(18 votes, average: 4.89 out of 5)
Loading...Yesterday I gave Part 1 of my Newsweek article on Christmas, published in 2012. Here is Part 2!
***************************************************************
Most modern readers who are not already familiar with these stories [in the apocryphal Gospels such as the Proto-Gospel of James] tend to find them far-fetched. That’s almost always the case with miraculous accounts that we have never heard before – they sound implausible and “obviously” made up, as legends and fabrications. Rarely do we have the same reaction to familiar stories known from childhood that are also spectacularly miraculous, and that probably sound just as bizarre to outsiders who hear them for the first time. Are the stories about Jesus’ birth that are in the New Testament any less far-fetched?
It depends whom you ask. This past November, Pope Benedict XVI published his third book on the life of Jesus, this one focusing on the New Testament accounts of his birth, Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives. Before his ascent to the head of the Catholic Church, Joseph Ratzinger was best known as a leading German theologian, and he does bring his training to bear on the narratives of Jesus’ birth. But this is not a scholarly book written by a scholar to advance the purposes of scholarship. Instead, as one would expect, it is chiefly a pious reflection highly suitable to the faithful members of the Pope’s very large flock. As such it will be widely welcomed – not only among Catholics but also, one might suspect, among conservative Christians of whatever stripe, for its affirmation of the Gospel accounts not only as theologically valuable but also as historically accurate.
The book will not be as well cherished, however, among those who…
To read the rest of this Post you need to be a member of the blog! If you don’t belong yet, there are only 6 shopping days before Christmas. JOIN!!! It costs little and you deserve a nice holiday present!
Hi Bart. These posts have been very interesting. They have started me thinking about a pretty basic question, which is how is a “gospel” defined? It would have to be a story pertaining to Jesus but are there other requirements? I am thinking the writing would need to be sufficiently ancient, but if so is there an agreed upon cutoff? Maybe the intention of the author is also considered? For example if the author were to make clear the story is fiction or if the writing was proven to be fraudulent in some specific way. I’m just curious how the term is used academically.
It’s actually a much debated topic! My own view is that something can be a Gospel if it is an account of Jesus words or activities. People today can write Gospels. My students each did for their final writing assignment last semester! It’s very hard in these ancient accounts to separate fact and fiction (the ancients actually did not have word for fiction); but I don’t see much evidence that anyone was trying to be fraudulent — ie., actually lying about things.
Gore Vidal and Random House apparently agreed with you when they published “Life from Golgotha: The Gospel According to Gore Vidal”. I think few Christians would, though. 🙂
Bart, have you ever analyzed the theory that Luke’s infancy narrative was added after he had finished both the gospel and Acts? I guess the central piece of evidence would be the “odd” placement of Jesus’ geneology in Chap 3….vice nearer to the actual infancy details and introduction of Jesus. Another piece of evidence is the abundancy of themes (like, filled with the spirit) that seem to flow from Acts into the infancy narrative. It’s probably not a big deal, but it would be interesting to speculate how much later it might have been added and why it might have been added. Thoughts?
Yes, I’ve posted on it a number of times. Search for Luke’s Birth Narrative and you should find the posts.
Very interesting closing sentence. It reminds me that I once was part of an email group of high school friends who had known each other their entire lives having won and lost numerous football and baseball games together. The first thing we did was to have each of us write a summary of his (there were no women in the email group) religious views. A few discussed historical, critical issues. More discussed conversion experiences at summer retreats or during Baptist sermons. By far the best email came from a friend who stated that he had been a drunk and then walked by and entered a strange church and found Jesus and now he is no longer a drunk. Hard to argue against that experience!
“Hard to argue against that experience!” Sure, but why would one want to? A friend was down and turned his life around. That’s terrific. Others have done it in different ways. All are good, and happy for all of them.
Hard to argue that your friend became a christian and quit drinking or that your friend quit drinking because he became christian or that his becoming christian was the only possible way he (or by implication anyone else) could have quit drinking?
Yeah, and then sure enough they’ll blame all those historical discrepancies, errors and contradictions to… none other than…
(drum rolls) TADA!
Satan himself, the one and the only..
…poor guy, did nothing right in his entire existence
But wait, GOD knows all those and did nothing. So an accessory to the crime. An accomplice, maybe. Better yet the mastermind, because HE’s omniscient and omni-everything.
Okay, now who said sarcasm is the lowest form of wit? And who said irony is dead? (Both rhetorical questions)??
I’d love to hear the backstory on how a mainstream publication like Newsweek negotiates with you on writing this. I’d think they’d want to be historically correct while not offending their readers, and you’d want to reach a wider audience, respecting a wide range of beliefs, while being true to your profession. Do they ask you to write on a specific topic? Do you go back and forth on ideas and drafts? I think your personal religious experience and tolerance for other’s beliefs sets you apart from many scholars, so you’d be a natural one to approach for an essay along these lines. (And a masterful work it is!)
Ha! Maybe I’ll say something about this in a post. It’s a great question.
2 questions on The curious and problematically unattested “taxation” if you please: First of all, y’all’s bo-weez at the NRSV call it a registration. Were they implying that the words registration and taxation are not one in the same? In our society they certainly aren’t. Second, as I remember (spuriously from 25 yrs ago) my teacher at Ok St presented this to me as unattested outside the NT. That ain’t so after all. Justin Martyr references it as something he encourages could be verified by Roman records. Still, we haven’t got them, and you will argue he is dependent upon Luke/Acts for his information? But Josephus, who you believe WASN’T dependent on L/A mentions one as well (albeit the chronology is problematic). Are these two extra biblical references a case in point that, yes, after all, a registration whilst ol’ boy Quirinius was SOMEHOW involved with Syria has a historical kernel of truth?
1. It’s a “census,” presumably for a tax. 2. Yes, it’s unattested. Justin Martyr says it was attested, but it’s not attested. 3. Josephus does not mention a world wide census, or even an empire one wide one. 4. The Quirinius comment is probably jsut a mistake made by someone living 85 years later who had misunderstood the chronlogy (who *was* the governor of Iowa when JFK was elected??)
How do the literally-minded believers reconcile the contradictions between Matthew and Luke?
The reconcile them!
That last paragraph is pure genius.
I’m curious as to what, if any, responses were published by Newsweek subsequent to your article. I would image it ruffled many feathers in the Christian community.
I’ll post on that. Turns out some atheists were upset too….
You do realize that the Magi did not arrive at the birth but set out on the journey when they saw the star. Remember when Herod inquired as to the time of the appearing of the star? Then according to the narrative he sent soldiers to kill every boy 2 years old and younger. That tells us the arrival at the house was much later in the time line than the night of his birth. At no point does the narrative put wise men and shepherds there at the same time.
Yes, that’s right. Did I say otherwise?
“In Matthew, for example, the wise men follow the star to Bethlehem, where it stops over the house where Jesus is (why, by the way, is Jesus’ family living in a house, if they just came to register for a census?).”
Matthew 2 has no mention of a census. That is only in Lukes account which is the actual night of his birth. The Magi visted as much as two years later and it’s completely feasable to assume Joseph and Mary found some reason to stay and settle down in Bethlehem, thus they lived in a house when the Magi found them. You cant live in a manger for two years now can you? What kind of man would Joseph be if he let that happen?
I was pointing out that Matthew and Luke were contradictory at this point. If Matthew is right that they were in a house, Luke is not right that they were not in a house.
One can’t live in a manger at all. A manger is not a building. A manger is a feeding trough for farm animals. After his birth, they laid Jesus in a manger, i.e they used a feeding trough as a cradle.
I have a question about the verse in The Gospel of St. John that refers to the Parakletos (usually rendered as “Comforter”) who was to come after Jesus. According to some Islamic theologians, this designation is most likely an alteration of Periklytos (“the Much-Praised”), an exact Greek translation of the Aramaic term or name Mawhamana. Is that true? The implication of Islamic theologians is that it refers to Muhammad.
I’m afraid probably not. It is a Greek word that was around for a long time before John (used by non-Christians), derived from the Greek word PARAKLESIS, which means something like “summoning” or “invoking” someone one to “come along side” for comfort or support, or “exhortation” or “demand.” A PARAKLETOS is someone who has been summoned or requested that way,