Well, it’s that time of year again. Regular church attendees are going to have to share their pews with people who have finally decided to make it out for their second service of the year. Their belief that Jesus bled and died so they can gain eternal salvation might be unshakable, but it apparently isn’t all that motivating, considering how little these believers seem to do in response. Nevertheless, they can at least be counted on to show up for a retelling of Jesus’s miraculous birth.
But what version will they hear? More than likely, they’ll hear a “Hollywood” version of the tale that incorporates the most exciting elements of the two versions that we read about in Matthew and Luke. A quick Google search turned up this one, which illustrates my point perfectly. But what if someone tried to tell the full version? A version that included every detail that both Matthew and Luke provide?
Honestly, it just can’t be done. I had wanted to attempt it here, but there’s just no practical way to do it. For example, the version I linked to above goes like this:
The Standard Tale
- Mary’s visited by an angel who tells her about the pregnancy (Luke)
- She and Joseph live in Nazareth of Galilee, but are forced to travel to Bethlehem in Judea for a census commanded by the Roman authorities (Luke)
- They’re unable to find normal accommodations and are forced to room in an area intended for livestock. Mary gives birth there and is visited by local shepherds (Luke)
- Wise men far to the east see a star that somehow signifies the birth of the Jewish Messiah (Matthew)
- They travel for an unspecified period until they reach Jerusalem, where they inquire about the child (Matthew)
- These inquiries reach Herod, the ruler of the region, and he asks the wise men to send back word to him once they find the child, so Herod himself can also pay his respects (Matthew)
- The wise men make their way to Bethlehem, find the family, bestow their gifts, and return home via a different route (Matthew)
- An angel tells Joseph to hightail it out of Bethlehem, because Herod’s sending a posse to wipe out all the children 2 years old and under in an effort to stamp out Jesus (Matthew)
- Joseph and his family flee to Egypt and remain there until an angel tells him it’s safe to return, because Herod has died (Matthew)
- Joseph intends to go back toward Bethlehem, but after finding out that Herod’s son is in charge, he takes the family to Nazareth in Galilee (Matthew)
So what’s wrong with this story? I mean, it’s very cohesive, and it makes for a compelling tale. What’s not to like? Its only real problem is that the very books of the Bible that provide its details, contradict its overall narrative.
Two Very Different Stories
Let’s go back to Luke’s version. After Jesus’s birth and the visit from the shepherds, we don’t read about wise men or Herod’s animosity. Instead, Luke 2:22 says that after the days of Mary’s purification were over, the family went to Jerusalem. The “days of purification” are referring to Leviticus 12:1-4, where the Law of Moses stated that a woman was to be considered “unclean” for 40 days after giving birth to a male child. So when Jesus was about 40 days old, Luke claims that they all traveled to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices as thanks for his birth. While there, two elderly people see Jesus and begin proclaiming praise and prophecies concerning Jesus. And there’s no indication that an effort was made to keep any of this quiet, which is very different in tone to what we read in Matthew. Finally, in Luke 2:39, we read “And when they had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.” We’ll come back to this point in a moment.
The synopsis we looked at earlier incorporated most of Matthew’s version of the story. As we just read, his story ends very differently from Luke’s. However, it’s also significant to note that Matthew gives no indication that Joseph and Mary are from Nazareth. Matt 1:18 through the end of the chapter talks about Mary’s pregnancy, even though she and Joseph had never slept together, but it never specifies where they’re living. Chapter 2 begins with the sentence “Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, ‘Where is he who has been born king of the Jews?'” Of course, it’s possible that Matthew still knew they were originally from Nazareth and just doesn’t bother to tell us that or divulge how they got to Bethlehem in the first place. But there are three context clues that point against such a possibility. First of all, regardless of how far the wise men had to journey, it likely took them quite a while to make the trip. When Matthew says “the east” he certainly doesn’t mean “east Jersualem,” and travel being what it was back then, any journey would have taken considerable time. The second clue is that Herod supposedly kills all the male children of Bethlehem who are 2 and under. So it’s unlikely that we’re supposed to still be thinking of Jesus as a newborn. Finally, Matthew says that when the family was able to leave Egypt, Joseph wanted to go back to Judea (where Bethlehem is). But after finding out Herod’s son was ruling, he became afraid and “went and lived in a city called Nazareth” (Matt 2:23). This is a very strange way to refer to Nazareth, if it’s where Joseph and Mary were already living.
So Matthew gives no indication that Joseph and Mary were just visiting Bethlehem. He never mentions a manger; instead, he references a house that they were staying in. He never talks about the shepherds from the fields, but has wise men who visit the child. He includes a story about Herod slaughtering a town’s children, though no other historical or biblical source ever mentions this. He claims that the family flees to Egypt until Herod’s death, that they want to return to Bethlehem, but finally settle in “a city called Nazareth.”
Luke, on the other hand, says that Nazareth is their home town, and they’re only visiting Bethlehem. He has no story about wise men, but does talk about shepherds from the fields that visit the newborn Jesus. Instead of Herod attempting to hunt them down and a subsequent flight to Egypt, the family travels straight to Jerusalem, where Herod lives. And there’s no effort to keep Jesus’s identity secret while they’re there, as two elderly prophets begin proclaiming who he is. And after making their sacrifices, the family simply goes back home to Nazareth, far from Herod’s reach (not that Luke indicates Herod’s even interested).
Can These Stories Be Put Together?
The main sticking points between the stories are the flight to Egypt and the trip to Jerusalem. On the one hand, Luke is very clear about his timeline: Jesus was only about 40 days old when they went to Jerusalem and then went home to Nazareth. Matthew doesn’t give specifics on how old Jesus was when the family was forced to flee to Egypt, except that it must have occurred before he was 2 years old.
Could the trip to Egypt have happened before the trip to Jerusalem?
No. First of all, considering all the details Luke provides, why would he have left out such an important event? Secondly, this means Herod would have needed to die within the 40 day purification period, but Matthew tells us that this still wouldn’t have been good enough, because Joseph was determined to avoid all of Judea while Herod’s son was reigning. There’s simply no way he would have felt safe enough to travel directly into Jerusalem. That just makes no sense.
Could the trip to Egypt have happened after the trip to Jerusalem?
No. Luke 2:39 is clear that the family went straight back to Nazareth after their trip to Jerusalem. And considering Luke claimed that Nazareth was already their home, why would they have needed to go back to Bethlehem anyway?
In fact, Luke’s claim that the family was from Nazareth creates a lot of problems for Matthew’s account. Nazareth was far outside of Herod’s reach. So if Herod really had hunted Jesus in Bethlehem, the family could have simply gone back to Nazareth rather than flee to Egypt. But this isn’t a consideration in Matthew’s account, because for him, the family has never been to Nazareth until they simply can’t go back to Bethlehem anymore, even after Herod’s death (Matt 2:23).
Additional Problems
I don’t want to spend too much time here, but for completeness sake, I need to mention a couple of historical issues. Both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus is born during the reign of Herod the Great. Historians usually place his death in 4 BCE, which means Jesus would have been born sometime before that. However, Luke says that Mary and Joseph had traveled to Bethlehem, because Quirinius, the governor of Syria, had commanded a census. However, Quirinius didn’t become governor of Syria until 6 CE — 10 years after Herod’s death. You can find additional resources about these two issues here.
Finally, Luke’s claim is that this census required Joseph to travel back to his ancestral home of Bethlehem, since he was of King David’s lineage. But David would have lived some 1000 years before Joseph. It’s ludicrous to think that the Romans would have cared about such a thing, or that they would have wanted their empire to be so disrupted by having people move around like that for a census. It would have been an impossible feat and would have made for a highly inaccurate, and therefore useless, census.
What Do We Make of All This?
The easiest way to understand why these accounts have such major differences in detail is to understand why either writer bothered with a story about Jesus’s birth at all. You have to remember that the writers of Matthew and Luke didn’t know one another and didn’t know that they were both working on the same material. They certainly didn’t know that their books would one day show up in the same collection. Both of them were working with two basic facts: Micah 5:2 seemed to prophesy that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem; Jesus came from Nazareth (John 1:45-46).
Since those two facts were at odds with one another, it’s easy to see how both writers would have been compelled to explain how Jesus could be from Nazareth but still be from Bethlehem. Unfortunately for them, close comparison shows that both versions simply can’t be true.
How would people react if they showed up for church this weekend and were presented with the full details from both of these stories? I like to think it would spur many of them into deeper study. That it would possibly make them question some of the things they’ve been taking for granted. But 2016 has been pretty demoralizing when it comes to the number of people who seem concerned about what’s true, and I’m not sure how many of them would see this information as a call to action. I know there are people who can be changed by facts. Perhaps there aren’t as many of them as I once thought, but I know they’re out there. And with the way information spreads these days, I’m sure they’ll eventually find the facts they’re looking for.
Finding Truth 
Nan, I do think certain elements of the stories are definitely borrowed from the OT, like the 3 days in the grave being similar to the Jonah story. And the flight to Egypt to avoid infanticide being a repurposing of Moses. But where did the other elements of the story come from?
I think your comment and Scottie’s are pretty similar:
Even the Epic of Gilgamesh may have been based on an actual local flood.
What would a scam artist have to gain in making up a character like Jesus? On the other hand, what if there was a Jewish preacher named Jesus who was trying to understand how God could have a kingdom and how the Jews could still be his people despite their sad history of occupation? Might this preacher begin to think that God’s kingdom was spiritual rather than physical? He gathered followers (as any charismatic individual always does), and these followers simply couldn’t believe that he had been killed, etc, etc.
The thing is, we have several different, independent sources for this individual: Paul, gMark, gJohn, Q, gThomas, and possibly others (this is not an area I’ve researched in-depth). These writings were obviously reliant upon oral traditions, which would have been passed down by the earliest Christians. How did this early group form? To me, it makes sense that it probably grew from the handful of believers who actually knew a preacher named Jesus. Without an historical Jesus, we need a single individual who created the core story and somehow convinced some people to believe him. That’s certainly possible — I just don’t see how it’s more probable than the existence of a person named Jesus.
And why should we be so skeptical of such a person? What’s unbelievable about it? He’s essentially just another John the Baptist…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m kind of the opposite. I’m a programmer, but know next to nothing about hardware. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have a couple of thoughts on this, but my brain is shutting down. I’d like to pursue it more tomorrow but have a suggestion. Why not a new post asking this question? This one is getting VERY full of comments besides the fact it’s drifted fron the originsl post subject. Whaddaya think?
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Nate. To the first I am afraid you went beyond my knowledge. So I have to defer to others and read what they write and then determine what I think is more realistic. However if there were a real person of Jesus, a man, it would have to be as you describe. I can see how David Koresh would have done something like that in his name. Yet sorry something still seems off to me. I can’t put my finger on it yet. I just have this feeling I am missing something. OH I have it. If a man like that did exist, and caused the problems he is said to cause to the point of getting all the local officials involved, like the governor, won’t there be a record of some type. I mean look at it this way. Today police handle things at their level. Then if need be they go up to the deputy prosecutor. It is still is a long way to the Governor’s desk for the problem to land on. Does that make sense? So if it went all that way up that far, it would have been recorded. Someone on the thread already said only things involving the leaders would have been recorded if I remember right. So we would have a record. Just a thought. Hugs
LikeLike
I think that makes sense Scottie, but like Jon said, most of those records simply haven’t survived. We do have some official records from Roman times, but they’re nowhere near comprehensive, so it’s not like we have an incredibly long list of all the people Pilate executed, but no mention of Jesus. We just don’t have a list like that at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry that sort of goes far beyond my current level of skill. So I have nothing to offer. Hugs
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nate in regard to the stories about Jesus there are strong parallels to the OT stories of Moses and Elijah/Elisha. To the faithful these parallels are part of “God’s” predictions of Jesus, to the skeptical there are models used by the NT authors in creating the stories about Jesus.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@pete
There is nothing worse than an atheist trifling with scripture. Maybe more so, a decon’s trifling with scripture.
It’s a sad sight really to watch people expend energy on that which they find detestable. Did you ever think of something more useful, like a hobby? Because it is an embarrassment to watch people offer excuse after excuse in that which has a shell harder than a thousand armadillos, that being of course, the flawless word of God, which as the eternal anvil, has collected many a hammer and tossed them into the scrapyard of irrelevance.
LikeLike
CS how about you scrolling up through the comments above and finding the questions that William posed to you and try answering them.
LikeLike
I am well aware peter of the invitation to answer issues to give them an air of credibility. News flash: there is none.
Watching for instance the mind numbing see-saws of Nazareth, was it, was it not,, is lamentable to say the least. You, and others, are sitting in judgment of God’s word and it is a sight for sore eyes.
You should know by now I have no interest in addressing things that are clear as day. Maybe one day you will come to your senses; remember like the old king who foraged like a beast………….
LikeLike
@Jon …
And anyone else who might want to have a go ….
There is a constant call to accept the views of experts with regard the historicity of ‘Jesus’, and yes, I am fully aware we are all talking about a smelly, 1st century preacher here and not the gospel god man, in case poor Nate was having serious doubts as to my state of mind! 😉
As I consider my self somewhat of a Neanderthal when it comes to what passes for critical biblical scholarship, and most if not all at Nate’s spot are probably a lot more well’versed in this field than I am, I therefore propose the following:
I want you, Jon, ( or anyone else for that matter) to choose whom you consider to be the top five biblical scholars. That’s all, just five individuals, who beleive Jesus was a genuine flesh and blood historical figure.
However, I do have a few minor provisos.
1. All five scholars must be recognized historians, and preferably within the last fifty years.
2. No scholar is permitted to have any direct personal involvement/ties with any religion. ( I am tempted to exclude Ehrman because of his former affiliations, as I consider he still shows a certain amount of bias, but if you wish to include him, then I won’t be so churlish to object)
I hope it goes without saying that this will obviously exclude the likes of Habermas, Licona,etc.
3. Summarise their arguments for the historicity for Jesus and explain how they arrived at their conclusions.
Ark.
LikeLike
“It’s a sad sight really to watch people expend energy on that which they find detestable.”
It makes me think of Matthew 7:5.
ColorStorm, is that detestable sad sight why you’re a believer on an atheist’s blog, expending your energy on something clearly detestable to you?
LikeLike
And thank you, Peter
LikeLike
Her ya go wiliam:
‘ColorStorm, is that detestable sad sight why you’re a believer on an atheist’s blog, expending your energy on something clearly detestable to you?’
Being familiar with the footprints of darkness sir, it is daylight whereby people thirst. It is natural for darkness to be repelled by the truth of scripture.
Please do not pretend to lecture believers, while mocking scripture as you ride the merry-go-round of scorn in the playground known as pseudo intellectualism, aka, atheism.
Yeah, Nazareth did not exist. The scriptures are false. God’s word cannot be trusted.
And water is not wet either in the mind of fools.
LikeLike
ColorStorm,
You’re confusing me with someone else, I never said that Nazareth did not exist, and I don’t think anyone else has either. A few have voiced doubts, based on archeology, that it existed at the time of Jesus’s birth, but those doubts weren’t voiced by me.
Also, your colorful response, as poetic as it was, really just resembles a dodge. Smoke and mirrors meant to distract everyone from the fact that you criticized people for spending time on refuting something they detest, while at the very same time you yourself were also spending time on refuting something you detest. It’s not a lecture, just a comment on the obvious. And the irony doesn’t stop there, as your beloved book even speaks against such, in passages like Matthew 7:5.
There are few other things here:
1) The birth narratives do not fit and do not match. Your argument has been little more that, “NO! it fits perfectly together, you’re all weak minded,” while never actually addressing any of the specific points Nate or the others have raised, or bothered demonstrating how the two passages actually fit together as well as you claim they do. Making a claim is one thing, backing it up is something else.
2) On several occasions you have used “creation” as proof or evidence of God. Ok, fine. So we have stuff, and it had to come from somewhere, so you’re suggesting a supernatural something was the first cause. I won’t spend time going over all the different possibilities of what the first cause could have been, or if there even was a first cause like you think, let’s just start from the presupposition that there was a beginning and that god(s) were behind it. Now, that does not atomically lead us to the biblical god, so can you help the rest of us bridge that gap between intelligent design and the God of the Bible, using evidence and logic, rather than, “Design, therefore God and Jesus.” Please show us your work.
And if I may follow this one tangent, you sarcastically said, “God’s Word cannot be trusted.” This isn’t really where I’m coming from. I look at it like this, throughout history men have made claims and have often shown themselves that their claims cannot be trusted. Men wrote the Bible and men said that God said or did this or that, so I am not saying God cannot be trusted, I am saying that when men make huge and miraculous claims, that we should require more than their say so before we just accept it.
I believe you presuppose God is the author of the bible, so you think that anyway the scriptures might be true, then they must be true – God wrote it afterall. And since nothing is impossible or improbable for God, then any reconciliation you can imagine for the bible works in your head, because nothing is impossible or unlikely for God, not even the absurd.
I doubt you do that for any other book or any other religion.
The thing is, any contradiction and any discrepancy can be reconciled and resolved the same ways, and beyond that, the issues and errors are still there, because the “fixes” you imagine aren’t coming from the source, so your source still has these holes and errors, no matter how hard you try to conceal them.
Can you answer 1 & 2 above?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Realy william?
I do not have you confused with anybody else. Scorn is all cut from the same cloth. 339 comments to date, with the heart of this post represented by an EARLY comment:
—-.You might want to add that Nazareth did not exist at the time these supposed events took place. There is no mention of the place until about a century later. There is no archaeological evidence that it existed any earlier than that, either.’ —-
I need add no comment to such poison. And your own silence on the matter speaks volumes.
And your own pitiable observation that the book of Esther is a tall tale. YOUR WORDS. Please, you have no credibility.
You sir, cannot be trusted. Period. You can try to ply your craft of intellectual superiority over God Himself, but thoughtful people who know the scriptures are not duped.
LikeLike
ColorStorm,
I haven’t been silent on Nazareth, and I just don’t have much of a concern over it. I don’t doubt that there was a place called Nazareth at the time of Jesus birth, but I can’t guaranty that one way or the other, no speak to how populated such a place may or may not have been. I partly don’t care because even if Nazareth was indeed there, that doesn’t mean Jesus was born to a virgin, or the Matthew and Luke suddenly agree on all the issues, because they just don’t.
You say that you need add no comment to the poison of the Nazareth issue, and I can sort of see why, except that you keep trying to bring us back to Nazareth. Ark my be the one you wish to argue that issue over with. But you may first want to make your mind up on whether it’s not worth commenting on, or whether you want to discuss it – from here, it’s not clear.
I think Esther was a cool little novella, yeah. Thanks for reading. I’d be happy to dive into the scriptures with you and discuss why I think that about Esther more, if you like.
I take, by your constant dodges, you refuse to answer my questions that are related to the specific topic of Nate’s article, because you realize that you cant actually do so – that, or you’re just more interested Nazareth or Esther. I do think, however, it looks like you’re just trying to avoid them.
Maybe instead of fervently trying to hold to specific position, you should try clearing your mind and seeing where the given evidence points – then, you can show those evidences and the journey they took on and where they led you. Similar to what nate has done with Matthew and Luke’s account of the birth narratives. He didn’t just say they were dumb and then avoid discussing it. He outlined why there appeared to be problems with them, gave his thoughts on it, and invited others to review it with him.
Do that. Show us your work, especially if you’re going to say how obvious it all is.
You and I aren’t enemies. Let’s just talk. let’s review what’s there, discuss the text, the evidence, logic and anecdotes and analogies. We both may learn something if we understand that neither of us has all the answers and each of us could be wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@will
Nope, no enemies, but truth does tend to separate, in which case it would not be valuable. Agreed, Nazareth is not the issue, but is central to how ALL the scriptures are weighed.
Each of us could be wrong? God is always true, and I side with Him. After all, the Creator of the human bone has no equal.
But dodges? Ha, that’s funny. If you notice, the Lord never answered questions to satisfy curiosity. His answers always went to the heart of the matter.
I answer. Because they do not meet your requirements, don’t assume they are non answers. My blog is rife full of answered questions and posts all speaking with a sure note.
LikeLike
ColorStorm, you’re not the Lord, so excusing yourself from defending the hope that is within you (1 Pet 3:15), is also a dodge.
If, on your blog, you explain how one goes from intelligent design to the God of the Bible, please share a link here.
If, on your blog, you explain how Matthew and Luke actually fit well together, then please share a link to it here.
you said,
“God is always true, and I side with Him. After all, the Creator of the human bone has no equal.”
that’s all well and good, but who speaks for God? Which God? How do you know the men who authored the bible, the men who told us about the God of the Bible, actually speak for God, or actually had a special insight to God’s will?
I mean, evidently your God can’t write a book that is error free, so forgive me if I don’t simply accept your word that God actually was behind it. or, perhaps God didn’t right it, and men did, which would better explain the problems within the book. God’s always true afterall, and so if the book isnt, then perhaps it’s not from him. Perhaps the authors, were lying, confused, misled, or mistaken, or all of the above.
This is the heart of the matter. They say, and you say, that they speak for God – can you defend that claim? Can you support it with evidence? Or do you only have as much as Muslims have, or Buddhists, or Mormons, or Zoroastrians, or any of the other religions who claim enlightenment or to have knowledge of the one true god?
and FYI, not answering a question, is not an answer. It’s not an assumption, it’s a fact.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ark
This is categorically false. Your lack of awareness of the field should give you pause about making grand pronouncements about the subject.
The (Christian) Bible was compiled organically, over time, as different churches (and regions) accepted and rejected different books as scripture. Over the course of a few centuries, they gradually settled the canon, though there were a few differences between the canons of various sects/regions, and obviously the Protestant Reformation later removed some books. The Catholic Church did not formally define the canon until, I believe, the 16th century (after the reformation), but it was well settled long prior to that. To the extent that various councils made pronouncements about the canon over the centuries, it was simply to endorse what had already emerged organically rather than to select and impose a canon.
I did read the essay. I skimmed some of the set-up parts, because I’ve read this same argument many, many times before. He is not making an original argument. He is just summarizing the arguments made by people like Carrier, Price, etc. This isn’t new. I’m familiar with it.
It is also frustrating to have read the essay, responded specifically to things he wrote, given multiple reasons why I found it inadequate and then to have you respond with “if you are simply going to dismiss what he wrote,” as if I hadn’t addressed his essay at all.
I previously asked you “What would constitute “verifiable” evidence?” I have tried to answer your questions and respond to your arguments, but you consistently ignore questions I ask.
This is why I think you are not arguing in good faith. I don’t mean that you are lying or intentionally being deceptive. I mean that your approach to this issue is inconsistent and selective, you do not give me the same consideration you ask of me, and when confronted with a factual error, you simply ignore it and sometimes even repeat it later.
ul>
You say there is “no evidence.” I point out evidence.
You argue there is no non-biblical evidence. I point out non-biblical evidence.
You say there is no contemporaneous evidence. I point out that we should not expect to have contemporaneous evidence because he was unimportant during his lifetime and we have no (or close to no) textual evidence about anybody in that area and time period.
I ask what contemporaneous evidence from his region/period exists. You suddenly decide that this is irrelevant to the question of whether we should expect to have contemporaneous textual evidence.
You say Clement never mentioned Jesus. I point out the exact quote(s) where Clement mentions Jesus.
You argue (or cite an argument) that the lack of contemporaneous writings by or about Jesus are evidence that he did not exist. Then you dismiss the letters Paul wrote as evidence of Paul’s existence.
You argued that Alexandre has not published her research on Nazareth and it was not corroborated by the IAA or other archaeological sources. I point out that Alexandre has published her research, she did so along with multiple other experts, she was the excavation director for the IAA on the project, her published report was issued by the IAA and it was praised in a review by a (non-Christian) scholar.
You said “there is absolutely no first century contemporary evidence of who is claimed to be the most famous person ever to have lived.” I point out that he was not famous during his lifetime, which is the only time that “fame” would be relevant to whether we should expect to have contemporary evidence about him. You respond with the non-sequitur, “I said he is claimed to be [famous],” completely ignoring the point I had made.
Heck, you even argued at one point that Bart Ehrman — a man whose career and reputation were built on overturning popular misconceptions about the history and historicity of things in the Bible! — was biased in favor of defending the historicity of things in the Bible (like Nazareth) because it could undermine his reputation to conclude otherwise. And that Bart Ehrman — an atheist who semi-recently changed his mind in favor of an earlier high(er) Christology — was afraid to change his mind, because it might damage his reputation to agree with people he previously disagreed with.
I don’t mind a good argument, but it is frustrating to argue with a constantly moving target which refuses to be pinned down, answer questions, identify any clear standards, or even understand the standards and methods of the field he is ridiculing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jon/Ark,
I’d like to hear and learn more on this – any links would be appreciated.
“How was the bible compiled is one of the first questions I would ask.; And what is the answer? By vote!
This is categorically false. Your lack of awareness of the field should give you pause about making grand pronouncements about the subject.”
I had previously heard that several of the early churches and “church fathers” had referenced and rejected different books that did not make it into the cannon we have today, and that the cannon was voted on because Constantine wanted to avoid contentions and wanted to establish a benchmark and rule.
But researching it awhile back, I actually couldn’t find anything to support a vote or Constantine involvement. I saw where he ordered 50 copies of the cannon, as if it were already established by that time – but that in and of itself doesn’t preclude any previous involvement by Constantine or anyone else.
But there were books that some early churches used that did not make the cut. I’d like to see what there is that can shed light on how an agreed text came about.
LikeLike
@ will
You just do not get it. You will ask a thousand questions, each never satisfying, only to ask another thousand questions, and avoid the thousand answers already given.
This is fact. Just read this entire comment thread for proof. and no, I will not spoon feed you with links to my blog.
And no, your citation of ‘the hope within you’ is so far off the mark it hardly needs addressed.
But the best link? Read the word of God for yourself. It speaks to an honest seeker of truth. It has no equal.
LikeLike
Scottie
Fair enough, and I apologize if I misrepresented you or presumed too much in my response. I agree that we can’t assume the historicity of a figure simply because the figure is mentioned in a book. Fortunately, in this case, that is not what is happening.
Fair enough.
I suppose it depends on what you think constitutes “substantial evidence.” Given the standards of the field of history and the background information we have from that period and region, it is substantial evidence and substantially more than we have of anybody else from that period and region.
People argue over whether the moon landing or the holocaust were hoaxes. People argue over the historicity of William Shakespeare, Socrates, and Mohammed, too. The existence of argument does not mean the evidence is not conclusive, or at least strongly dispositive.
Indeed. We can agree wholeheartedly on that.
The existence of myth, legend, embellishment and falsehood in ancient literature does not render them completely false. Ancient historians said Roman emperors performed miracles in front of large audiences. And yet, the Roman emperors existed. The Bible contains much that is mythical, but also much that is historical. Adam and Eve and Moses were mythical. King David was embellished, but probably existed as at least some local chieftain. Hezekiah and many, many of the other figures identified in the Old Testament were real historical figures, even if the stories about them were likely a mix of historical fact and propaganda. Herod, Quirinius and Judas (of Galilee, not the apostle) were real historical figures, too.
Obviously, critical scholars cannot tell you what to believe. You may believe anything you like. I raise the consensus of experts, because I think it is relevant and worth consideration. If you don’t care that the experts pretty universally disagree with your position, so be it.
I am referring to the overwhelming consensus within (critical) biblical scholarship. I say “critical scholarship” in order to differentiate between real academics and pseudo-academics who are just doing apologetics masquerading as scholarship. Critical scholarship is scholarship that puts religious beliefs aside and works within the secular standards of history.
However, the existence of an overwhelming consensus within the field is not simply a matter of opinion. None of the people in this comment section are experts in this field. When it comes to the academic consensus on the historicity of Jesus, our opinion does not matter any more than it would matter if we disagreed with the consensus on existence of black holes or William Shakespeare. Non-experts (like all of us) are equally welcome to our opinions, but our opinions are not equally valid to those of experts. If they were, then we should still be teaching creationism in schools, because an awful lot of people disagree with the overwhelming consensus of experts on that, too.
Sorry, that should have read “a modicum OF humility.” Perhaps I should cite Bertrand Russell, instead.
“There are matters about which those who have investigated them are agreed; the dates of eclipses may serve as an illustration. There are other matters about which experts are not agreed. Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. Einstein’s view as to the magnitude of the deflection of light by gravitation would have been rejected by all experts not many years ago, yet it proved to be right. Nevertheless the opinion of experts, when it is unanimous, must be accepted by non-experts as more likely to be right than the opposite opinion. The scepticism that I advocate amounts only to this: (1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment.”
Perhaps it will turn out that the consensus of experts will be overturned. In the meantime, it seems to me that the consensus should be accepted as more likely to be right than the opposite opinion.
LikeLike
CS, you wrote: … but thoughtful people who know the scriptures are not duped.
Thing is … you’ve given NO indication that you “know the scriptures” so where does that leave you? Simply making proclamations about your god and what he stands for (in your mind) does not validate anything, much less the credibility of scripture.
You’ve been asked time and again to say something from the scriptures to bolster your POV. Yet all you do is spout (as William put it) “colorful response(s).” And “poetic” as they may be (perhaps you missed your calling), they offer nothing in the way of reasoned discussion on the Book you say you live by.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Tks nan, but truth be told, i could be the very worst of Christian examples, and still leave untouched the fact that God’s word instantly flattens mens (and womens) petty gripes.
Yes, I said petty. I have said continually, perhaps you remember, God’s word needs no defense; it IS the defense.
All I am doing is agreeing with what is obvious. If God’s word has no effect, surely you can release me of any so-called deficiency. 😉
LikeLike