Jesus the Christ
As I look at the individual gospels and other New Testament works, I think it’s important to ask what the motivation would be to write these stories if they are, in fact, not true (or not at least believed to be true). If you’ve read as many novels or watched as many crime dramas as I have, you know that “motive and opportunity” – while not proof by themselves – are big players. So, what might be the motive for concocting a messiah, especially a messiah as described in the New Testament?
Secondary fame (I know that guy!)
Glory in martyrdom
A disdain for family life
Avoidance of embarrassment (if they believed Jesus until He died)
The “reward” for the disciples was predictable. It’s beyond comprehension to think that the disciples spread such a falsehood as a selfish venture; there was just so very little to gain and so very much to lose. It’s exceedingly more plausible that the disciples and the gospel authors believed Jesus to be the messiah. They suffered imprisonment, torture, and death rather than relinquish these beliefs. I think it is disingenuous to allege that the disciples were simply deceivers; there is simply no conceivable reason for so many to remain so resolute.
Last week I made the claim that “liars make poor martyrs.” One thing that I did not address was the fact that martyrdom is not linked solely to Christianity. So, what does the martyrdom of the disciples prove, then? To me, it simply equates to belief. I firmly believe, for instance, that the perpetrators of September 11th trusted that they would be welcomed into heaven as a result of their actions. I can see no evidence to the contrary. I firmly believe that the Heavens Gate cult trusted that they would be welcomed aboard a spaceship nesting behind a comet. A willingness to die (especially to die a torturous death) is a clear demonstration of belief. Does belief necessarily equal truth? Absolutely not! Certainly, people can follow blindly or be deceived. So, what is it about the disciples that sets them apart?
1. They attested to knowing Jesus first-hand.
2. They attested to witnessing and performing first-hand miracles.
3. They attested to seeing Jesus die.
4. They attested to seeing Jesus alive three days later.
In a nutshell, they attested to things that cannot, when viewed together, be attributed to a deceptive Jesus.
A Poor Way to Construct a Legend
When historians look at records from antiquity, there are certain elements that can help them to ascertain whether the record was biased (and hence less reputable). Does the story portray the writer as a hero? Was it commissioned by an emperor? Did it paint the picture the public wanted to see? This formula really hasn’t changed since antiquity. If a professional athlete is accused of taking drugs, and his agent denies the allegations, most take this with a grain of salt. If a documentary talks of the evil George Bush, there’s an element of catering to public opinion that should be weighed. On the other hand, let’s look at a book like Ball Four. The contents of Ball Four flew in the face of the “codes” of baseball and led to Jim Bouton being ostracized from a game he loved. He paid a price for revealing certain truths about the game of baseball, and there’s no doubt that his book gained credibility when the public saw what he surrendered to bring the truth. The disciples surrendered much, much more and gained far less.
We should consider the type of story one would concoct around the turn of the millennium if one wished to be taken seriously. If the disciples constructed a lie, they did a really bad job of it (if their collective goal was to build Christianity during their lifetimes).
They don’t generally tend to paint themselves in the best light.
They don’t portray Jesus as the messiah expected by the Jews.
They laud tax collectors and other generally-despised figures while speaking ill of the sages and accepted religious leaders.
They incorporate witnesses who were generally considered to be untrustworthy (e.g. women).
They include the Gentiles.
They speak against accepted law as handed down by oral traditions.
This simply isn’t a formula for success.
Matthew: Part I
Most would not describe Matthew as their “favorite” gospel; however, for our purposes, his writings help to tie the NT works back to the OT ideas of the messiah. Matthew also tries diligently to show how he believes Jesus fills that particular role, so we’ll be able to use Matthew in a back-and-forth study. This week, I want to examine a few facts and assumptions regarding the author himself and I want to outline key things Matthew wrote about Jesus. I’ll try as well to address a number of general objections to Matthew’s writings (though I’ll save objections to the gospels as a whole for several weeks… it will help a great deal to examine each of the four before discussing them as a whole).
Authorship
Matthew is so named because it is generally attributed to Matthew the apostle (tax-collector and one of the “Twelve”). This ascription stems mainly from the early church, though confirming historical documentation is somewhat lackluster (i.e. Eusebius). The main reason for upholding the early patristic tradition is that the qualities of the gospel fit a Jewish tax-collector-turned-Christian:
The author is fluent in Hebrew and Greek (qualities a tax-collector must possess), in a time where the majority of people were illiterate.
The author conveys the message of Jesus’ ostracism rather nicely (again, something a tax-collector would be intimately familiar with).
There is an abundance of references to tax collection and money matters.
Evidence does not point elsewhere.
Overall, without the early patristic tradition, there is no direct evidence to link Matthew to the gospel, so authorship is based almost exclusively on the early church’s assessment.
Date
As with most any documents from antiquity, there is some debate regarding exactly when the gospel was first authored. Most modern scholars believe that the Mark pre-dates Matthew. This notion stems largely from the thought that Matthew appears to build upon many of Mark’s passages. Countering this idea, however, is the Griesbach Hypothesis, which asserts that Mark is actually an intentionally-condensed form of Matthew and Luke (likely for the benefit of Gentile readers). Either of these theories generally place Matthew somewhere between the 50s and 80s AD.
Then Was Fulfilled
Matthew takes great care in linking Jesus to the Scripture. From the Semitic language of the ancient texts, it is clear that he has a full understanding of Jewish language and traditions, and it appears that his primary audience was Israel (as in “the nation of”), so providing reference to the Scripture would have been paramount in calling Jews to Jesus. From his references of Jesus’ fulfillment of prophecies (1:22, 2:15, 2:17, 2:23, 4:14, 8:17, 12:17, 21:4, 27:9), there can be little doubt that Matthew is attesting to the fact that Jesus is indeed the messiah predicted in the Old Testament.
Jesus’ Characteristics and History as presented by Matthew
1. He was conceived by God through Mary.
2. He performed miracles.
3. He spoke to the Scripture.*
4. He spoke as though he had authority.
5. He called the disciples to continue his teachings.*
6. He was a prophet.*
7. He was crucified. *
8. He was resurrected and walked the earth in physical form.*
* - Part of next week’s discussion
The Virgin Mary
1:18
Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.
Jesus’ Miracles
4:23-24
And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people. So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them.
8:1-4
When he came down from the mountain, great crowds followed him. And behold, a leper came to him and knelt before him, saying, "Lord, if you will, you can make me clean." And Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, "I will; be clean." And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. 4And Jesus said to him, "See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a proof to them."
8:5-13
When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, appealing to him, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly." And he said to him, "I will come and heal him." But the centurion replied, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed…. And to the centurion Jesus said, "Go; let it be done for you as you have believed." And the servant was healed at that very moment.
8:14-16
And when Jesus entered Peter’s house, he saw his mother-in-law lying sick with a fever. He touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she rose and began to serve him. That evening they brought to him many who were oppressed by demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word and healed all who were sick.
8:23-27
And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him. And behold, there arose a great storm on the sea, so that the boat was being swamped by the waves; but he was asleep. And they went and woke him, saying, "Save us, Lord; we are perishing." And he said to them, "Why are you afraid, O you of little faith?" Then he rose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm. And the men marveled, saying, "What sort of man is this, that even winds and sea obey him?"
9:1-8
And getting into a boat he crossed over and came to his own city. And behold, some people brought to him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven." And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, "This man is blaspheming." But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, "Why do you think evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"—he then said to the paralytic—"Rise, pick up your bed and go home." And he rose and went home. When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.
9:18-26
While he was saying these things to them, behold, a ruler came in and knelt before him, saying, "My daughter has just died, but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live." And Jesus rose and followed him, with his disciples. And behold, a woman who had suffered from a discharge of blood for twelve years came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment, for she said to herself, "If I only touch his garment, I will be made well." Jesus turned, and seeing her he said, "Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well." And instantly the woman was made well. And when Jesus came to the ruler’s house and saw the flute players and the crowd making a commotion, he said, "Go away, for the girl is not dead but sleeping." And they laughed at him. But when the crowd had been put outside, he went in and took her by the hand, and the girl arose. And the report of this went through all that district.
9:27-34
And as Jesus passed on from there, two blind men followed him, crying aloud, "Have mercy on us, Son of David." When he entered the house, the blind men came to him, and Jesus said to them, "Do you believe that I am able to do this?" They said to him, "Yes, Lord." Then he touched their eyes, saying, "According to your faith be it done to you." And their eyes were opened. And Jesus sternly warned them, "See that no one knows about it." But they went away and spread his fame through all that district.
As they were going away, behold, a demon-oppressed man who was mute was brought to him. And when the demon had been cast out, the mute man spoke. And the crowds marveled, saying, "Never was anything like this seen in Israel." But the Pharisees said, "He casts out demons by the prince of demons."
I didn’t include all of the reported miracles, but this gives a good idea of what Matthew claimed Jesus had done. Coupled with the resurrection, the list of miracles doesn’t leave room for the assumption that Jesus simply deceived the disciples or that He was a wise sage who taught them a better understanding of the Scripture. According to Matthew, He cured the incurable, healed from afar, commanded the seas, made the blind see, and raised the dead. The acts described are well beyond David Copperfield or Benny Hinn.
The Disciple’s Powers
Matthew 10:1-4
And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction. The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
Matthew 10 makes it extraordinarily clear that there is no room for “Jesus the Deceiver.”
Jesus’ Authority
7:28-29
And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes.
The authority of Jesus is really what Matthew is all about. Authority to rebuke the words of the Pharisees lies with God alone. The moral authority that Jesus clearly feels belongs to Him is an authority that only belongs to God. This verse is just another way of saying that Jesus is God and that He does have this authority.
Throughout Matthew, one thing is clear: Jesus cannot have simply deceived Matthew. After all, the things that Matthew describes are simply not possible without the supernatural.
Next Week
In the interest of not allowing this week’s post to exceed last week’s, I’ll be addressing Matthew in two parts. Mark, Luke, and John will likely not meet the same fate, since a lot of the things addressed this week and next will pertain to all of the gospels.
Posts
7 comments:
Nice post. Matthew gives us so much good stuff. I need to re-read it in its entirety again...
I think we really only disagree on these two of your points:
1. The author of Matthew is an eyewitness to the historical Jesus.
2. He is writing literal history and using investigative methodology like a modern day historian would.
a few points to add.
“They (disciples) don’t generally tend to paint themselves in the best light. “
Definitely interesting!
“They don’t portray Jesus as the messiah expected by the Jews.”
This is probably Jesus did not turn out to be that messiah. He was killed instead of leading a political movement.
“They laud tax collectors and other generally-despised figures while speaking ill of the sages and accepted religious leaders.”
The Jewish Christians were at odds with Jewish leaders when Matthew was written.
“They include the Gentiles.”
The first gospel, Mark, was probably written for Gentiles. Mark is writing for people unfamiliar with Jewish customs. Matthew used Mark as a main source.
“This simply isn’t a formula for success.”
Well, it didn’t work with most of the Jews at the time. But by the time the gospels we have were written, this was also a Gentile religion. Matthew does seem to address a Christian audience more familiar with Jewish customs that still follows the Torah Law. His redaction of Mark usually eliminates or adds aspects which still respect the Torah Law.
DATE OF MATTHEW
The overwhelming consensus is that Matthew used Mark as a source (though there are some who don’t think so). There are many, many reasons for thinking this, from internal references to source and redaction analysis. It’s a hypothesis, of course, but a strong one. Mark is thought to have been written in the late 60’s.
Other clues: Matthew presents Jesus’ main opponents as Pharisees who didn’t assert authority until after the temple was destroyed in 70 CE. Pharisee-led Judaism in the post-Temple era is the main adversary here. The gospel reflects the break between the church and the synagogue, also a later development (one textbook I have says 85-90CE). The author of Matthew also seems to allude to the destruction of the Temple in a few spots.
AUTHORSHIP
Since it appears that Matthew leans heavily on Mark, and Mark is not an eyewitness, authorship by a disciple seems unlikely. The gospel was written anonymously and attributed to Matthew sometime in the second century. BTW, the character called “Matthew” in Matthew 9 is called “Levi” in Mark 2.
more blabbing....
“Throughout Matthew, one thing is clear: Jesus cannot have simply deceived Matthew. After all, the things that Matthew describes are simply not possible without the supernatural. “
This is a theological, historical fiction about Jesus. How far we tip the scales in either direction is the subject for much debate. As you pointed out last week, this is not “history for history’s sake”, although it is read that way by many. The author of Matthew probably took Mark as his skeleton, changed several things in Mark to fit his theological agenda (the redaction criticism finds consistent changes to serve Matthew’s themes) and he inserted many sayings from the hypothetical Q gospel (also used by Luke) and then more material that is found only in Matthew. He drew on the Old Testament heavily. He has Jesus reinterpret the law on top of a mountain like Moses (Luke has him do it on a plain); he names his father Joseph and gives him several dreams like Joseph in the Old Testament; He has Jesus and his family fly to Egypt and return to Israel, recreating Hebrew history and quoting a verse from Hosea which references the original Exodus; He has Herod slaughter all babies born in an attempt to stop Jesus’ birth, just the Pharaoh in Moses' birth story; He gives Jesus five great discourses, perhaps organized to parallel the Torah, etc.
MIRACLES
It’s always interesting to think about what literally happened, both with ancient miracle stories, and modern day reports (which span all religions). I still doubt the “supernatural” as I think what we call “supernatural” was more everyday and “natural” back then. Demonic possession, for instance. Jesus obviously interacted with outcasts, people doomed by their circumstances, and thought to be possessed. Jesus cast out the demons. I think that’s even more powerful if we interpret it symbolically and look at the demons still all around us today. We just don’t use that terminology anymore (most of us, anyway). Jesus crossed those barriers, healing illnesses, affirming outcasts, however we interpret that from a modern viewpoint. But who really knows? I don’t doubt “supernatural” if it means “something we don’t understand.”
It is interesting that Mark writes that Jesus “could work no miracle” in his hometown of Nazareth (accept that he “put his hands on a few sick people and healed them” - no miracle there?). Matthew changes this story a bit, saying that Jesus “did not” instead of “could not” perform miracles. He also changes Mark’s position that Jesus was surprised by his home crowd’s lack of faith. He also changes Jesus from a carpenter to “the carpenter’s son”.
What does this mean? My first instinct says that the writer of Mark was trying to explain why people from Nazareth, who knew Jesus best, didn’t see him as a Messianic figure capable of great miracles. Of course there is always this classic paradox:
1. Show us a sign and we’ll believe
2. I can’t show you sign because you don’t believe.
I am interested in other interpretations. I suppose it could also be a symbol for most of Israel rejecting Jesus’ claims? What do you think?
PROPHECIES
The OT is used very liberally, and sometimes with mistakes, to point to Jesus as the Messiah.
“I think we really only disagree on these two of your points:
1. The author of Matthew is an eyewitness to the historical Jesus.
2. He is writing literal history and using investigative methodology like a modern day historian would.”
1. Like I said, recognition of Matthew’s authorship stems largely from the early church. Documentary evidence is minimal and other evidence is circumstantial. I won’t debate this point too much. There really is not a lot of reason, though, to attribute the book to a ‘minor’ disciple like Matthew.
2. (See below)
“This is probably Jesus did not turn out to be that messiah. He was killed instead of leading a political movement.”
…making the story even less likely to be embellished….
“The first gospel, Mark, was probably written for Gentiles. Mark is writing for people unfamiliar with Jewish customs. Matthew used Mark as a main source.... His redaction of Mark usually eliminates or adds aspects which still respect the Torah Law.”
First, you’re stating a theory (Matthew from Mark) as fact. I think you would find the Griesbach Hypothesis interesting. Second, all of the gospels make it clear that Jesus’ message is for all, though Matthew certainly writes for the Jews.
“Matthew presents Jesus’ main opponents as Pharisees who didn’t assert authority until after the temple was destroyed in 70 CE. Pharisee-led Judaism in the post-Temple era is the main adversary here. The gospel reflects the break between the church and the synagogue, also a later development (one textbook I have says 85-90CE). The author of Matthew also seems to allude to the destruction of the Temple in a few spots.”
I’m not sure where you got your information on the Pharisees… your own statements disprove this. As you stated, Mark is dated in the 60s and Mark is wrought with references to the Pharisees as Jesus’ opponents (2:16-18, 2:24, 3:6, 7:1-5, 8:15, 10:2, 12:13), even plotting His death. This assertion just isn’t true.
Matthew does allude to the Temple in prophetic verses in the future tense. The theory that says Matthew’s references to the Temple’s destruction prove it was after 70CE presuppose that Jesus was not Christ. And, with that presupposition, there’s not reason to bother analyzing the temple verses.
“Since it appears that Matthew leans heavily on Mark, and Mark is not an eyewitness, authorship by a disciple seems unlikely. The gospel was written anonymously and attributed to Matthew sometime in the second century. BTW, the character called “Matthew” in Matthew 9 is called “Levi” in Mark 2.”
Matthew, like many other figures, is referred to by two names. I’m not sure I understand how Matthew taking from Mark or visa versa lessens the value of the gospel. It’s very likely that the early disciples shared resources, and passed down the same oral traditions. They witnessed the same events and you, for one, give a lot of credence to “Q”. Given all that, wouldn’t you expect similarities?
The Legend of Jesus“Soldier: William Wallace is seven feet tall!
Wallace: Yes, I've heard. Kills men by the hundreds. And if HE were here, he'd consume the English with fireballs from his eyes, and bolts of lightning from his….”
[laughter]
Randy: “Throughout Matthew, one thing is clear: Jesus cannot have simply deceived Matthew. After all, the things that Matthew describes are simply not possible without the supernatural.”
Steven: “This is a theological, historical fiction about Jesus. How far we tip the scales in either direction is the subject for much debate. As you pointed out last week, this is not “history for history’s sake”, although it is read that way by many. The author of Matthew probably took Mark as his skeleton, changed several things in Mark to fit his theological agenda (the redaction criticism finds consistent changes to serve Matthew’s themes) and he inserted many sayings from the hypothetical Q gospel (also used by Luke) and then more material that is found only in Matthew. He drew on the Old Testament heavily. He has Jesus reinterpret the law on top of a mountain like Moses (Luke has him do it on a plain); he names his father Joseph and gives him several dreams like Joseph in the Old Testament; He has Jesus and his family fly to Egypt and return to Israel, recreating Hebrew history and quoting a verse from Hosea which references the original Exodus; He has Herod slaughter all babies born in an attempt to stop Jesus’ birth, just the Pharaoh in Moses' birth story; He gives Jesus five great discourses, perhaps organized to parallel the Torah, etc.”
2. I’ll reiterate that Matthew clearly describes acts that cannot have simply been Copperfield-esque. If you want to theorize that he’s lying, that’s fine (though, I don’t think it’s likely), but that is not the same as the deceptive Jesus theory. You can’t deceive twelve men into healing people. Houdini can’t resurrect the dead. Nostradamus can’t calm the seas. Either Matthew is lying or Jesus performed miracles. “Bamboozled disciples” is off the table, is it not?
Look at the miracles described in Matthew. Do you really think he was embellishing?
Your take is that Matthew (and I assume the other gospels) simply isn’t “writing literal history and using investigative methodology”. It’s a big leap from “literal history” to resurrection if resurrection is untrue, especially in the span of a few decades. This isn’t a case of ancient historical practices being insufficient. These are people who believed in Christ and died for this belief… not for a mythology they concocted in the midst of others who could offer evidence to the contrary. You’re taking an idea and expanding it beyond its true scope.
The Almighty Psychiatrist“It’s always interesting to think about what literally happened, both with ancient miracle stories, and modern day reports (which span all religions). I still doubt the “supernatural” as I think what we call “supernatural” was more everyday and “natural” back then. Demonic possession, for instance. Jesus obviously interacted with outcasts, people doomed by their circumstances, and thought to be possessed. Jesus cast out the demons. I think that’s even more powerful if we interpret it symbolically and look at the demons still all around us today.”
If you choose to object to the casting out of demons, fine. Just don’t ignore the numerous other acts that can’t be explained away by mistaken psychoses.
All of your obections ignore a huge question: why? Why make up a man-god? Why die for this lie?
“…Mark…miracle….”
Soon.
Mark - Pharisees
You’re absolutely right in that there are Pharisees (and other sects) throughout Mark - and Mark may have been written before 70 CE, according to most references I have. I don’t think the point is that there were no Pharisees before 70, but their prominence in Matthew and the author’s references to “their synagogues” and “their scribes” reflects the Pharisee-led Judaism of post-70 Palestine. The language also reflects the break between church and synagogue, between Jews and Christian Jews - something occurring much later than the 20's or 30's.
Basically, the conflicts with the Pharisees in Matthew read like Pharisee-led Judaism vs. Christianity in the 80‘s. Were the circumstances so similar in the 20's and 30's? Maybe, I suppose.
“you’re stating a theory (Matthew from Mark) as fact. I think you would find the Griesbach Hypothesis interesting.”
There are no 100% facts when analyzing this stuff, only hypotheses. Most scholars I have read make good arguments for the primacy of Mark. I think the Griesbach Hypo has more problems. Why would the author of Mark “dumb down” Matthew? Mark is a much cruder work. Jesus is not as supernatural. There is no resurrection appearance. Matthew keeps several of Mark’s formal structures when “copying” from him, but changes others. He cleans up Mark’s language. He has a higher more developed Christology, etc. etc.
“The theory that says Matthew’s references to the Temple’s destruction prove it was after 70CE presuppose that Jesus was not Christ.”
If we analyze Matthew like we would any other ancient work, we might ask what the most likely scenario is. But it’s not a main point for us us I think.
“I’m not sure I understand how Matthew taking from Mark or visa versa lessens the value of the gospel.”
It doesn’t at all to me.
“Why make up a man-god? Why die for this lie?”
Randy, this is a great question and one that can be asked of all who die for any cause. Why did David Koresh’s supporters follow him? Why did Heaven’s Gate commit ritual suicide? Etc. Etc. Etc. These people were all believers. Also, the “man-god” was a fairly constant element in religions back then.
More thoughts:
I don’t think Christians lied outright, though I could be wrong. Once again, really try to imagine what it would be like to live before science, before modern day record-keeping, before modern-day communication. This was a different world where much was attributed to the supernatural - though as I’ve said, the supernatural was common and pretty downright “natural”, from descriptions in the NT.
We also know that Christians, and other ancient people, thought about things and described them differently than we do now. Look at the hundreds of extra-canonical gospels, acts of the apostles, martyrologies, forgeries of letters by apostles, etc. The physical symbols, the mythological elements are thoroughly prevalent, and these were not people trying to tear down Christianity or caricature it. No, these were written by believers, Christians. Why did they write these? What was the motivation? Why write all the supernatural adventures in The Acts of Paul and Thecla, if they weren’t true? It was a different time and communication was different.
It seems to me, that even today but especially in ancient days, people believed things and then wrote stories enhancing their beliefs. I’m just not convinced that their view of fact, fiction, symbol ,literal, contradiction, logic, the nature of human memory, etc. were exactly the same as we think of them today. That isn’t to say people are hugely different now than then, but still. A completely speculative example concerning the Matthew birth narrative:
1. I believe Jesus is the Messiah
2. I think the OT makes it clear that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem.
3. Even thought Jesus is from Nazareth, I will write that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, because obviously he must have been. (Plus I have heard it from others in the Christian gathering in my town)
If the argument is that the four gospels are different because they were checked by eyewitnesses, then once again we can turn to the source and redaction analysis and see that it seems likely that the four gospels are inter-dependent on each other and not four independent accounts in of themselves. Plus, internal validation is suspect, by its nature. Also, the gospels were probably written in different communities throughout the empire, possibly with different traditions.
More speculation - I think if we went back and could see the author of Matthew’s methodology in writing his gospel, I think it’s possible that we might be distraught if we think we would see a historical investigation in the modern sense. Did he invent his birth narrative? Was it a local tradition in Antioch (where Matthew may have been written)? Did the author believe that risen Jesus might directly reveal items to him? Did apostles claim continuing visions, revelations? We know Paul did and stories in Acts suggest they might have. After the resurrection (however we interpret that) did the disciples think back on what they had seen Jesus do and re-interpret it in light of the new power and position they attributed to him? Did Jesus actually put mud into a blind man’s eyes and then he could see? Is that what we would have seen, and how we would have interpreted it, if we had been there? It’s impossible to know.
Mark emphasizes the fact that Christ is missing from an empty tomb and that the women who discovered it didn’t say anything to anyone. Matthew has the women meet Jesus on the way to tell the disciples. Then the eleven go to Galilee as instructed and Jesus appears to them. “But some doubted”. Some of the eleven doubted. What does that mean?
Also, Christianity’s relationship with martyrdom is unique in some ways. The followers of Christ looked at his crucifixion and instead of abandoning their mission, they began to see it as the point of Christ’s mission. Within a few generations, Christians were willingly dying, gladly giving up their lives, seeking out martyrdom, as a mystical way to imitate Christ. Not all Christians, of course. There are also writings condemning this act, thinking it was much smarter to “fly under the radar” etc.
Also, we haven’t even dealt with “external” philosophical problems, such as - If God’s purpose is to reach mankind, is this purpose best accomplished by picking one person in a small corner of the earth to start a religion and then asking subsequent modern people’s to accept questionable eyewitness testimony of the ancient, pre-scientific world in order to attain salvation?
My point in all this is not that you are wrong, but rather, can’t you understand why a modern-day, reasonable person, without a prejudice towards Christianity, might look at the evidence and not be convinced? Even if a person thinks that it might be possible for a supernatural event to occur, then what kind of evidence would be required to make that leap? A handful of questionable “eyewitness” accounts, that actually don’t claim to be eyewitness accounts (except John, the last gospel to be written)? Especially when those accounts are from ancient peoples and when we know that people back then used much symbolism and felt free to invent their own stories to express the spiritual truths they experienced?
"My point in all this is not that you are wrong, but rather, can’t you understand why a modern-day, reasonable person, without a prejudice towards Christianity, might look at the evidence and not be convinced? Even if a person thinks that it might be possible for a supernatural event to occur, then what kind of evidence would be required to make that leap? A handful of questionable “eyewitness” accounts, that actually don’t claim to be eyewitness accounts (except John, the last gospel to be written)? Especially when those accounts are from ancient peoples and when we know that people back then used much symbolism and felt free to invent their own stories to express the spiritual truths they experienced?"
It seems as though a lot of weight is being placed on eyewitness evidence. Even if you are generously given genuine eyewitness accounts recorded, generously, 10 years after the event, this type of evidence would not be enough to convince a reasonable and unbiased person. And we are not talking about an ordinary case, such as theft or murder. These types of cases are heard in courts daily. Even here, physical evidence is king and eyewitness evidence falls under heavy attack by any defense attorney who can acquire a knowledgeable expert in the field of human memory and eyewitness testimony (such as Elizabeth Loftus). Eyewitness memory is extremely susceptible to contamination as time passes, in addition to the fact that the forgetting curve of eyewitness testimony drops off sharply and exponentially in the first few days.
The cases we are talking about here are ones that violate the bits of knowledge that we hold at the pinnacle of what we understand to be true. The theories of thermodynamics, general and special relativity, evolution by natural selection, germ theory, and so on. These are not to be falsified on eyewitness accounts passed through time by memory, verbal recitation, and eventually written down. This is where you are taught that an experiment (be it a physical experiment or a thought experiment) is worthless unless it can be recreated. To overturn these giants and remain within reason, independently verifiable, repeatable evidence will be required.
You are free to have faith in the falsification of these theories, but it is important, though, that we understand whether we are choosing to believe the most reasonable explanation, …or a less reasonable or less likely alternative.
Post a Comment