A good case can be made that this post is a bit untimely (not unlike my family’s Christmas cards which haven’t gone out yet), but I find that there’s a benefit in looking at this subject post-Christmas season. For one, the chances of yule-tide sentimentality obstructing a sober-minded look at the events of the Christmas story are certainly diminished.
I love the Christmas season as much as the next person, but every year as I pass road-side nativities and receive Christmas cards with silhouetted images of the holy family, I am reminded of the flaunted Christian ignorance of the events of Christ’s birth. This picture (left) represents what I think is a typical depiction of the nativity scene of the birth of Christ. The events identified in the picture is commonly what we find Christians believe about the birth of Christ.
My interest in exposing and correcting the apocryphal Hallmark-card understanding of Jesus birth (which I will hereafter dub the mythical view) comes about for several reasons:
1. When a Christian comes to realize that the details of the Christmas story which have been taught by the church are factually incorrect, it may threaten the credibility of the church’s teaching on other matters in this person’s mind.
2. As we will see, the details of the birth accounts found in the gospels are not arbitrarily selected. They are chosen to communicate a particular understanding of the birth and person of Christ. The mythical view obstructs these significant points that the gospel writers are communicating.
3. The mythical view props up the non-Christian accusation that Christians don’t really know what the Bible teaches. Though they claim to believe it, they, in fact, are quite ignorant of its teaching and its events (I think this is a fair accusation for a large number of people who go by the name “Christian”).
4. The events surrounding Christ’s birth were orchestrated by God and consequently his action within his creation. When we consistently change these details we are, either wittingly or unwittingly, attempting to alter the freedom of God to act as he chooses.
Of course, I am not the first to correct the mythical view, and I won’t be the last. Nevertheless, I hope to be another source of correct information for those who are misguided and a source of encouragement to others to correct these misunderstandings as well.
How do you know if you are operating with a mythical view of Christ’s birth? Here’s a short quiz to help you determine…
1. How many wise men were there?
2. Did the wise men visit Christ in the manger?
3. Were the wise men kings?
4. Were the wise men from the Orient (Eastern Asia)?
5. Where did the bright star appear above the Christ child?
6. Was Christ born in December?
7. Did it snow when Christ was born?
8. What animals attended the birth of Christ?
9. Did the innkeeper turn Mary and Joseph away?
10. What was the name of the angel that stood above the stable that night?
11. Did Mary deliver Jesus with only Joseph’s help?
If you answered “yes” to any questions which required a yes/no answer then you have a misunderstanding of the biblical account of the events surrounding the birth of Christ. I’ll take each question one by one and explain.
1. It is common for people to believe that there were three magi. This conclusion is drawn from the fact that the magi presented three gifts to Christ. This, however, is no indication that there were only three of them. Past knowing that there was plurality of magi we have no certainty for how many there were. However, since magi in a king’s court were not a loose collection of individuals but an advisory council to a king, it is perhaps likely that they traveled as the entire council and that there were more than three of them. But we simply don’t know.
2. Furthermore, the magi did not visit Christ in the manger. Matthew 2:11 tells us that by the time they reach the holy family in Bethlehem they find them in a house not a stable or cave. Incidentally, I don’t think we can determine very much about the timing of the magi’s visit from pairing Herod’s inquiry into the timing of the star’s appearance and his decision to have killed all the male children two years and under born in Bethlehem. If we are inclined to think that the reference to two years is a book end on the length of time that passed since Christ was born then the fact that he killed all those under two as well has to be the other book end. So we really have no way of knowing within two years of Christ’s birth when the magi visited. In any case, the visit was not the night that Christ was born.
3. Were the wise men kings? No. They were a king’s advisors. The best picture we have from Scripture of what the relationship of magi is to an eastern king is found in the book of Daniel. Here, they are employed by the king to make predictions and discern the future of the kingdom in order for the king to rule well. They were not a ruling council themselves.
4. Matthew tells us that the magi were from the East. Commonly, European geographical divisions are imposed upon the location of the East. Most likely the magi come from Persia not the Orient. The best explanation for their knowledge of a coming Jewish messiah is that they learned of it from Jews living in exile following the conquest in 587 BCE. This makes strike three for the song line “We three kings of Orient are…”
5. Typically translators translate the Greek word aster as “star,” but the Greek word is not precise enough to distinguish a star from a planet or a plantery eclipse. We don’t know what exactly they saw, but the most likely explanation is that they saw a relationship of heavenly bodies not a single star. Many scientists have worked in conjunction with ANE archeologists to determine what the magi saw. Some conclude that they saw a lunar eclipse of Jupiter. For a brief explanation of this evidence and an introduction to a recent book on the subject click here. Astronomist Hugh Ross claims that the only plausible explanation is “a phenomenon called a recurring nova. An easily visible nova (a star that suddenly increases in brightness and then within a few months or years grows dim) occurs about once every decade. Novae are sufficiently uncommon to catch the attention of observers as alert and well trained as the magi must have been. However, many novae are also sufficiently unspectacular as to escape the attention of others. Most novae experience only a single explosion. But a tiny fraction have the capacity to undergo multiple explosions separated by months or years. This repeat occurrence seems necessary, for the Matthew text indicates that the star appeared, disappeared, and then reappeared and disappeared sometime later.” This theory has something going for it but the same can be said for other theories too. In the end, no theory has enough evidence to even hazard a guess.
How they concluded that an astrological anomily would lead them to the Jewish messiah is difficult to make sense of as well. Did they make the conclusion on the basis of something found in Scripture? Was it perhaps Jewish apocolyptic literature? Was it through some discernment of their astrological studies? Or was it some combination of some or all of these? A common explanation is that they knew the Hebrew Scriptures and came across this phrase: ”A star shall come out of Jacob…” (Num 24:17). I am doubtful of this explanation because they weren’t looking for a star that came out of Jacob they were looking for one in the sky. It’s perhaps as likely as any other explanation. Or perhaps they knew to look for it from reading Isaiah: “…nations shall come to your light,and kings to the brightness of your rising” (Isaiah 60:3). Perhaps, but perhaps not.
6. The likelihood of Christ being born in December is not good. There is only one source that I’ve ever seen to argue with conviction for this conclusion. It is argued by John Stormer, a former fiction writer, who is not a biblical scholar and it is published by an institution with dubious academic credibility. Nevertheless, these ad hominems aside, the author builds his argument on the timing of Zechariah’s temple duties, but the dates are not certain enough to draw the hard and fast conclusions that he does. Gene Veith has argued convincingly that the church did not choose December 25 as the date of Christmas in an attempt to hijack the winter festival of Roman pagans, but he doesn’t argue that we can be certain that December is when Christ was born. At least he didn’t when he wrote his article for World Magazine in 2005. But in 2006 he seems convinced by Stormer’s argument. He seems unaware that Stormer’s dating is not as certain as he finds it to be.
7. Did it snow when Christ was born? Snow in Palestine is about as common as snow in Los Angeles. It’s possible but extremely unlikely. The Bible certainly doesn’t give us any indication that it did. No, snow is added to the story by some for romantic and seasonal effect.
8. What animals attended the birth of Christ? We don’t know. Matthew and Luke do not mention any. They were in a stable and shepherds were there so it’s possible that there were domesticated animals in the stable/cave but it is also possible that when Mary and Joseph moved in for the night that they relocated the animals. Again, we simply don’t know either way.
9. Did the innkeeper turn Mary and Joseph away? It seems that the Charlie Brown Christmas Special got it wrong. But it gets it wrong because most translations get it wrong. The ESV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV all translate the word kataluma in Luke 2:7 as “inn.” This conveys the idea that the family went to a public hotel and were turned away by an innkeeper because there was no vacancy. But the word kataluma simply means lodging place. It may refer to an inn, but Luke knew a better word in Greek for a place of public lodging than kataluma. Luke uses the word pandocheion in 10:34 to refer to the place that the Good Samaritan took the wounded Jewish man.
Mary and Joseph were returning to Bethlehem, the city of Joseph’s family origin. Certainly Joseph had family here. The lodging place in which they were unable to stay was most likely the home of a relative. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that Mary and Joseph could have afforded a place of public lodging given their economic class. It seems then that Mary and Joseph were unable to lodge with the family because other family members were already lodging there.
The only Bible versions I’ve seen that translates Luke 2:7 correctly is The Complete Jewish Bible and the TNIV. The CJB renders kataluma as “living-quarters” while the TNIV renders it a little more vaguely as “guest room.” Incidentally, both versions also properly translate pandocheion as “inn” in 10:34.
So it’s unlikely that an innkeeper turned away Mary and Joseph because it’s unlikely that Mary and Joseph sought lodging at an inn.
10. What was the name of the angel that stood above the stable that night? This is a bit of trick question. There was no angel above the stable that night. Luke 2:15 tells us that the angels went back into heaven after reporting the news to the shepherds. But that doesn’t stop Christians from fixing an angel above the stable.
11. Did Mary deliver Jesus with only Joseph’s help? Perhaps but a case can also be made that women of Joseph’s family helped her deliver. Of course they may not have helped her if they believed that Joseph and Mary engaged in sexual intercourse during the betrothal period. Again we simply don’t know.
On many of these questions we have to suspend judgment, but the nativity scenes have taken precidence over the teaching of Scripture. I don’t deny that many of the representations of Christ’s birth reflect events that are possible. However, these possibilities have become entrenched in the minds of many people as the facts of Christ’s birth. Add to this that most nativity scenes include wholesale inaccuracies and we have a compelling reason to take the time to return to Scripture and remind ourselves of what it actually says.
[...] Avery wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptThe only Bible versions I’ve seen that translates Luke 2:7 correctly is The Complete Jewish Bible and the TNIV. The CJB renders kataluma as “living-quarters” while the TNIV renders it a little more vaguely as “guest room. … [...]
Nice Post.
Concerning #5, Dale Allison has made an interesting and, in my opinion, compelling case that modern interpretations of the aster are off track because they do not fit pre-modern understandings of astronomical phenomena. In an essay, he examines ancient understandings of stars, motifs in Jewish and Christian literature, and the history of exegesis up to the advent of modern astronomy. He shows how ancients thought of stars as animate beings, often being thought of as angelic. He quotes many early fathers who understood the star of the magi to be a heavenly being that guided the magi and showed them the place where the Christ was.
This essay is chapter one of Allison’s book “Studies in Matthew: Interpretation Past and Present.”
John,
Merry Christmas!?!?
Here’s my two cents on the nativity account:
I think the gospel accounts point us to the fact that the wisemen were present at the manger. First of all, the Bible tells us that they saw the star, but not that the star first appeared the night Jesus was born. It is more probable, I believe, that they saw the star well in advance of the birth and arrived in Jerusalem the week of the birth – although not necessarily at the same time as the shepherds (So in my family’s nativity scene, we replace the shepherds with the wisemen about halfway through the season
) Anyways, I think this is the best timeline because the biblical account says the wisemen visited Jesus in Jerusalem – in the house. As you rightly pointed out, the word inn really means dwelling place, or house. In fact, I believe the same word is used for the room where the Last Supper took place. Also, according to Jewish law, the biblical account points out that Mary had to be in Jerusalem for purification – since she just had a baby. This would be 41 days (I think) after the birth of Jesus. At this point you might say, “Yeah, but they went to Egypt for a while.” Well, they did go to Egypt, but I think it was only for a few days. Egypt is only a few days travel – especially when you travel by first class boat (remember, they had some serious loot from the wisemen, and besides, Mary couldn’t have made the long journey on donkey-back anyways). Also, we know that Herod died because he was insane. Jesus’ birth most likely occurred during Herod’s last days – when he was killing babies… pretty insane. If we’re looking at a 41 day period, it’s conceivable that Jesus was born on day one, the wisemen visited sometime that first week, he was circumcised on day eight, they fled to Egypt the second week, stayed for a few days or a weeks, heard Herod was dead, and returned to Jerusalem in time for Mary’s purification.
In regards to “No room in the inn” – I agree with you that they were most likely staying in Joseph’s family’s house (along with everyone else in town for the census), and I would venture to guess that the reason there was no room in the guest room was because of the same reason you mentioned in #11 – a “disgraced” Mary and Joseph probably would not have had the best place to sleep.
Now, as far as the star…. I believe it was God’s glory cloud – the same one that guided Israel through the wilderness.
Merry, uh, Epiphany!
Brian
BTW, I should follow up my previous comment by stating why I think it’s important that the wisemen were at Jesus’ birth. Regardless of whether they were kings, astrologers or king’s advisors, I think the main point of the wisemen is that they were Gentiles. I think what’s beautiful about the nativity scene is that you have the lowly shepherds and the gentiles worshipping the infant king. These are the people who were at the incarnation, and the biblical account of the birth of Jesus is a bold statement about salvation and the kingdom.
My view is that Matthew and Luke both contrived their fictional birth stories (which differ significantly from one another), and that they had to do this because both copy from a Markan structure. Mark has no birth stories, just as it has no post-resurrection appearance stories (the present ending often given Mark is not found in the earliest manuscripts). That means “Matthew” and “Luke” both had to come up with stories on their own, and they did, with their “birth” stories diverging wildly, just as their stories of post-resurrection appearances diverge wildly in the absence of a Markan prototype to copy and revise. It is just that simple.
Brian,
I’m glad to see that we agree on Mary and Joseph most likely being turned away from the home of a family member. Beyond that, there’s not much else that I can agree with in your explanation.
Your assertion that the magi were present at the manger is just the kind of attitude toward the Christmas story that I’m criticizing. You are holding to your wishful thinking instead of the clear teaching of Scripture. Matthew 2:11 says that the when the magi met the holy family they were in a house. I don’t know how it gets any clearer than this. Nothing you say places the magi at the manger scene.
I think your desire for a beautiful story is perhaps driving your reading. You want to place lowly shepherds and stately Gentiles in the same scene, but the text doesn’t warrant it.
You say that Herod died because he was insane. What source do you have on this? How did insanity lead to death. One cannot die from insanity, so how did his insanity relate to his death. Scholarly consensus is largely that he died from kidney failure.
We don’t know how long the family was in Egypt because we don’t know the exact dating of Christ’s birth. If it was 6 BCE then it is most likely that he may have waited in Egypt up to two years. Even if he was born the same year that Herod died (which I think is mostly likely on the evidence) the family could’ve waited nearly a full year until he died. Also we don’t know the exact date of Herod’s death. The common view of historians is that he died in 4 BCE, but if we place it later such as 1 BCE it could be a different time span.
I don’t know how you narrow it down to a few days in Egypt. It’s possible, but not likely and certainly not as certain as you present it.
I also disagree with you that what the magi saw was a cloud or pillar of fire. You even think it’s the same cloud from Exodus. But then why does it take magi to discern it? The cloud in Exodus was discernable by anyone, but what the magi saw took some calculation. Furthermore, the word for star or cosmic entity is certainly not the same word or even a synonym for cloud. And even if it were a cloud, why is the same cloud that guided the Israelites. Might God not have made a new one? Did he pull this one from storage?
Perhaps I missed your tone and you are not proposing things as assertively as I think.
May God bless your new year for him. I had a wonderful Epiphany, thanks for your kind wishes.
-John
Dear Hokku,
As I was reading your brief comment, I could not but think that it read like something that TIME magazine publishes every year around Advent. They constantly publish articles trying to defraud the historical authenticity of the gospel accounts of the Advent. If memory serves me right, one year, they attributed Luke’s focus on Mary to some feminist motivation on the part of Luke.
However, TIME (as erroneous as it is) has an edge on your comments in at least one respect: they attempt to attribute a motive to Luke (and Matthew) accounting for why they wrote what they wrote.
You claim that Matthew and Luke simply follow the structure of Mark, but where Mark is silent, Luke and Matthew invent stories of their own, which accounts for their “wild” divergence from one another.
How shall we put this claim to the test?
We need to see some of your exegesis at this point. Where do you arrive at contradictions between the accounts, which would lead you to conclude that we have two independent inventions or fabrications of the Advent?
Contrary to current opinion (RE: Ehrman), Luke himself does historiography, according to his stated aim in 1.1-4. For far too long, has modernism assumed that the ancients were not concerned with facts and an orderly account of their histories, and only modern man has these concerns (see H. Gunkel’s preface to his Genesis Commentary). Luke says that he investigated everything clearly from the beginning. He took the time to investigate these eyewitnesses and servants. He even adds a wonderful comment at the close of the events of Advent in 2.50, “And Mary treasured up all these things in her heart” (cf. 2.19). The point is that Mary had a good memory of these events, and Luke’s report seems to be relying on her testimony of these happenings.
For your claim to be true, you must somehow present evidence which contradicts Luke’s own account, which can also be established independently according to other sources. In other words, for example you cannot simply point to a reference in Josephus which contradicts Luke and say that Luke was wrong. More evidence will be needed to decide between the two. Maybe Josephus got it wrong, and Luke got it right.
You claim that Matthew’s account contradicts Luke’s. Where is the proof? Are there real contradictions between these accounts? I will let you answer these questions before we continue.
It seems to me that the discrepancies between the Mattheaean and Lukan stories are obvious. To mention just a few, in Matthew Joseph and Mary live in a house in Bethlehem; in Luke they are brought there through a (non-historical, from all evidence) census. In M Jesus is born in the days of Herod; in L it is in the procuratorship of Quirinius; in M Magi visit; in Luke none; in M there is the Slaughter of the Innocents, which gives rise to the Flight to Egypt; in L there is no slaughter and no flight to Egypt; instead there is just a trip to Jerusalem for a ritual, then back to Nazareth, which is their home town; in M, however, Nazareth is NOT the home town; they only go there instead of back to Judea because they fear Herod’s successor.
In Luke there are shepherds who receive an angelic announcement; in Matthew neither occurs; in Luke there is a “multitude” of the heavenly host praising God, in M they are absent; in Luke the shepherds “make known abroad” the birth and the angels; both are absent from Matthew.
That should give enough to ponder for now.
Hokku,
Thanks for quickly answering my questions.
Now, I have one more prior question, what is a contradiction?
Your answer to this question is crucial to our proceeding.
John
John wrote:
“Hokku,
Thanks for quickly answering my questions.
Now, I have one more prior question, what is a contradiction?
Your answer to this question is crucial to our proceeding.”
“Contradiction” is your term, which I did not use specifically because to technically be a contradiction, one has to state the opposite. Thus if Matthew were to say a flying saucer appeared over the manger, Luke would have to say “No flying saucer appeared over the manger” to be a contradiction.
In discrepancy and divergence, however, two writers can tell quite different stories that do not technically contradict, but which can be seen to diverge so wildly that it is apparent they do not hold the same view of sequence and element. That is what we find in the birth narratives, and we find it in the post-resurrection narratives as well.
Just a little detail for complete accuracy — Luke places the birth when Quirinius was “hegemon” of Syria.
Thank you Hokku,
You already answered my next question, you are using divergence and discrepancy in a technical manner, which does not mean contradiction, but simply means “differences…which can be seen to diverge so wildly…” However, I want you to see that it is your interpretation of the differences which leads you to conclude that the accounts diverge, but the differences in themselves do not necessarily lead to these conclusions, since we are not dealing with differences of a contradictory nature. Do you agree?
In my view, words like discrepancy and divergence seem to tint the facts in the way of your conclusion according to your interpretation of the differences, just as if I began to use the word “harmony,” where different facts actually contribute to make a complete, coherent, and unified picture, rather than a diverging one. So, if it is ok with you, let’s keep using the word “difference” and by it we mean difference in a non-contradictory way, where these differences may be harmonized and complementary or they may be seen to be too wild and we may conclude that real discrepancies exist. But we will reserve judgment for the time being as to whether these accounts diverge or harmonize from/with one another.
Sound agreeable to you?
John M
You wrote:
“However, I want you to see that it is your interpretation of the differences which leads you to conclude that the accounts diverge, but the differences in themselves do not necessarily lead to these conclusions, since we are not dealing with differences of a contradictory nature. Do you agree?”
No, I do not agree. The “differences” in your terminology — discrepancies and divergences in mine — are quite substantial enough to lead to the conclusion that we are dealing with two quite different stories based upon a paucity of common elements. I hold this can be determined from the elements mutually included and excluded, and from the overall context. Among these very divergent elements are Nazareth as either “home town,” or refuge selected later under duress, as well as the “Flight to Egypt” placed against a trip to Jerusalem for ritual, followed by a return to Nazareth (Matthew).
One could say that there is a contradiction in the time of the birth, which is placed in the days of Herod in one account, in the governorship of Quirinius in another, but this is a matter which depends upon historical evidences for a substantial difference in time between the two, and while I think the evidence for that is overwhelming, I prefer to stick with items which can be shown to be discrepant or divergent in significant ways within the text itself, without the need for going to outside sources.
Hokku –
I just want to make sure I understand your point.
You do not believe that there are contradictions between the accounts. Yet, you continue to call pluses and minuses (inclusions and exclusions) discrepancies (which you already defined for me: In discrepancy and divergence, however, two writers can tell quite different stories that do not technically contradict, but which can be seen to diverge so wildly that it is apparent they do not hold the same view of sequence and element.) Maybe it is your language that is confusing me here, but I am caught on “can be.” You say that the different stories can be seen to diverge. This language is very different from “must be.”
In your first response to me, you used the language of “can be,” but all through your latest comment, you seem to assume that the differences must be divergences. Which is it? Or will you admit that you are interpreting data that does not necessarily (“must be”) diverge?
I am still advocating for using more neutral language such as “difference,” which leaves room for and interpretation of either harmonization or discrepancy depending on how we interpret the texts.
Of course, there is the subtle matter of presuppositions here. Mine will influence me to see the evidence as harmonizable(?), since I am a believer, and I do not believe that God lies when he speaks to us in his written Word. I could guess where your presuppositions are, but I will let you tell me, so that we will know through what glasses you are looking at the data.
John M
I think too many people have forgotten what Christmas is REALLY about.
Greg Davidson wrote:
“I think too many people have forgotten what Christmas is REALLY about.”
Yeah, the Midwinter Solstice and the Birthday of the Unconquered Sun (heh-heh).
John M wrote:
“…all through your latest comment, you seem to assume that the differences must be divergences. Which is it?”
You will note that I avoid two extremes: Noting discrepancies or divergences as “contradictions” when the term is not merited, and also noting them merely as “differences.”
One can easily have differences in two stories of the same event without evidence of copying (plagiarism, in modern terms) or discrepancy or significant divergence. In an account of a journey, for example, two people on the same path together may describe the scenery in different ways, and they may use different terms. But if there are events, they will likely describe those events as happening in the same place at the same time and in generally the same way (and yes, I am familiar with the standard research on reporting of the same event by different persons). Neither is likely to leave out events of major significance, though each may may describe them in his or her own way.
This is not, however, what we find in Matthew and Luke, the ONLY two NT writings with birth narratives (excluding Paul’s simple “born of a woman, born under the law”)
What we find instead are to very different stories with certain elements in common (for example Joseph and Mary as “parents,” announcement of coming birth by an angel, birth in Bethlehem, raising in Nazareth). But HOW these and a few more shared elements are presented and related to one another is quite different, and we are faced with numerous discrepancies — not simple “differences,” which I regard as too weak a term to fit the facts.
As Raymond E. Brown wrote in The Birth of the Messiah, “This leads us to the observation that the two narratives are not only different — they are contrary to each other in a number of details.” His conclusion from the evidence (which I share in this case) is that one must rule out the option “that both accounts are completely historical…Indeed, close analysis of the infancy narratives makes it unlikely that either acount is completely historical.”
I would be a bit more severe and say that aside from some historical references such as those to Herod and Quirinius, the accounts are largely religious fiction.
You seem to assume that a god is the author of the accounts and the rest of the Bible, and that you “do not believe that God lies when he speaks to us in his written Word.”
I see no evidence that any of the documents in the Bible are “divine” in origin, but hold that they are simply human, fallible documents that show clear evidence of revision and editing to fit the viewpoints of those involved in the process. That is not, however, a presupposition, but rather a conclusion after much examination of the evidence.
I think your viewpoint (as I understand it) is precisely the reason why conservative Christians fail to recognize the Bible for what it is. Any discrepancies are simply mentally glossed over or ignored, assuming the author to have been “God” and assuming that he knew what he was saying even if we do not, and holding that what makes no sense at all would in fact make sense if one could only find the correct explanation.
To me this is seeing the Bible through a glass, darkly, and I do not think anyone can ever see it as it really is without approaching it with a certain amount of objectivity.
Frazier,
You say my desire for a beautiful story is perhaps driving my reading – against the clear teaching of scripture. I could counter that your desire to be intellectual – as many of us seminarian types can be toward our more sentimental brethern – is perhaps driving your reading over the clear teaching of scripture. The truth is that I used to hold the same views that you’re espousing here – I even taught a sunday school class a couple of years ago on the same subject – but my recent readings of scripture have led me to the view I have now – not sentimentality.
First of all, I never said that the Magi visited Jesus at the manger – I said it was more probable that they came a few days later. Even if Joseph’s family had an issue with Mary’s pregnancy, I would hope that they would not continue to make her and the baby stay out in a stable! I believe, though, that Jesus was actually born in another part of the house – not outside in a barn. The Bible says that there was no room in the formal meeting room – probably the main section of the house (perhaps upstairs, just like where the Last Supper occurred). The possibility that there were many family members in town for the census makes it quite probable that there wasn’t any room, and Jesus was born in another part of the house – with a manger as a makeshift crib. Also, the fact that there were angels announcing his birth, shepherds worshipping the infant and then telling everyone about it, I find it hard to imagine that the family would make Mary and Jesus sleep outside.
This leads to another reason I believe the magi were present at Jesus’ first week. The biblical account says they were asking Herod about it and nobody in the king’s court knew anything about it. Yet the first thing the shepherd’s did was tell everyone in the city and scripture says that everyone was amazed. It only makes sense that the city’s officials would not have heard about this amazing event in the first couple of days, because news hadn’t traveled everywhere yet. If it was a year or two later, everyone would know exactly what the magi were looking for. Herod would not have been caught off guard and probably would have already taken steps to destroy Jesus, rather than need the magi’s help.
Further, Herod wanted to kill all the male children two years old AND UNDER. If the magi had first seen the “star” on the day Jesus was born, and then made the journey then, why would Herod want to kill one year old’s and younger? Certainly there are a lot of uncertainities on this point from the magi and Herod’s perspective, but I think the biblical account specifically highlights that the magi arrived at Jesus’ birth.
I should have said that Herod died insane, rather than “from insanity.” I’m not sure why I put it in those terms. It is common knowledge among scholarly accounts, though, that Herod was insane at the end of his life, and my point was just that killing all the male baby’s in the land because you are afraid of one of them is pretty insane.
I think a scientific explanation for the star is pretty silly. The magi call it HIS star and they were able to actually follow it to Jesus’ house, as it stood directly above it. I’m not sure you could actually do that with an astral body, even with modern astronomical equipment. The fact that these magi were followers of God and had heard the amazing story of the exodus (which probably is why they were converts) leads to the probability that God led them in the same or very similar manner. I think it was the same glory cloud, but I have no biblical evidence that it was the same one.
Finally, I think my explanation of the nativity events is more true to the biblical account – especially in light of the purification law. And while you might think its sentimental, I believe that the gospel is more than just literal words in the pages of the Bible – it’s also symbolism and pictures as well. I think this is the case with the birth of Christ. The gospel is presented in the picture of the gentiles worshipping at the birth of Jesus.
I agree with you, though, that many people believe the traditional nativity account – not because they have read the biblical account, but because our western traditions dictate it. I think there are a number of inconsistencies with our tradition and the actual account, and even with the wise men present, it still doesn’t look like the typical nativity scene. At best, though, I think the nativity scene is symbolic of many things about the gospel and is not a tradition that I’m uncomfortable with.
Blessings,
Brian
Brian wrote:
“The fact that these magi were followers of God and had heard the amazing story of the exodus (which probably is why they were converts) leads to the probability that God led them in the same or very similar manner.”
The FACT? Where do you get that as a fact? All we are told is that they were “Magoi” — astrologer priests — and that God warned them in a dream not to go back to Herod. We are not told they were folowers of God or knew anything about the Exodus. And further, there is no evidence that the story of the Magi is not complete fiction.
Uh, they came to worship the “king of the Jews.”
Brianmclain wrote:
“The fact that these magi were followers of God and had heard the amazing story of the exodus (which probably is why they were converts) leads to the probability that God led them in the same or very similar manner.”
In attempted support of that he wrote:
“Uh, they came to worship the “king of the Jews.”
“Uh” indeed. That does nothing whatsoever to support your statement. It appears that you do not understand the meaning of the term “worship,” here, which in English has changed meaning since the 17th century. Its real meaning is the equivalent of today’s “obeisance” — “a movement of the body expressing deep respect or courtesy, as before a superior.” In other words, the equivalent of a bow. In the original language it is “proskunesis,” which meant a full-body prostration. It is NOT limited to the behavior of somone before a deity, which seems to be your mistaken understanding of the term.
In other words, the Magi were coming to pay respects (according to the story) to a new king in a neighboring country. They did that, presented gifts , and returned home.
None of this says they were “followers of God” or that they knew anything at all about the Exodus. As astrologer-priests from the “East” (Persia/Chaldea) they would have been neither Jews nor followers of the Jewish god, and we cannot see or infer that from the text itself.
Hokku,
It appears you do not understand one of the basic principles of interpretation – letting the texts interpret themselves. I correctly used the word worship as it is used in the rest of the Scriptures. And if you were familiar with the rest of the Scriptures you would know the impact that the Jews had on Persia – even unto their conversion. Of course, you even say they were coming to “pay respects” to a king, but I wonder how they figured that little piece of info out.
Ultimately, your posts are boring. You are hi-jacking a blog by taking it off topic and spouting off supposed “discrepancies” – which you have yet to make a good case for. I, for one, would prefer to not have to sift through your b.s. to have a discussion on the topic the administrator of this blog chose to write about. If you would like to start a blog or convince Frazier to start a new thread about the infallibility of Scripture – or lack there of, as you seem to think – that would be fine by me. Of course, that is entirely up to Frazier, but I would like to hear what he (and others) think about the SCRIPTURAL events of the nativity.
Brianmclain wrote:
“It appears you do not understand one of the basic principles of interpretation – letting the texts interpret themselves. I correctly used the word worship as it is used in the rest of the Scriptures.”
No, you did not. you used it as a 20th-century American unfamiliar with 17th century English would use the word, as I pointed out.
To interpret a biblical text correctly, we must first of all be able to understand what was written, and second we must not go beyond what is said or implied by the text. You have failed in both in this case.
Dear Hokku,
I apologize for my short hiatus over the weekend. I have not viewed your latest until now. I have not dropped the conversation, but I have some evidence to double check, and I hope to have a response to three points by tomorrow:
1. Your judgment on the differences between Matthew and Luke as discrepancies, and not as harmonizable (I noticed your agreement with Brown’s language of “contrary”, “two narratives are not only different — they are contrary to each other in a number of details.”). It seems to me that you are not very consistent with your language, but I think I understand what you are saying.
2. I will clarify briefly what I mean by presuppositions, and how the Bible as a divine and human work is essential to understanding us and the world in which we live (reason, laws of logic, science etc.). I maintain that I cannot make sense of me and the world without God and his direct revelation to us through His Son, Jesus Christ, and his written Word, and neither can you, unless you borrow from the Christian worldview in the first place.
3. I will take up your example of the alleged discrepancy between Quirinius and Herod the Great at the time of the birth of Jesus. I will not claim to solve this issue with absolute certainty, but I hope to show that there is no discrepancy or necessary contradiction between Matthew and Luke, and that alternative explanations are very plausible.
John
You wrote:
“3. I will take up your example of the alleged discrepancy between Quirinius and Herod the Great at the time of the birth of Jesus. I will not claim to solve this issue with absolute certainty, but I hope to show that there is no discrepancy or necessary contradiction between Matthew and Luke, and that alternative explanations are very plausible.”
Before you get too far into that, you should know that I am very familiar with objections raised by Christian apologists regarding the census placed by Luke in the time of Quirinius, so you are unlikely to present anything I have not already seen many times, and so you may expect that I have a good answer for most anything you may present in that regard.
Second, I want to point out that even though I consider the evidence for a discrepancy in birth accounts set both “in the days of Herod” and under the governorship of Quirinius overwhelming, I consider that particular matter secondary in discussion to what can be seen and considered without having to go outside the NT accounts to extra-biblical sources, which are seldom known or understood by the average “Christian,” who is generally easily convinced by the most unconvincing.
My position is that the Bible itself is its own best refutation, and consequently I prefer to deal directly with what can be demonstrated without reference to outside historical and archeological sources; nonetheless, I shall be happy to engage you in the matter of Quirinian dating in addition to those intra-biblical issues, if it is of importance to you. But again, be prepared, and I hope you have something new that has not yet seen print to present, because I think I have seen virtually every excuse in print up to this point.
Haiku said, “and so you may expect that I have a good answer for most anything you may present in that regard.”
I hope so. So far you’ve only boasted about “what you know” but have yet to present anything worthwhile.
Hokku –
In comment 7, you listed the governorship at the time of the birth of Jesus as an intra-biblical problem: In M Jesus is born in the days of Herod; in L it is in the procuratorship of Quirinius;…
Of course extra-biblical sources create the problem, since many hold Luke in error, since he makes, it is supposed, a factual error concerning the time of the census and Quirinius, when compaired with Josephus and Tacitus. However, your initial contention is that Luke and Matthew are in contradiction (I am just keep using this word to describe your position, since this is what discrepanies amount to) with each other, and so we will attempt to alleviate the problem.
Hopefully, we will deal with this issue tomorrow.
John
Brian,
Thanks for taking the time to dialogue on this subject.
In your last response to me you said regarding the timing of the appearance of the magi, you said:
First of all, I never said that the Magi visited Jesus at the manger – I said it was more probable that they came a few days later.
You most certainly did say that the Magi visited Jesus at the manger. In comment #2 you wrote:
“I think the gospel accounts point us to the fact that the wisemen were present at the manger”
Now maybe you mistakenly left out the word “not” somewhere but the statement as it stands says that the Magi were present at the manger.
In fact, in the same comment in which you deny that you said the magi were at the manger (comment #15) you say again that they were present at the manger:
“Certainly there are a lot of uncertainities on this point from the magi and Herod’s perspective, but I think the biblical account specifically highlights that the magi arrived at Jesus’ birth.”
Help me to make sense of these contradictory statements.
So that you don’t think that I am dismissing everything that you’ve said, I want to point out that I do agree with you when you say:
“Further, Herod wanted to kill all the male children two years old AND UNDER. If the magi had first seen the “star” on the day Jesus was born, and then made the journey then, why would Herod want to kill one year old’s and younger? ”
I’m not quite as confident as you are here. I do think it’s possible that the magi arrived up to two years after Christ’s birth (otherwise how do we account for Herod killing two year-olds), but I agree with you that it’s possible that they arrived shortly after Christ’s birth say within days or months, indicated (as you point out) by the fact that he killed all children under two as well.
Though I agree with you on this point, I still find much of what you say wildly unlikely (though not impossible), particularly when you’ve got the holy family sailing on a boat and only staying for a few days in Egypt.
There seems to be a bit of special pleading when you say that it would take several days for the officials in Jerusalem to learn of the shepherds’ news in Bethlehem but you don’t take that into account when it comes to the holy family in Egypt. It would take quite a while for news to travel to Egypt, possibly weeks. In fact, we have to allow enough time for the family to travel to Egypt, wait for Herod to die, be told in a dream that Herod died, then hear that Archelaus is reigning, decide not to move to Jerusalem, be warned in yet another dream and then decide to move to Galilee instead. Its improbable that this was all accomplished in only a couple of days in Egypt.
Frazier,
HA! You got me! My parents gave us a second t.v. about 6 months ago and Denise wanted to put it in the bedroom, where the computer is. I knew it was a bad idea – I cannot focus on two things at once!
Anyways, I meant to say “stable,” not “manger.” I think that becomes clearer when I describe my view of the “nativity scene” later on in the same paragraph. Ultimately, my view is that Jesus was in a house either during or right after his birth, so there is no conflict between my view and what the Scriptures say in regards to the magi coming to the house.
It’s very likely that the magi didn’t know if Jesus had been born the moment they saw the star back east or when they saw it over the house. So maybe they didn’t know if they were looking for a newborn or a two year old. And if Herod was going by their account of the star, then he probably wasn’t sure either – the killing of all males two and under doesn’t necessarily prove this one way or the other. My point was that the biblical account – the way the story is told – supports the view that the wisemen were there when Jesus was an infant. Does this make sense? I believe the KJV, ASV, RSV, (among other older translations) get it right when they say “Now WHEN Jesus was born (aorist participle)… behold, magi from the east came (aorist verb) to Jerusalem….”
Many of the newer translations use AFTER instead of WHEN.
You question my timeline in regards to the flight to Egypt, but I still argue that my timeline is the one that makes most sense. Here’s a rough scenario of my view: First ten days – Jesus born, magi visit, circumcision, dream. Second ten days – flight to Egypt. Third ten days – Hiding in Egypt, dream. Fourth ten days – return to Jerusalem. All that matters within the forty-one day period is that they returned to Jerusalem for purification, not all the business about Archelaus, Joseph’s fear, and removal to Galilee – which could have happened after the 41 day period. BTW, I’m not sure Joseph ever intended to move to Jerusalem – he was only afraid to be there for the short time, which is why he took his family to Galilee -where they were from.
Anyways, the flight to Egypt makes more sense before the purification in Europe (I mean,Jerusalem – see, I left that in to show you how distracted I get with the danged t.v. on!)because then you don’t have to butcher Luke’s account in order to fit in a flight to Egypt. Luke’s account specifically says that they returned to Nazareth RIGHT AFTER the purification. There’s only two places to fit the flight into Egypt, and because most people’s perception is that the flight took a long time, they automatically assume it’s after the purification… but the text doesn’t warrant this. Ultimately, the main reason they escaped to Egypt was to fulfill prophecy, so even if they were only there for 5 hours (which I doubt, of course), the fact that they went there and returned from there is what matters.
Dear Hokku,
Please allow me to address three points in turn.
1. I grow weary attempting to understand exactly how you view the gospel accounts. You are trying to nestle your way somewhere between contradiction and difference by appealing to another term, divergence, but this is unsuccessful in the final analysis. You acknowledge that two authors are attempting to comment on the same event, but their divergences are so great that they cannot be reconciled. However, Brown argues that both cannot be historical. Does he argue that one is? You seem to argue that both stories are fictitious?
You, therefore, in reality are leveling the charge of contradiction even though you realize that these accounts are not technically in contradiction. This is a real problem for your conclusion, though you choose not to admit this, but apparently you have permitted Dr. Raymond Brown speak for you in this instance, and he says what you are unwilling to say.
Let’s be clear with one another and the rest of the readers on this thread: you see irreconcilable differences in these accounts, which on your view must on some level be called contrary accounts. On the other hand, I see these accounts as harmonizable, though there are differences between them. The differences can be accounted for by appealing to the aims and purposes of each gospel writer (your “overall context”). Difference #2, you claim to have absolute certainty in these matters. There is not a doubt in your mind that these accounts are contrary and they cannot be reconciled. Pure dogmatism will not win the day here. Just because you claim no faith commitments does not mean you come to the evidence with no pre-commitments and pure objectivity. You simply come with atheistic pre-commitments, and dogmatic ones at that. I do not claim to have absolute certainty in my formulations of the evidence, but I will claim that the evidence can be read in a way that alleviates the accounts from contradiction, since Luke and Matthew have different aims.
I will leave two separate comments.
Dear Hokku,
2. The matter of presuppositions is crucial here. I am a proponent of the Christian worldview. I believe that God (the Christian God revealed in Scripture) is there, and he is not silent. He has spoken. He has spoken all of his creation into existence, and he now upholds his creation by the power of his might (Hebrews 1:3ff). Furthermore, I believe that all of mankind has plunged itself into sin by the choice of Adam, the first man. However, man still bears of image of God and still functions imperfectly in accordance with it. Man still seeks to rule the created order, but now he does so as infected with sin and evil. Man still seeks to make sense of his context and he still seeks to interpret himself and the world around him. However, because he has plunged into sin, man no longer interprets God, himself and the world correctly. Man is an image bearer, he is not God, therefore man is always in the business of interpretation, he is always attempting to think God’s thoughts after him, but as a result of the Fall of Man, he does so imperfectly.
The Christian worldview provides humanity with answers, since it claims that there is only one God with whom each one has to do (Hebrews 9.27). It provides the foundation for knowledge itself, since we believe that God is the creator and redeemer of humanity. We know how we know, since the Christian worldview provides a God, who has absolute sovereignty over the affairs of his creation and over the affairs of men. According to Christianity, we do not live in a world of chance. We live in a world that is consistent with the God who created it (Ps. 19; Rom. 1:18-20); therefore, we can study the creation and we can account for logic and science on this basis. In an atheistic worldview, one cannot account for these things on their own terms, since these laws of logic run contrary to the very chance universe it claims for itself.
All worldviews have presuppositions. Hokku, you have your own set, you just need to reckon with what they are. You cannot simply call your “conclusions” objective. The fact that hundreds and thousands of people for over 2000 yrs have given answers to your queries and have not agreed with your assessment, should at least give you cause for pause, and should cause you to reexamine the evidence again, and at least cause you to hold to your conclusions with less certainty than you do. But your arrogance keeps you from doing so. You are not willing to incline yourself to the Self-Interpreter and his Word, which interprets you and the world around you.
I do not promise I will say or present anything new to you on these matters, but I will present a case. But I do want you at least to admit that you have presuppositions at work here, and you cannot simply claim the monopoly on objectivity in these matters.
John F and others, please feel free to add to these comments, since my comments are terribly inadequate at this point.
One more coming…
John M wrote:
I grow weary attempting to understand exactly how you view the gospel accounts. You are trying to nestle your way somewhere between contradiction and difference by appealing to another term, divergence, but this is unsuccessful in the final analysis.”
Actually it is far more successful than your vague term “differences,” because it is very specific. As I have already shown, two stories may have differences without having discrepancies. Divergence indicates the separation of story “plots” from a similar course to two different courses. We see this, for example, in Luke’s setting of the post-resurrection appearances only in Jerusalem and vicinity, while Matthew sets the post-resurrection appearance to the disciples in Galilee, and both stories are adjusted accordingly, with the angel saying in one that Jesus will meet the disciples and Galilee (Matthew) and Luke turning that not into a prediction of the future, but a remembrance of the past — “remember how he said to you, while he was yet in Galilee”). Such specificity of terminology is far more productive than your vague term “differences” for precisely these reasons.
John wrote further:
“Let’s be clear with one another and the rest of the readers on this thread: you see irreconcilable differences in these accounts, which on your view must on some level be called contrary accounts.”
To be more precise, I see irreconcilable discrepancies in these accounts. One could say that in a given instance they are contrary accounts in the technical sense that both may not be true, though both may be false. You can see the same use of logic in Brown’s statement that both cannot be historical. I would add to that what I have just written. Personally, I consider both to be false.
You wrote further:
“The differences can be accounted for by appealing to the aims and purposes of each gospel writer (your “overall context”). Difference #2, you claim to have absolute certainty in these matters. There is not a doubt in your mind that these accounts are contrary and they cannot be reconciled.”
They can be accounted for by appealing to the airms and purposes of each writer, but that does nothing to harmonize them. It simply verifies that each writer used similar basic material to write quite different and discrepant stories. That does nothing whatever to give confidence in their being historical, but rather supports their real nature as literary creations of the writers. As to this there is not a doubt in my mind, but I am always open to convincing evidence to the contrary. Having studied this matter thoroughly for many decades, I have never seen the slightest convincing evidence to the contrary.
As to “harmonizing” accounts, my position is that given enough time and the will, one can “harmonize” any contradictory accounts if one is willing to suspend reason and common sense. The question is not “Can Matthew and Luke’s birth narratives be harmonized,” but rather can they convincingly be harmonized, so that the resulting “harmony” does not stretch credulity to its outer limits and beyond. I simply do not think that can be done with these narratives. I have never seen it done, and certainly Brown, who was a Catholic priest, would have been quite open to such an attempt had it the slightest pretension to veracity and believability.
This is the great fault I find with fundamentalists, or “conservative” Christians if you will. They are willing to accept ANY explanation, no matter how far-fetched, if it will somehow maintain their notion of biblical inerrancy. And when one explanation fails, yet another will supplant it, with the goal post constantly being moved and intellectual integrity being battered all the while. One can see this in the great numbers of differing explanations offered for the very same problem in Christian apologetic writings, as I am sure you can affirm if you have read enough of them. One of my favorites is the statement of Jesus at the end of the Apocalypse — “Behold, I come quickly.” Obviously he did not come quickly, and I have heard a remarkable range of explanations from different Christians on why he did not mean what he says there, all of them different, and all of them accepted by the proponent, for the moment, as “the” explanation for that failing.
This message is getting a bit long, so I will respond to further postings in a separate message.
John M wrote:
“I do not promise I will say or present anything new to you on these matters, but I will present a case. But I do want you at least to admit that you have presuppositions at work here, and you cannot simply claim the monopoly on objectivity in these matters.”
I cannot say that I have presuppositions, because I have examined the matter, over the years, from many different perspectives, reading many points of view.
As you know, among Christians the range of viewpoints is immense, from those who view the KJV as the infallible, inerrant word of God to those who consider the Bible “inerrant only in the original manuscripts,” to those who think that the Bible is “inerrant” in the broad strokes but not the narrow, for example that Jesus was resurrected, but the details of the stories may be wrong, to those who consider the Bible “inspired” as the Odyssey was inspired and Anna Karenina was inspired, and on to further variations and subsets. And of course the closer one gets to the beginning of the scale, the more all other viewpoints are described by “believers” as heretics and apostates.
My attitude toward such things is different. I think that in dealing with any of these viewpoints, it is best to see what the arguments in favor are, but then to go directly to the evidence to see what is there, and then to apply Occam’s Razor — to look at all possible explanations, and then to carefully “shave away” those that require the most unbelievable and farfetched stretch of the imagination to explain the matter, until one is left with the simplest and most likely, constantly keeping all the evidence in mind.
That is why, as I have already said, when discussing the Bible, I prefer to use the Bible itself as the primary source, because I hold that it is the best witness against its own reliability.
For all other things, for example on the Quirinian matter, one must go to outside sources to verify a viewpoint. In the matter of Quirinius this can easily be done, but in others it is not always so simple. And beyond that, readers of “extra-biblical” explanations are often deliberately misled to apologetic and in my view propagandistic writings.
For example, years ago Creationists began announcing to the world at large that they could prove evolution to be nonsense because at the Paluxy River in Texas, fossilized human footprints had been found along those of dinosaurs! This somewhat astonishing statement immediately began being reproduced among Creationists, and popped up all over in Creationist literature.
It did not take long for scientists to demonstrate that the supposed “Paluxy man tracks” were simply naturally-deformed dinosaur-made impressions, but the “Paluxy man tracks” story continued to be printed and spread among Creationists, though gradually it faded more and more from their publications in general due to the disproval that had become obvious among those who read more widely. Yet even today, one will find mention of the Paluxy River “evidence” in this or that anti-evolution article. It is obviously not easy even for blatant reality to dispel misconceptions held by those who want to maintain a belief system at all costs, and it is particularly not easy when inaccurate information is spread so widely as “truth.”
As another example, years ago fundamentalist Christians would argue the value of Ezekiel’s remarks concerning Tyre as incontrovertible proof of the accuracy of biblical prophecy and thus of the Bible. I cannot tell you how many of them believed that ancient Tyre had been completely destroyed in ancient times, in keeping with the “prophecy,” and again in keeping with it, had never been rebuilt or “found.”
One does not hear that so much any more, now that online satellite maps enable one to go directly to the site of Tyre (modern Sur in Lebanon) and looking down from the air, see actual photographs of the occupied site of Tyre, which has been occupied for literally thousands of years. So misconceptions and mistruths die and long and lingering death, if they die at all, and it is sometimes just as difficult to get biblical “inerrantists” to look at the true facts of a matter as it was for Galileo to get his “true believer” opponents to look through his telescope, which they considered an instrument of the Devil. Yet had they looked, they would have seen the unmistakable evidence that the sun, not the earth, is the center of the solar system, in contrast to “Bible-based” belief up to that time.
Dear Hokku,
3. The case of Quirinius
You stated that the Bible on its own terms, in its own presentation is in conflict with itself in many instances. You mention the governorship at the time of the birth of Christ according to M and L is irreconcilable. Herod the Great is mentioned in Matthew 2.1 as “king” during the time of the birth of Jesus, while Quirinius is mentioned as the governor in Luke 2.2. You see two different names and two different positions and you conclude than an irreconcilable divergence occurred between M and L.
It seems to me that even on the face of the biblical text itself (which is where you claim the problem is), these could be reconcilable, since the text says that Quirinius is the governor of Syria, while Herod is the King. Matthew 2.1 does not even say where Herod’s jurisdiction is. Maybe you infer from Matthew 2.22 that Archelaus ruled Judea in place of his father Herod, and you conclude that Herod’s territory was indeed Judea. Either way, the biblical text itself is not in conflict. You have two governors (See B. Metzger’s Introduction to the NT for Rome’s Provincial System, King is basically another title for governor in this instance, which was given to governors who had climbed the political ladder.) governing two different provinces, Judea in the South and Syria in the North respectively. No problem, right?
But I know you will not accept this answer because you are not really simply reading the biblical text itself. You know as well as most that Herod the Great ruled over all of the provinces in that area until about 4 BCE (from extra-biblical sources), and then the Romans divided them among different leaders, so that Luke 3.1 mention all sorts of governors and tetrachs of different provinces, which came after the death of Herod.
So I see your claims as disingenuous here. You claim that your main concern is the intra-biblical problems, but on the birth narratives at least, there is no intra-biblical problem strictly speaking.
Let’s be honest with ourselves and say that the real problem is introduced when we compare Luke against the other historians. The real problem begins when the outside literary sources do not confirm the procuratorship of Quirinius of Syria until after Herod’s death in 4 BCE and we have no literary evidence of a Roman census before CE 6.
I want to take up that charge here.
Solution #1
Working from the Greek text, Luke 2.2 confronts the reader with a grammatical problem. How do we render protos followed by the genitive case? There are two legitimate options: 1) This census was the first (true superlative reading) while Quirinius… or 2) this census was before (comparative reading) the census of Quirinius…
In the Hellenistic period, as you know, the morphological superlative is being replaced by syntactic ways of rendering the same semantic. Thus, no doubt, you are also aware that the superlative protos has some overlap with proteron (the morphological comparative). For example, take John 1.15, “The one coming after me has come before me, because he was before (protos) me (genitive case).” (See Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into The New Testament, 23-24).
This reading is plausible according to the grammar. Those who understand the genitive in Luke 2.2 as a genitive absolute, but still see no historical discrepancy begin to argue from Quirinian dating.
One more possible solution coming…
John M wrote:
“So I see your claims as disingenuous here. You claim that your main concern is the intra-biblical problems, but on the birth narratives at least, there is no intra-biblical problem strictly speaking.”
Of course there is. Matthew has Joseph and Mary living in a house in Bethlehem, and going to Nazareth only under duress; Luke has Joseph and Mary living in Nazareth, and going to Bethlehem only because of a census.
Now we can go outside the Bible and demonstrate that not only was there no known worldwide Roman census that fits, but that the notion of having someone return to the town of a far distant ancestor is ridiculous at best, but we do not have to do that, because we can easily see that the stories of Matthew and Luke are not telling the same story though they are using some of the same names, and further that the details of the two stories they are telling to not fit one another.
Now, as for your proposed solution to the Quirinian problem, before I respond to it, you add that you are about to present a SECOND solution. Just which of these is THE solution, or are you willing to accept any available explanation in an attempt to avoid the historical fact that Herod died quite some time before Quirinius was hegemon, and that therefore Jesus could not possibly have been born both in the days of Herod and in the governorship of Quirinius? Which of these explanations is the correct one, or are you going to use the standard fundamentalist tactic of constantly moving the goalpost, changing explanations as each one is disproved or made to look extremely improbable? Are you going to attempt even more different solutions to the same problem after these are disposed of?
John,
Your first attempt was this:
“Thus, no doubt, you are also aware that the superlative protos has some overlap with proteron (the morphological comparative). For example, take John 1.15, “The one coming after me has come before me, because he was before (protos) me (genitive case).” (See Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into The New Testament, 23-24).
This reading is plausible according to the grammar.”
You needlessly complicate a very simple matter. The text reads:
“Aute apographe prote egeneto hegemoneuontos tes Surias Kureniou.”
Literally,
“This census first was [when] governing Syria Quirinius.” There is nothing complicated or syntactically confusing about it.
We are not talking about a superlative, but simply a sequential numbering, just as we have in English — “first,” “second,” etc. The text is simply saying that the Quirinian census was the first Roman census, taken when Quirinius was governor.
That this simple, direct, and obvious reading is correct is confirmed by Acts 5:37 (Acts, as you know, is “Luke, Part II”), which says that Judas the Galilean “arose in the days of the census (tes apographes), indicating that the Lukan author knew of only one census, and the Quirinian census was it — the first census, when Quirinius was governor of Syria.
Historically speaking, of course, we also know it was the first, because Judea came under direct Roman control at that time, some ten years after Herod’s death — thus the reason for a Roman census, which, however was not at all a worldwide census as one would imagine from the text.
Hokku,
In comment 21, I stated that I was only concerned to alleviate the alleged contradiction/discrepancy of the governorship at the birth of Jesus. I did not claim to propose THE solution, though I think there is one that is more plausible than others, but you have far more trouble at this stage than trying to pin THE solution on me.
1. I specifically took up the governorship at the time of the birth of Jesus, and I showed from M and L that there is no necessary discrepancy between the two accounts of the governorship biblically. Why did you come back with an issue, which does not treat the governorship at all? You recount the reasons for Nazareth, but you have not dealt with the issue you knew I was commenting on. Very interesting…
2. I am not here to put up Luke on the stand about the details of census taking in the Greco-Roman world. There is later evidence that Roman emperors did conduct census’s in this way, but I am not here to debate this specific issue at present. Let’s keep on the governorship at the time of the birth of Jesus.
3. As to your last paragraph, how do I respond to this? You seem to be ranting over my “tactics” and calling them “”fundamentalist,” but why? There is no goalpost shifting going on, unless you are calling my alternative proposal shifting from yours. I am stating the facts from the Greek text. There is a legitimate difficulty in the text, and I am simply giving the options. Nigel Turner is not a fundamentalist, yet he makes this suggestion, as an informed Hellenistic Greek grammarian. I do not have to see a problem with Luke’s statement for Jesus was born during the days of Herod before the CE 6 census of Quirinius, which Josephus and Tacitus reveal to us.
What’s wrong with this reading?
I still have one more proposal coming.
John
Hokku –
Your failing to see that my reading does not conflict with Acts 5:37 in the slightest.
Just because the definite article is used, does not mean that it is the only census that Luke knew about. The census is specific to the uprising of Judas. Your earlier point contradicts you at this point. You have already affirmed that protos means first, second, etc. Luke must be referring to a sequence of some kind. You have not reckoned with this point.
My reading of Luke 2.2 accounts for at least two census’s: the one at the time of the birth of Jesus and the one at the time of Quirinius (CE 6).
More to come…
John
Hokku –
One more thing. You said, “You needlessly complicate a very simple matter.” Hokku, the charge could come to your view that you are oversimplifying a complicated matter. This is not a ploy or a tactic, just a fact from the text.
I am starting to see your presuppositions now, since you cannot even be open to this possibility. Your dogmatism is shining through much clearer now.
John
John,
As a “serial proposer” on the same issue, what you are saying in essence is, “Well, the solution might possibly be A., or then again it might possibly be B if A is wrong, or if both of those are wrong, it might be C, or if not then, um….”
Needless to say, that approach does not inspire much confidence. It just acts as a kind of life-support system to keep the inerrancy viewpoint breathing, if comatose.
It is, however, very typical of Christian apologetics, sad to say. It doesn’t really matter what the proposed solution is, as long as someone “Christian” says it is a solution. And that is why there are so many different and contrary (and bad) Christian apologetic answers to the same problem. This may not be apparent to those who read those works as “believers,’ but it is glaringly apparent to those who read them with a critical eye.
Further, what you are saying in posting this serial “answers” is that you do not really care which if any of them are correct. All you need is something to momentarily attempt to stave off the unbelieving hordes. But that should not be the goal. The goal should be truth, not artificially keeping alive a personal belief system that should have died long ago.
Dear Hokku,
Solution #2
As you already know, this issue is very complex, but that does not make it untenable. The work of Sir William Ramsay in The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament is a fine piece of scholarship, which no one can discard by calling it fundamentalist. One will have to work to dismantle his argument, but one cannot dismiss the evidence he provides of Quirinius as holding office in Syria on two different occasions.
Let’s walk through it again (I trust you have read this, though your earlier comments seem to indicate that you are not aware of this book or Ramsay’s research).
1. We have northern inscriptional evidence of Quirinius (Q) in Antioch (Syria) that dates somewhere between 10-7 BCE (Ramsay, 285). This evidence indicates that Q was the victor of a war, which took place after 12 BCE.
2. The war took place around 10-7 BCE, which places Q in Antioch in consul around 12 BCE and came to Syria ca. 11 BCE and the war may have began ca. 10 BCE.
3. The war would have taken more than two yrs, which occupied 10-8, and during this time Q was considered governor of Syria (Ramsay, 292).
4. The general reorganization would have taken from 7-6 BCE and would have been complete with a census, which would have ended Q’s career up to that time.
5. There is a second inscription, which confirms these observations (Ramsay, 291).
6. Of course other discrepancies arise with the testimony of Tertullian, but in all likelihood, there were two Legati over Syria during this time (Ramsay, 293), which explains why Quirinius is called Legatus on his epitaph, which also informs us that he was Legatus of Syria “again,” meaning he served two terms as Legatus of Syria (Ramsay, 293).
This chronology accounts for Q as governor in Syria before BCE 6 and also seems to give a reason for a census that would occur before CE 6. This would place the birth of Jesus around 6 BC with the death of Herod coming around 4 BC, 2 years later at the return from Egypt (see Ramsay, 294-5). I believe there is also evidence from coins from this area and time period, which would confirm Q’s presence and rank as well.
So Hokku, there you have it. Your problem is that you cannot understand how Q is governor of Syria, while Herod is king. Well, there is evidence from this time that Q was indeed governor of Syria at the time of the rule of Herod. There is no contradiction or discrepancy between M and L. They are both right. As usual, Luke puts the Kingdom of God at war with the Imperial kingdom of Rome. L will more naturally choose the “Gentile” governor of Augustus to show how even the decree of great Caesar Augustus is fulfilling the word or decree of God, given centuries earlier, that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem. Matthew is much more concerned with who is being housed in Jerusalem at this time. He is concerned almost exclusively with showing how Jesus Christ is the greater, newer, Son of God, the Messiah, the new King. Psalm 72 seems to indicate that kings come from afar to bless and praise the Davidic/Solomonic king. Indeed this picture of Psalm 72 is partially fulfilled in the Magi’s coming, and it will finally be fulfilled when the Lord of Heaven and Earth returns.
Now, to tie up some loose ends.
I am not proposing two options that I think are equally valid. I proposed two options to be fair to scholars, who have proposed different ways of reading this text. I tend to favor the second option since it has Quirinius present for both censuses. My pursuit is for the truth, but I do not seek truth at the cost of narrowly looking at the options others have presented.
Honestly, Hokku, I perceive more of a fundamentalist dogmatism in your comments because you have been continually attacking inerrancy, despite cogent and legitimate attempts to defend it in Luke 2.2. You think this idea needs to die, and it seems you are out to kill it, all on your own. Your methods are not only to find the simple answer, but to find the answer that most quickly kills the conservative/fundamentalist view. I define a fundamentalist as someone who is not willing to look at and attempt to incorporate all of the evidence. You fit this definition, at least this far in the conversation.
I look forward to the rest of the discussion.
John
John,
Let’s be specific.
You cite two different inscription stones relative to Quirinius, but you identify neither one, nor do you accurately describe their significance.
However, from past experience, I would guess you are referring to the Lapis Tibertinus, which nowhere has the name of Quirinius and cannot be used in support of your contention, and second, that you are referring to the funerary stone of Aemilius Secundus, which says that Quirinius was legate of Caesar in Syria and conducted a census in Apamea, but the stone has no date and does not conflict with what we already know of Quirinius.
These are the most common items mentioned by “apologists” — strangely, because neither supports their case. If that is not what you are attempting here — if you are referring to something other than these two stones, then it is not obvious from your posting, and I would ask you to identify precisely what you talking about and exactly what inscriptions are given.
One further note on your mention of William Ramsey — you wrote:
“The work of Sir William Ramsay in The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament ….”
This unfortunately gives the impression that it is something recent, new information. In fact Ramsey made his conclusions about 1912, but his writings are splattered all over the Christian book sites in reprints or E-books.
Hokku –
These are fair questions. Ramsay does not entitle the inscriptions he refers to in his book.
However, he has a nice picture on page 284 of the stone discovered in Antioch, dated around 8 BCE, and clearly it has the name of Q. He has another inscription on page 291, and he refers to the epitaph (“Legatus of Syria again”) on page 293 (all page numbers from the 2nd edition of this work, 1953).
I do not endorse everything on this webpage, that I am about to list, but I would appreciate it, if you could interact with some of the evidence presented.
Simply read the citations from the sources (the whole document is only 6 pages), and give your critique.
http://www.biblehistory.net/Cyrenius_Quirinius.pdf
I was particularly intrigued by the reference to Augustus commanding a census in 8 BCE (p. 5), and the inscriptional evidence referring to Q at Antioch ca. this time.
Of course there is more to say on this, but I will leave this issue alone, till you respond. Needless to say, I think the evidence is stacked against your position. You will notice that the 6 page presentation of the evidence has a good blend of sources. It combines the evidence of the literary sources and the inscriptional sources. It is well documented, so you can go back and check the originals if you so desire.
My last question to you brings us back to Luke’s gospel.
Why do you not consider Luke to be a source of history? Luke stated his aim in 1.1-4. He carefully investigated all of these matters. He is writing to present the truth to Theophilus. Hokku, here is the question you have to ask yourself, Why would Luke make this claim to historical accuracy, while writing to someone who clearly knows all of these historical facts, then go on to make such an obvious historical blunder, such as the one you propose he makes? If Luke is wrong about this well-known census and about the governorship of Q, then how will the rest of his work have credibility with his readership, who clearly know about these events?
Luke’s history in 3:1 and other places is not under dispute by scholars. Luke’s knowledge of geography in Luke and Acts is not under dispute by scholars. Why call him into question in 2.1-3? And still further, why keep calling him into question, when the material of M and outside sources can be harmonized and actually be used to confirm L?
Your position is the one that looks like it is playing fast and loose with the evidence or “moving the goal post” as you like to put it. If I am overextending the evidence, you are clearly ignoring the evidence.
John
John,
Your reference to six pages of off-site pdf text is one of the reasons why I minimize those aspects of biblical fallacy that require significant reference to outside sources. It not only leads to dealing with significant amounts of information from multiple and often contradictory sources, but it is also something the average person, the average Internet reader, has a great deal of difficulty in evaluating, for obvious reasons — little knowledge of archeology, of ancient history, and of linguistics, not to mention determining levels of reliability in various sources.
For those reasons I am not going to pursue the Quirinian matter beyond saying that the overwhelming position of non-fundamentalist scholars is to reject the notion of a double governorship by Quirinius.
As I stated before, I believe it is best in discussions to stick with intra- biblical matters that the participants and readers can easily examine and verify for themselves. I am sure you would agree that you cannot adequately evaluate the information you are offering on Quirinius, but are relying (obviously) on the statements of others — and thereby going a bit too far for a discussion in this kind of format. Those who want to pursue the Quirinian matter can easily find detailed discussion refuting what you have presented on the Internet, but again that simply takes us to dueling off-site references, which in my view is not a useful way to pursue dialogue in this kind of format.
You did, however, raise a more fundamental and useful issue, which is the reliability of Luke.
Luke, in my view, is simply a revised and expanded form of the same material that is presented in Mark. I think that is glaringly obvious when one compares the two line by line. The same may be said of Matthew — it too is a revised and explanded versian of the same material one finds in Mark.
One simple indicator of this is the divergence of stories. When Matthew and Luke are following “Mark” (I will put it that way to keep matters simple), they follow the same basic structure and sequence of events, with of course additions and revisions. When they are not able to follow Mark, because there IS no Markan text, their stories diverge greatly. We see that in the birth narratives of Matthew and Mark, which diverge greatly, and we see that in the post-resurrection narratives, which also diverge greatly. Neither follows a Markan sequence because they had no Markan sequence to follow, and had to come up with birth and post-resurrection stories (which differ greatly) on their own. So Matthew and Luke are essentially simply revised and expanded versions of Mark, with differing and discrepant birth narratives tacked onto the beginning (before Mark’s beginning with John the Baptist) and tacked on to the end (after Mark ends with the women running in fear from the tomb and saying nothing to anyone).
What does this mean? It means that the bulk of the gospel called “Luke” is simply a revised and expanded version of Mark, and that is very significant. It means, first of all, that Luke did not consider Mark to be the “Word of God,” inviolate and infallible. Instead he simply saw it as one of a number of accounts, and an unsatisfactory account at that, because he felt the need to replace it with something he presents as better.
What do we learn from Luke’s prologue? We learn that there were lots of writings about Jesus in circulation, lots of “gospels,” including obviously the Markan material. But Luke did not find them satisfactory, so he decided to write his own version, from material handed down to him, handed down from those he THOUGHT had been eyewitnesses. He of course has no way of verifying his information and makes no effort to adequately verify it, but simply says that he has looked over all the materials available to him, having investigated it all, and is writing a new and ordered version, so that his reader may know for certain about what he had previously been taught.
Luke did not require any of his sources — any previous gospels including the Markan, as divine and infallible or inerrant, and he does not claim divine inspiration or infallibility for his own “new” gospel. He is simply using the materials he has, ordering the information as he thinks best, so that his readers will have a source for some certainty about what they believe.
Now anyone who reads the gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke can compare them line by line and see that they present largely the same material in the same sequence, except for the tacked on birth and resurrection narratives. Further, that there have been changes made to the same basic narrative as both Matthew and Luke revised and expanded pre-existing material. These revisions were made to satisfy the views of the individual writers.
As I have shown before, Luke goes so far as to change what was originally a prediction that the disciples would meet the resurrected Jesus in Galilee to a past remembrance of something Jesus had once said in Galilee,
(there are numerous other examples of “editorial” changes and revisions), so it is obvious that Luke did not consider the Markan material inviolate or infallible or divinely-inspired, and felt quite free to change it as desired.
Further, “Luke” himself, whoever he (they) was, was obviously not an eyewitness to any of it. He is using pre-existing writings, which he is revising to fit his own opinions. There is no more reason to consider his account historically reliable than there is for the accounts of “Matthew” and “Mark”; instead it is obvious that the gospels, and specifically in this discussion, Luke — were written as religious propaganda, not as history.
The end of whole matter is that one needs to carefully investigate these matters for one’s self to arrive at the truth. One of the best ways to do this is to compare the four gospels line by line, event by event, to see where they agree and where they differ, and to look for internal reasons WHY they differ.
For example, in my previous mention of Luke’s changing of a future prediction to a past remembrance, it is obvious that Luke HAD to change the prediction of a future meeting in Galilee, because Luke’s gospel has no post-resurrection appearnces of Jesus in Galilee and leave no room in his gospel for such appearances. So he either had to omit that prediction entirely or change it to make it no longer a prediction; he chose the latter, and turned it into a remembrance of the past — “Remember how he said to you, when he was still in Galilee….”
As I said, it really comes down to the responsibility of individuals to do their own careful research, not letting the “will to believe” interfere with that,” something that seems very difficult for those who want everything in life to be clear-cut and black and white. But life is not like that, so growing out of fundamentalism through one’s own efforts means childhood’s end. It means growing up and taking responsibility for one’s own worldview, and not remaining in a lifelong childhood, spoon-fed religious propaganda by this or that sect or teacher. If one reads only fundamentalistic books and apologetic sites, one will never grow up, and worse yet, one may actually keep others in the same life-long state of mental immaturity and self-delusion.
All of this has been a bit long, but for a reason, which is that I have too many demands on my time to maintain an ongoing and useful dialogue here. That is why I am going to stop now, with encouraging people not to be gullible and not to believe something simply because someone says it was said by “God.” One should question everything and investigate all available evidence, and come to a reasoned and well-informed conclusion unaffected by threats of hell or hopes of heaven. For those who cannot get out of a “theist,” mindset at this point, it is well to keep in mind the words of Lin Yutang:
“All I know is that if God loves me only half as much as my mother does, he will not send me to Hell. That is a final fact of my inner consciousness, and for no religion could I deny its truth.”
May all of you learn such common sense. Thanks for the discussion.
Hokku –
Luke 16:29-31, “But Abraham said, `They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 “But he said, `No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ 31 “But he said to him, `If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’ ”
RE: your first two paragraphs. Are you hiding behind your own inability to evaluate the sources by saying that the average reader (read: John M) cannot evaluate the sources? If not your own inability, then are you hiding behind your own radical skepticism, which maintains that nobody can evaluate the evidence? Lastly, and I think this is the real issue, are you only radically skeptical when evangelicals (we do not particularly like the title fundamentalist, but that is another story) interpret the data in a way that harmonizes L with the extra-biblical sources and with M?
Of course these are rhetorical, but I am led to conclude that you would answer in the affirmative to all three. Your last comment was completely coherent with what I had expected: you are all too happy to agree with liberal scholarship because it is liberal, and you are all too happy to disagree with fundamentalist/evangelical scholarship because it is evangelical. Thank you for finally making that clear in your final comment. You should know that these statements contradict (diverge from?) your own farewell advice. You pleaded with all the readers to question and investigate “all available” evidence, and then come to their own conclusions. I doubt any reader of this thread has concluded that you have followed your own advice in this case. You have studied the liberal interpretations of the sources without consulting the other side of the argument, and you have arrived at the conclusions of the liberals. Surprise, surprise.
RE: Reliability of Luke. I am not going to respond to your comments about the reliability of Luke. No reader on this thread will likely be led astray by them. If you continued the dialog, I would perhaps take up more of these alleged discrepancies of yours, but alas, I have run out of time as well.
It does not matter anyway. If you discard the possibility of harmonization between gospel accounts before you even listen closely to the evangelical response, then you usually come to the conclusion with which you began, the liberal one, the self-proclaimed “objective one,” the one which must end in contradictions and discrepancies and on and on.
Thanks for the discussion Hokku. I enjoyed re-examining the evidence once again and contending for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints (Jude 3).
John
About the star: Matthew says only that the wise men were from the east, and saw “a star”. In the Old Testament, “star” meant “messenger”, or referred to a king (Num 24:17) – except where the text reads “star in the sky”. Two of Matthew’s verses tell of seeing the star “when it rose”. Real stars rise in the East, and if they were from the East, they would have gone even further East – in the wrong direction.
The comments in net.bible.org for Matthew 2:2 and 2:9 say that “rising” is probably not geographical, but astronomical – i.e., referring to a star in a particular constellation. The line, “… until it stopped …”, is probably a pious addition by a later editor.
Strong’s concordance says that in “As they came into the house…”, the word for house matches our current-day concept.
One other thing I might add: To the dismay of thousands of church Nativity plays, the people did not wear kaffiyeh. That’s traditional Arab headdress, but unlikely for the Israelites.
Another reason for the unlikeliness of an astronomical star is that none of the astronomical suggestions can give an explanation for the second appearance of the same star. The wise men saw the same “star” twice.
Matthew also uses the word “appeared” in reference to the star. This particular word is overwhelmingly used to describe appearances made by God, or the Angel of the Lord.
As most of you know, Shekinah is God’s glory. The Bible records numerous occassions where God displayed His Shekinah glory – usually as some variation of brilliant light. To name a few: The burning bush, the pillar of fire and glory cloud that led Israel in the wilderness, Mt. Sinai when Moses’ face shone, the Tabernacle and Temple was filled with such glory that the priests couldn’t enter, the light that Balaam’s donkey saw, Ezekiel’s vision, the mount of Transfiguration, and the conversion of Saul. Saul’s conversion also explains why maybe Herod (and others) did not see the star like the magi did. Remember, only Saul saw a bright light, while the others only heard the voice of Jesus. Also, the Egyptians only saw darkness when the glory cloud stood between them and Israel.
Finally, Matthew says that the star “went before” the magi and “stood” over Jesus. This is the same language used over and over in reference to the Shekinah glory and the Angel of the Lord.
Brian,
Here are a few complaints and confusions I still have.
You said, “…the biblical account says the wisemen visited Jesus in Jerusalem.” Is this another mental interference by your bedroom TV? The text clearly indicates that the magi found Christ in Bethlehem not Jerusalem.
Also, you corrected your statement that the magi visited Christ in the manger and said that you meant stable. I find your language confusing. They found the family in a house not in a stable. At times you say that they visited Christ in a house and then other times you say that they visited Christ at his birth. Which is it? Why the repeated doublespeak?
You want to build an argument on reading the aorist passive participle of gennao in Matthew 2:1 as “When Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem,” but there’s no more support for your reading of “when” than there is for translating it “after.” Both words are supplied by the translators not demanded by the text. Furthermore, I don’t see what difference it makes. One could take the “when” reading and still disagree with you.
I understand your timeline now, but I think it is built on several peculiar readings of the text. First of all, the number of days for purification according to Lev 12:4 is thirty-three not forty-one. So if we are using the Mosaic law’s waiting period to give us a time frame for the visit of the magi, the circumcision, the flight to Egypt, and the journey to Jerusalem, then we have eight days less than what you initially suggested, which creates more difficulties. But if we are harmonizing Matthew and Luke, I see no reason to cram the time together as you do. Luke 2:22 simply tells us that the family goes to Jerusalem after the days of her purification had passed. This does not have to mean that they were in Jerusalem immediately following the days of her purification. The only point made is that there visit to Jerusalem took place after the necessary days of purification. Nothing in the law or in Luke requires that we put such a strict time limit on their visit.
You say that the family “returned to Jerusalem in time for Mary’s purification.” I’m not sure why you say that they returned. Neither Matthew nor Luke tell us that the family was in Jerusalem prior to this. Furthermore, there’s no deadline for Mary’s purification that they are rushing to meet. She’s got lots of time. She just needs to go sometime after 33 days and be made pure by her sacrifice.
So I see no reason to compress the events into such a hectic timeline as you do when the text doesn’t require it.
I’ll leave it at this for now. I don’t have the stamina at this point to disagree further over views on the star.
John M wrote:
If Luke is wrong about this well-known census and about the governorship of Q, then how will the rest of his work have credibility with his readership, who clearly know about these events?
His READERSHIP? You should be aware that the majority of the population were illiterate; few could read, and those that could were either wealthy or trained to be scribes. You would better speak of his HEARERSHIP, given that the bulk of the Christian congregation were likely to know Luke only through hearing segments of it read.
Further, if we follow the standard dating, this would place the writing of Luke somewhere in the 70s-80s A.D. Given that Jesus was supposedly born in the time of Herod — 4 B.C. at the latest, given that is when Herod died, you are talking about generally illiterate people in a Greek-speaking community being well-informed about events some 75-84 years before, in Judea. Do you really think such an attitude is realistic? I would suggest that people today are unlikely to be up on who was governing Palestine and what taxation might have occurred there some 75-84 years before this year, 2007, and they are generally literate and have the benefit of modern communication and ready access to libraries.
But let’s get back to the main point. You will recall that some time ago — before you went off on the Quirinian tangent, I said specifically that I prefer to deal with intra-biblical matters, because they are easier for the average reader to understand, and such a reader does not have to go to multiple sources and deal with multiple rather complex subjects to evaluate and verify information as in the matter of Quirinius. I think there is more than enough evidence in biblical discrepancies between the nativity stories to demonstrate that the Bible is simply a collection of very human and very fallible documents.
For example, in all the discussion about the nature of the “star” that supposedly guided the Magi to Bethlehem, what should really concern readers is not only the fact that stars do not and could not behave like that, but also the fact that Matthew is the ONLY source mentioning such an astonishing and miraculous event. It is obviously not a factual element, but rather fictional.
That you find yourselves quibbling over whether it is an “astronomical” star or not is completely beside the point, and the only reason you DO quibble about it is because with modern science we KNOW stars do not and cannot behave that way, but the ancients did not know what stars were, nor how immense they are — consider the Apocalypse description of the stars falling to earth, a physical impossibility and a reflection of a pre-scientific and mistaken cosmology.
In my view the birth narratives are simply pious fictions created to fit the views of the individual writers. Matthew, for example, relies heavily on misused OT texts regarded as supposed “prophecy” in contructing his narrative, just as is done later in the passion narratives. It is religious fiction, not historical fact.
Frazier,
Yes. The T.V. distracted me. I meant Bethlehem… but at least I didn’t say Europe:)
When I mistakenly used manger instead of stable, I was saying that I never said they found Jesus in a stable. I also said that they found Jesus in a house. It’s possible he was still in a manger – a makeshift crib. My point is that highlighting that the wisemen visited Jesus in the house does not only support your view. It easily confirms my view, as well. There is no doublespeak on my part – Jesus was born in a house.
I’m not sure where you get 33 days. Leviticus 12:1-4 clearly states 41 days.
The older translations say “When” instead of “After” because it is the correct grammatical translation. “After” has been the popular recent translation because it fits with the popular “scholoarly” chronology… except that it only fits in the same way fat people at the beach fit into speedos. “When” does not allow for a long period (years!) of time, whereas “after” does. Incidently, the “after/when” phrase in Matthew 2:1 is the same phrase in Matthew 2:13 – translated “when.”
Ioanneis:
Wow. The fur starts flying fast when skeptics and disagreeing brethren start chatting, doesn’t it?
I’d make a point about how the Christmas tree is in itself a Germanic tradition imported to America through a royal marriage to the British royal family, but were I mistaken, I might be verbally disemboweled by someone eager for evangelical linguini or possibly Presbyterian pie.
But I agree with much of what you wrote (the first few postings… after that, my interest waned, I’m afraid…which is why I’m not heading for a Ph.D program, quite possibly). The difference between “inn” and “lodging place” and “guest room” is an excellent point…I’ll have to check out the Greek and remember this as a point for Christmas sermons in the future.
And, just for something a little lighter, did you ever see MadTV’s “Jesus meets the Terminator?” sketch, viewable on YouTube? Absolutely hilarious…though mistaken on a few key notes.
Keep up the good work, dogg.
It is manipulation of the text to assert that Jesus is presented as born in a “house” in Luke. What we do know is that Greek “phatne” may describe a manger, a stall, a stable or even an uncovered feeding site, but it is not the equivalent of Matthew’s “oikos,” (house).
The simple fact is that Matthew and Luke give disparate accounts of the birth, with the parents having a temporary dwelling at the birth in Luke, and living in a house in Matthew.
We see “phatne” in the Septuagint, where it means:
II Chronicles 33:28: “and stalls and mangers for every kind of cattle.”
Job 6:5: “Will the ox low at the manger, having food?”
Job 39:9 “Will the unicorn…lie down at your manger?”
Proverbs 14:4: “Where there are no oxen, the mangers are clean.”
Isaiah 1:3: “The ox knows his owner, and the ass his masters manger.”
Joel 1:17: “The heifers have started at their mangers.”
Habbakuk 3:17: “There are no oxen at the mangers”
If Christians would just accept the fact that Matthew and Luke each composed their fictional and discrepant stories about a few common elements, but present them in very different and discrepant contexts, they would not have to stretch belief beyond its limits in futile attempts to harmonize them.
Hokku –
That was a short hiatus. I thought you were done, but I am glad to see you have come back to the discussion of things of eternal value.
Let me comment briefly on your first couple of paragraphs because unfortunately, I cannot grant you much in those places.
I can grant you your clarification. Hearership is more accurate than readership. Although, if there is any accuracy at all in Luke’s Gospel (and you claim there is none it seems), he addresses the gospel to a Theophilus, whom Luke assumes can read the gospel. Thus Luke “writes down” his account for him.
This is an important observation given your own criteria of who can read and who cannot read. If, as you say, only people of high and noble class can read, then would it not be a fair assumption that Theophilus not only can read, but he may be a very well educated man and knows the history of the Caesars, especially the acts of Caesar Augustus? I will return to this point in a moment.
Second, I will take issue with your dating of the gospel of Luke. You agree with the liberal dating of the gospel to the 70’s or even 80’s. However, two strong points stand in the way of this date. One, the book of Acts is written after the gospel of Luke (Acts 1.1), and 2) the Paul in the book of Acts (regardless of whether you believe he is the Paul who wrote 2 Timothy or not), has not yet been executed at the close of the book of Acts. I do not know of any writer who argues that the Paul of Acts lives past the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Therefore, we are looking at a date of 65-67 CE for the book of Acts and an even earlier date for the Gospel of Luke, circa 63-65 CE, to be liberal. Some could push it back closer to 60 CE. Thus we are looking at 70 yrs. at the most between the birth of Christ and Luke’s account.
Third, you have a strange method for interpretation of these matters. On the one hand, you want to say that the society back then was an illiterate one, a point that I grant, but on the other hand you want to compare that people to people of our own day, and based on what you know of people today claim for those people of yesterday that they would not have known these historical events and who was governing at what time etc.
Hokku, this is pure madness. It is a well-known fact that this society was an oral one. They were not ignorant as is posited today by some, but they had different methods for learning and being educated than we do today. Furthermore, none of the events in Luke are all that hard to forget. If you believed that Jesus was the Messiah, you would remember all of the most significant events surrounding His birth (and maybe some of the “insignificant” ones). Luke says that Mary treasured all of these events in her heart, twice!! Is a mother likely to forget the details of her first son’s birth? How more unlikely is she to forget the birth of her son, whom she gave birth to as a virgin? We are more likely to remember astounding acts of God like that. The problem is that you will not believe in a virgin birth, so you will not see the act as amazing as the gospel writers and Paul.
You cannot put these people at a double disadvantage, saying that they are illiterate AND stupid or forgetful because they are not like us (or more primitive than us). You can only claim the former, which does not necessarily equal the latter.
Concluding the matter of Luke’s historical accuracy. He writes for Theophilus, a man who can read and is most likely educated. Some suggest he is a member of the council of Caesar. At any rate, he would clearly know the history of the Caesars which mentions censuses and names of governors etc. If Luke is wrong on these details, his primary reader will know it. It is much better to assume that Luke has dotted every i and crossed every t as he is attempting to persuade knowledgeable people to follow Jesus Christ.
The rest of your comment was repeat of previous rantings. You have said nothing new.
However, I must point out your methodological flaw regarding the star. You claim: … is not only the fact that stars do not and could not behave like that, but also the fact that Matthew is the ONLY source mentioning such an astonishing and miraculous event. It is obviously not a factual element, but rather fictional.
How is this an example of an “intra-biblical discrepancy”? There is only one account of it. This detail does not even apparently conflict with Luke in any chronological or geographical way. The only point is that Matthew is the only writer to include this detail, whereas Luke omits it. This is not a discrepancy which can be used to disprove the validity of the account. This detail can simply be incorporated with Luke’s to gain a fuller picture of the birth of Christ.
Your real hang up is that you do not believe that stars behave this way. I tend to agree with you. Comment #2 refers you to a scholar who is no fundamentalist, but still makes sense of this text in a way that ancients would understand. Happy reading.
John
Hokku –
The debate is not over phatne, but rather over kataluma in Luke 2.7. There is good reason to believe that the stable containing the phatnh would have been either adjacent to the living quarters or under it as in some archaeological cases. Whether one author calls it an oikos and another author a kataluma, really makes no difference.
John
You wrote:
“Hearership is more accurate than readership.”
I think it would be impossible for you to defend that. It is “hearership” that accounts for a great many scribal errors in the manuscript tradition (often a text was read to a number of scribes at once for multiple copies). It also accounts for such misinterpretations of Christian hymns as “Gladly the cross-eyed bear.” We know that people constantly mishear and misinterpret things.
That Luke writes to a supposed “Theophilus” may simply be a literary fiction. Theophilus, after all, just means “Lover of God,” Luke is the most literary gospel and uses the best Greek, but that tells us nothing about the ability of the author to distinguish legend from historicity, fact from fiction, given that he uses some 50% of Mark’s gospel in his revision (the mere fact that he “upgrades” some of Mark’s language is revelatory in itself).
Regarding the fictional star, you say:
“This detail does not even apparently conflict with Luke in any chronological or geographical way.”
An element need not contradict to reveal the nature of a document. Given the astonishing story of a star that moves and stands in such a low height as to be identifiably over where the newborn child was, we know that it is not only an astronomical impossibility, but it would have attracted such attention that we would reasonably expect secular accounts of such an amazing phenomenon. Yet later in the birth stories, everyone seems to have forgotten all about the amazing birth events, including Jesus’ own mother. That is, of course, because the birth narratives were written separately and tacked onto the Markan narrative (which begins where the birth narratives leave off in both Matthew and Luke, and the Markan material ends where the post-resurrection narratives have been tacked onto the Markan core by both Matthew and Luke).
To say that something “makes sense in a way the ancients would understand” is to say virtually nothing. The ancient world was rife with superstition and myth. What “truth” should do is take people out of superstition and falsehood, not perpetuate it by keeping them in ignorance.”
All that we know of the cosmos comes not from the Bible but from science. It was science that brought us the knowledge the earth revolves around the sun, while the Bible teaches it is the sun that moves around the earth; it is science that taught us of the existence of billions of unseen stars and of remote galaxies so far that their light was travelling to us long before the stories of biblical creation were written. It is science that has informed us of plate tectonics and of the evolution of life.
The bible did not even let people know of the existence of germs as a factor in disease. So why perpetuate the notion of stars that move and can be so close to the earth as to identify a particular spot in a little village? That is a scientific impossibility. If you want to hold that it happened, then you have to say it was not a star; stars do not and could not behave that way.
And why was such a star not mentioned by Luke? Not important enough? Like the magi and the slaughter of the innocents and the flight to Egypt?
It reminds me of the miraculous heavenly torch in Diodorus:
“During this voyage, a peculiar and strange event happened to Timoleon. Heaven came to the support of his venture and foretold his coming fame and the glory of his achievements, for all through the night he was preceded by a torch blazing in the sky up to the moment when the squadron made harbour in Italy. Now Timoleon had heard already in Corinth from the priestesses of Demeter and Persephone that, while they slept, the goddesses had told them that they would accompany Timoleon on his voyage to their sacred island. He and his companions were, in consequence, delighted, recognizing that the goddesses were in fact giving them their support. He dedicated his best ship to them, calling it “The Sacred Ship of Demeter and Persephone.”
Not surprising in a world of such signs and wonders that someone would eventually come up with a miraculous moving star to add to Mark’s account.
If someone were to come up with such a fantastic story today, would you believe it in the absence of any outside confirming evidence, given what we know of science and the universe? Then why believe it in this case?
You wrote:
“Whether one author calls it an oikos and another author a kataluma, really makes no difference.”
Oh, but it does. The Septuagint was the Bible of the first Christians. “Kataluma” in the Septuagint translates the Hebrew “”malon,” which means an inn, a place to stay for the night. If the text had intended a “house” owned by friends or relatives, one would reasonably expect it to say so.
In I Samuel 1:18 (Septuagint) it is used of the place where Elkanah and Hannah stay on the way to Shiloh.
Hokku,
You are a walking discrepancy. We are talking about “intra-biblical discrepancies,” not what is and what is not astronomically possible (do you have any idea what is and what is not possible here? I think you are way out of your league on this one).
There is no intra-biblical discrepancy over the star in Matthew. The other gospels do not have it, while one has it. The star itself does not cause tension between the synoptics. It is only your knowledge or ignorance of astronomical phenomena, which causes you to yell fowl at this step in the discussion.
My point was not to perpetuate the “myths” of the ancients. My point was that we cannot criticize the ancients because we understand a text in a way that they would not have understood it. If by “star” Matthew means something like “angel” then this is an entirely different question now. If this reading is right, the only one left for you to criticize is yourself, since you did not understand the text, you ignorantly criticized.
I have not the stamina at this point to discuss scribal practices and tendencies with you, just to say that you have no idea what you are talking about, and I have no idea how this contributes to our discussion of original composition. Even on your view, the evidence demands that you see “Luke” as full composition at a fairly early date (even though you want to see major additions added by others), long before scribal practices come into play, since we have no ms. evidence of an evolutionary composition of the gospel of Luke or any other NT writing for that matter. The closest parallels to this idea would be the ending of Mark and John 8.1-11 or something like that.
John
As I wrote, “we know that it is not only an astronomical impossibility, but it would have attracted such attention that we would reasonably expect secular accounts of such an amazing phenomenon. Yet later in the birth stories, everyone seems to have forgotten all about the amazing birth events, including Jesus’ own mother.”
No response to those points? You did say”
“If by “star” Matthew means something like “angel” then this is an entirely different question now.”
Now you seem to be arguing again from what is not written anywhere in the text. Matthew said “star”; but maybe he did not mean “star”; maybe he meant “angel.”
If so, why did he write “star”? What continually amazes me is that conservative Christians hold texts to the “the word of God” that do not even meet the standards one finds in high school journalism students. The fact is that Matthew wrote “star,” not “angel” or “shekinah” or “comet” or “conjunction of planets” or any of the other excuses I have seen. A star cannot stand above a tiny village in close enough proximity to identify anything. So what Luke narrates is impossible, except, as I have shown by the Diodorus quote, in myth. Luke is writing myth, in keeping with the standards of the culture, to convince readers of his story.
And of course we have evidence of the “evolution” of Luke in the simple fact that he incorporates some 50% of Mark in his text. He is aware of precursors, and he he writes his own revised Gospel, using the Markan Material.
Luke is not writing history, he is writing religious propaganda, and he does that in any way he wishes, even to rewriting the Markan model to mean something entirely different. I shall give you an excellent example of this:
In Mark, a young man appears to the women at the tomb “and says:
YOU SEEK Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is risen; he is not here. Behold the place where they laid him. But go and tell his disciples and Peter that he goes before you INTO GALILEE: there you shall see him, as he told you.”
Luke rewrites this as:
“they [Luke has two angels] said to them, “why SEEK YOU you the living among the dead? HE IS NOT HERE, BUT IS RISEN. Remember he HE TOLD YOU when he was yet IN GALILEE that the son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be CRUCIFIED, and the third day RISE again.
Now this is obviously the same essential speech presented in Mark (and also in Matthew), but Luke has rewritten it, changing it from a prediction of a future meeting with the risen Jesus in Galilee to simpley a past remembrance of something Jesus once said in Galilee.
We know it is the same essential speech, because it comes at the same place in the Synoptic sequence and juggles the same key words/concepts (I have capitalized them in the text.
Why would Luke do this? Because he NEVER mentions any post-resurrection appearance of Jesus in Galilee, so a prediction of such is useless for his purposes. Instead, he places all post-resurrection appearances in the vicinity of Jerusalem. So he has rewritten “gospel truth” to mean something completely different, eliminating a prediction and manipulating reference to Galilee. So Luke cannot let himself write a prediction of something he does not even have happening in his gospel. We can confirm this is what Mark is doing by looking at what he does in his account of the Last Supper:
Mark writes (14:28) “But after I am raised, I will go before you into Galilee.”
Luke, however, omits this prediction entirely — again, because his gospel not only has no Galilee post-resurrection appearance, but leaves no room for such a thing.
This is clear and obvious evidence that Luke’s purpose is not to write factual history, but to write religious propaganda, and he is quite willing and comfortable to do that by rewriting Mark when he wishes, changing the meaning completely, to accomplish his ends. Of course that means his gospel is completely untrustworthy as history, but it is NOT history — it is propaganda.
In addition, you wrote:
“I have not the stamina at this point to discuss scribal practices and tendencies with you, just to say that you have no idea what you are talking about…”
On the contrary, I long ago familiarized myself with scribal practices in the Greco-Roman world. It was common to copy new manuscripts by dictation to multiple scribes. It was the equivalent of mass printing or the xerox machine in our time, though of course not remotely as effective, and it led to numerous scribal mishearings and errors. We even find a discription of this in the Historia Ecclesiae of Eusebius, in his description of Origen’s scriptorium:
“For while he dictated there were ready at hand more than seven shorthand writers ["tachugraphoi", literally "quick writers"], relieving one another at intervals, and that many copyists, and girls skilled in penmanship.”
Hokku –
We could go round and round on these issues. Needless to say, evangelicals have answers for all of your questions. We are treading over texts which have been tread on many times in the past. You are not saying anything new, and my responses do not claim to be novel either.
If you are willing, I want to take a step back with you, and ask you a more fundamental question, which has been raised in my mind as you continually call the veracity of the gospel accounts into question.
How do you know what truth is? How do you determine the difference between truth and myth?
John
You wrote:
“Needless to say, evangelicals have answers for all of your questions.”
That is not really a response to the issues I raised in the matter of the obvious Lukan rewriting of the Markan text. So what I want to know is how YOU explain the changing of the text from a prediction of the future to a past remembrance, and Luke’s complete omission not only of post-resurrection appeances in Galilee, but also his excision of ANY mention of such appearances from his text? Simply replying to a statement is not answering it, nor does giving an answer mean the answer is correct.
You also wrote:
“How do you determine the difference between truth and myth?”
Lest we descend into semantics, I want first to define some terms. I am going to use “myth” in its sense of “an invented story.” Given that, a myth may be loosely “true” as a metaphor for something else — for example the myth of Demeter is “true” in the sense that it is a metaphor for the annual death and growth cycle of nature. It is not, however, true in the sense of having been an historical event. This is essentially the approach of Joseph Cambell regarding myth.
That leaves us with how one distinguishes “an invented story” from factual history. One may do so by comparing an event with natural laws and scientific observation. When an astronomer says a star may explode, we can verify that through observation. We can SEE a star explode. People once thought (even Thomas Jefferson), that stones did not fall from the sky. But we now know not only from observation that stones DO fall from the sky, but we also know, from scientific observation, WHY they fall, and where they come from.
We know that the sun does not and cannot stop in the sky, as the Bible relates in the story of Joshua, because not only does the sun not move in relation to the earth, but also that if the earth were to cease its revolution momentarily, it would create geological chaos. We know for the same reason that a star could not have moved and stood above and close enough to Bethlehem to identify the birth site of Jesus.
We know Genesis is myth because we know from observation that there is no solid firmament over the earth, and the sun, moon and stars are not set in that solid firmament, like lamps in a tent. And we know from observation that not only is the sky not solid as depicted in the Bible, but also that there is no vast body of waters above such a solid sky. Further, that there is no heaven up there as depicted in the Bible from the OT to the NT.
To distinguish an invented story from fact (“truth”), one has to look at the evidence for and against the likelihood of such an event, and then to use Occam’s Razor — the explanation which requires the fewest assumptions is generally to be preferred.
Thus we we read that Jesus ascended to heaven, we know that makes no sense at all, because first, there is no heaven above a solid firmament, and second, ascending from a globe would take one to only a single point in a multitude of possible points light years away. One cannot simply ascend from any point on earth at any time and get to the same place. That, of course, was not known to Luke, who simply assumed the veracity of the mistaken Biblical cosmology that heaven is above the earth, and it takes only the opening of the sky to offer passage into or out of it, as in the Baptism of Jesus (Mark says literally that the sky was “torn open,” which Luke softens simply to “opened”).
Now, in the case of some disputed matters — whether there is such a thing as a Yeti, etc. etc., one must use rationality and scientific knowledge to hypothesize not only whether or not such a thing is beyond reasonable possibility, but also whether one should suspend a conclusion in the lack of enough relevant evidence, until more evidence becomes available.
Hokku –
I am simply borrowing a play from your playbook. Check back to comment #43. I believe that you do have a response to my response concerning Quirinius, but you simply do not want to invest the time, and thus you point out that all non-fundamentalist scholars do not hold to my poition.
At this point, I simply cannot invest the time, but as I said, though not an answer to your question, many others have answered your objections. If I have more time in the near future, I will give a response, but I am about to begin another rigorous semester, and I doubt I will have more time.
How do you know that your observation of phenomena is true? How do you know Ockham was right? In what structure do you place these data in order to interpret them?
To be honest, given what I know of your worldview, I am not sure how you make sense of truth and myth. You have no universal or ultimate standard by which evaluate truth and lie. I am trying to get at these underpinnings of your worldview.
So far, all I get from you is that you are the autonomous interpreter. You have correctly interpreted yourself and your context and all other data. But at the end of the day, I am left with the conclusion that you have only interpreted and measured this data according to yourself as the self-proclaimed sovereign interpreter. Yet, you have all kinds of biases. You want all of the readers to forsake their faith commitments to adopt your own (autonomous reasoning and science etc.).
Given these faith commitments [I am using the term to refer to bricks and mortar of your own worldview] of yours, how are your claims any more viable than my own? According to your worldview, there is no heaven. According to mine, there is a heaven. Who is to decide? You are your own standard, according to your own claim, yet you have not plumbed the depths of space to really know if there is no heaven according to your own epistemological criteria. I have the word of God, made more sure by the revelation of God in his Son, Jesus Christ. Because he has died and been raised, All of us will one day be raised. According to my worldview, the supernatural not only occurs but it is to be expected. That God can raise the dead is no surprise to Christians. According to your worldview, there is no god, who certainly could not raise the dead, even if he existed. Who is to decide truth in this matter? Modern Science which is so decidedly atheistic and committed to this material worldview [your worldview]? Or the word of God on the matter [my worldview]?
All of the difficulties in the text can be answered legitimately. What we have between us at this point is a clashing of worldviews. Who or what is to adjudicate between them?
John
You wrote:
” I believe that you do have a response to my response concerning Quirinius, but you simply do not want to invest the time…”
A red herring. You well know, and can verify from the postings, that I told you I prefer to deal with matters that can be easily presented from within the Bible itself, and further pointed out the impracticality of trying to deal with six pages of off-site pdf text. I hold that if someone cannot carry on an apologetic argument without the necessity of readers and participants going to off-site linked sites to read articles not made by participants in the discussion, then that person should probably just be posting list of links and not purporting to be practicing apologetics.
Now I just presented some very obvious and conclusive evidence from within the NT itself, actual quotes, and yet you cannot seem to come up with a rational and reasonable explanation for any of it. The Lukan rewriting of the Markan text is an excellent example of precisely what we are talking about — the unreliability of the Bible in matters of fact and history. The Bible witnesses against itself.
But the problem you face in dealing with this and the other matters I mentioned is precisely that facing Mormons in dealing with evidence against their beliefs. It simply comes down to a matter of whether one is going to rely on facts, evidence, and logic, or whether one is going to put all those aside in favor of a system of belief that is neither supported by evidence nor by logic. It does not matter what the belief system is, whether Mormon, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or some other form of fundamentalistic Christianity, it simply comes down to the will to believe over the will to think, to use one’s head, to approach matters openly yet not with gullibility. One must keep one’s critical faculty switched on.
The only difference between your belief system and that of Mormons who accept the “visions” of Joseph Smith is that we are closer to Smith’s time, in which printing had been invented, and literacy was more widespread, and consequently we have overwhelming amount of evidence that Smith was a fake and a con man. All you are doing is shifting the field of play back some eighteen centuries to when illiteracy was the rule, superstition was rampant, and information transmission was rife with rumor and ignorance. And then you refuse to critically examine the evidence that clearly shows the Synoptics to be the result of copying, and also the product of revisions to fit the viewpoints of the individual editors.
So it comes down to either the will to believe or the willingness to use one’s head and critical faculties. I prefer the latter.
John,
What would it take to convince you that the Bible is a human-selected anthology of human and fallible documents? What evidence would you consider conclusive? Is there any possible evidence you would or could accept, or do you unwaveringly hold to the assumption that any such evidence could not possible be true, because the Bible is the word of God and any flaw is only apparent rather than real, and so all evidence of fallibility is only seeming, and has an explanation, whether one has found it yet or not?
If this is your position, then any evidence, no matter how conclusive, is likely to be meaningless to you. You will just mentally discard it, remaining locked in a mental prison of your own making.
Hokku,
HA! Instead of answering John’s question in regards to truth – which John has answered a number of times, by the way – You refuse to answer yourself, and instead posits the exact same question to John, as if it is original.
You’re intrabiblical discrepancies have been answered, one by one, and then you take it farther by bringing up extrabiblical arguments. John then counters these arguments with legitimate answers, and you play the
“let’s keep it intrabiblical” card. Nice consistency.
BTW, just curious, but you’ve never explained (maybe you have, but there’s too many posts to go back through and check) why Luke and Matthew borrowing from Mark makes Matthew and Luke fiction.
Oh, and for the record, you still have yet to present one legitimate inconsistency or indescrepancy (whichever term you’re using now).
Brian,
I’m still trying to establish what you said about the timing of the magi’s visit. You have said several times that they attended the birth. For the record, do you think that they were present at the birth/manger/stable? Or did they arrive subsequent to the day of Christ’s birth?
You are correct about the 41 days in Lev 12. I was not counting the 8 days before circumcision.
It seems like you’re arguing for the “when” translation based on chronology not grammar. I’m not sure why you dislike the “after” translation since you believe that the magi didn’t arrive “when” Jesus was born but “after” Christ was born (or maybe you do think they arrived to witness Mary’s labor and childbirth. I’m still trying to figure out where you are on this one).
The grammar doesn’t demand the “when” translation and neither does your own chronology. One could say that the wisemen arrived “after” Christ was born and fit very well with your belief that the magi arrived when Christ was an infant. I don’t see that you’ve made the case that it fits like a fat person into a speedo.
I understand that “after” doesn’t narrow the chronology the way you understand “when” to narrow it, but that’s not an argument against the “after” translation. Even if someone did accept your chronology it would only be a translational preference not a requirement.
Lastly, I’ll comment briefly on your cloud interpretation of the star in Matthew. I can appreciate your desire to use this passage typologically. However, a cloud is so utterly distinguishable from a star that the greek word “aster” cannot be translated “star” and has never been translated as such. The LXX, for instance, uses the word “nephele” for cloud in Exodus. I don’t know how you surmount this obstacle for your view.
Also, it is significant that these men are astrologers. If it is simply a low-lying cloud that they follow, then anyone could do it and thus there’s no significance to them being magi.
BrianMcLain wrote:
HA! Instead of answering John’s question in regards to truth – which John has answered a number of times, by the way – You refuse to answer yourself…”
I don’t know where you have been, but I answered that question in some detail in #60.
Brian also wrote:
“You’re intrabiblical discrepancies have been answered, one by one…”
Wrong again. No answer addressing the issues raised by Luke’s rewriting of the Markan prediction of a meeting in Galilee into a past remembrance of something said in Galilee was forthcoming. Nor was there any response to the issues raised in #60.
Brian also wrote:
“John then counters these arguments with legitimate answers, and you play the
“let’s keep it intrabiblical” card.”
You really have not been reading. I said that before John presented his link to another site written by someone else. To refer someone to another site is not an answer — it is actually an avoidance of a direct answer, and it was also peculiar in view of the fact that I had already said I preferred to argue what can be demonstrated from within the Bible itself, rather than from outside sources. There is nothing in the least unfair about that, and if you want to complain about that, then you are complaining about keeping the focus on what the Bible actually says.
Now let’s hear your response to the Lukan rewriting of Mark. If you cannot or do not intend to make one, you really have nothing to say about it.
Now as I have written several times, I prefer to stay with intra-biblical evidence, but for those who would use that fact unfairly, here is a summary response to the matter. Those who find the length of it insufficient may go to the online article which discusses the evidence in great detail. I do not intend to discuss it here further, beyond this, because it requires considerable extra-biblical evidence to deal with in toto.
THE QUIRINIAN CENSUS
Publius Sulpicius Quirinius became hegumon of Syria in 6 C.E., an a census of Judea under him took place in 6-7 C. E.
If Jesus were born both “in the days of Herod” (who died in 4 B.C.E.) and under the Quirinian census (6-7 C.E.), this would be an impossibility.
Consequently, in an effort to salvage Lukan historicity, conservative Christians posit a “double” hegumonship of Quirinius, attempting to support it from extra-biblical data.
There are a number of problems with this, among them:
The Quirinian census was not of “all the world,” nor even of Galilee, but of Judea.
There is no known requirement for a person to return to the town of an ancestor far distant in time, which in any case would have been remarkably disruptive even it it could have been determined where one’s ancestor had lived centuries before.
Herod the King paid tribut to Rome, and had his own taxes and collectors. There was no reason for a Roman census until Syria came under direct Roman control, which is the immediate reason for the Quirinian census in 6 C. E. Conservative Christians sometimes mention the “war” tax in Josephus XII, but that is not evidence of direct Roman taxation.
But aside from such problems, there is the “evidence” given for a double hegumonship, as already mentioned.
First, do we know the sequence of hegumons of Syria at that time?
Yes, we do, and Quirinius is listed only in his proper place, not twice. Following Josephus, the list of hegumons is:
23-12 B.C.E. — M. Agrippa
c. 10 B.C.E –M. Titius
9-6 B.C.E. –S. Sentius Saturninus
6-4 B.C.E. — Quintilius Varus (obviously filling the end of the “days of Herod”
1 B.C.E. – c. 4 C.E. — Gaius Caesar
4-5 C.E. –L. Volusius Saturninus
6-post 7 C. E. –Publius Sulpicius Quirinius
Could it be likely in view of this that Quirinius served betwen 4 and one B.C.E. or earlier? Hardly, because we can trace his career:
He was consul in 12 B.C.E.;
He was in Asia Minor sometime betwwen 12 and 6 B.C.E. battling the Homonadenses with his legions;
He was in Syria as advior to Gaius Caesar in several years before 4 B.C.E., but there is not as single indication of his being hegumon at any point in his career from 12 B. C. E. to 6. C. E.; and certainly there is no mention or indication of such in Josephus that Quirinius served as heguman prior to his established historical service.
Conservative Christians posit against this various inscriptions:
1. The Lapis Tiburtinus, found in 1764 near Tivoli. It mentions an unnamed official:
In an extensive article on the inscription, Syme associates the inscription with L. Calpurnius Piso, and points out the weakness of attributing it to Quirinius.
2. A marble base from Antioch of Pisidia found by Ramsay in 1912. The inscription is a dedication to G. Caristianus Fronto (base to a statue of Gaius Caristanius Sergius, perhaps later named Julius Caesianus Fronto, unless these represent two different individuals) who was “prefect of P. Sulpcius Quirinius the duumvir,” and “prefect of M. Servilius:” Ramsay goes far beyond what this says in his attempt to posit a dual hegumonship of Quirinius.
3. The Lapis Venetus (Aemilius Secundus inscription), which tells us nothing beyond what we already know — that a census was held under Quirinius, and cannot reasonably be linked with a supposed earlier census.
All of these inscriptions have been known for decades, and are nothing new.
The general conclusion of scholarship (outside the assertions of conservative Christians) is that there is no reason to assume that there was any census of Palestine under Quirinius in the time of King Herod. Were it not for Luke’s error, no one would assume any of these to be at all relevant, other than confirming what we already know from history — that Quirinius existed, but one does not need Luke for that.
Further, in Acts 5:36 (Acts being “part II” of Luke), Luke presents another apparent mistake regarding the census. In the speech of Gamaliel, he mentions the revolt of Theudas, which actually did not take place until about TEN YEARS after the speech of Gamaliel (Josephus, Antiquities), and then dates the census and the revolt of Judas the Galilean mistakenly AFTER Theudas. So Luke has Gamaliel talking about a revolt that had not yet taken place.
For a detailed discussion of these matters, see Brown’s Birth of the Messiah, Appendix on Quirinius, or online, there is a detailed discussion with translations of all inscriptions at:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Tiburtinus
Anyone who wants to complain about my giving an online reference to a site outside this one will note that I simply do so in response to the same thing being done earlier by John. I do not favor the practice, but prefer to discuss directly from the Bible, using it as the best witness for its fallibility and completely human and non-divine nature. The offline site provides all the original relevant inscriptions with complete translations.
That is all I am going to say on this matter. Now back to the Bible itself.
Hokku –
Your bias towards the biblical text is simply amazing to me, and I imagine to others.
How can you discount the evidence of Luke’s gospel in favor of the evidence of Josephus? At this point I am not even claiming that Josephus is wrong about Q (technically). The dual governorship view can still be upheld without that conclusion [Jos. does not mention Q in Syria at the debated time, but that does not mean Q is not there in governorship. Jos. may mention just one of the consuls. It is important to note that Jos. does not claim that Q was not in Syria at this time.].
My point is much simpler. Luke says one thing, and Josephus another, and you immediately side with the non-biblical witness. Why do you do that? Do you agree with all of Josephus? Is his record impeccable? Surely not.
You still have trouble accounting for the presence of Q in leadership in Syria during the disputed dates [Simply saying, "Ramsay goes far beyond what this says in his attempt to posit a dual hegumonship of Quirinius" is not answer. How does Ramsay go too far?]. And you nor your Internet article mentions the evidence of Res Gestai Divi Augusti (dated at latest ca. 14 CE), which has Augustus conducting a census of the Roman Empire (the oukoumene of Luke 2.2) ca. 8 B.C.E [your conclusion about the scope of the census of Q depends on your 6 CE census conclusion. Unfortunately, this must be established first, before you go off making conclusions about it.]. Surely the census in those days would begin with Rome and work its way out. It would take more than a year to conduct it, which would still have Joseph and Mary on their way to Bethleham ca. 7-6 BCE.
You do not have as air tight case against Luke as you imagine. W. Ramsay synthesizes Luke with Josephus and with the inscriptions. You still cannot account for Q’s presence in Antioch around this time as attested by the inscriptions. Most importantly you cannot suppress Luke’s testimony. He has a voice in this discussion just as Josephus does. Marginalizing the gospel accounts to the level of the book of Mormon simply demonstrates your bias against the biblical record.
I have already responded to your comment about Acts 5:37. This verse only has as much force as your assumption about Luke to begin with. You believe that Luke only knows of one census, this one. But it is an absolutely ludicrous interpretation because no matter how one reads Luke 2.2, Luke obviously knows about more than one census. You simply cannot pin falsehood to Luke here.
Hokku, I am still waiting for answers to my questions in comment # 61. All of this discussion about evidence is pointless, until we know where your pre-commitments lay. It is pretty clear you are materialist, given what you have said, but I would like to hear it from you. Yes, I am putting you on the witness stand now.
John
John,
I gave you the link to the detailed information and to the book by Raymond E. Brown. Did you read them? Further, the link to the online site explores further historical errors in Luke, if you want to pursue them. Given that all the information has been available for decades, and that historians simply do not except the “two terms” view, and given that all your evidence is supposition that goes beyond anything the relevant inscriptions say, I am surprised you are even bothering to pursue this.
As for me, I am sticking with what I already said. I have said all I am going to say on that matter, and I have gone out of my way to be flexible in even saying as much as I have said. The rest is up to you. We can tell that Luke is human and flawed simply by comparison with the other gospels, as I have demonstrated in Luke’s rewriting of Mark. You have studiously avoided dealing with that issue, which is quite obvious without any reference to any extra-biblical resources. Why is it that you are persistently refusing to deal with it?
You wrote earlier:
“You want all of the readers to forsake their faith commitments to adopt your own (autonomous reasoning and science etc.).”
Stop and think for a moment. In what other field would people be so gullible as in belief without evidence? If someone told you that your headache was due to space aliens trying to contact you telepathically, would you simply believe that, or would you go to a physician, who would examine the symptoms and make a determination based on the evidence rather than on “belief”? If someone told you that there is a land in which everything is in bright shades of pink just above the clouds, would you believe that, or would you go to what is known of astronomy and space investigation to make a reasoned hypothesis on the likelihood of such a land?
It is only when it comes to the Bible that Christians jettison common sense, evidence, and rationality, preferring to believe what they wish to believe, rather than approaching fantastic assertions with a critical and examining mind.
I think you are simply going into being evasive, because you cannot respond to the issues raised concerning biblical fallibility, such as the Lukan rewriting of Mark. If you want to know my “pre-commitments,” I think I have made it quite obvious that my commitment is to the facts and the evidence, and to conclusions drawn from them. I explained that in detail in an earlier posting, so no need to pretend you are unaware of it.
You did not reply at all to my question about evidence vs. belief, when I replied to yours about truth in detail. So here is that question again.
What would it take to convince you that the Bible is a human-selected anthology of human and fallible documents? What evidence would you consider conclusive? Is there any possible evidence you would or could accept, or do you unwaveringly hold to the assumption that any such evidence could not possibly be true, because the Bible is the word of God and any flaw is only apparent rather than real, and so all evidence of fallibility is only seeming, and has an explanation, whether one has found it yet or not?
If this is your position, then any evidence, no matter how conclusive, is likely to be meaningless to you. You will just mentally discard it, remaining locked in a mental prison of your own making.
So which is it, John? Do you put belief above any and all evidence? If not, what evidence would it take? Or do you hold that “any such evidence could not possibly be true, because the Bible is the word of God and any flaw is only apparent rather than real, and has an explanation whether one has found it yet or not?
And again, where is your reply to the obvious rewriting of Mark by Luke, which not only changes a prediction of a future meeting in Galilee to a past remembrance of something said in Galilee, but also excises any mention of post-Galilee appearances or predictions?
Hokku –
We are basically at an impasse here.
I refuse to debate you on your own terms, which you continue to project as objective and neutral interpretations of the evidence. This is not evasion of the argument, it is simply an evasion of the argument as you project it.
I have continually shown that belief does not have to be contra evidence and facts or vice versa. I have continually given explanations for your alleged contradictions (I am working on the post resurrection question currently, but needless to say, I have an answer, with which you will not be satisfied). But you continue to cast the argument as though these entities must be mutually exclusive. This is a presupposition of yours, which is consistent with your material and atheistic worldview. It is not a necessary conclusion from the evidence. Hokku, all you have is evidence [of course I have the same evidence]. The conclusions you draw from this evidence, well they are your interpretation of the evidence. None of this evidence is self-interpreting. Evidence must always have a fallible interpreter. Are you claiming that 1) the evidence is self-interpreting or 2) that you are a divine interpreter?
Certainly there are different types of beliefs. A belief in a pumpkin god who lives in a pumpkin world and all these sorts of hypothetical beliefs are not really true analogies to Christianity are they? Of course we do not believe in everything simply because it is presented as true. However, the Christian worldview is not just any worldview. Only this worldview is consistent within itself, and is able to ask and answer the major questions of life with which all humanity must deal. If you take this worldview away, and substitute a worldview which maintains we are all products of a chance universe and only as real as the genes and molecules that we consist, I maintain that we cannot make sense of the reason and laws of logic that we use every day. Christianity is true simply because of the impossibility of the contrary. This is a fact with which you must wrestle: can your view of origins and meaning of life account for the knowledge, reason and laws of logic that you use everyday? This is not an evasion of the issue at hand. It is a pre-condition to knowledge of the very matters on which we have been spinning our wheels.
Again, once you answer these questions, I will answer yours (though you should definitely know my answers by now). I hope to have an answer on the post-resurrection account some time in the next day or two.
John
John asked:
“Are you claiming that 1) the evidence is self-interpreting or 2) that you are a divine interpreter?”
Obviously, neither. Evidence does not interpret itself. An interpreter is required, but that interpreter must follow the evidence, not the will to believe in spite of the evidence.
John asked:
“A belief in a pumpkin god who lives in a pumpkin world and all these sorts of hypothetical beliefs are not really true analogies to Christianity are they?”
Yes, fundamentally hypothetical “fantasy” beliefs are direct analogies to Christianity. But of course there are historically literally thousands of Christian sects, so I want to make clear that I am speaking here specifically of a fundamentalistic Christianity that regards the Bible (most likely Protestant) as the divine, inerrant word of God.
John writes:
“However, the Christian worldview is not just any worldview. Only this worldview is consistent within itself, and is able to ask and answer the major questions of life with which all humanity must deal.”
I have to say that is simply self-disproving. The “biblical” Christian worldview is not at all consistent within itself, and that is reflected in the inconsistencies and doctrinal changes evident not only within the Bible itself, but also in the astonishing inconsistency in belief among the multitudes of Christian sects historically.
John writes further:
Christianity is true simply because of the impossibility of the contrary. This is a fact with which you must wrestle: can your view of origins and meaning of life account for the knowledge, reason and laws of logic that you use everyday?
I have to say that reads to me as simply wishful thinking on your part, and certainly not remotely resembling a “fact.” And yes, my view of origins can account for the knowledge, reason, and laws of logic I use, because it incorporates not only evolution but also the development of thought through human history.
There. I have answered your questions, again being flexible. Now answer mine.
I note that you demonstrate a certain apparent discomfort in admitting that you put belief above evidence. I have no such qualms about plainly stating that I put evidence and the conclusions to be drawn from it above mere belief.
I have explained my views on all this in detail. Now lets have yours. And I look forward to your solution to the problem of Lukan rewriting of Mark.
Hokku –
You are far from answering the question concerning your accounting for knowledge, logic, and reason etc.
How does evolution and the “development of thought” account for reason and the laws of logic? Although you have not clearly delineated your view of origins, you did not deny that it relies on chance and that it is only material. Furthermore, any subsequent development would require more and more chance happenings. How does this chance universe and world system account for knowledge and consistent thinking? Furthermore, this worldview usually entails a view that has man as autonomous and as his own self-reference point. Do you hold to this view of man/anthropology?
I will answer your questions.
John
John wrote:
“How does evolution and the “development of thought” account for reason and the laws of logic?”
The “laws of logic,” (generally-accepted standards, actually) formally speaking are very late in human development (ex. Occam’s Razor), and are formulated as the result of reasoning. Reasoning itself is the result of evolutionary development — the ability to connect cause and effect, etc. etc. Such things are developments of the genetic code in DNA, combined with the education natural to early human development.
John wrote further:
“How does this chance universe and world system account for knowledge and consistent thinking?”
First, how do you know the universe is “chance”? Do you think the fact that a star goes supernova is “chance,” or the outcome of previously-existing conditions? (rhetorical question). If so, why should the universe be any different?
Again, DNA and the genetic code — the ability to store memory and to think.
John also wrote:
“Furthermore, this worldview usually entails a view that has man as autonomous and as his own self-reference point. Do you hold to this view of man/anthropology?”
You would have to be more specific. Man is “autonomous” in specifically what way? And self-referent in what sense — based on one’s own experience? Based on the collective experience of humankind? You need to be more precise so I will know what it is exactly that you wish to know.
Still waiting for your answers to my earlier questions.