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
The link does not work for me.
I don’t need to argue with him because I don’t need to accept the legitimacy of this “Jewish legend” as you or he calls it or ascribe it to all or the majority of Jewish thought. It is convenient though. Oh so Jesus had to go through everything Israel did that’s why it looks like Matthew pulled all these literary parallels out of of the Hebrew Scriptures? Bad exegesis always passes for good apologetics. Painting targets around arrows wherever they are found. Matthew is 100% typecasting. Jesus is the new and greater Moses. Matthew and Luke get Jesus to Bethlehem in contradictory ways. Matthew has an impossibly behaving star, Luke botches the Census and has a different date for Jesus’ birth than Matthew. I find what Matthew does spectacular. He is making theological statements about the transforming and risen Jesus more than historical statements about the baby Jesus.
Do you think Jesus spent exactly 40 days in the wilderness being tempted? Is there a literal Devil that brought him to the top of a very tall mountain that allowed him to see all the kingdoms of the world? I’m sensing incorrect cosmology behind this. Human eyesight, the visibility of the atmosphere and the curvature of the earth all work in tandem to prevent this. Or maybe Jesus just saw a few localized kingdoms? Where have I heard something similar…
It is very possible Jesus wrestled with his self identify, did go away at some point to do some thinking, prayer and soul searching? Did he go away frequently? Or was this created out of the OT? Or was it based on a parable or story Jesus told that became historicized? Based on some other elements of his life we don’t know about that it developed out of? in the broad sense of the incarnation the story is also complete true. God became man, faced temptations but overcame them all. Whatever position one adopts, it needs to be defended with positive arguments if people want to argue for historicity. If they just want to assume historicity then there is nothing to discuss and no argument to be had. That is okay to.
From my view infancy narratives have very little that has any positive claim to historicity based on the extant record. This doesn’t mean its all not historical but they come almost 100 years after the events they purport to narrate, no known lines of transmission are evident, the authors are unknown, whole streams of NT thought seem to not know them (even the demons know Jesus is from nazareth in Mark), ascribing miraculous births to great figures was a thing, they contradict one another on numerous points, make historical errors and most components are easily viewed as theological creations. This is all without even looking at the supernatural claims made or forming an opinion on them. Under the 2DH we could claim the common elements to Mt and LK predate them. In addition, Matthews statement in 1:18 could be embarrassingly scandalous. Brown suggested it was unlikely to be created but if one were fabricating a virgin birth how does one do so without something like it? The virgin birth was certainly a point for skeptics to deride Christians over but for Christians it was a testament to Jesus.
With that being said, I love the birth stories. We just watched the Chosen Christmas special at the movies. The episode was great. When you think about God incarnating himself as a vulnerable infant, whatever the details, how can you not be moved. I think the infancy narratives have a great deal to teach us. I would say Matthew’s infancy narrative is completely true despite thinking he created many of the details to typecast Jesus as a greater and superior Moses (we even see it on the Sermon on Sinai, I mean the mount!). I think concordant readings just have way too many problems in the infancy narratives. Any history is lost. We do have Creeds and Magisterial teachings of the Church that can inform us here, however.
Vinnie
1 Like
Hello Vinnie…the part that stood out in my inbox was your statement that the link I gave in my reply did not work for you. Well, here it is below and following that a blurb from part of the conclusion of that article.
I googled “How does Hosea 11:1 refer to Jesus” and I got reference to a 19-page article called “The Use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15: One More Time.” The author of the article is G.K. Beale. The reference here is
https://www.etsjets.org
and there is a 19-page document online at
jets55d.doc
JETS 55/4 (2012) 697-715
JETS = Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society [I think]
and so below is an excerpt from about page 14 of the online document which you can find if you jump through all those hoops listed above.
BTW, I have read this approach in various places – that is, the Jesus in some measure was retracing Israel’s history and doing it better (so to speak) – so Beale is not coming up with something new. The whole article is interesting …
I will read your fuller response later, but see the excerpt below…
Therefore, Matthew contrasts Jesus as the “son” (2:15) with Hosea’s “son”
(11:1). The latter who came out of Egypt was not obedient, and was judged but
would be restored (11:2–11), while the former did what Israel should have done:
Jesus came out of Egypt, was perfectly obedient, did not deserve judgment but
suffered it anyway for guilty Israel and the world in order to restore them to God.
Matthew portrays Jesus to be recapitulating the history of Israel because he sums
up Israel in himself. Since Israel disobeyed, Jesus has come to do what they should
have, so he must retrace Israel’s steps up to the point they failed, and then continue
to obey and succeed in the mission Israel should have carried out. The attempt to
kill the Israelite infants, the journey of Jesus and his family into Egypt and back to
the Promised Land again is the same basic pattern of Israel of old. Hence, Jesus did
what Israel should have done but did not do.42 This use of Hos 11:1 also is an example of how important exodus patterns were to Matthew and the other NT writers in understanding the mission of Jesus and the church. Jesus’ journey out of
Egypt is identified as Israel’s eschatological exodus out of Egypt to which Israel’s
first exodus out of Egypt pointed.
The upshot of this essay also attempts to show contrary to a number of
scholars that Matthew’s quotation of Hos 11:1 shows exegetical and “grammatical-
1 Like
Matthew is 100% typecasting. Jesus is the new and greater Moses. Matthew and Luke get Jesus to Bethlehem in contradictory ways. Matthew has an impossibly behaving star, Luke botches the Census and has a different date for Jesus’ birth than Matthew.
Thanks Vinnie…I actually like your response, although you and I see some things in varied ways.
“Jesus is the new and greater Moses.” Actually, not a bad observation on your part, although you may mean it somewhat skeptically. On the one hand, why would Jesus being “the new and greater Moses” — or cast as "a type of Moses’ – be so bad? NT interpretation historically has been fraught with “meanings” and “allegorizations” of various passages for one reason or another.
Moses led God’s people out of bondage to slavery and Jesus led His people out of bondage to slavery to sin. “Moses was faithful as a servant in all God’s house … But Christ is faithful as a son over God’s house” (Hebrews 3: 5a – 6a)
Hebrews also compares Christ to the role of the high priest. He is, of course, in a way that the human version could never be. (see Hebrew 4) Jesus was a priest like Melchizedek (Hebrew 7)
As for the Jesus = Moses simile with regard to the birth account, or at least the present discussion —there was, around the time of Jesus’ birth, something of a “back to the Bible” movement in Galilee and Judea. Yes, I am using the “back to the Bible” phrase a bit flippantly. But there was a trend that had parents giving their children biblical names. Some names were so revered that no one gave that name to their babies. And one of those off-limit names was 'Moses." So, instead of naming their baby Moses, people in those days searched for other ancient patriarchal or biblical-hero names. This is possibly why the name Jesus was given – “as a kind of substitute for Moses” per David Flusser in his book The Sage from Galilee, p. 6 (I believe that is the page number).
So – typecasting? not sure this should be the word. Jesus/Yeshu/Yeshua was an extremely common name for boys in that era…Could be they admired Joshua. But could be they just did not dare name the baby Moses.
.
The star – and the nature of it – has been forever fascinating, and I have heard all manner of speculation — comet, nova, angel — and it could have been anything. There were a series of three astronomical events in that era — slow-moving comet (noted by Chinese astronomers at the time), Jupiter and Saturn acting weird, and then these two planets being found located in the constellation Pisces which some say stood for Israel…On the other hand, as you say, it was a crazy star. This is why some think it was an angel…the OT book of Numbers refers to angels as stars and people in those days thought stars were living beings anyhow…
It’s all good, as far as I am concerned. Something happened and that is enough.
As for the route to Bethlehem… …the word “contradiction” means saying two different things about a subject, as in “I never eat pizza. I had pizza for dinner last night.” Matthew and Luke both say the young newlywed couple travelled from Nazareth to Bethlehem. No contraction there. And in both gospels there are genealogies (long story there) but they both have a young girl, engaged to some guy, and finding herself with quite a story to tell to her fiance. In Matthew, there is some sort of divine interlude with Joseph also being told the details, but Luke does not mention that part. Two accounts with the same basic outline, but adding some detail that the other does not or not mentioning something the other does…that is not a contradiction, it is just two accounts of an event. The matter of Matthew having the family swing through Egypt on their way to Nazareth is something you are reading about in JETS (maybe)…Luke does not mention that but does mention the shepherd, angels, the presentation in the temple --and then they went home to Nazareth.
I am not sure what date you think Luke or Matthew have for Jesus’ birth. Christians did not celebrate or observe the birth of Jesus until the third century A.D., and by then the actual date had been long forgotten, if ever known.
Other gods had birthdays, remember (Saturn had a birth celebration that lasted a week in mid December --some claimed it involved cannibalism which I suppose is a great way to end the year!!?). But Jesus is from everlasting. So no birthday cards…
As for “Luke botches the Census”…well, at least he knew that Caesar did such things. Censuses were taken for all manner of reasons— not just counting heads. And Luke got the census of 6-7 A.D. right…how could he have missed one and not the other? well. happens all the time, I suppose.
Caesar Augustus was obsessed with doing censuses. See Tactius’ Annals. As Sherwin-White (among others) has pointed out, the fact that Quirinius is known to have been living and working in that region in the period in which Jesus was born – makes it hard to completely discount the narrative of a census. “Uncertainty still prevails” about the identity of the legate of Syria in the final years of Herod’s reign, said Sherwin-White. So Quirinius could simply have been an administrative authority at the time of a census or registration, said Sherwin-White. And he was mentioned by Luke in that sense. I should note that S-W thinks Luke got this one wrong, but he is highly complimentary of Luke’s accuracy everywhere else…so one might say “hey! no one’s perfect” or maybe Luke was right and we just don’t know all the details yet. Tertullian supported the census account, and some commentators dispute it while others do not.
Up to you!
The Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society (1991) said the census was not for taxation but for tallying the allegiance of residents to Caesar Augustuz.
Are you sure about that? Better check Matthew again.
Don’t you mean typology?
He botches the dating very badly