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 
Interpreting is one thing ark. One must first believe in the fidelity of the text before one can interpret.
I am certain for instance Nazareth was a town, long before it was significant, whereas, you do not.
In this, there is nothing difficult to interpret; it’s not like its a dream for God’s sake.
I am trying to keep things on track, and I am abraded because of the sideshows. But that’s ok.
Lions dens are friendly places every so often.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As you do not know, or even care to try to understand the etymology behind the word ”Nazareth”, probably consider the N.F.R to be an annual stock-man’s inventory, and beleive Baggati to be a second-rate Italian soccer player, I would not give a rat’s fart for your view on fidelity, period.
LikeLike
ColorStorm,
you said,
“Interpreting is one thing ark. One must first believe in the fidelity of the text before one can interpret.”
Is this really fair and sensible?
This is just saying that if you don’t believe it, you cant really understand it. Again, anyone can say that about anything, and it’s not a valid answer or defense – it’s smoke and mirrors; it’s an attempt to claim victory while retreating.
Imagine a Muslim saying, “the Koran is true, any honest person would see that. Oh, you see problems in the Koran? well your opinion doesnt count because you dont believe in the fidelity of the passages. Once you believe it, then we’ll consider what you have to say regarding the possibility of it not being true.”
It’s an excuse to avoid to discussion and remain inside an echo chamber. You’re essentially saying I’ll only consider what people who believe like me have to say.
LikeLike
Back to the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke
For real, they don’t appear to line up
LikeLike
I may be wrong, but I don’t think CS was using “fidelity” as a synonym for inerrant and inspired. I think he just means that the writings are fairly reliable — in about the same way most critical scholars view them.
Am I right about that, ColorStorm?
LikeLike
well, but I don’t even think he means them the way you’re suggesting, nate. From the tone and implications of all his other posts, I get the idea he means all of it is reliable, including the miraculous, outlandish and supernatural.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but that was the impression I had.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ nate
Fidelity as in no reason to think the writer was full of guile. Fidelity as in faithful in which he was led to write. Fidelity as in pureness with another mans message.
Fidelity as in believing that it was irrelevant whether anybody believed it or not. It was a non descript, unpopular town. That’s the point. ‘Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?’
Apparently yes….
LikeLike
@ william
Supernatural as in water? supernatural as in moonlight? Supernatural as in a man giving his good heart to a dying criminal so he can live?
By supernatural you surely mean the impossibility of things ‘natural.’
Well, then that explains creation quite well and it is no more harder to believe an iron head floated, than it is to recognize the wonder of a common rainbow, by He who owns all registered trademarks to life.
LikeLike
Thanks for the clarification, CS.
As to the Nazareth thing, that’s not a big deal for me. I’m happy to agree that it likely existed during Jesus’s time. But what do you think about the other specific issues I raised about the two accounts? Like, can you see a way to rationalize Luke’s story about staying in Bethlehem for about 40 days, then going to Jerusalem, then heading back home to Nazareth with Matthew’s story about being in Bethlehem for years (possibly), then fleeing to Egypt, and only going to Nazareth when they didn’t feel safe enough to return to Bethlehem?
LikeLike
Oh, for an online bookie … I shall up the stake.
$100 bucks you won’t get anyway near a straight answer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ColorStorm,
I’d not describe water or moonlight as supernatural, because they are indeed natural.
How did they get here? I don’t think that necessitates a supernatural first cause.
You’d say God spoke it all into existence, or something along those lines. You may even say it’s obvious because nothing can create itself and something has to come from something else. You’d probably say that since things like life, bones, water and moonlight are so intricate, complex and beautiful, that they had to have had been purposely designed.
I can get it.
However, you do not think that God was created, yet I’m sure you think he’s beautiful, intricate and complex. All that means is, is that ultimately you do not think everything really has to be designed or created, and that something, somewhere along the line may be eternal.
To that I say, why not energy, or the universe?
And if indeed a God, how many, which one, eternal, or also created by other god(s), good or bad, perfect or flawed? And could there be even an infinite amount of other possibilities, beyond even the ones we can imagine?
I do not know. I’m agnostic, I suppose.
Also, consider how everything we’ve been able to pinpoint has been demonstrated to be natural, not supernatural. Even things that were once thought to be supernatural, like lightning, typhoons, earthquakes and eclipses, have all be shown to be quite natural. Never has the opposite happened. Never has anything been proven to be supernatural and never has anything thought natural been shown to be supernatural. So if we’re working with odds, the odds seem to favor natural events will continually be discovered down the line.
Supernatural are things like human virgin births, or coming back from the dead and flying off into heaven. I do not accept these on mere claims. I do not accept that a person hear’s directly from God just because they say so.
And iron head floating is perfect example. What are the chances of a iron head floating on water? Let;s test it. Let’s test it 1000 times – it’s not at all the same to believe the iron head will sink as to think it will float. Not at all.
And rainbows act in accordance with natural laws, not contrary to them like an iron head floating or a dead man bringing himself back to life 3 days later. And if you believe the rainbows were created after the flood, then you’re suggesting physics didn’t work the same way prior to the flood – even without rain, there were waterfalls, etc.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@nate
Your tone is noticeable and appreciated.
But I would ask you: Is it any harder to believe that the promise given to young Mary, that ‘her son would be great…….and that He would be given the throne of His father David……’ is this more difficult to believe than that the narratives and their ‘discrepancies’ can be trusted entirely?
Was she there at Cana? Was she present at Golgotha? Far easier to digest if all taken together. There are no weaknesses in the text, that’s for sure.
LikeLike
And there goes my $100 whooshing straight into my bank account, courtesy of His Nobship, Colorstorm.
*Hilarious*
LikeLike
There are many kinds of claims I’m willing to believe, but not if they’re mutually exclusive. There’s no such thing as a married bachelor, for instance. I don’t see how the details I mentioned in my last comment can be satisfactorily squared. It’s not so much the fault of the writers of Matthew and Luke, because I don’t think they ever anticipated their narratives would be combined. But such a discrepancy certainly doesn’t make me think there’s any divine guidance underneath.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Ark: You would probably like this discussion:
http://vridar.org/2017/01/01/biblical-scholar-watch/#comment-80626
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ark
I think he argued that there were aramaic sources behind Matthew. I don’t know how accepted or dismissed that view is. The overwhelming consensus is that gMatthew was written in Greek, but I think there is evidence of some aramaic sources. I believe there is a line or two in aramaic in the gospel. The question is how much and how distant. I have not looked into that.
Like I said, I’m not inclined to spend what would be a full day or two to dig through their work in order to figure out their individual methodologies and arguments. I’m not sure they even have different arguments, any more than scholars who study Shakespeare would have different approaches to arguing for Shakespeare as the author of the plays attributed to Shakespeare. It’s a very simple argument. There are multiple sources/authors within the first century who write about Jesus and his followers (who came to be called Christians). They textual evidence strongly supports an early belief that he was a real person whose followers came to believe he was the messiah and even divine. Once they believed that, the legend-making took off.
Carrier, et al, only make that seem dubious by rejecting pretty much all of the premises — e.g., the Pauline references to Jesus, to the “brother of Jesus”, to Josephus, etc — and then arguing as if their own novel interpretations should be stipulated as fact. And they get traction because people who lack any familiarity with the field of history, textual criticism and ancient sources think it’s meaningful that we have no textual references to Jesus during his lifetime. This is about as meaningful as our lack of contemporary paintings of Muhammed from his lifetime. Even less so, since at least Muhammed was a very important figure before he died. Jesus was some nobody preacher, who only became important after his death because of how his followers reinterpreted their movement.
I have repeatedly (over this thread and one or two previously) outlined the standard evidence and arguments. I have also explained the flaws and inaccuracies made by the people and arguments you have cited. It does not appear to have registered. At some point it begins to feel like arguing with Dr. Banjo. You ask for evidence, I provide it, you say “yes, but can you prove that?” I mean, maybe the Q hypothesis is wrong, but you still have to explain the identical language shared by gMatthew and gLuke and why it appears to most scholars to have been copied from another source rather than the author of gLuke copying from gMatthew. Calling Q “pure speculation” isn’t an argument.
Anyway, I don’t see why yet another round of explanations would be any more useful, especially when you won’t even explain what you think constitutes verifiable evidence or why you think we should “expect” to find the evidence you demand.
If you genuinely want to learn about various methodologies used in the field, there are plenty of resources. Here are a couple links to discussions of various methodologies and the approaches of some scholars.
https://www.academia.edu/9559002/Historicity_and_Authenticity_Definitions_and_Methods_in_Jesus_Studies (this one addresses Carrier, to some extent)
https://ordinand.wordpress.com/historical-jesus-method-and-criteria/
If you are looking for the certainty of hard sciences, then you won’t find it. That’s not how social sciences, and especially history, operate. But the balance of evidence strongly supports probable historicity, and alternate ideas simply do not explain the available evidence very well. Is it possible Jesus was purely mythical? Sure. It it likely? No.
LikeLike
Sorry , mate, this is simply appealing to authority and doesn’t wash with me, especially as you obviously don’t appear to know their arguments if what would be a full day or two to dig through their work in order to figure out their individual methodologies and arguments
As for my definition of verifiable evidence:
This sounds very much like a Christian demanding what evidence for ‘God’ would make me a believer.
This doesn’t wash either. With what’s at stake, I always thought it was the one making the positive claim that had to step up to the plate.
Seems odd to have to point this out to a fellow atheist.
I might not understand archaeology at anywhere near an academic level but I’m reasonably confident I could give you a fair summary of why Finkelstein and Dever and Herzog and numerous others think the Exodus as reflected in the bible is pretty much nonsense, and why James Hoffmeir, Ken Kitchen are even Bryant Woods, good as they may be at archaeology where it doesn’t overly involve bible and spade in their hands are simply evangelical plonkers when it comes to this particular area of archaeology.
Really? I must have missed your thorough take down on the likes of Price and Carrier.
If all you are saying, Jon, is ”the consensus of scholars says….” and aren’t really prepared to qualify this, other than to deride the likes of Bob Price and Carrier, then you sound as if you are wearing an Unklee T-shirt and thus, I see no reason to take what you say with any greater degree of respect.
( Still waiting for a link for Alexandre’s peer-reviewed Nazareth work, by the way. Not saying there isn’t one, of course. Just waiting if you know of one)
And in case you wondered, yes I have read Ken Dark’s take on the tombs.
Ehrman’s biblical work is generally excellent, probably the best in the field in many areas, but his defense of an historical Jesus suggests his earlier religious days have still got him by the short and curlies.
Re; Your links.
In Burke’s paper under Controversy over Criteria he condescendingly slams Carrier and then, under ”Fourthly” trots out the consensus argument for historicity stating how scholars can know there is ”reliable information about Jesus” from several sources, including the gospels!!!
wtf! The gospels, really? Wow! What next, a note found in his sandwich box from his mum?
He also includes Habermas as one of those who ”agree”. Surprise eh?
This paper contains nothing I haven’t studied for years and heard the like of Unklee trot out every other blog post and comment.
There is still a huge degree of presupposition involved that needs to be seriously addressed once and for all.
We’ve had the Jesus seminar and the Acts seminar and both have taken big strides to at least cast doubt on the historicity of this whole nonsense.
Even if your argument is simply one of probability there is as much chance of you, and everyone else in this corner of the ring, being wrong
I’ll give Wright’s a squizz later on during the day.
Re:Q.
Look up Austin Farrer.
We can also get into the triple tradition or the double tradition, and while most scholars do state there was a source, Quelle, who could really know?
The document does not exist.
And how many other documents/gospels were floating around?
All said and done , there is the other option of course , the one few people dare to utter….
To quote Life of Brian: ”He’s making it up as he goes along!”
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Gary
Thanks for the link.
Yeah, the bottom line is they simply will not entertain the possibility that Jesus was made up.
LikeLike
@william
But sir, you are at a disadvantage saying water and moonlight are not supernatural. Why?
Let’s see YOU or any of your friends make water, a fingernail, a flake of snow, or moonlight………….using nothing…………………..if it was natural, everybody could do it…………….
Drinking water is natural………….
But enough of this. The ruling on the field stands. The scriptures are clear enough and are profitable for all things.
LikeLike
CS: You cannot prove that the universe was made from nothing.
LikeLike
I just did.
LikeLike
(sigh) I provided links that explained the methodologies used by biblical scholars to evaluate these issue. You seem to want to know individual methodologies and arguments, as if each critical scholar has a completely unique approach to the historical Jesus. I provided information about methodology.
You argue that I “obviously don’t know their arguments”, despite the fact that I have repeatedly explained the arguments made by scholars. I have neither the time nor interest in trying to figure out which specific arguments and methodologies Ehrman, Casey, et al, prefer to highlight.
Can you tell me the 5 different biologists and describe their individual methodologies and arguments for evolution? I doubt it, and why would you need to? They may make slightly different arguments or emphasize slightly different points, but they are all basically dealing with the same evidence and using the same methodologies used by the field.
You are just gaslighting now. YOU asked about evidence. I provided it. You said there wasn’t “verifiable evidence.” I asked what you meant by “verifiable evidence.” Now you say…this.
I have repeatedly stepped up to the plate with evidence. You just ignore it.
Strawman. I have responded to the people (like Nothnagle) and arguments you have cited. Your entire argument seems to amount to “do more work for me”, followed by “I’m going to pretend you didn’t respond to any of that.”
For example…
I provided that. A week ago. It was published in 2012 by the Israel Antiquities Authority.
Yeah, how could historians possibly use ancient texts as evidence of what people believed in ancient times! Crazy!
You don’t seem to understand what counts as evidence, why scholars use flawed texts as evidence or how scholars distinguish between legend and history in those flawed texts. That you don’t understand is fine. There’s no particular reason you should understand that stuff. But since you don’t understand, perhaps you shouldn’t trot out that ignorance as an argument.
IF?!? Dude, the entire field of history is trying to define what “probably” happened. Of course a conclusion can be wrong. That’s true for all academic fields. But you have to actually produce the evidence for your position to change the probabilities.
Yes, I’m well aware of the alternatives to Q. That’s why I said, “maybe the Q hypothesis is wrong, but you still have to explain the identical language shared by gMatthew and gLuke and why it appears to most scholars to have been copied from another source rather than the author of gLuke copying from gMatthew. Calling Q “pure speculation” isn’t an argument.”
Mark Goodacre makes an interest case for Luke copying Matthew (http://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/), but non-Q hypotheses remain minority positions. You need to make an argument for them, not just say “we don’t have the Q document”, as if lacking the Q text itself makes any other source hypothesis more probable.
Ignorance is fine. We are all ignorant about almost everything. But at least have the humility that should come with ignorance. If you don’t understand why scholars evaluate texts the way they do, maybe take the time to understand it before pronouncing the field full of dunces. “I don’t understand how textual criticism works” is not a strong basis for an argument.
LikeLike
I do have a reasonable understanding, Jon. But religion has always been cut some slack as far as reliable/verifiable history is concerned. This is why we have to put up with bullshit like the empty tomb garbage, and it is along such lines you seem so reluctant to acknowledge.
There is still huge presupposition in play here. Huge.
Re your 5 biologists.
I mentioned I could probably give you a fair summary of the Exodus position of three archaeologists. You seem to have ignored missed this and skipped to biologists instead.
You are correct, I know stuff all about biology beyond where babies come from, and how they are made. I even have a couple of photographs of storks.
Burke’s conclusion states; ”There is no dispute among professional historians that Jesus existed.”
Yet in the section above he acknowledged Carrier is a professional historian,
So, yes there most certainly is dispute from at least one professional historian.
And what would you consider evidence? Please tell me and I’ll see what I can dig up.
Re: Q
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farrer_hypothesis.
Goodacre cites Farrer as well.
Plain and (relatively) simple. And of course Farrer was slated for it … what a surprise!
So because it is a minority position it must therefore be wrong?
Unlike Exodus archaeology where there is Hard Evidence, in Jesus studies there is only Soft evidence and those involved are all working with the same basic materials.
Re: Nazareth.
I saw it. I couldn’t get the link to open and still can’t. There are plenty of others, though and none of them was I able to find mention of a peer reviewed paper.
LikeLike
I think there’s a disconnect here, and I think it revolves around this statement that Ark made:
Yes, this is right. But Jon (and I, for that matter) view the mythicist position as the one that’s making a positive claim. You seem to view it as the default.
Here’s the way I see this issue:
We have ancient documents that are claiming to report facts. This puts them in a similar camp as Xenophon, Herodotus, Tacitus, etc. Each of those writers report fantastical things that virtually no one thinks actually happened, even though the ancient writers really believed them. But they also each report facts that are easy to accept — reports about battles, construction projects, monarchs, rebels, etc. It’s possible that those claims are also wrong, but unless we have some particular reason to question them, we usually accept those claims. Why? Because we know that cities exist, battles have been fought, monarchs have ruled, and rebellions have occurred. Those things aren’t extraordinary.
I happen to think we should accept the gospels in the same way. If they say Herod ruled when Jesus was born, there’s no reason to think they’re wrong about that, unless we have some reason to question it — like another document that contradicts it. When they say that he was born of a virgin, then of course, that’s beyond the pale.
The thing is, we have separate sources that treat Jesus as though he were a real person. When it ascribes supernatural qualities to him, we don’t have to believe that without extraordinary evidence. But just as we don’t question the existence of Caesar when Tacitus claims he did miracles, there doesn’t seem to be a good reason to question the existence of Jesus just because his followers believed he could do miracles.
I think this is the crux of the entire disagreement.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry, but no. “Natural” doesn’t mean “result of human action” — it simply means explainable by natural laws / processes.
LikeLiked by 2 people