Critics often argue that "tiling" is an error because roofs in Palestine did not have tiles -- only Greek and Roman houses did. Therefore they assume Luke is erroneously anachronizing.

However, if intent means that one has not committed error, then such cites as these simply cannot be called errors. In this case, we see Luke intentionally anachronizing for the purpose of making the story more intelligible to a more sophisticated audience.

Today we would say that the roof was made of wood or straw, and then include explanatory footnotes like this:

> In Palestine, roofs are made of wood or straw, unlike roofs in Greek and Roman areas which are made of tile.

In an era before footnotes and limited writing supplies, Luke had no room for such diversions. It would therefore behoove him rather to make the account easily intelligible, rather than distract the reader with the question of roof construction.

Keener in his Matthean commentary observes that Josephus (as well as Philo) "as frequently as possible...translates native Jewish ideas into broader hellenistic categories to make them more intelligible (and acceptable to his milieu)." Josephus was writing to an audience of educated Romans. Keener therefore advises keeping a wider frame of reference when consulting ancient texts, and it is in the same light that we should read verses like Luke 5:19.