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 
It is frustrating to have to point out such a glaringly obvious literary error, but when one is dealing with a believer for whom the character Jesus of Nazareth is also considered a god and the creator of the universe it is necessary.
It cannot be stated that Jesus of Nazareth said anything at all for there were no eyewitnesses to anything.
We cannot even be sure there is any genuine veracity for any supposed sayings of Jesus of Nazareth.
To make any such statement as ”Jesus said … such and such” is simply false.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Eric,
We do, and we’ve got a good mix of culture in our family. My wife’s family is from a Buddhist background, but when they moved to the United States they took on the celebrations of the culture here, so my wife grew up celebrating Christmas. We also celebrate Hanukkah as well. For me they are both filled with some rich traditions that enhance the time of focussing on relationships with family and friends. And the kids just love the time as well.
Yeah, I can see what you mean here in some sense. Not that I see it as part divine of course (although I don’t see that as impossible), but there are times where I see critics end up holding to very black and white ways of looking at the passages in order to get a point across. I can see how this could frustrate you. I personally view the bible like I view the many scriptures of the world (of which I recently listened to a very interesting audible course about). While there could possibly be some influence from some agents outside of humanity, I personally see them as significant and fascinating works of human literature. As with any books written by humans there are things that are correct in them and there are things that are not; things that are benevolent and things that are not.
As for uncertainty and living life I see some similarities there in the way I live my life, although I’m sure you’d see (and I would agree) my views as being filled with quite a bit more uncertainty metaphysically speaking. I’ve personally found though that when it comes to the practical act of living life it’s not as much of an effect as people might think (depending on the values of the person of course).
This is really just a leisurely reply not meant at disagreeing but rather sharing my own perspective (some of which seems to overlap a little with yours). I was thinking about replying to another of your comments with some disagreement but it looks like Jon has taken it up and I don’t think I’d have time for that anyway. Seems Jon has had that discussion with you on a previous post of Nate’s, but maybe something different could come out this time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I had a bit of a laugh today I listened to some old sermons from John MacArthur I had on tape. MacArthur argued that the fact there are seeming contradictions in the Biblical teaching of every theological doctrine proved the Bible was not a man made book. MacArthur’s reasoning is that in the case of a human book the editors would have ensured there was no inconsistency, so the apparent inconsistency and difficulty proved it was not a human book.
Well really who could argue with that logic?
MacArthur goes on to say that the concept is so challenging that no human would have made it up.
So anyway now I understand the birth narratives, using this logic the clear inconsistencies in the accounts ‘proves’ they are true! I mean to say as MacArthur’s ‘logic’ suggests there really could be no other explanation could there?
LikeLiked by 4 people
@kcchief1
This is a big gripe of mine with Christians. They forget that their fair skinned, blue eyed, blond haired Jesus says that when you’ve seen him you’ve seen the father. I have also brought up that same peace/sword scripture with different Christians and I just get a shoulder shrug.
@unkleE
As usual, you still haven’t really told me anything. Pretty much all Christians are watered down and I think you know exactly what I mean. The ones who are the least watered down are the Westboro Baptist ones. Of course, the rest of you try to say you’re nothing like that, but their behavior mirrors a good portion of the Bible. No matter how seeker friendly you try to make your religion out to be (because….Jesus), it’s still abusive, manipulative and like some uppity exclusive club because of Jesus. (As @kcchief1 mentioned above. )
@Peter
MacArthur is a trip. He’s always pointing his finger to other preachers in “error”. Blood cult is still a blood cult. Ha!
LikeLiked by 3 people
@Charity.
Did you see this post I made? I think it relates to what you are saying. Hugs
https://scottiestoybox.com/2016/12/28/i-know-people-who-really-do-this-yet-swear-they-are-devout-christians-hugs/
LikeLike
@Scottie
I basically became an atheist because I could no longer associate with a god who’s a big ass baby. Quite frankly, we want Christians to be watered down because if any one of them truly reflected their god’s image, they would be absolutely seething with violence and murder.
Let’s just say there was or is a Jesus. I don’t want to affiliate myself with someone who stands back and either makes shit happen or allows it to happen to others. And if one of you godites tell me that horrible things happen because of human beings or the devil, you’re ultimately telling me that man and Satan are mightier than Jesus. And in that same sentiment you’re revealing to me that Christ’s torture, death and resurrection is null and void as well.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Jon, it wasn’t me who wrote that, but Gary. But since I would say something similar, I will reply.
My statement was: “Most historians conclude that Jesus’ tomb was empty and/or his followers had visions of him alive after his death.” Note the “and/or”. I base this on the following:
1. Yes, I used Habermas’ paper, which says 75% of scholars favour an argument for the empty tomb and 25% favour an argument against. His survey was of papers, not scholars, but he bases this statistic (apparently) on the number scholars who authored those papers. I don’t pretend that this survey is absolutely rigorous statistically (though it is much better evidenced than most such claims!), so I don’t pretend that 75% is an exact figure. But it surely indicates that more than 50% think this.
2. Habermas’ study also found that “Few critical scholars reject the notion that, after Jesus’ death, the early Christians had real [appearance] experiences of some sort.” So combining that with the empty tomb finding provides ample justification for “most” scholars believing one and/or the other.
3. This is confirmed by taking my own reading as a small sample. Based on memory (so I won’t swear I’m 100% here) scholars Wright, Bauckham, Keener, Evans & Dickson would accept both. Fox & Grant accept the empty tomb but not the appearances, while Jesus Seminar, Sanders, Casey and (I think) Ehrman accept the appearances but not the empty tomb. The only people I know of who accept neither are the fringe mythicists and mostly non-scholars – Carrier, Fitzgerald, Doherty, Godfrey and Price. While of course the other end of the bell curve, the christian apologists would all accept both.
So that is it. It isn’t as precise as a controlled survey, but it is way better than a general impression.
LikeLike
“As usual, you still haven’t really told me anything.”
Hi Charity. I’m sorry you felt this, as I thought 12 passage to go with and against your 3 was something. I guess now’s a good time to call it a day. Thanks.
LikeLike
“This is really just a leisurely reply not meant at disagreeing but rather sharing my own perspective (some of which seems to overlap a little with yours). I was thinking about replying to another of your comments with some disagreement”
Hi Howie, I was happy to hear your perspective and have a brief conversation like two normal people instead of protagonists on the internet. I appreciate your perspective and experience, and yes, we do agree on quite a bit, even if not the things mostly discussed here.
Best wishes to you and yours.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The fact that many scholars believe, that early Christians believed, that at least some of the disciples believed, that they had experienced appearances of Jesus in some form is not an endorsement of literal bodily appearances.
Thousands of humans, over thousands of years, have claimed to have seen dead people. The dead person sightings by Jesus disciples were not new or unusual.
LikeLiked by 4 people
@Charity/Unk
‘Hi Charity. I’m sorry you felt this, as I thought 12 passage to go with and against your 3 was something.’
Yes Unk, it is enough to confirm that the Bible contains contradictions, to many, such as myself, proof positive that it is not a divine book.
Though as I mentioned above John MacArthur seems to see the contradictions as proof of divine inspiration. Of course MacArthur is following in the great Calvinist tradition of his idol Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones who claimed that the fast and loose way that the New Testament authors interpreted the Old Testament was proof of divine inspiration because no human would dare to have been so cavalier with the Holy Scripture.
At his point I would suggest that a good dose of Occam’s Razor might help these learned preachers consider that there is a more obvious interpretation.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Hi Peter, I don’t hold any brief for those “learned preachers”, I actually know little about them, so who knows, I might well agree with you.
So the Bible contains contradictions, or at least, things you can’t put together. But I offered a reasonable explanation, so I hardly see that as “proof positive”. But I understand you see it that way.
But as I have said all along, it doesn’t have to be a “divine book” to give us true history. I would still be interested to see you respond to it as history rather than continue to treat it as if it must be a divine book or nothing.
LikeLike
Uuklee, you beleive that a narrative construct, Jesus of Nazareth, is the creator of the universe, that all humans are sinners, that we have to acknowledge this and accept the make beleive character Jesus of Nazareth as some sort of savior otherwise we will end up in some form of Hell after we die.
Of the approximate 7 billion billion humans on Planet Earth, there are those that consider Jesus might have been an historical character,
However, the majority do not beleive in the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth as some sort of god and most certainly not the creator of the bloody universe.
So when you say ”two normal people” I take serious issue with this statement.
I will most definitely grant Howie a degree of normality ( unless he supports Manchester United), but based on your insidious promotion of the death-cult of Christianity, I am sorry, but as sure as a camel shits in the desert, you, unklee are not normal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@unleE, “I would still be interested to see you respond to it as history rather than continue to treat it as if it must be a divine book or nothing.”
I don’t find many scholars referring to the Bible as a history book. It is a book of Jewish stories which happens to contain some history.
I would relate it to Dan Brown’s books. The Da vinci Code, Angels and Demons, The Lost Symbol, Inferno. They are all stories which contain a certain amount of history.
Wouldn’t you agree ?
I know you’ve been busy responding to all of the questions that have been posed here but you didn’t respond to my earlier one which I’m sure you accidentally overlooked.
.@unkleE, “but he chooses not to complete verse 2 of Isaiah 61, which says: “and the day of vengeance of our God”. It seems he was distancing himself from violence as a means for fulfilling his mission and correcting an Old Testament misunderstanding about God.”
Then why did Jesus say, “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Mt 10:34
LikeLiked by 2 people
I find it very odd how moderate Christians such as Eric can see that many of the stories in the Bible are not historical (such as the Creation story and the story of dead saints being shaken out of their graves on the day of the Crucifixion) but insist that the Empty Tomb story and the Appearance Stories are historical facts.
LikeLiked by 3 people
@ Gary.
As mentioned before, as he believes that Jesus of Nazareth was who he supposedly claimed he was, then if JC accepted the OLD T in some fashion, so can Unklee and by this standard, any shit will fly, because …. JC is perfect, can do no wrong, and is more spotless than a white shirt after wash-day.
I think this is called: Having one’s cake and eating it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Unklee
Ugh. I’m sorry. I’m not sure how I made that mistake. My apologies.
It’s not clear to me that he was saying 75% of relevant papers supported the empty tomb. It seems like he just indicated that 75% of relevant papers supported an argument that Habermas categorized as supporting the empty tomb. In other words, based on his wording, he may be counting as support for the empty tomb any paper that expresses support for women as the first witnesses.
Further, even if he only counted those who made a clear pronouncement (for or against) on the historicity of an empty tomb, I don’t think it’s necessarily reasonable to extrapolate that position to scholars generally. It may be that the issue is disproportionately covered by people inclined to agree (or disagree) with the historicity of the empty tomb.
In fact, in what I think is a fairly fatal blow to the significance of his finding, I would note that Habermas said “the listings are what might be expected, dividing along theological “party lines.”” This pretty strongly suggests the conclusions are theologically influenced. It also suggests his data contained more confessional than critical scholars.
Of course, unless Habermas releases his underlying data, we can’t really know whether he’s painting a reasonable picture and his claims are more anecdotal assertions than academic research.
I genuinely would like to see a survey of (relevant) scholars on topics like this. I don’t know what the outcome would be. It may well be consistent with what Habermas found. For the record, I think it’s plausible that there was an empty tomb. I just don’t think a resurrection was involved.
I don’t think one implies the other at all. Paul, for example, had an “experience” that didn’t require or imply an empty tomb.
My impression is that most scholars probably accept that at least some early followers had some sort of “experience” that they interpreted as evidence of Jesus’ continued existence. But that covers a very wide range of possible experiences: actual physical resurrection, spiritual resurrection, revelations or visions (like Paul), hallucinations or some other experience that they interpreted as Jesus.
My own view is that the story probably originally began with a follower — perhaps one of the women, perhaps Peter — claiming they could not find his body and other followers interpreting that as evidence that he had risen. Or it could have begun with one follower having some sort of grief hallucination or dream/vision/revelation. Once one follower made that claim, others would be motivated to “experience” the same thing in order to gain or maintain status within the movement. Suggestion is powerful. There are many examples of this. For example…
1. Paul introducing “about 12” disciples to the idea of the Holy Spirit (which they had somehow never heard of!) in Acts 19. Once they heard of it, the disciples suddenly “spoke in tongues and prophesied.”
2. The behavior at Pentecostal churches, where people “speak in tongues”, jump around and generally behave in a culturally conditioned manner that has positive spiritual connotations within the group.
3. The “satanic panic” of the 80’s and 90’s, where hundreds/thousands of people claimed to have undergone ritual abuse by satanists, pretty much all of which was later proven to be fraudulent or imaginary.
You get the idea. My point is that “experiences” covers a wide range of things, and can be perfectly consistent with a naturalistic explanation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@unkleE
Yes, I’m well aware that “testament” is supposedly synonymous with “covenant”. It’s also the same as “teaching”.
I posted four passages, but that doesn’t matter. I’ve seen plenty of people go tit for tat with you many times. You’re still going to be love sick with something that doesn’t exist. You’re in love with the idea of being in love with someone who has supposedly come to seek and save the lost. And we all know that you’re here to convince us all the same. The truth is, you can’t because we’ve all done our homework. Like many others here, I didn’t pursue atheism, I pursued god. In all of my praying, Bible studying (personal, home group and church), worship, crying out to Jesus, ministering to others, as well as being ministered to, and church involvements I found myself outside of faith.
My doubts began while I was studying for my theology degree at Christ For the Nations in Dallas in the early 1990s. Little did I realize until much later, that was the beginning of my deconversion process. I didn’t deconvert until 20 years after that.
I rarely come to Nate’s blog because of you. I often find you triggering because you follow a big lie and try to convince us all to believe it. Fortunately, my trauma (medical/physical, PTSD as a child and adult with my abusive Christian parents and religious trauma) isn’t as easily triggered. Weekly therapy with a secular trauma therapist has helped immensely. However, I still don’t care for your religious bullying. I don’t care if you think you’re being nice, you’re not. The fact that you actually believe we’re all going to hell and/or are broken without Jesus is sick and twisted. I’ve lived most of my life with the negativity of Jesus, I don’t need the likes of someone like you forcing it down my throat. I live in the Mid-South in the US. I’m surrounded by people like you on the daily. I sometimes don’t even address their proselytizing because doing so on a regular basis is exhausting. However, I confront you because you’re on an atheist/agnostic blog. It is one of the very few places where secularists like me can actually relax and be ourselves. And even in knowing that, you choose to spread your lies here. Someone has brainwashed/programmed/groomed you into your faith and you feel as though it’s your duty (because Jesus) to brainwash/program/groom all of us heathens into it as well. I’m calling you out on it because you’re spreading garbage. You live a big lie and expect us all to do the same.
Now I find this all triggering. Not really so much because of my trauma that I’ll probably continue to deal with for years to come, but because of Arch. I’m no longer going to be apart of this conversation because talking to you is a waste. More so, I won’t continue this because my achy heart keeps longing for Arch’s contributions. I find myself looking for his gravatar, even though I know he is gone. This conversation left me in tears last night because it reminded me that Arch is gone. He will never be apart of a conversation like this one ever again.
Love to those who miss Arch.
LikeLiked by 4 people
@Charity. I am sorry for your pain. You have told me some of what you have gone through and you are an amazing person. I did not have a chance to know Arch long, but I also admired him. I also miss his comments and wit. I feel I learn something new about him whenever those that knew him better speak of him. Please know I care. Hugs
LikeLiked by 1 person
Imagine if a theologian made the following statement: “I have performed a literature search of all articles written by theologians on the topic of the Rapture written between 1975 and 2005 and have found that 75% of theologians who have written articles on this topic accept the Scriptural basis of this teaching. Therefore, 75% of all theologians believe that the Rapture is based on sound Biblical sources.
Wrong!
This is a biased sample. Theologians who believe in the Rapture are more apt to write articles on the Rapture, just as NT scholars who believe in the Empty Tomb are more apt to write articles on the Empty Tomb.
Habermas’ literature search should be taken with a grain of salt.
LikeLike
Back to the Birth Narratives…
How is it that the Gospel of Mark is/are the memoirs of Peter, written down “faithfully” by John Mark, not leaving out “any detail”, if we are to believe Papias, as conservative Christian scholars ask us to believe…but John Mark fails to tell us one word about a virgin birth in Bethlehem, the city of David!
And the same conservative Christians ask us to believe that the author of Luke obtained his information directly from eyewitnesses, yet Luke’s eyewitnesses told Luke that the two men/angels at the Empty Tomb said not one word to the women about the disciples meeting Jesus in Galilee, yet according to “Peter” in the Gospel of Mark, the “young man” told the women to tell the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee.
Do Conservative Christians actually read this stuff?
There is NO WAY eyewitnesses wrote these stories!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Gary
Large doses of salt. As I’ve pointed out in comments on other posts, Habermas’ resurrection literature research exists in a Word document on his computer than does not appear to have been seen or verified by anybody else, even his co-author Mike Licona. I take Habermas at his word that this document exists, but his claims remain bald assertions unless and until he makes the underlying data public, or at least has it verified by independent peer reviewers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Charity.
Unklee seems to have a mental block when it come to recognizing that practically every one who follows Nate’s blog comes from a thoroughly indoctrinated, Christian fundamentalist background.
His arguments have always been trite; faith wrapped up in pseudo intellectualism and a thick dollop of condescension.
Coupled with cherry picking par excellence that borders on dis-ingenuousness.
And all the while he thinks he is somehow doing his god’s work.
Yeah, right.
I think Arch would tell him to stick it where the monkey hides his nuts.
I think this about says it all….
LikeLiked by 2 people
Gary
For what it’s worth, the claim made by credible conservative scholars is generally not that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses, but that they contained the testimony of eyewitnesses. Richard Bauckham, for example, agrees that Matthew and John were not written by the Apostles Matthew and John (though, he does think gJohn was written by a different disciple named John). He argues that Luke and Mark were written by Luke (companion of Paul) and John Mark (companion of Peter), but they were not direct eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. As Bauckham wrote, “the Gospels are CLOSE to the eyewitnesses’ own testimony, not removed from them by decades of oral tradition.”
I think it’s entirely likely that the Gospels contain information that traces back to the original eyewitnesses. Hell, it is difficult to imagine how they could not. Obviously, many of the stories, quotes and details were invented along the way, but they originated somewhere. Underneath all the legendary embellishments and theological elements (especially in Matthew), there are some original kernels that must trace back to original followers.
But yeah, it is exceedingly unlikely that the original followers had any direct role in the writing of the stories. What we have is…
Eyewitnesses + spiritual experiences/beliefs + reinterpretation + theological motivations + midrash/pesher + oral transmission + time + embellishment = Gospels!
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Jon
We can be pretty sure these tales suffered from accretion but just how much of the story do you beleive they made up?
LikeLiked by 1 person