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 
After reading Unklee’s comments and his somewhat evasive cherry picking style of reply, his frame of reference is, as obvious as this might sound, Jesus of Nazareth.
By this I mean, if one accepts that Jesus of Nazareth is who he is claimed to be then anything else is mere decoration.
And former Christians here can tell me if I am way off base here.
If one reads the gospels it becomes glaring apparent that the character Jesus clearly accepts the Old Testament as valid and many of the characters, Moses, Isaac, Abraham etc. to be genuine historical people as well.
Thus if it’s okay by Jesus then it must, therefore be okay for the average believer.
This then makes a mockery of even attempting to present a valid rebuttal as every demonstration will be hand waved or taken with a pinch of salt as nothing one can offer will be accepted as valid.
It simply does not matter to an individual such as Unklee, who considers Jesus of Nazareth to be a god and perfect.
This reminds me of a christian and scientist( his name escapes me for the moment) who openly admitted that if the scientific evidence unequivocally demonstrated his religious belief was false he would side with the bible.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I think most believers, at least of the extreme/hyper sort, use the bible to validate evidence, instead of using evidence to validate the bible. To them, the bible is the only true thing, period.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Ark, I think you hit the proverbial nail on the head. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
@William
Is my assessment of the average Christian close to the mark?
If Jesus is believed to be who they claim he is then nothing else makes any difference?
LikeLike
I watched a video of apologist Tim Keller and he did the classic theological two step regarding veracity of Old T tales Adam and Eve , Abraham etc, and made the Jesus claim and I thought: Wow, this is how they all approach it!
Because they beleive JC was perfect and JC believed the OT then it matters not one Iota what evidence is produced, it must be false. They really don’t give a shit!
As Wally once labelled me the Son of the Devil, they must all think, in their own way that we are all tools of Satan somehow.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hey Nate. Hope you had a very merry Christmas and hope you have a happy new year as well. Speaking of new years do you have any plans for your blog for 2017 or are you like me as in just taking blogging one day at a time?
As usual the discussion here has been good and I’m with William in being glad that Eric (Unklee) sticks around offering a different point of view. It keeps your blog alive and kicking. As far as Eric’s views go I think this statement of his (which he wrote to Peter) probably represents one of the most important points he makes regarding the bible (at least for me): “I think [the bible] does rise above the merely human, but not in the way and to the degree that you seem to require.” I’m not sure though that there is a clear cut objective way to create a measuring stick for a statement like that. Many of us here on your blog have certainly given this kind of more progressive viewpoint a chance but the bible just doesn’t seem to rise above the level of “merely human” for us. That might be an interesting angle that you and Eric could discuss in the future though – e.g. what are Eric’s reasons for thinking it rises above merely human and why those reasons aren’t convincing to you.
One thing is for sure though – Eric does a good job of showing why one cannot hold to the use of logic, reason, evidence and consistency in their pursuit of truth and at the same time keep to a worldview like ColorStorm’s.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m glad you stick around and offer a different view.
Hi William. Thanks. I appreciate that Nate allows me that opportunity, and that others like you respond courteously. There is a lot worthy of comment in what you have said.
Your point about Luke possibly showing that Joseph lived in Bethlehem while Mary lived in Nazareth is worth considering, but in order to accept it out right, we’d have to ignore other things that do not seem to add up to that in both Luke or Matthew.
I think Luke’s account makes sense, the only real difficulty being whether the census and Quirinius could have been true in about 6-5 BCE. There is some evidence for that, but not strong. Most of the problems are in Matthew, and it is well known that Matthew is more fanciful, or, to be more accurate, he uses a “midrash” approach which goes beyond historical fact to interpret the events. It was acceptable practice back then, but not today.
1) since a perfect and all knowing God would know that these would present problems and doubts for people, he purposely allowed it to happen
I have to agree with that. The question then becomes, why would he do that?
or 2) the bible isn’t actually from a prefect and all knowing God, but just another composition of men.
I think this is the nub of the misunderstanding of several people here, so let’s look at it. You have suggested two alternatives – either from a perfect God or just another human work. But this is (I think) the fallacy of the excluded middle. In this case, the middle option you’ve excluded is that God may have inspired people to write it, but not dictated it. That means it is neither a perfect document directly from God, nor just another human book -it is a mix of human and divine, so it contains errors and views that were relevant at the time but not now, but it also contains divine truth. I’m not suggesting (yet) that you should believe that option, just that you should consider it.
Since all other book we have aren’t inspired by God either, it seems reasonable to think the bible isn’t, based on percentages of probability, and observation – as well as other things I won’t bother addressing now.
I think too that is a reasonable place to start. But again we have to be sure we aren’t excluding some options from consideration. In this case, we need to carefully define “inspiration”. It is often used in these discussions to mean something close to perfect dictation, but that isn’t how we normally use the word, and I don’t believe it was how it was originally meant.
I see what you’re trying to say, but I think that all the works in the history of world support my view point more than it does yours. Many of these other works, especially the old ones, make miraculous, divine and supernatural claims, yet we do not believe the supernatural claims and instead seek a natural interpretation – I suggest that if we review the bible in the same way, it actually makes more sense.
Yes, I suggest exactly the same. You’ll notice I never ask people to believe something because it is in the Bible, but because it is good history, or good science or good philosophy. And historians are used to dealing with documents with miraculous claims, and are quite capable of putting them aside without prejudicing the rest of the document – if they didn’t do that, we’d have very little history. So the logic goes like this:
1. What do historians say about the gospels and the life of Jesus?
2. From that, what conclusions can I make about Jesus’ claims – i.e. who he was?
3. From that, what do I then think about the inspiration of the Bible?
Many christians are saying the same thing these days – we believe in the Bible because we believe in Jesus, not the other way round (and “believe in” doesn’t necessarily mean believing it is inerrant).
And really, since all observation and experimentation has only pinpointed and proven physical natural events, while proving not a single supernatural event, then it would seem a natural explanation is automatically more likely than a supernatural one.
“Proof” is a very loaded word. Strictly speaking, NOTHING in science is “proven”, all is subject to further evidence and verification/falsification, and most is “known” only to a given degree of statistical confidence. So we are talking probabilities. I believe there is very good probabilisitic evidence of the supernatural.
Thanks for the opportunity to explain how I see all this.
LikeLike
“we believe in the Bible because we believe in Jesus”
This is key to understanding UnkleE’s (Eric’s) belief system. His belief system really isn’t based on historical or textual evidence. It is based on personal experiences of perceived miracles; perceived miracles in Eric’s life and in those of other Christians. As long as Eric believes that Jesus has cured someone of end-stage cancer or some other unexplainable feat, no amount of historical and textual evidence to the contrary is going to convince him that Jesus is still dead and buried somewhere in the sands of the Middle East.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Here is what Christians who believe in Jesus because of perceived miracles need to understand: If every time that a Christian prays to Jesus the prayer is answered, then we should take seriously the Christian claim that Jesus answers prayer. But even Christians must admit that not all prayers are answered. In fact, I bet that most Christians will admit that MOST prayers are not answered.
So if Christians are ALWAYS praying for EVERYTHING but only a FEW prayers are answered, the fact that a RARE healing occasionally occurs after a prayer to Jesus should be seen for what it is: random chance, not a miracle.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And think about this: If Jesus really does answer prayer, why does he only answer prayers that can be chalked up to random chance? Why doesn’t Jesus ever heal major limb amputees? Why doesn’t Jesus ever heal the guy who just got beheaded? Why doesn’t Jesus ever levitate a Chrysler in the middle of Times Square, for Pete’s sake?
Isn’t it obvious, folks? There are no miracles. There are only random, rare, coincidences that superstitious people perceive to be miracles just because one of the hundreds of things they prayed for that week came true!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Nate, naturally I wanted to respond to this – not to try to convert you but to outline why I think it isn’t as ridiculous as you think.
1. We need a decent basis for making a case either way. I suggest the following two elements. (i) We use secular evidence from the best experts (if necessary we can argue who they are). (ii) The best case is the one that explains the most evidence in a plausible way.
2. We also need to not start with any presumptions. On my part, not a presumption of theism or of the Bible being true. On your part not a presumption that the supernatural can’t occur – when discussing jesus, this begs the question.
Sceptics often reference Hume to say that even if a miracle occurred we couldn’t know. But Hume’s argument is built on the view that there is ”a firm and unalterable experience” of the laws of nature not being “broken”. But this simply isn’t true. Surveys show that the majority of people believe miracles have occurred, and Craig Keener has estimated that something like 300 million people believe they have experienced or observed a miracle of healing. So Hume may have believed that no miracles occurred, but there is a case to say that human experience is not at all opposed to them.
3.Scholars argue about how reliable or not the gospels are, but there are a bunch of events, sayings and passages that there is broad agreement are probably historical (by the normal standards of historical analysis, often more rigorous in the case of the NT). Based on these passages, events and sayings alone, we can say:
* People of the day believed Jesus performed healing miracles, and the evidence is strong enough that non-believing historians like Michael Grant and Maurice Casey conclude that Jesus did indeed heal people, but by natural “folk” or “mind over matter” means.
* Jesus did and said a whole bunch of things that are claims to be more than an ordinary person. Some say these were “only” claims to be a special messenger from God, a prophet, or even the Messiah (who wasn’t expected to be supernatural), but a reasonable case can be made that the claims imply divinity – see Jesus – son of God?
* Most historians conclude that Jesus’ tomb was empty and/or his followers had visions of him alive after his death. It is now generally agreed that belief that he had been resurrected arose very early – within the first few months, or few years at most – and led to (i) him being worshipped in a way that it wasn’t lawful for a Jew to worship a human being, and (ii) the spread of christianity throughout the Roman Empire. NT Wright is acknowledged as one of the leading NT historians (I can give you references to his status), and his book The Resurrection of the Son of God presents a strong argument (summarised here and here) that no other explanation explains the historical facts like the conclusions that he really was resurrected.
I think I could argue all this in detail with full references to the best scholars. And I think therefore I can say quite reasonably that if we had similar historical evidence for a non-controversial fact, it would be well accepted. In other words, it isn’t a lack of historical evidence that prevents people from concluding Jesus was the son of God, but a predisposition that the supernatural/God cannot be true, or not like this. So rather than believers needing to make special self-serving assumptions (I just start with an open mind), it is unbelievers who make the presumption against the supernatural.
So I submit to you that I don’t have a “god of the gaps” belief, but a thoroughly historical belief. Of course there are other arguments to consider (e.g. first cause, problem of evil, fine-tuning, God’s hiddenness, etc) but I think I have good grounds for my belief in Jesus. Thanks.
LikeLike
Bystander comments:
… need to not start with any presumptions. Is this even possible?
… explains the most evidence in a plausible way. Who decides?
But this simply isn’t true and It is now generally agreed that belief that he had been resurrected Sounds like a presumption has already been formed.
it isn’t a lack of historical evidence that prevents people from concluding Jesus was the son of God, but a predisposition that the supernatural/God cannot be true And you clearly state your predisposition.
How can a non-biased, non-prejudicial discussion even be possible?
LikeLiked by 2 people
@unkleE, “On your part not a presumption that the supernatural can’t occur – when discussing jesus, this begs the question”
This is the problem, unkleE. Why can’t we presume that the supernatural can’t occur???
@unkleE, “People of the day believed Jesus performed healing miracles, ”
Millions of people witnessed supernatural healings attending or watching on TV the crusades performed by Oral Roberts, Kathryn Kuhlman, A.A. Allen, Jack Coe, Benny Hinn and Peter Popoff just to name a small few.
We have more evidence of these healings than we have of the probably less than 100 healings of Jesus.
Are you ready to say you believe in these Faith Healers as much or more than you believe in the healings of Jesus based on the evidence ? If not, why not ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let’s examine Eric’s argument. Eric wants us to allow for the existence of the supernatural. I say that we do so—but—under these conditions: We allow for the possibility that a supernatural Creator exists, but all evidence points to the fact that if such a supernatural Creator exists, he has chosen that the universe will operate by set, inviolable natural laws. There is no good evidence whatsoever that the natural laws of the universe have ever been violated. There may be millions of anecdotal claims of violations of such laws, but none have been documented. Craig Keener admits in his book that he spent ZERO funds on research. All of his miracle claims are based on anecdotes.
The scientific method has proven, so far, to be the most reliable and reproducible method of evaluating our world and defining reality. I suggest that we be open to the possibility of miracles but alleged miracles must stand up to scrutiny. In particular, if miracles exist, they must be shown to occur, at least occasionally, under observable conditions where scientists can observe the miracle as it happens. At present, miracles only seem to occur in the presence of believers and out of the spotlight of cameras and video recorders.
Just because people of Jesus day believed he performed miracles doesn’t mean he did. Thousands of Pentecostal Christians and millions of Hindus believe that fantastical miracles are occurring as we speak, but that doesn’t mean that they really are.
Eric’s claim that most “historians” believe that Jesus tomb was empty is false. The correct claim is that a literature search of articles written by NT scholars between the years of 1975 and 2005 showed that 75% of the authors of these articles favored the historicity of the empty tomb. Whether or not a majority of NT scholars in 2016 holds such a view is unknown.
I read NT Wright’s book. His principle argument is that no first century Jew would have believed in the resurrection of one individual without having seen the resurrected body of that individual with his own two eyes. There are three problems with this argument. First, the overwhelming majority of first century Jews did NOT believe the Jesus resurrection story. Second, Jesus had been telling his disciples for three years that he would rise from the dead so the fact that a few of them believed this rumor after his death should not come as a surprise, and third, Jews in Asia Minor came to believe in the Resurrection without seeing a resurrected body, but by “reading the Scriptures”, if we believe Paul. So Wright’s theory is proven false.
Yes, most scholars believe that very early on, Christians believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead.
But the majority of scholars also do not believe that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or their close associates. So put this all together and what do you have: A small group of Galilean peasants came to believe that their dead friend had come back to visit them, just as he had promised. Thousands of grieving people have claimed to have seen their dead loved ones and friends. We don’t believe them, so why should we believe a bunch of Galilean fishermen?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Hi Howie, and best wishes to you.
“Many of us here on your blog have certainly given this kind of more progressive viewpoint a chance but the bible just doesn’t seem to rise above the level of “merely human” for us.”
Just to clarify, I base my views on Jesus on the Bible as a historical document as assessed by secular historians. I conclude that Jesus is believable as the son of God, and this is more believable then any other option). Then I conclude that the Bible is inspired, but only in ways that are consistent with the historical evidence.
So it doesn’t have to rise above “merely human” to believe in Jesus as I do.
LikeLike
Eric: “no other explanation explains the historical facts like the conclusions that he really was resurrected.”
This is Christian wishful thinking. What historical facts are there? Let’s look at them…the few that there are:
1. An Empty Tomb.
Even if there was an Empty Tomb, there are many, much more probable, NATURAL explanations for an empty tomb than a once in history resurrection.
2. The early belief that Jesus had appeared to some of his followers.
As mentioned above, many thousands of people have claimed to have received appearances from their recently departed dead friends and loved ones. Probability says that the disciples mistook vivid dreams, visions, or trances for reality.
What other evidence is there? Eyewitness testimony? Nope. Not according to the consensus of scholars! The claim that eyewitnesses or their associates wrote the four gospels is no longer held by the majority of scholars. Even conservative scholars admit this (read Richard Bauckham’s, “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses”).
LikeLiked by 1 person
This statement needs to be taken to the cleaners and trashed once and for all.
The ONLY point of reference for unklee or any believer to make such an assertion is the bible.
The bible can never be regarded as accurate or reliable history and there is not a single contemporary piece of evidence to back a single thing, and especially anything related to smelly little itinerant preacher running around curing people.
Unklee openly stated that we should begin from a position of no presupposing and almost straight off the bat he is doing it.
He is now either being willfully ignorant and obtuse or is simply stupid, and I am really struggling to find a middle ground for his behavior.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, and as Unklee is so very keen on citing his non-Christian historians, even if some readers might might find his choice of scholar somewhat repetitive as he continually tries to bleed out credibility from his pseudo-fundamentalist position, I came across this somewhat less fawning review of Grant’s ”Historical Jesus” from Neil Godfrey’s site …
Just to put things into a little more honest perspective
http://vridar.org/2013/02/25/the-historical-jesus-and-the-demise-of-history-3a-how-one-popular-historian-follows-jesus-to-scholarly-perdition-pt-1/
http://vridar.org/category/book-reviews-notes/grant-jesus-historians-view/
Here is one scholar’s view of Grant’s approach.
”One New Testament scholar points out exactly what Michael Grant is doing and it is not history. It is outdated New Testament hermeneutics. ”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ark that was fascinating to read the analysis of Michael Grant’s approach. I could summarise his approach as something along the lines of, ‘the early church would surely not have made up this story so it must be true’.
So Grant’s conclusions are based not upon evidence but rather upon his particular brand of reasoning.
Richard Carrier, disdained by so many, nevertheless is very effective in providing contemporary examples to show how many of the assumptions used in the reasoning of historians don’t necessarily apply in reality.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Peter.
Over the past couple of years it has become almost painful to read comments from people like Unklee as they struggle desperately to formulate a response that they believe will not only justify their personal views regarding the supernatural, but in some manner actually make a case for historical and scientific veracity.
So, as archaeology (science) and genuine biblical scholarship move forward, it is becoming increasingly obvious that this is nothing but a pipe dream.
If it were not for the wide acceptance of religion – well, some religions – a person behaving in this manner would, in all likelihood, be deemed mentally unstable. In fact, I am fairly sure that many deconverts now look upon their former indoctrinated selves with similar incredulity.
Hanging on to the barbaric death-cult mythology of Christianity, or any such religion for that matter, is not only demeaning, being nothing more than a perverse symptom of cultural indoctrination, it is, quite frankly, obscene.
Ark.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually, contrary to what Eric believes, the traditional Christian belief system is held together almost exclusively by minority expert positions.
Eyewitnesses or their associates wrote the Gospels: minority position of scholars
Papias was a reliable source of information: minority position of scholars
Without eyewitness testimony and without Papias’ statements on the authorship of the Gospels, the credibility of the supernatural claims of Christianity completely collapses. This is the current state of affairs of New Testament scholarship that Eric and other conservative/moderate Christians so desperately do not want to accept.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Incidentally, Bart Ehrman wrote a good piece last year on the existence of Nazareth.
https://ehrmanblog.org/did-nazareth-exist/
Basically, there is a fair amount of archaeological evidence that Nazareth existed during the lifetime of Jesus. It was a tiny town of no particular importance, but it was there.
LikeLike
@Jon
Ehrman devotes rather a lot of his post slating Rene Salm.
It would appear you haven’t followed this particular topic on this thread and it doesn’t look as if you have studied Ehrman’s article thoroughly either, Jon.
Maybe you haven’t at least read the archaeological history of the tombs, it seems.
Have you read anything of Bagatti’s initial report and survey or even the Nazareth Farm Report?
And Ehrman also cites Alexandre.
Maybe you missed this?
“In 2009, Israeli Christian archaeologist Yardenna Alexandre claimed to have excavated archaeological remains in Nazareth that might date to the time of Jesus in the early Roman period. <strong<Unfortunately this has not been corroborated by the IAA[41] or any other reliable archaeological sources.” (wiki)
Worth a rethink perhaps? What say you Jon?
LikeLike
It is not clear to me what your objection is. If you have a point to make about the archaeological history of the tombs or one of Ehrman’s points, make it!
I am also unclear what “has not been corroborated by the IAA” means, given that Alexandre was the excavation director for the IAA on this project. Here is a report from the Israel Antiquities Authority about the Alexandre excavation.
http://www.antiquities.org.il/article_eng.aspx?sec_id=25&subj_id=240&id=1638
At the very most, Nazareth was a tiny cluster of homes with a tiny population. It makes no difference to me whether it was populated around the time of Jesus birth or not, but I don’t see why the prospect of a few families/couple hundred people living there is so implausible.
LikeLike
A few days before Christmas I had an interesting discussion with my 11 year old son about the “holy family”. It blew his mind that Mary (if she existed) was only 12 to 15 years old at the birth of Jesus. I could see that he really struggled with that. He already knew that if Joseph existed he was a great deal older than Mary. It’s as though he was picturing a girl from his middle school in that predicament and it really bothered him.
My preteen, self-proclaimed atheist child is absolutely troubled by this disturbing theology, while Christian adults four to five times his age find it “beautiful”. That’s something to think about.
LikeLiked by 3 people