Galatians 2:11
Vinnie…That is not a bad question. And I see that you have several responses below that are really intriguing. I rather like the additional thoughts of moderator Liam …and also LM77.
An article, found at etsjets.org/files , cites Bloomberg as asserting that 1 Kings 11:40 is behind Matthew 2:14-15. The author of the jets article tosses around different ideas about the placement of the verses in Matthew 2, thinking they might fit better later, but ends up leaving those verses where they are. He asserts (like others do) that Jesus’ experiences involve retracing Israel’s steps, and notes a parallel as well between the last two verses of Hosea 10 (“…when mothers were dashed in pieces with their children …At dawn the king of Israel shall be utterly cut off”) and the recording of Herod’s slaughter of male children in Bethlehem in Matt 2:16. If one can stomach that thought, then I suppose the more blatant citation of Hosea is not so out of sync with the moment.
There is also a typological approach at work here with respect to the biblical account as a whole. The relationship between prophecies or statements about individuals (at times) and larger, or national, experiences seems to be accepted by most commentators and students of the text as a whole. Edersheim said that “The history, the institutions, and the predictions of Israel run up into Him [the Messiah]”. He noted, in his The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, to what he called “Jewish legend” that says that redeemed Zion ( at some future point) will experience all the miracles that God performed when Israel was in the wilderness during the Exodus. (Argue with Edersheim on this.)
See, as one example, the parallels between Jesus’ 40 days in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-11) and Israel’s 40 years in the wilderness (Book of Exodus)
The NRSV (New Oxford Annotated Bible) points to a similar technique in Exodus 4:22, “Thus says the Lord: Israel is my firstborn son.” Israel (as a nation or people-group) is referred to as a son (individual).
An article in JETS notes the use of Genesis in Hosea with prophecies given to individuals like Adam (Genesis 5:7) or Jacob (Genesis 12:25) being seen by Hosea as applying to the nation of Israel as a whole. This somewhat fits with Edersheim’s idea…as well as Matthew’s.
JETS also sees that verse in Hosea 11 in light of its relation to the entirety of that chapter so that, after Israel’s exodus (from Egypt), they fell away from God but were judged by God, though not with an absolute judgment due to His compassion (v. 8-9) with a future restoration in verses 10-11. The footnotes of Oxford Annotated describe verses 8-9 as “perhaps the Bible’s stongest affirmation of divine mercy.”
The citation of this passage in Matthew is not to suggest Jesus’ need for divine mercy, but more in line with Edersheim’s ideas.
And I don’t know if the name of the biblical book has anything to do with Matthew’s references. But there is also something to be said here (with reference to the matter of God’s restoration and compassion) to the relation between the name Hosea (means “God, Save!” or salvation) and Yeshua/Jesus (God is salvation).
Not specifically, I don’t have enough free time at the moment.
It rules out one within human history, as evidenced by things like no biogenic sediment near me, layers with index fossils, plants with non-salt tolerant seeds, etc.
And if they were to constantly slander others and publish blatant lies, what would that suggest?
2 Likes
Obviously. And there are not many here who are young earth creationists.
Share please. I have seen responses here that are down right hostile.
We still have sin in the world and hope we all realize we are sinners. None of us is perfect.
The thread The Lies of AiG had extensive discussion of such things. I would note that it is mainly just people aggressively and obnoxiously promoting YEC (very much not you), that intentionally do either of those. There are certain AiG articles that really badly misrepresent sources, like the one linked in this thread Resources to further investigate the claims made in this article? (see the discussion for what problems there are).
I think we need to remind ourselves that everything AIG says is not wrong. They have truth in their hearts and words when they talk about Jesus, and we have to guard against the type of binary, black and white thinking we tend to associate with fundamentalism and AIG, lest we be no different. The problem arises when they tend to mix in their own interpretations and equate it with the gospel.
6 Likes
well said, jpm
The Nativity narratives are best thought of as mainly theological with some historical details.
They should not be read as an AP Newswire or a bus schedule.
If Answers in Genesis is promoting arguments that do not have accurate and honest weights and measures, then it does not line up with the Word of God.
¹³Do not have two differing weights in your bag — one heavy, one light. ¹⁴Do not have two differing measures in your house — one large, one small. ¹⁵You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lᴏʀᴅ your God is giving you. ¹⁶For the Lᴏʀᴅ your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly. – Deuteronomy 25:13-16
4 Likes
IF the correct explanation is of the Lord by His Spirit and His Truth, it will minister.
1 Like
Again, to an extent I agree with you:
That said, the amount of historical detail they include is largely a matter of opinion. Can we agree on that?
No, it’s a matter of what we know about history.
That’s a shame.
They are certainly fast and loose in how they arrange material but but in addition to compiling and editing, the Gospel authors were also creators at times.
The cursing, triumphal entry and cleansing is interesting since I have been working on a larger piece on Mark 11-13. John, as you know, has Jesus going to the temple multiple times whereas Mark narrates it as sort of a journey that way that ends in Jerusalem. Other trips are not narrated. John places the temple cleansing early and Mark late. It makes no sense in Mark early but Mark has an anti-temple motif in 11-13.
The cursing of the fig appears in one independent source (Mark) and Mark uses it as the bread for the sandwich involving the cleansing of the temple. It was copied by Matthew but the intercalation was removed. Luke only has a parable about fig trees and removed this altogether from Mark whom he copied. If Jesus had an incident in the temple it was likely a prophetic gesture demonstrating its destruction. I find “cleansing” to be a complete misnomer. Not to mention, imagine him halting temple proceedings during a busy festival when there would be increased Roman military presence there to stifle any rebellions and possibility of insurrection. Not to mention I believe there were temple guards as well. We have to think the crowds were so in favor of Jesus the Jews were scared to act (this wouldn’t bother the Roman’s though!). But then a few short scenes later this crowd is chanting crucify Jesus and asking an insurrectionist be set free. This all strains credibility. SO much so some posit multiple crowds to resolve it. Those who were with Jesus at the entry shouting Hosanna must be different than the crowd at his trial (obviously summoned and stirred up by the corrupt Temple authorities). I don’t buy it.
All of this misses the point of Mark to me. Just as Genesis was written in a specific context, so was the Gospel of Mark. Most scholars take it as extremely close to the Temple’s destruction. I think it comes shortly after as a response to Flavian propaganda. Christian who were Gentiles accepted the OT God and how the Roman military was mightier than him (able to destroy his dwelling place on earth) needs to be accounted for. The majority of Mark 11-13 is all about the Temple. Its otherwise absent or peripheral in Mark but now we have it on center stage. Not to mention if Mark is largely writing to Gentiles many scholars wonder why they would even care about the Jewish Temple? Why such devotion to it here? Writing after 70CE is one way to answer this with flying colors. Exactly how much is historical is anyones guess. If it does come ca 75 as I believe it does then Mark is addressing a community living just after God’s dwelling place on earth had been destroyed by Roman military might. The Romans were not shy about using this event to demonstrate their superiority. We learn that from Josephus.
What we see then is a temple that is thoroughly corrupt in Mark and had to be destroyed by God. I don’t think there is enough good evidence to attribute this attitude to Jesus throughout his life. Markan redaction is shaping this.
Adam Winn proposes “that Mark’s “anti-temple” motif functions to respond to the Flavian propaganda related to the Jerusalem temple and that the motif addresses the crises that such propaganda would create for Mark’s Gentile community. In response to the Roman theology of Victory that fueled Flavian propaganda, Mark argues that the Jerusalem temple was destroyed because it and its leadership were thoroughly corrupt and had turned against the purposes of YHWH. This corruption was identified by God’s appointed Messiah and was verified by the temple authorities’ rejection and execution of that Messiah. Long before Rome turned its attention to a rebellious Judea, YHWH’s Messiah Jesus had recognized a rebellious temple institution and had prophesied its utter destruction. Thus, through his “anti-temple” motif, Mark robs Flavian propaganda of its power, and transfers that power to YHWH and his Messiah Jesus, the true ruler of the world. Consequently, Rome and its emperor simply become pawns in the plans of the God of Israel.”[1]
[1] Adam Winn, ibid pg 307
So there is nothing to say Jesus didn’t recognize this corruption or comment on it or predict the destruction of the Temple. As the account stands in Mark, I think events 40 years prior are mostly unknowable. Doesn’t mean they didn’t happen but a single source 40 years later in a polemical portion of a Gospel is not valid historical evidence for anything. Narrative criticism suggests that Mark’s community is the new eschatological temple that is not built by human hands. Atonement and prayer now resides in the Christians who follow Jesus as Messiah. The Romans did not destroy God’s temple of their own accord. They were merely God’s agents and they demolished a corrupt and hollow shell of what the temple was supposed to be. God using other nations is a common theme throughout the OT. Babylon is used as a sword to punish Israel in Ezekial 21 (see also Jeremiah 25:8-9). God is the source of Israel’s punishment throughout the OT, not the foreign nations that he uses. The Roman legions were just the means to an end here whereas Christians have the true power through faith. They could cast the entire temple mount into the sea! That is what Mark 11-13 reads ca. 75CE.
Eusebius came up with clever harmonizations. It is all an exercise in painting targets around arrows wherever you find them. It is also not exegetically sound. Not only do the infancy narratives reek of creativity, they are greatly at odds with one another and even history. John Meier tells us the author of Luke even gets Mary’s purification ritual all wrong! So much for assuming he had her as a source ands traces a genealogy through her. This mistake is an easy thing to do ca 90-100 CE by a Gentile author!
We don’t have to reject the Virgin birth because of this but we need to understand the infancy narratives tell us more about what Christians thought of the Risen Jesus in the late forst century than events that happened 90 years earlier. He was worthy of grandiose birth narratives!
I can’t simply turn accommodation on and off when its Old vs New. Either scripture is accommodated or its not. If we affirm it is, then it all is. A light touch of concordism seems to be based on fideism. Perhaps your light touch is true but perhaps it is not. How do you distinguish between them? But maybe it is my extensive dive into critical NT studies that make me skeptical. I don’t doubt there is a lot of tradition and history behind the Gospels. I think for the most part though, we have to read Mark as it was written to its communities when it actually was. It addresses issues relevant to its audience. I treat Mark the same way I treat Genesis. So those three scenes, all part of Mark’s anti-temple motif, raise all sorts of unanswerable historical questions. Mark is more interested in 75 CE during 11-13 than he is 40 years prior. But I think this brings up an issue which makes the gap between concordism and accommodation so wide. Even those who profess accommodation can’t always seem to fully let go of concordism and embrace the totality of what accommodation actually means. It means a total reworking and new epistemic basis of all Christian doctrine and belief. Especially since we are shaped by almost 2,000 years of mostly concordist readings! Sola scripture advocates are in some serious hot water.
Vinnie
Let me commend Bonhoeffer’s hermeneutic again, and for the purposes here, especially the middle of that first paragraph:
2 Likes
No, not a shame at all. Here’s a wonderful article by Jon Meacham, The Birth of Jesus. Meacham is a Christian, a Pulitzer Prize–winning presidential historian, and the canon historian at Washington National Cathedral.
If we dissect the stories with care, we can see that the Nativity saga is neither fully fanciful nor fully factual but a layered narrative of early tradition and enduring theology, one whose meaning was captured in the words of the fourth-century Nicene Creed: that “for us men and for our salvation,” Jesus “came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man.”
Perhaps, in hindsight I could have been clearer. I believe that the narratives are broadly historical whilst accepting the premise that this is not their primary intent. Whilst I do not personally find your position convincing I accept that it is not without merit nor without good arguments. I also respect your right not to find my position convincing and so sought to find common ground between our two theological positions. The shame is that this token appeared to go unreturned.
Maybe, that is my own fault for not being explicit enough in my desire to establish common ground. Perhaps I should not have replied so tersely (“that’s a shame”) but made a second attempt. In both cases, I apologise.
Thank you, BeagleLady. Whilst I cannot promise I’ll find it convincing, I look forward to reading it with an open mind and to learn more about your views in a quest towards better mutual understanding.
1 Like
It’s a good article. Pretty solid overview of what critical scholars think about the issue. Brown’s Birth of the Messiah still a seminal work in the field after all these years.
Vinnie
1 Like
What specific elements meet your view of broadly historical? I’ve seen some claim that Luke presents a more historical account than Matthew—who is kind of doing a midrash thing. I don’t agree with it but it’s certainly a view held by some. Matthew is all over the Exodus. The following is paraphrased from a listing by Raymond Brown in the Birth of the Messiah (pg 113):
-
- Joseph takes the child away as Herod sought to destroy him. Moses also went away as the Pharaoh sought to kill him (Matt 2:13-14 and Exod 2:15).
-
- Herod massacred all the boys two and under in Bethlehem and the Pharaoh had every male boy be cast into the Nile.
-
- Both Kings died (Matt 2:19; Exod 2:23).
-
- Moses is told to return to Egypt by God and an Angel tells Joseph to go back to the Land of Israel. Both were told those seeking him are dead (Matt 2:19-20, Exod 4:19).
-
- Both Joseph and Moses take their wife and offspring back to the destinated commanded of them ( Matt 2:21 and Exodus 4:20).
What does this tell us about the Christian view of Scripture at the time? We already saw Hosea 11:1. To quote Bruce Vawter at length:
“The Christian community’s conviction that the prophetic spirit of the OT was the source of its own kerygma and its consequent disposition to re-read or to read into the OT in the light of the kerygma a message that the OT had not of itself possessed admittedly led to a relative lack of concern over historical human authorship and personality and literary form. But it also testified to the refusal to be governed by the letter of any text, however sacred, in the face of what was convinced that the Spirit was saying: through the witness of the Spirit it transformed the OT word into a living message for the Church of God. Clearly this was not done out of any belief that the prophetic word that it adapted so plastically was in any sense the oracular utterance of a delphic spirit, a word voiced from heaven fixed and immutable, once for all. “( pg 16-17 Biblical Inspiration)
Vinnie