Who Bought The "field Of Blood" - Judas Or The Priests?

[♦ ficino ♦]

Matthew has Judas throw the thirty pieces of silver down before the high priests. They say it is blood money and take it and later with this money buy the field called Akeldama, Field of Blood. Judas meanwhile hangs himself. In Acts, Peter says that Judas took his ill-gotten gains and with them bought a field and fell down in it and burst open. That field is called Field of Blood.

 

Many of the contradictions found in lists of Bible contradictions are inconsistencies but not full-bore contradictions of the type that makes A and not-A be true at the same time and in the same respects. For example, when Luke has two men in shining garments at the empty tomb, and Mark has one man, Christians can get away with claiming that this is not a true contradiction because, if two men were present, one was present. Many "resolutions" of contradictions are similar.

 

The case of the Field of Blood, though, seems to be a full-bore contradiction. If buying the given field is Action A, it cannot be the case that Judas performed and did not perform A, or that the priests performed and did not perform A. How does the inerrantist resolve this?

 

I was suspecting strategies such as:

1. maybe there were two fields of the same name

2. maybe Judas did not use the thirty pieces of silver from betraying Jesus but instead some other money, and the priests bought the same field later with the thirty pieces

 

Instead, on the website kingdavid8.com, the author merely says that for the priests to buy the field with money thrown to the floor by Judas counts as Judas buying the field, since to do something through an agent counts as doing it. Here's the link:

 

http://kingdavid8.com/Contradictions/Matthew/099PottersField.html

 

I saw a similar argument on another "Bible contradictions solved" website.

 

My reactions:

1. Ha, very bad.

2. deconstruction has shown that I can read a text any way I want. But not all readings are convincing. So many counter-moves have to be made to resolve this contradiction that the effort makes you think, how can the Bible be the basis of all human knowledge when it's filled with stuff that requires a team of lawyers to sort out?

 

Has anyone found contradictions that no spin can resolve? I still think this one is a contradiction on any straightforward reading, by the way.

[Zephie]

I was wondering about the birth of christ. In one book it says that he was taken to the temple after 8 days to be circumcised (Luke I think) and in another it says that an angel warned Joseph in a dream about Herod's plan to murder the children (thus fulfilling a prophecy...it's Matthew I think). So which was it? I'm not sure that these accounts can be reconciled without some serious mental gymnastics.

[mymistake]

It's a perfect example of how word of mouth yields a different story in different circles. Ever play the game "Telephone"? The Aramaic culture relied on oral history where rumor was easily confused for fact. Regarding the question of why a certain place is called "Blood Field" or what happened to Judas Iscariot the answers changed over time. Matthew was written at a different time and place and perhaps even by a member of a different sect than the author of the book of Acts.

 

The proper way to read the synoptic gosples, and the New Testament, is not to try to wish away these contradictions. Rather look at the contradictions, especially the ones in passages that are almost word-for-word identical, and realize these are differences in the authors' or editors' intent.

[owen652]

the actual death of Judas is another one; he either hanged himself or he fell down and his insides spilled out. I heard one theory, which is probably the ultimate in menatl gymnastics to make the story fit, which was that Judas hanged himself on a tree on the side of a cliff, the tree broke and he fell down the cliff which caused his innards to spill out. wtf? please.

[♦ ficino ♦]

the actual death of Judas is another one; he either hanged himself or he fell down and his insides spilled out. I heard one theory, which is probably the ultimate in menatl gymnastics to make the story fit, which was that Judas hanged himself on a tree on the side of a cliff, the tree broke and he fell down the cliff which caused his innards to spill out. wtf? please.

Yes, that's the usual inerrantist attempt to reconcile the contradiction.

 

@Zephie: yes, it's Matthew that gives the story of Herod's plan to kill the children. I suppose inerrantists can say that Joseph took his family to Egypt soon after baby Jesus was circumcised.

 

There are contradictions between certain numbers in the books of Samuel/Kings vs. in Chronicles. Inerrantists usually dismiss them as transcription errors. If that's what they are, though, then our Bible texts are not free of error, so God has done a bad job of getting his Word to us free of error. It doesn't matter whether the original author erred or whether an error came later into the ancestor of all surviving manuscripts; the result for us is the same. So I don't think the transcription error argument does what fundies want it to do.

 

It's even funnier when certain Calvinists bring out their Transcendental Argument for God (TAG). They say that even logic might be untrustworthy unless we presuppose that God created logic. They then say that all human knowledge has to be based on a foundation that we know is true. They give the Bible as that foundation. So if the Bible is infected with transcription errors, it itself fails to satisfy the demands of logic. So all our logic is supported by an old book that cannot satisfy the demands of logic. And the Calvinist God predestined this entire situation.

 

[owen652]

the factual contradictions like numbers, genealogy errors, place names etc are really pretty inconsequential compared to the contradictions concerning the nature of God himself. the differences between old and new testaments are pretty obvious, but even jesus seems ridiculously conflicted within himself; comparing John 8:11 to Revelations 2:23 is one example. one adulteress he saves from the executioners and the other one he kills her children as punishment.

[Foxy Methoxy]

This is one of the most glaring contradictions in the New Testament. Clearly, both stories of Judas amount to hearsay, and were it not for the claim the Bible is perfect and divinely inspired, it wouldn't be a big deal. However, too many people believe the Bible to be perfect and divinely inspired to allow this to slide.

[♦ ficino ♦]

the factual contradictions like numbers, genealogy errors, place names etc are really pretty inconsequential compared to the contradictions concerning the nature of God himself. the differences between old and new testaments are pretty obvious, but even jesus seems ridiculously conflicted within himself; comparing John 8:11 to Revelations 2:23 is one example. one adulteress he saves from the executioners and the other one he kills her children as punishment.

Owen I agree with your point. I think, though, that Christians have an easier time spinning theological contradictions than contradictions between assertions about matters of fact.

[Foxy Methoxy]

Also, if you analyze the voice of all NT scripture, the books of Matthew and Acts seem to be written in a very gossipy tone compared to the rest of the NT. I believe there are many who would have these tales as well as the book of Daniel removed if not for tradition.

[mymistake]

the factual contradictions like numbers, genealogy errors, place names etc are really pretty inconsequential compared to the contradictions concerning the nature of God himself. the differences between old and new testaments are pretty obvious, but even jesus seems ridiculously conflicted within himself; comparing John 8:11 to Revelations 2:23 is one example. one adulteress he saves from the executioners and the other one he kills her children as punishment.

 

Jesus Christ makes for the very best sock puppet.

[Zephie]

the actual death of Judas is another one; he either hanged himself or he fell down and his insides spilled out. I heard one theory, which is probably the ultimate in menatl gymnastics to make the story fit, which was that Judas hanged himself on a tree on the side of a cliff, the tree broke and he fell down the cliff which caused his innards to spill out. wtf? please.

Yes, that's the usual inerrantist attempt to reconcile the contradiction.

 

@Zephie: yes, it's Matthew that gives the story of Herod's plan to kill the children. I suppose inerrantists can say that Joseph took his family to Egypt soon after baby Jesus was circumcised.

 

There are contradictions between certain numbers in the books of Samuel/Kings vs. in Chronicles. Inerrantists usually dismiss them as transcription errors. If that's what they are, though, then our Bible texts are not free of error, so God has done a bad job of getting his Word to us free of error. It doesn't matter whether the original author erred or whether an error came later into the ancestor of all surviving manuscripts; the result for us is the same. So I don't think the transcription error argument does what fundies want it to do.

 

It's even funnier when certain Calvinists bring out their Transcendental Argument for God (TAG). They say that even logic might be untrustworthy unless we presuppose that God created logic. They then say that all human knowledge has to be based on a foundation that we know is true. They give the Bible as that foundation. So if the Bible is infected with transcription errors, it itself fails to satisfy the demands of logic. So all our logic is supported by an old book that cannot satisfy the demands of logic. And the Calvinist God predestined this entire situation.

 

 

Thankies for explaining...but as the smilie man is doing...that made my brain hurt...3 college degrees and it made my brain hurt

[centauri]

I was wondering about the birth of christ. In one book it says that he was taken to the temple after 8 days to be circumcised (Luke I think) and in another it says that an angel warned Joseph in a dream about Herod's plan to murder the children (thus fulfilling a prophecy...it's Matthew I think). So which was it? I'm not sure that these accounts can be reconciled without some serious mental gymnastics.

This particular issue came up several months ago.

Forgive the long post that follows but there are so many problems with the birth narratives that I decided to write them up.

 

The comparison of several "facts" surrounding the birth of Jesus follows:

• Issue - The journey to Bethlehem, where Mary would give birth to Jesus.
  

The Gospel of Luke asserts that the reason Mary gave birth to Jesus in Bethlehem was because Joseph had to leave his home in Nazareth and report to Bethlehem for a Roman census.

(This story about a Roman census requiring people to return to their home (or birth) town has been widely questioned and is regarded by many as dubious "history".)

Apparently Joseph deemed it wise to drag a woman in the late stages of a pregnancy along with him to Bethlehem where Mary went into labor and gave birth to Jesus in a manger. (Luke 2:1-7)

 

This story is completely absent in the Gospel of Matthew.

Matthew says absolutely nothing about Joseph living in Nazareth prior to the birth of Jesus, nor is there any mention of a census being the reason Joseph had to visit Bethlehem.

The narrative in Matthew strongly implies that Joseph was already living in or very near Bethlehem when he took Mary home to be his wife. (Matt 1:24)

Matthew then reports that Mary gave birth to Jesus in Bethlehem, with no mention of a manger. (Matt 2:1)

Matthew makes no mention of Nazareth until Joseph was instructed to move to Galilee after Herod had died. (Matt 2:23)

In order to reconcile these accounts, one would have to rationalize that Joseph must have been living in Nazareth prior to the birth of Jesus, which ignores the fact that the text of Matthew gives no support for such a scenario.

• Issue - A cascade of problems surrounding the visit of the Magi to see Jesus.
  

There is nothing at all in the Gospel of Luke about pagan stargazers coming to pay homage to Jesus.

That alone should set off alarm bells of skepticism because according to Matthew (Matt 2:1-16) it was the visit of the "Magi" that set off events culminating with Herod ordering a massacre of male children under the age of 2 years old.

The Gospel of Luke says absolutely nothing about that event either.

Luke confirms none of this alleged "history" that's found in Matthew, which leaves his reader (Theophilus) in a quandary because if he had been taught that these events had happened, Luke does not support and confirm Matthew's teaching.

Nor does Luke tell his reader to consult any other writings for additional details that he deliberately omitted.

 

According to the Gospel of Matthew, after Jesus was born, the Magi stopped in Jerusalem to ask Herod where they could find the child king. (Matt 2:1-4)

After consulting with his advisors, a concerned Herod instructs the Magi to go to Bethlehem.

Skeptics are expected to believe that when the jealous king Herod heard about a rival king existing, he would have sent these strangers (the Magi) to Bethlehem to find the child entirely on their own.

If the birth and location of this child-king were so important to Herod, an escort would have accompanied the Magi to nearby Bethlehem to ensure that they arrived at their destination.

It would also have been a simple matter for Herod to have the Magi watched and followed, but that would ruin the story line and the dramatics that followed.

 

Although the Magi claimed a star was leading them to Jesus, the divine power behind the star was amazingly inept.

Somehow, only after the Magi had stopped to get directions from Herod, was the star able to hover close enough to the ground to pinpoint the exact location of a house! (Matt 2:9)

If the star was able to do that with such pinpoint accuracy, then there was really no need for the Magi to stop for directions at all because they would have been guided directly to their destination.

The part about the Magi needing to ask Herod for directions is pure theater, designed to enhance the drama of the story.

 

According to Luke (Luke 2:21-22), Joseph and Mary only stayed in Bethlehem long enough to meet the requirements of the law which pertained to women that had given birth.

This law (Lev 12:1-8) states that a woman that gives birth to a male child must wait approximately 40 days to purify herself before a sacrifice is made and the child is consecrated to the Lord.

In order for the Matthew's Magi to find Jesus, they would have had to visit him within a narrow window of about 40 days, while Joseph and Mary were still in Bethlehem, and that opens the door for yet another problem.

The Gospel of Matthew states that upon seeing the young child Jesus and Mary in a house (not a manger), the Magi gave several treasures to him, which included gold.

 

Matt 2:11

And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh.

 

As the verse indicates, while in Bethlehem, the holy family was financed by pagan stargazers.

 

However, when the family left Bethlehem and went to Jerusalem to consecrate Jesus, Mary made a burnt offering to God that was the type of offering to be made by a poor woman. (Luke 2:22-24, Lev 12:8)

After receiving gold and other treasure, Mary did not offer a lamb as she should have (Lev 12:6), but instead made an offering of birds, which is only allowed if one is poor.

Holding back or cheating God of what is rightfully due him is the same as lying to God and it resulted in a death penalty for two people in Acts 5:1-11.

Joseph and Mary have no financial excuse for not offering a lamb, as they were the adults responsible for seeing that the family observed and honored the law of God.

 

Of course, the Magi and their gifts don't exist in the Gospel of Luke, but when the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are combined, as they must be in order for all of this to be accurate and irrefutable history, this serious problem becomes evident.

• Issue - The shepherds come to see Jesus and announce him to the world.
  

According to the Gospel of Luke, during the night on the day Jesus was born, shepherds in a field near Bethlehem were treated to an angelic light show put on by an angel and contingent of heavenly hosts. (Luke 2:8-18)

The angel proclaimed to the shepherds that the long awaited king messiah had been born.

This glorious news was delivered by the angel so that all the people could rejoice in it.

The shepherds then hurried into Bethlehem and found the newborn baby Jesus in a manger.

Then, according to Luke, the shepherds spread the magnificent news to the people of the region.

The Savior and king messiah had arrived!

 

Luke 2:8-18

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.

And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.

And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.

And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.

And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.

And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.

 

However, according to Matthew, Herod knew nothing about Jesus being born until the pagan stargazers told him that they had seen an astrological sign indicating that they would find a child-king of the Jews.

Apparently the Magi had seen the sign approximately 2 years prior to their arrival in Judea. (Matt 2:7,16)

This presents some problems.

The shepherds were notified on same day of the birth of Jesus that they would find the newborn baby Jesus lying in a manger.

If the shepherds had announced and spread the wonderful news to the people in the region about Jesus being born, then Herod would almost certainly have heard about it.

There is no reason to think that the shepherds wouldn't have started spreading the word about Jesus at the first opportunity.

Therefore, the news about Jesus being born would have been circulating within days after his birth, perhaps only a few hours after the shepherds had visited.

 

Matthew insisted that the birth of Jesus fulfilled this prophecy:

 

Matt 1:22-23

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

 

(This alleged prophecy was ripped out of context (Isa 7:14) by the author of Matthew, and altered the word "almah" to specifically mean "virgin" rather than "young woman".)

 

If the amazing "virgin birth" was an actual event, then Luke's shepherds would have been running around telling people something like this: "IT HAS HAPPENED, THE VIRGIN HAS GIVEN BIRTH!!".

 

Such breathtaking news would certainly have spread like wildfire.

Yet, Herod is completely ignorant about this amazing birth and "fulfillment" of prophecy.

Herod knows nothing about this event and becomes deeply disturbed when the Magi show up 2 years after seeing a star in the sky, coming to Herod and asking "where's the new king?"

According to Matthew, Herod and all the people of Jerusalem were troubled by this news.

 

Matt 2:1-4

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.

 

Herod even had to consult with Jewish sages to figure out where this birth was supposed to take place.

Of course, there are no town-crier shepherds in the Gospel of Matthew, which is why Herod and the people of Judea are clue-less about the amazing event.

The Magi do not find a newborn baby in a manger but find a young child in a house, meaning that the shepherds saw Jesus before the Magi did.

 

Matt 2:11

And when they (the Magi) were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother,…

 

Matthew does not state how old Jesus was when the Magi came calling, but Jesus is not referred to as a baby as Luke indicates, but is a young child, presumably under the age of 2 years old.

Apparently Mary and Jesus also moved from the manger to a house or residential structure, which indicates that the Magi arrived sometime after the shepherds.

Of course, Matthew never says anything about Mary giving birth in a manger or shepherds visiting the newborn baby that same day.

The ignorance of Herod and the people of Jerusalem about the birth of their king makes little sense if Luke's story about the town-crier shepherds is accurate.

 

This is yet another example that shows how Matthew and Luke tend to undermine each other's claims, even though their writing was allegedly guided by God himself.

• Issue - The child death decree of Herod.
  

According to Matthew, the Magi were warned not to report back to Herod, and so they went home by a route that avoided him. (Matt 2:12)

Herod, furious upon realizing that he had been tricked by the Magi, ordered all male children under the age of 2 years to be killed. (Matt 2:16)

Meanwhile, back at the house (not a manger), Joseph is visited by an angel in a dream, urgently telling him to flee with his family to Egypt. (Matt 2:13)

This is great drama and theater, but it lacks verification from any other New Testament writer.

The author of Matthew was mimicking the story of Moses, where an infant death decree was issued by Pharaoh, and a miraculous escape was provided for the hero of the story. (Exo 1:22, 2:1-8)

Matthew was attempting to portray Jesus as the Moses-like prophet foretold in Deut 18:15.

 

The problem is that there is no child death decree mentioned anywhere in the Gospel of Luke.

This vital historical event is completely absent, just as the Magi and the magical star are absent.

• Issue - The holy family escapes to Egypt.
  

The author of the Gospel of Matthew dramatically sends the holy family off to Egypt (Matt 2:13), when such a trip shouldn't have been necessary.

Even if Herod had sent soldiers to kill children in Bethlehem, they would have had to arrive in the Bethlehem area within the narrow 40 day time period in order to find Jesus.

 

The Gospel of Luke says the family stayed in Bethlehem for about 40 days, then left and stopped in Jerusalem on their way back home to Nazareth. (Luke 2:39)

 

Luke 2:39

And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.

 

There would have been no danger to flee from because Herod was focused on Bethlehem.

 

If there was an extreme danger of Jesus being discovered and killed by Herod, then they would have avoided Jerusalem on the way home and certainly would not have appeared in the public Temple, consecrating the sought after baby Jesus with a priest as witness.

According to Luke, the family was back in Nazareth, which is far north of Bethlehem, and they went back to Jerusalem every year to celebrate Passover. (Luke 2:41)

 

In the Gospel of Luke there is no child death decree, no dreamy angelic warning, and no detour to Egypt.

• Issue - The author of Matthew manufactures a fulfillment for Jesus.
  

This is one of the most blatant examples of New Testament chicanery, where a small piece of the Hebrew scriptures is ripped out of context and used to enhance the credibility of Jesus.

 

After staying in Egypt for awhile, the holy family is instructed to leave Egypt, and this event was a used and claimed as "fulfillment" of scripture.

 

Matt 2:14-15

When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:

And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son

 

The verse that the author of Matthew hijacked a piece from was Hosea 11:1, which states:

 

Hosea 11:1

When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

 

There is no prophecy here, the verse is a past tense declaration of what has already happened.

The child is Israel, Israel is the son.

 

Exo 4:22

And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

 

Hosea 11:1 has nothing to do with Jesus, and the author of Matthew has simply used a few words from this verse to suit his needs and his agenda, which was to advertise Jesus as a bona fide and credible messiah.

 

This is the type of deception used by Christianity to "sell" itself to the masses.

Such antics are also known as propaganda.

 

As noted, the Gospel of Matthew states that after Herod had died, an angel showed up to tell Joseph to leave Egypt and return to Israel. (Matt 2:19-20)

Joseph then heads north for Israel, but in yet another dream, Joseph is warned to avoid staying in Judea.

Joseph, Mary and Jesus went further north to Galilee, specifically to the town of Nazareth. (Matt 2:21-23)

This is the first mention by the Gospel of Matthew of Joseph living in Nazareth, where the Gospel of Luke says Joseph lived there all along.

Once again, the story lines are not at all consistent.

 

It's important to return to the point mentioned at the beginning, specifically that Luke's history was written to serve as confirmation of other stories and teachings that were circulating about Jesus.

The birth narrative in Luke is a stand-alone document, it makes no mention of other texts that his reader should consult for additional information.

 

In order to reconcile these inconsistent and contrary accounts, apologists attempt to combine various elements of both Gospel stories into one cohesive story.

The end result of this process is a new Gospel, one that was created in the minds of apologists.

In effect, Christian apologists write their own versions of the birth of Jesus and claim that's what "God" meant to write all along.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Centauri, I take my hat off to you. Thank you for benefiting all of us with your research and for taking the time to post this. It's one of the best and clearest expositions I've seen of some of the problems with the infancy narratives.

 

Are you familiar with this: Mark D. Smith ‘Of Jesus and Quirinius’, in Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 62, no. 2 (April 2000)? Smith argues that Luke's chronology is internally consistent, though at variance with that of Matthew, because, he thinks, the "Herod the King" in Luke is Herod the Great's son, Archelaus, not Herod the Great. Do you have a view on this question? I had an email exchange with Richard Carrier who thinks that Luke intentionally leaves it vague which Herod is involved because he (Luke) wants Jesus born during Gentile control of the Holy Land, so as to fulfill prophecy about the messiah.

[mymistake]

Excellent analysis, Centauri. I enjoyed reading that.

 

In effect, Christian apologists write their own versions of the birth of Jesus and claim that's what "God" meant to write all along.

 

Yes. If you point out such things to an apologist they will put up some ad hoc excuses and then shake their head.

[centauri]

Centauri, I take my hat off to you. Thank you for benefiting all of us with your research and for taking the time to post this. It's one of the best and clearest expositions I've seen of some of the problems with the infancy narratives.

 

Are you familiar with this: Mark D. Smith ‘Of Jesus and Quirinius’, in Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 62, no. 2 (April 2000)? Smith argues that Luke's chronology is internally consistent, though at variance with that of Matthew, because, he thinks, the "Herod the King" in Luke is Herod the Great's son, Archelaus, not Herod the Great. Do you have a view on this question? I had an email exchange with Richard Carrier who thinks that Luke intentionally leaves it vague which Herod is involved because he (Luke) wants Jesus born during Gentile control of the Holy Land, so as to fulfill prophecy about the messiah.

Thanks for the favorable comments (both you and mymistake).

I'm not familiar with the Smith article but it certainly seems there are two different starting points being used in Matthew and Luke.

It appears to me that Luke is not referencing Herod the Great.

Luke has John the Baptist starting his ministry in the 15th year of Tiberius.

Luke 3:1-3

Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,

Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.

And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

 

Tiberius begin his reign around 14 C.E.

Add 15 years and that brings things up to the year 29-30 C.E.

Luke also says Jesus was about 30 years old at that time.

That places the birth of Jesus around 1 B.C.E.-1 C.E.

Herod the Great died in 4 B.C.E.

But Luke also ties the birth of Jesus to Quirinius being governor of Syria and a census which is generally tied to 6 C.E.

There are too many loose ends that are inconsistent for me to be able to draw a definitive conclusion regarding exactly what Luke intended but It seems to rule out Herod the Great.

 

Here's Carrier's comprehensive article on the Nativity.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html

 

This is the article where Carrier posits that Luke may have borrowed elements from Josephus, which would date Luke sometime after 93 C.E..

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html

[♦ ficino ♦]

I was wondering about the birth of christ. In one book it says that he was taken to the temple after 8 days to be circumcised (Luke I think) and in another it says that an angel warned Joseph in a dream about Herod's plan to murder the children (thus fulfilling a prophecy...it's Matthew I think). So which was it? I'm not sure that these accounts can be reconciled without some serious mental gymnastics.

 

In order to reconcile these inconsistent and contrary accounts, apologists attempt to combine various elements of both Gospel stories into one cohesive story.

The end result of this process is a new Gospel, one that was created in the minds of apologists.

In effect, Christian apologists write their own versions of the birth of Jesus and claim that's what "God" meant to write all along.

 

Centauri, what do you say to the following arguments?

 

1. "genre argument," i.e. the contention that at least in their infancy narratives, Matthew and Luke are not writing "history" but theological meditations in the tradition of the midrash, which already was an allegorizing tendency. This argument is along the lines of the argument that the story of Jonah is a religious short story not history. Ray Brown is well known for analyzing the infancy narratives as theological meditations, thus rendering irrelevant their contradictions in matters of fact. Brown could do this and still maintain all Catholic dogmas because the Catholic church doesn't use scripture for dogma in the way Protestants do. There are also Protestant theologians who would maintain, say, that the resurrection occurred but that the infancy narratives are allegory/midrash/meditation. So by this argument, Matthew and Luke are just emphasizing different theological angles. They're not writing falsehood because their goal is not to transcribe but to interpret and theologize.

 

2. "historically conditioned argument," i.e. the contention that ancient historians did not have modern notions of exact correspondence of narrative to flesh-and-blood people's actions and words. Ancient historians were as much or more interested in a narrative that conveys timeless truths and moral lessons as in approaching the fidelity of a transcript. Herodotus and Plutarch, to name two, include much that is legend, they rely on hearsay, and they frame their historical works around big narrative themes as do the gospel writers. So we're wrong to think these contradictions subvert the truth of the narratives because we have a different notion of historical fidelity than did ancient people.

 

Both arguments basically answer your post, and my original one about the field, by saying that we're commiting a kind of category mistake.

[centauri]

I was wondering about the birth of christ. In one book it says that he was taken to the temple after 8 days to be circumcised (Luke I think) and in another it says that an angel warned Joseph in a dream about Herod's plan to murder the children (thus fulfilling a prophecy...it's Matthew I think). So which was it? I'm not sure that these accounts can be reconciled without some serious mental gymnastics.

 

In order to reconcile these inconsistent and contrary accounts, apologists attempt to combine various elements of both Gospel stories into one cohesive story.

The end result of this process is a new Gospel, one that was created in the minds of apologists.

In effect, Christian apologists write their own versions of the birth of Jesus and claim that's what "God" meant to write all along.

 

Centauri, what do you say to the following arguments?

 

1. "genre argument," i.e. the contention that at least in their infancy narratives, Matthew and Luke are not writing "history" but theological meditations in the tradition of the midrash, which already was an allegorizing tendency. This argument is along the lines of the argument that the story of Jonah is a religious short story not history. Ray Brown is well known for analyzing the infancy narratives as theological meditations, thus rendering irrelevant their contradictions in matters of fact. Brown could do this and still maintain all Catholic dogmas because the Catholic church doesn't use scripture for dogma in the way Protestants do. There are also Protestant theologians who would maintain, say, that the resurrection occurred but that the infancy narratives are allegory/midrash/meditation. So by this argument, Matthew and Luke are just emphasizing different theological angles. They're not writing falsehood because their goal is not to transcribe but to interpret and theologize.

I've heard this before and it strikes me as an expedient attempt to pick and choose which parts of the New Testament are "accurate history" and which parts are simply themes set to a midrash form of story telling.

I've had many die-hard Protestant evangelicals jab their fingers in my face and tell me that all of the New Testament is accurate history, God's infallible word, self-proving, etc.

The resurrection is to be give the title "historical given" because it's written in the New Testament.

Other stories, such as the birth narratives get exempted from this definition when it suits the needs of the apologists.

Here's my problem with these types of rationalizations:

 

Luke is trumpeted as a great historian by Christian apologists and preachers alike.

The preamble of Luke states that he is writing his gospel (based on second-hand sources) to confirm the teachings that were given to someone called "Theophilus".

 

Luke 1:1-4

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

 

If "Theophilus" had been taught the birth of Jesus according to Matthew, Luke would be completely unable to confirm such a teaching.

Luke claims to have carefully investigated everything from the beginning and his gospel is characterized as a report that can be used to fact check stories from other sources.

If Luke's birth narrative isn't history but only represents theological theme writing, then it's not very useful as a tool for confirmation of history (except in the most vague sense).

Considering the many warnings throughout the New Testament to beware of false teachers, who were already at that time prevalent, it would undermine the Gospel of Luke to pick and choose which parts were accurate history and which parts were embellishments.

I think this issue with Christians is similar to the way they cherry pick the law, deciding which laws are appropriate and which ones are irrelevant.

 

2. "historically conditioned argument," i.e. the contention that ancient historians did not have modern notions of exact correspondence of narrative to flesh-and-blood people's actions and words. Ancient historians were as much or more interested in a narrative that conveys timeless truths and moral lessons as in approaching the fidelity of a transcript. Herodotus and Plutarch, to name two, include much that is legend, they rely on hearsay, and they frame their historical works around big narrative themes as do the gospel writers. So we're wrong to think these contradictions subvert the truth of the narratives because we have a different notion of historical fidelity than did ancient people.

How convenient it is to have this escape hatch handy whenever the alleged infallible and holy word of an all powerful being exhibits gross inconsistencies.

The problem is that Luke specifically states his gospel is to be used to fact check the truth of what his reader was taught.

Luke never once says that his reader should refer to another gospel(s) to obtain more information nor does he indicate that his version of events contains creative license and is primarily to be used as a theological theme rather than accurate history.

 

Both arguments basically answer your post, and my original one about the field, by saying that we're commiting a kind of category mistake.

Well then, fundamentalist preachers, pastors, and apologists that teach their congregations that the Bible is the Word of God, self-proving, innerrant, and accurate history, are engaging in false advertising.

They've made the mistake of assigning a subjective, biased, human perspective work of writing into the category of "god-breathed".

If a theologian expects me to accept their spin of what's history and what is only theme writing (i.e. embellishment), then they forfeit any claims to the New Testament being the product of an all-powerful deity.

It becomes just another religious book.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I was wondering about the birth of christ. In one book it says that he was taken to the temple after 8 days to be circumcised (Luke I think) and in another it says that an angel warned Joseph in a dream about Herod's plan to murder the children (thus fulfilling a prophecy...it's Matthew I think). So which was it? I'm not sure that these accounts can be reconciled without some serious mental gymnastics.

 

In order to reconcile these inconsistent and contrary accounts, apologists attempt to combine various elements of both Gospel stories into one cohesive story.

The end result of this process is a new Gospel, one that was created in the minds of apologists.

In effect, Christian apologists write their own versions of the birth of Jesus and claim that's what "God" meant to write all along.

 

Centauri, what do you say to the following arguments?

 

1. "genre argument," i.e. the contention that at least in their infancy narratives, Matthew and Luke are not writing "history" but theological meditations in the tradition of the midrash, which already was an allegorizing tendency. This argument is along the lines of the argument that the story of Jonah is a religious short story not history. Ray Brown is well known for analyzing the infancy narratives as theological meditations, thus rendering irrelevant their contradictions in matters of fact. Brown could do this and still maintain all Catholic dogmas because the Catholic church doesn't use scripture for dogma in the way Protestants do. There are also Protestant theologians who would maintain, say, that the resurrection occurred but that the infancy narratives are allegory/midrash/meditation. So by this argument, Matthew and Luke are just emphasizing different theological angles. They're not writing falsehood because their goal is not to transcribe but to interpret and theologize.

I've heard this before and it strikes me as an expedient attempt to pick and choose which parts of the New Testament are "accurate history" and which parts are simply themes set to a midrash form of story telling.

I've had many die-hard Protestant evangelicals jab their fingers in my face and tell me that all of the New Testament is accurate history, God's infallible word, self-proving, etc.

The resurrection is to be give the title "historical given" because it's written in the New Testament.

Other stories, such as the birth narratives get exempted from this definition when it suits the needs of the apologists.

Here's my problem with these types of rationalizations:

 

Luke is trumpeted as a great historian by Christian apologists and preachers alike.

The preamble of Luke states that he is writing his gospel (based on second-hand sources) to confirm the teachings that were given to someone called "Theophilus".

 

Luke 1:1-4

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

 

If "Theophilus" had been taught the birth of Jesus according to Matthew, Luke would be completely unable to confirm such a teaching.

Luke claims to have carefully investigated everything from the beginning and his gospel is characterized as a report that can be used to fact check stories from other sources.

If Luke's birth narrative isn't history but only represents theological theme writing, then it's not very useful as a tool for confirmation of history (except in the most vague sense).

Considering the many warnings throughout the New Testament to beware of false teachers, who were already at that time prevalent, it would undermine the Gospel of Luke to pick and choose which parts were accurate history and which parts were embellishments.

I think this issue with Christians is similar to the way they cherry pick the law, deciding which laws are appropriate and which ones are irrelevant.

 

2. "historically conditioned argument," i.e. the contention that ancient historians did not have modern notions of exact correspondence of narrative to flesh-and-blood people's actions and words. Ancient historians were as much or more interested in a narrative that conveys timeless truths and moral lessons as in approaching the fidelity of a transcript. Herodotus and Plutarch, to name two, include much that is legend, they rely on hearsay, and they frame their historical works around big narrative themes as do the gospel writers. So we're wrong to think these contradictions subvert the truth of the narratives because we have a different notion of historical fidelity than did ancient people.

How convenient it is to have this escape hatch handy whenever the alleged infallible and holy word of an all powerful being exhibits gross inconsistencies.

The problem is that Luke specifically states his gospel is to be used to fact check the truth of what his reader was taught.

Luke never once says that his reader should refer to another gospel(s) to obtain more information nor does he indicate that his version of events contains creative license and is primarily to be used as a theological theme rather than accurate history.

 

Both arguments basically answer your post, and my original one about the field, by saying that we're commiting a kind of category mistake.

Well then, fundamentalist preachers, pastors, and apologists that teach their congregations that the Bible is the Word of God, self-proving, innerrant, and accurate history, are engaging in false advertising.

They've made the mistake of assigning a subjective, biased, human perspective work of writing into the category of "god-breathed".

If a theologian expects me to accept their spin of what's history and what is only theme writing (i.e. embellishment), then they forfeit any claims to the New Testament being the product of an all-powerful deity.

It becomes just another religious book.

 

Yes, agreed, the cherry picking drives me crazy. I've heard these "you're making a category mistake" arguments more from sophisticated-ish Catholics and other non-fundamentalists. Fundies would not use them for obvious reasons.