When I was in college, a history professor told the class that the Bible is filled with historical errors? Was he right?
Let’s take a look at one of their favorite targets.
Many secular historians insist that the census reported in Luke 2:1-2 did not take place. What is their evidence?
Some have charged Luke with committing an error on the basis of the fact that history records that Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was governor of Syria beginning in A.D. 6—several years after the birth of Christ.
So, did Luke screw this up?
One New Testament scholar wrote, “Luke demonstrated his awareness of a separate provincial census during Quirinius’ governorship beginning in A.D. 6 (Acts 5:37). In view of this familiarity, he surely would not have confused this census with one taken ten or more years earlier. Hence Luke claimed that a prior census was, indeed, taken at the command of Caesar Augustus sometime prior to 4 B.C. He flagged this earlier census by using the expression prote egeneto (“first took place”)—which assumes a later one (cf. Nicoll, n.d., 1:471). To question the authenticity of this claim, simply because no explicit reference has yet been found, is unwarranted and prejudicial. No one questions the historicity of the second census taken by Quirinius about A.D. 6/7, despite the fact that the sole authority for it is a single inscription found in Venice. Sir William Ramsay, world-renowned and widely acclaimed authority on such matters, wrote over one hundred years ago: “[W]hen we consider how purely accidental is the evidence for the second census, the want of evidence for the first seems to constitute no argument against the trustworthiness of Luke’s statement” (1897, p. 386).
In addition, historical sources indicate that Quirinius was favored by Augustus, and was in active service of the emperor in the vicinity of Syria previous to and during the time period that Jesus was born. It is reasonable to conclude that Quirinius could have been appointed by Caesar to instigate a census-enrollment during that time frame, and his competent execution of such could have earned for him a repeat appointment for the A.D. 6/7 census (see Archer, 1982, p. 366). Notice also that Luke did not use the term legatus—the normal title for a Roman governor. He used the participial form of hegemon that was used for a Propraetor (senatorial governor), or Procurator (like Pontius Pilate), or Quaestor (imperial commissioner) [McGarvey and Pendleton, n.d., p. 28]. After providing a thorough summary of the historical and archaeological data pertaining to this question, Finnegan concluded: “Thus the situation presupposed in Luke 2:3 seems entirely plausible” (1959, 2:261).”
Skeptics allege other errors but their arguments are all from silence. In other words, if a second source does not cite the event, they dismiss the Biblical account as untrustworthy because the authors of Scripture were “ideologically driven” but do you see a problem with such an objection? They assume other sources aren’t! This is completely arbitrary.
So, the next time someone says, “the Bible is full of errors,” use the Columbo method to pin them down and graciously show them that an argument from silence is just not a strong argument.
This argument from silence cuts both ways.
The details of the census don’t jib with reality in so much as a need for Joseph to return to his family home town. Plus the fact that Joshua wouldn’t nessisarly have any DNA fron Joseph. Mary’s DNA would. be the family Joshua would have most resembled and have belonged to. The listing of the two different and conflicting family linages listed in the gospells only confuse the issue even more.
You have cherry picked one item of contention and shown a solution that you feel is right. Then you claim in your next blog entry that the whole issue of bible errors put to rest without even waiting for a comment from anyone with an opposing view. How special!
Oh the reason I used the name Joshua above instead of Jesus is that is closer to the original spelling of his name in english. Yashua.
“Jesus” is one of the many miss translstions in the bible’s history.
(I’m sure I miss spelled at least four words while typing this!)
I’m not following. First of all, the different lineages were theological constructs which ancient Hebrews accepted. Second, the overwhelming majority of scholars I have read over the last 15 years do not have a problem with any details of the narrative and finally, adoption was considered valid for ancient genealogies. Thanks for stopping by.
You won’t even consider that the ancient Hebrews might have been wrong with their theological constructs? I don’t know what you have been reading over the past 15 years but I would suggest you start with some of Bart Ehrman’s books. The one point I was attempting to make about the linages is that the two different gospel writers give two different linages for Yashua (Jesus). These two different linages can’t be both right. You seem to be ok with a bunch of dead guys saying that they are not contradictions. That is an appeal to authority. I have no way of knowing if these ancients were authorities in anything, so I hope you don’t mind my skepticism on that. The other point I wanted to make is that the linage of the son of God is not important at all. The only reason it is mentioned is to say it was foretold that a messiah would come from David’s household. Which just amounts to a bit of racism/nationalism (my family is better than your family nonsense). Davis did some bad stuff in his life time so I would’t get all proud about being from that family anyhow. The linage is made to have Yashua (Jesus) come from that family and the census is just a way to legitimize the linage. (see the government thinks that Joseph is from the house of David, so it must be true!) There is no census that the romans or the local government ever did that required everyone to go to the town of their family origin. this requirement is only mentioned in the bible to legitimize Yashua’s linage. Which again is totally unnecessary since being the son of God is all that counts. This is just another example of the Bronze Age thinking that is going on in the bible.
Nice list of ad hominems and Bart Ehrman is a joke outside conspiracy circles. Read N.T Wright and Ben Witherington’s devestating critiques of Ehrman. As to the rest, read some theology and avoid making a chronological error in your thinking. To state, Matthew and Luke aren’t accurate because they followed the rules of Hebrew writers at the time rather than modern secular historicity is ridiculous! If you follow that thinking, we need to throw Heroditus out the window as well.
If you are truly interested, look at this: http://ehrmanproject.com/index
I have spoke to Bart on several occasions and I am fairly sure he is not in the conspiracy camp at all. He is just a guy looking at the facts as they are. If the facts don’t match everyones preconceived notions , oh well. I will check out Wright and Witherington. As for Mathew and Luke following Hebrew customary rules I don’t know. All I know is if their writings were inspired by a deity they could have gotten both of their list to match. Plus Luke could have copied Mathew’s list if he could have gotten a copy of it. (which was possible considering that Mathew’s book as written before Luke’s. Though Mark’s gospel was written before the other two would have been no help since he doesn’t mention Jesus’s linage) Or they could have both asked Jesus…. Oops. They could’t do that because the both of them never met Jesus (or Yashua).
As for the ad hominem, Sorry dude I just don’t know what you have been reading for the past 15 years, Francis Bacon or Kevin Bacon(six degrees and all). So your appeal to being more learned than me doesn’t hold much water (that is kinda an appeal to authority again)
So, you haven’t read anyone but one “scholar” who isn’t taken seriously at Princeton, Yale or Duke but I’m the one appealing to authority? Also, I’ve read Ehrman AND others and you’ve admitted you haven’t and if Luke copied from Matthew that actually supports my case for a theological re-working, which, again, was common for the culture.
If you have the courage, watch this: http://www.apologetics315.com/2012/02/debate-daniel-wallace-bart-ehrman-2012.html
Where did I say I only read one scholar? As far as Ehrman is conserned, I have to wonder if we are we talking about the same guy?
Bart D. Ehrman the New Testament scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The one who studied at Moody Bible Institute, Princeton Theological Seminary, and Wheaton College. Is that the one? The only reason he is disliked by other scholars is because he disseminates his research to the general public in a way that is clear and easy to read. Most bible scholars don’t want the public to be aware of what is known about the bibles origins. Not because there is a conspiracy to keep them in the dark, but because the knowledge of the bible being a book of not so holy origins would shake people up in ways that might not be good for society. Religion is one of the glues that hold societies together, (whether that is a good thing or not is totally debatable, but the fact that it is one of the glues is not debatable)
But really the main reason some scholars don’t like Bart is because he sells so many darn books. Plain and simple envy is the main reason for their disliking him, not any real complaints about his work. Most of what he writes isn’t even his work but just a clear stating of what others have written. What you may not know about Bart is that for every book he writes for the public he has also written peer reviewed papers that go through higher levels of detail and list all of his references. So if you want to know what the bible scholars really know about the New Testament you need to read his research papers. He list the researchers by name and everything. So if you think I only read one scholar you are wrong. In my original post about Bart Ehrman’s I said you might want to “start” with Bart, mainly because his research will connect you to so many other fine researchers. Those other researchers may not be as easy to read as Bart but they sure have a lot to say about the New Testaments origins.
With all due respect, if you haven’t read folks like Ben Witherington and Darrell Bock in their response to Ehrman, you haven’t read widely on the subject. I have read Ehrman and his critics. The fact that Ehrman is not taught at places like Fuller, Trinity or places like Duke or Yale should tell you about how scholars view his work. To say scholars don’t like him because he sells a lot of books (he doesn’t sell that many, N.T. Wright sells a lot more worldwide), is to commit a logical fallacy for says nothing about the truth or falsity of the arguments at hand.
I think my friend Bob Cargill mirrors my thoughts on the scholars you have mentioned above. Here is a link to his critic of The Ehrman Project scholars.
http://robertcargill.com/2011/02/18/i-stand-with-bart-ehrman/
I’ve read Cargill’s blog but, again, he is in the overwhelming minority and for a very good reason. Ehrman has been answered (see his debates with Dan Wallace, Craig Evans, etc.). Ehrman is simply wrong. He has been met point-by-point. The Ehrman project videos that Cargill assualts with a series of ad homimens and gentic fallacies is aimed at undergrads without a seminary background but others have met Ehrman and calling them names like “fundamentalist” doesn’t deal with the arguments set forth by the best scholars in the world.
if you had read it you would have seen the list of Scholars all seem to have Dr. in front of their names.
Dr. Darrell Bock, Dallas Theological Seminary
Dr. D. A. Carson, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Dr. Ed Gravely, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Dr. Michael J. Kruger, Reformed Theological Seminary
Dr. Alvin Plantinga, University of Notre Dame
Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, Dallas Theological Seminary
Dr. Ben Witherington, Asbury Theological Seminary
I was un-aware that Doctor in front of your name meant that you are an undergraduate. I guess that’s what it means at a Theological Seminary! I learn something new every day!
John, you misunderstand me…the videos are made for undergraduates, thus they are fairly superficial but these scholars have engaged Ehrman on an academic level in various books and journal articles. I have read widely on both sides, I am simply encouraging you to do the same before making such sweeping pronoun cements. All the best,
I took the time to watch the videos.(what a waist of bandwidth!) If the videos were created to show undergrads how to create straw men argument or how to shift the goal post they have succeeded. But more likely the video were created to present their case to the uneducated masses. They sound all smart and all. But while watching the first few videos it felt like I was watching a bunch of Trekkies arguing about how a trans-warp drive would actually work. And it also reminded me of why we will never know how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. (mainly because they can’t decide if it is a push pin or a straight pin, while Jeb is off in his own corner mumbling about the virtues of safety-pins.) Too much nonsense for my taste.
The scholars you are ridiculing are men with Ph.D’s from such English universities as Cambridge, Aberdeen, etc. who have studied the original text for decades. I studied Greek under the man responsible for Acts in the novum testamentum graece and he wasn’t even an evangelical and he had two doctorates and found Ehrman’s arguments to either be grossly overstated or downright silly. He simply does not represent the mainstream of biblical or even religious scholarship–that isn’t even dispute. I would urge you to read the book Fabricating Jesus if you are truly interested in the truth. I am a former liberal who was converated to evangelicalism through reading through both sides of the debate. I would urge you to read both sides carefully as well instead of just lobbing ad hominems.
Thanks Matt, found this really helpful