separate issue as to whether it is in error or not.

Here is a simple example. You and I might both hear an employee testifying that their employer had 'screwed' them. We could interpret that differently (not paid them their wages, or sexual intercourse) but could both be convinced that the employee was being truthful.

Well I am certainly no expert but I know that Matthew tells us that Jesus was born when Herod was king in Judea. From historical records, we know that Herod died in 4 BC.
Luke also mentions that Jesus was also born when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Again from historical records, we know that Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until 6 or 7 AD.

The reference in Luke 2:2 to Quirinius allows for two possibilities:
1. The word prote can mean either first or prior. So Luke could be saying "This was the registration before Quirinius governed Syria".
2. If prote is used in the sense of first then it may be referring to a census carried out when Quirinius was on his assignments in Syria between 12BC & 2BC. He was responsible for reducing the number of rebellious mountaineers in the highlands of Pisidia. As such, he was a highly placed military figure in the Near East and highly trusted by Emperor Caesar Augustus. Augustus, knowing of the turmoil in Herod the Great’s territory, may well have put his trusted friend Quirinius in charge of a census enrollment in the region of Syria just before the end of Herod’s life. Luke, then, would be speaking of this 'first' census to distinguish it from a later one that is referred to by Josephus and took place in 6AD.

Matthew appears to believes that Mary and Joseph live in Bethlehem.
Luke, on the other hand, believes that Mary and Joseph live in Nazareth.

No, Matthew simply says that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, as does Luke.

The literalness of this story is also called into question by the fact that there are no indications anywhere that there ever was a census that required people to return to their ancestral homes.

An argument from silence would not prove an error. However, here there is not even an argument from silence. In the British Museum there is a census edict (on papyrus) issued by Vibius Maximus (prefect of Egypt) in 104AD ordering everyone to return to their administrative districts in order to be counted in a census. A similar arrangement in Israel would, quite naturally, be based on tribal affiliation - requiring Joseph and his family to go to Bethlehem.

Of course whether one reads Matthew or Luke, the story has all the hallmarks of something of mythology not of historical fact.

And yet plenty of people who are experts in the fields of Greek literature, Hebraic thought, and Ancient History see it as having the hallmarks of an account intended to be taken literally. You, of course, are welcome to your subjective opinion - but I don't think you should expect me take it seriously.

hivizman

PDN wrote: »

The reference in Luke 2:2 to Quirinius allows for two possibilities:
1. The word prote can mean either first or prior. So Luke could be saying "This was the registration before Quirinius governed Syria".
2. If prote is used in the sense of first then it may be referring to a census carried out when Quirinius was on his assignments in Syria between 12BC & 2BC. He was responsible for reducing the number of rebellious mountaineers in the highlands of Pisidia. As such, he was a highly placed military figure in the Near East and highly trusted by Emperor Caesar Augustus. Augustus, knowing of the turmoil in Herod the Great’s territory, may well have put his trusted friend Quirinius in charge of a census enrollment in the region of Syria just before the end of Herod’s life. Luke, then, would be speaking of this 'first' census to distinguish it from a later one that is referred to by Josephus and took place in 6AD.

I'm broadly in agreement with your arguments on the general issue, but on a point of detail, would the Roman governor of Syria (or rather an influential Roman general active in Syria) actually have had the authority to impose a registration or census in Judaea while Herod the Great was alive?

PDN wrote: »

No, Matthew simply says that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, as does Luke.

The first mention by Matthew of Nazareth is 2:23 "Then he [i.e., Joseph] made his home in a town called Nazareth". The context of the verse is the announcement to Joseph of the death of Herod, meaning that it would be safe to return to the land of Israel. However, Joseph, hearing that Archelaus the son of Herod was ruling over Judea, was afraid to go to Judea, and instead went to Galilee. Taking this with the absence of a reference to Nazareth in Matthew Ch. 1, it can't be ruled out that the author of the Matthew birth narrative thought that Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem at the time of Jesus's birth.

PDN wrote: »

An argument from silence would not prove an error. However, here there is not even an argument from silence. In the British Museum there is a census edict (on papyrus) issued by Vibius Maximus (prefect of Egypt) in 104AD ordering everyone to return to their administrative districts in order to be counted in a census. A similar arrangement in Israel would, quite naturally, be based on tribal affiliation - requiring Joseph and his family to go to Bethlehem.

One interpretation of the wording in the papyrus that I have come across is that the requirement to return to one's home district applied only to those temporarily absent. Thus it would not necessarily apply to people whose families had long since moved away from ancestral areas. Of course, Joseph could have been a Bethlehemite who was living temporarily in Nazareth, but if so, why didn't Luke mention this when Joseph is first mentioned at 1:27?

Most of the material in the two birth narratives can be reconciled on the basis that the two authors selected different episodes from a coherent single narrative for the various objectives of their gospels (for example, Matthew tends to put more emphasis on the fulfilment of prophecies than Luke, who tends to provide more historical verisimilitude). However, Matthew and Luke give two dramatically different genealogies for Joseph - both of these show descent from David, but Matthew gives a descent through Solomon and Luke through Nathan. Indeed, Luke describes Joseph as the son of Heli (or Eli) while Matthew states that Joseph was the son of Jacob. The eminent Catholic scholar Raymond E. Brown, in The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (New Updated Edition, New York: Doubleday, 1993) concludes a lengthy discussion of the genealogies by saying (p. 94):

[W]hile the two NT genealogies tell us how to evaluate Jesus, they tell us nothing certain about his grandparents or his great-grandparents. The message about Jesus, son of Joseph, is not that facutally he is also (grand)son of either Jacob (Matthew) or of Eli (Luke) but that theologically he is "son of David, son of Abraham" (Matthew) and "Son of God" (Luke).

This is an example of the difference between infallibility and inerrancy that I mentioned in an earlier post. Taken as historical statements (as inerrant), the genealogies cannot be reconciled, but as theological statements about the nature of Jesus they are infallible and reconcilable. However, human fallibility comes in through the need to interpret the genealogies in order to deduce the theological claims.

PDN

hivizman wrote: »

I'm broadly in agreement with your arguments on the general issue, but on a point of detail, would the Roman governor of Syria (or rather an influential Roman general active in Syria) actually have had the authority to impose a registration or census in Judaea while Herod the Great was alive?

Yes, I believe he would.

Historians know that Herod lost his status of an official "friend of Caesar" after he had executed his own sons. This reduced the autonomy of Herod. For example, he no longer had the power to conduct executions without getting permission from the Roman authorities.

it can't be ruled out that the author of the Matthew birth narrative thought that Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem at the time of Jesus's birth.

This raises two issues:

a) Those who allege discrepancies in Scripture in order to disprove inerrancy must prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there is a contradiction. It is not enough to say that a possible interpretation of Matthew would contradict Luke. Nor is it even enough to say that the most likely interpretation of Matthew contradicts Luke. To prove a contradiction you must demonstrate that there is no plausible interpretation of Matthew's words that can be reconciled with Luke.

b) Speculation as to what Matthew thought does not affect the issue of inerrancy. The doctrine of inerrancy does not claim that Matthew was without error in everything he thought, only that the words he wrote down in his Gospel account were without error.

hivizman

PDN wrote: »

a) Those who allege discrepancies in Scripture in order to disprove inerrancy must prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there is a contradiction. It is not enough to say that a possible interpretation of Matthew would contradict Luke. Nor is it even enough to say that the most likely interpretation of Matthew contradicts Luke. To prove a contradiction you must demonstrate that there is no plausible interpretation of Matthew's words that can be reconciled with Luke.

b) Speculation as to what Matthew thought does not affect the issue of inerrancy. The doctrine of inerrancy does not claim that Matthew was without error in everything he thought, only that the words he wrote down in his Gospel account were without error.

Again, I agree with you in principle - Matthew doesn't explicitly say that Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem rather than Nazareth at the time of the birth of Jesus, so his birth narrative can be reconciled quite reasonably with that of Luke on that point.

However, that doesn't address the issue of the genealogies. We have evidence that people have been trying to reconcile these since around the end of the second century, for example Julius Africanus suggested that "levirate marriage" was involved - Heli died childless and his widow married Jacob, who was Heli's half-brother on the mother's side. Jacob was the biological father of Joseph, but Heli was regarded as his legal father. Another explanation is that the genealogy in Luke is actually that of Mary, not Joseph (although Mary's father is conventionally known as Joachim, so this creates another problem of reconciling Joachim and Heli). These are certainly "interpretations", but are they "plausible"?

PDN

hivizman wrote: »

Another explanation is that the genealogy in Luke is actually that of Mary, not Joseph (although Mary's father is conventionally known as Joachim, so this creates another problem of reconciling Joachim and Heli).

I have read that Joachim and Heli are both variations of the same name - Eliachim, meaning 'God will establish'.

hivizman

PDN wrote: »

I have read that Joachim and Heli are both variations of the same name - Eliachim, meaning 'God will establish'.

Yes, there's certainly Biblical evidence of the equivalence of Joachim and Eliachim:

Pharaoh Neco made Eliakim son of Josiah king in place of his father Josiah, and changed his name to Jehoiakim. But he took Jehoahaz away; he came to Egypt, and died there.

[2 Kings 23:34, NRSV Anglicized Edition]

Of course, the authority for the name "Joachim" as Mary's father is the non-canonical Gospel of James. Presumably the "inerrancy thesis" would not regard an apocryphal gospel as outweighing a canonical gospel, particularly if a plausible reconciliation can be suggested for the two sources.