Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[Spud]

Who was governor when?

6 AD according to historians.

[Nearly Sane]

6 AD according to historians.

ah, so you are dropping the nonsense about the town of Cyrene and back with the fact that ' Luke' was wrong.

[Spud]

Hi blue of happy memory,

One wonders just what 'ringing truth' he perceived when comparing Mark's account with Matthew's. The latter says an angel came down in front of them and did the job, Mark's says the stone was already rolled, and the ladies went inside the tomb and saw a young man. Morrison's critical faculties seem very limited.
That's supposing there was any bloody tomb in the first place. If Jesus was indeed crucified, he may well have been left to decompose on the cross, and had his corpse picked away by vultures. That happened often enough. Not the sort of thing you want told about your hero after he's been deified.
St Paul made something of the less salubrious aspects of crucifixion, by saying that "Jesus had become a curse for us" (referring to some text in Leviticus, I believe). This was one way he tried to present Jesus as a scapegoat, atoning for the sins of the world.

This is precisely the point of the thread. The detail that the bodies were taken down because the Sabbath was approaching "rings true" because it's not what you would expect for a fictional account. If it was made up it would be more likely the bodies were left.

Plus you would expect discrepancies between Matthew and mark in the same way two witnesses to a goal might say it was set up by different players.

[Spud]

ah, so you are dropping the nonsense about the town of Cyrene and back with the fact that ' Luke' was wrong.

That's what I did in #473. Though I wouldn't say he was wrong but that the discrepancy is unexplained.

[Maeght]

That's what I did in #473. Though I wouldn't say he was wrong but that the discrepancy is unexplained.

So, could he be wrong?

[Nearly Sane]

That's what I did in #473. Though I wouldn't say he was wrong but that the discrepancy is unexplained.

If it weren't a gospel you would say it was wrong though.

[Spud]

If it weren't a gospel you would say it was wrong though.

Again, the story "rings true". A couple travelling while she is pregnant suggests they were under compulsion. Would details like this be typical of a fictional account?

A recently born saviour laid in a feeding trough, shepherds visiting the family etc all suggest authenticity, unless the author was highly imaginative.

If the account didn't have this kind of detail I would suggest Luke was wrong, yes.

[Maeght]

So could he be wrong?

[Nearly Sane]

Again, the story "rings true". A couple travelling while she is pregnant suggests they were under compulsion. Would details like this be typical of a fictional account?

A recently born saviour laid in a feeding trough, shepherds visiting the family etc all suggest authenticity, unless the author was highly imaginative.

If the account didn't have this kind of detail I would suggest Luke was wrong, yes.

No, the story does not 'ring true' because it is wrong.  That you are refusing to accept that only shows that your statements on it are worthless.

[Maeght]

This is precisely the point of the thread. The detail that the bodies were taken down because the Sabbath was approaching "rings true" because it's not what you would expect for a fictional account. If it was made up it would be more likely the bodies were left.

Plus you would expect discrepancies between Matthew and mark in the same way two witnesses to a goal might say it was set up by different players.

An account written based on stories could certainly contain such details and include some historically accurate details. That doesn't mean that the account is an accurate record of events.

[floo]

An account written based on stories could certainly contain such details and include some historically accurate details. That doesn't mean that the account is an accurate record of events.

Especially when the events lack credibility.

[Spud]

No, the story does not 'ring true' because it is wrong.  That you are refusing to accept that only shows that your statements on it are worthless.

Do you accept that Josephus could be wrong?

[Nearly Sane]

Do you accept that Josephus could be wrong?

About what?

[Spud]

About what?

About the census being at the same time as when Quirinus disposed of Archelaus’s money
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-18.html#S1.1

[Maeght]

Why don't you answer the question you were asked Spud?

[Spud]

Why don't you answer the question you were asked Spud?

Ah, the question. Well, I think Luke may have meant that Quirinus, who afterwards became the governor of Syria, took the census in the time of king Herod. See Barnes commentary.

[Maeght]

Ah, the question. Well, I think Luke may have meant that Quirinus, who afterwards became the governor of Syria, took the census in the time of king Herod. See Barnes commentary.

But could he have been wrong?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But could he have been wrong?

In a way it doesn't matter since epistles predate Luke and talk about the main points in the Gospel anyway. 

[Maeght]

In a way it doesn't matter since epistles predate Luke and talk about the main points in the Gospel anyway.

Sure, but I would like Spud to answer thanks.

[Dicky Underpants]

Plus you would expect discrepancies between Matthew and mark in the same way two witnesses to a goal might say it was set up by different players.

Not if a real angel came down in front of the supposed eye-witnesses and they immediately told the story to their supposed contemporary fellow disciples Matthew and Mark (Mark, we may infer, was fairly young, and therefore probably more likely to subscribe to the more sensational account. Yet his is by far the more matter of fact.)

In any case, 'Matthew' and 'Mark' weren't actually contemporaries at all. At this stage, I'm unlikely to be convinced otherwise.

[Dicky Underpants]

In a way it doesn't matter since epistles predate Luke and talk about the main points in the Gospel anyway.

I suggest you start actually reading the epistles. There is practically nothing in them that confirms much of the gospels, except that Paul says that Jesus instituted the Eucharist, that the crucifixion occurred, and that some sort of resurrection occurred - but a spiritual one only. Nothing of the nature of the completely contradictory details in the gospels.

Furthermore, he effectively wipes out just about all the Jewish law, in order to instate his own peculiar theology. If you accept that Jesus said 'not one jot nor tittle of the Law shall pass away', you can't avoid these well known facts (given full attention for over 200 years, and in particular by Schweitzer)

That there are sentiments in Paul's writing that Jesus might well have admired (such as the famous chapter on 'Charity') does nothing to confirm your erroneous suggestion that the Epistles support the gospels in essentials.
They don't. Much of those details owe more to the writers' imaginations or the assemblage of stories long in circulation, which may well have originated with other preachers other than Jesus in any case.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I suggest you start actually reading the epistles. There is practically nothing in them that confirms much of the gospels, except that Paul says that Jesus instituted the Eucharist, that the crucifixion occurred, and that some sort of resurrection occurred - but a spiritual one only. Nothing of the nature of the completely contradictory details in the gospels.

Furthermore, he effectively wipes out just about all the Jewish law, in order to instate his own peculiar theology. If you accept that Jesus said 'not one jot nor tittle of the Law shall pass away', you can't avoid these well known facts (given full attention for over 200 years, and in particular by Schweitzer)

That there are sentiments in Paul's writing that Jesus might well have admired (such as the famous chapter on 'Charity') does nothing to confirm your erroneous suggestion that the Epistles support the gospels in essentials.
They don't. Much of those details owe more to the writers' imaginations or the assemblage of stories long in circulation, which may well have originated with other preachers other than Jesus in any case.

You are playing down elements in the epistles namely the need for salvation and its satisfaction in Jesus.

[Spud]

But could he have been wrong?

I think it's interesting that he knows that there was a census in the time when Quirinus was governor of Syria. That is an accurate historical detail.

The clue to the puzzle is I think in the two different words used in verse 1 and verse 2. Augustus issues a decree that everyone should be registered. The registration is what Joseph and Mary travelled to Bethlehem to take part in. The census didn't happen until years later when Judea came under Roman governorship. Luke may have conflated the two as his wording in verse 2 suggests, but that Mary and Joseph registered in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod is accurate.

[Gordon]

I think it's interesting that he knows that there was a census in the time when Quirinus was governor of Syria. That is an accurate historical detail.

This chap here suggests otherwise, as well as pointing out various problems surrounding the census story.

Many have joined Archer in the hypothesis that Quirinius had an unrecorded term as Syria's governor during the time of Jesus' birth.  Some misuse the "Tivoli" inscription which they say proves that some Roman official served twice in Syria and Phoenicia.  First, the name is missing, so this is no proof that Quirinius is involved.  Second, the inscription has been mistranslated.  It should read:  "legate of Augustus for a second time" not a second legate in Syria as the harmonizers insist.  Archer does not refer to the Tivoli inscription directly; but still argues that since Luke knew of the census of 6 C.E., he correctly called this one Quirinius' "first" (prote).  But Fitzmyer shows conclusively that the grammar clearly indicates that this was the first census in Judea, not Quirinius' first enrollment.2

https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/census.htm

[Maeght]

I think it's interesting that he knows that there was a census in the time when Quirinus was governor of Syria. That is an accurate historical detail.

The clue to the puzzle is I think in the two different words used in verse 1 and verse 2. Augustus issues a decree that everyone should be registered. The registration is what Joseph and Mary travelled to Bethlehem to take part in. The census didn't happen until years later when Judea came under Roman governorship. Luke may have conflated the two as his wording in verse 2 suggests, but that Mary and Joseph registered in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod is accurate.

I am asking if you think Luke could be wrong not is he wrong.