Sometimes life happens. A sort of “perfect storm” of energy-sapping events struck me in June and the idea of “free time” has been completely foreign to me for the last month or so. I do intend, however, to redouble my efforts, so I hope you’re ready for the 52 Blogs lighting round as I have no intention of turning this into a year-and-a-half-long venture. I apologize to everyone who has been on pins and needles awaiting my next post (mom?). In all seriousness, though, I could never have anticipated that writing this blog would be as demanding as it has turned out to be. Leaving it to “free time” is a disservice to my readership and I am truly sorry that my level of commitment has not been what it should be. With that, I’m ready to jump to Gospel #3. I hope you’re equally ready to question every nuance in the Comments section. I would be disappointed otherwise.
As a student of history, I have a certain partiality to Luke. His writing style and level of detail makes his gospel (as well as the book of Acts) a rarity. Unlike Mark and Matthew, Luke gives us some insight on his reasons for documenting the life of Christ:
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
From the introduction, it would seem that Luke has been commissioned to investigate the stories found in Mark and elsewhere and to piece together his own account of Jesus’ life and death.
In the Book of Acts, Luke mentions specifically being a companion of Paul and James and interacts with the “elders” on more than one occasion. He also mentions in his prologue that he interviewed those who “from the first were eyewitnesses.” So, it is reasonable to believe that Luke’s works would accord with the stories of his interviewees, who were themselves followers of Christ. Luke should be viewed, I think, as a biographer. He is the first to cite his sources (though indirectly) and only adds to the claims of Mark and Matthew.
DATE
As with the other gospels, there is no original manuscript of the gospel of Luke; still, the gospel can be dated to within the first century and the reported accounts must have taken place during the lifetimes of eyewitnesses. Because Luke authored both his gospel and Acts, it is easier to assign a date to Luke. Luke speaks in the first person and provides great detail throughout both books. In Acts 21, we need only note that he was accompanied by both Paul and James; thus, the events he witnessed and the eyewitnesses he knew must have been encountered prior to the martyrdom of Paul or James (c. 62 CE).
When we had come to Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly. On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.
As support of the notion that Luke authored the accounts before 62 CE, it should be noted that Luke ends not with Paul’s martyrdom, but with his imprisonment. He certainly thought it noteworthy to detail many events in Paul’s life, but neglected to mention his death. A reasonable conclusion would be that Luke finished his work before Paul’s demise. Regardless of when the book was penned, however, Luke was certainly in the company of one eyewitness (James) and likely several others (as we know that Paul met with Peter, John, and others while Luke kept his company and Luke references the “elders”). So, he interacted directly with Jesus’ disciples only twenty-something years after Jesus’ death. As far as sources from antiquity go, Luke is easily among the most credentialed.
ADHERENCE
It should not be surprising that Matthew, Mark, and Luke report similar stories and truths about Jesus. In the early church, the disciples would benefit greatly by preaching a congruent message. What this tells us about the synoptic gospels is that each almost certainly had access to the earliest writings of the church and that each was able to consult with the church founders (i.e. the disciples). It tells us, too, that it was important to the church leaders that the accounts remain steadfast. Each of the synoptic gospels emphasizes different elements of Jesus’ teachings, but each of the three corroborates the key elements of Jesus’ life (though, again, the focus of Mark is limited in comparison):
Virgin Birth
Miracles
Adherence to Scripture
Authority as Son of God
Great Commission
Prophecies
Crucifixion
Resurrection
Where Mark gave the least detail (likely a result of being the earliest work), Luke is very explicit in his descriptions and delves more into Jesus’ messages of sacrifice and inclusion. He also makes note of times, places, and events in such a way that his descriptions are largely verifiable through archeological and historical means. The meticulous manner in which Luke documents so many details lends even further credence to his work.
DIFFICULTIES
If we look upon the gospel authors as men making an earnest attempt to accurately record history, there is little reason to doubt the validity of each author’s story. What we see with the first three gospels is that each gives an account for a specific audience. Details recorded by one may be left out by another, but nowhere in the gospels do we find contradictions regarding the “key elements” noted above. Debates centering around whether Jesus stood or sat during the Sermon on the Mount only serve to explicate the harmonious nature of the gospels (i.e. the arguments focus on the minutiae).
For this blog, I’m making no claim that the gospel works are divinely inspired. It’s simply too easy to lose oneself in an argument that really does not matter in the grand scheme. If the authors are telling the truth, but are found to have erred when reporting on the color of Jesus’ tunic, the accounts do not suffer. That being said, there must certainly be a threshold for errors associated with “minor details” that should cause pause. Since I’m uncertain as to what this threshold is, I plan to continue to address difficulties presented in the New Testament. I hope that in the end, though, you don’t attempt to “throw the baby out with the bath water” (i.e. toss aside the entirety of the Bible because you’re uncertain whether the soldiers who accompanied Saul on the road to Damascus could “hear” God). On with the fun stuff…
GENEALOGY
Matthew and Luke give different genealogies in reference to Jesus.
Luke’s first reference in the lineage of Jesus tells us that Joseph was the son of Heli. Some have referenced the Talmud to illustrate that the text provides evidence that Mary is indeed the daughter of Heli, and thus Luke was speaking about Heli’s son-in-law Joseph to begin his own version of Jesus’ lineage. From this, it is reasonable to conclude that Luke is referencing the lineage of Mary whereas Matthew references the lineage of Joseph. It seems such a trivial matter for Luke to be able to confirm the identity of Jesus’ grandfather that I doubt sincerely that he blundered right out of the gate. The explanation of Luke tracing Jesus’ genealogy through Mary seems to be the most plausible.
CENSUS
Luke claims that Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius. There is a historical record of Quirinius reign beginning around 6CE, so Luke must have been off by a decade or more.
Luke maintains a splendid record of historical rulers. He tracks the dates of antiquity by referencing those in power, since there was no universal western calendar. Because of this, it is relatively easy to verify/dispute Luke’s claims using extra-Biblical texts. One such classic example of a supposed error can be found in Luke 3:
In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness.
Skeptics claimed that Luke was horribly mistaken in his dating as Lysanias was known to have been executed by order of Marc Antony 50-60 years before. A later archeological finding, however, vindicated Luke when an inscription was discovered on a temple from the time of Tiberius that explicitly named Lysanias in exactly the timeframe described by Luke. Luke’s descriptions of people, places, and titles have been verified with remarkable accuracy.
As a matter of reference in regards to the census, there existed two bronze plaques outside of the mausoleum of Augustus Caesar that list the “Acts of Augustus” – the emperor’s own list of his 35 greatest achievements. Among these, Caesar lauds his three empire-wide censuses, one of which was begun in 8 B.C. As you can imagine, such censuses took some time to complete (and it is likely that Bethlehem was not priority one), so we find that Jesus’ date of birth would almost certainly fit into the timeframe of the census. So, history supports the notion that Jesus was born whilst a census was being conducted.
Assuming that Luke was simply mistaken with regards to the census when his dates and accounts are otherwise meticulous and accurate is likely incorrect. There are three very valid explanations for this oft-referenced “discrepancy”:
1. Quirinius was a respected military leader during the time of the census. He headed a campaign in the region against the Hemonadensians while Syria was being ruled by an incompetent governor (Varus). Caesar entrusted the task of a census to Quirinius rather than to Varus, thus superseding Varus’ authority.
2. There exists an inscription that was discovered in Trivoli in 1764 which says that the governor of Syria had twice been the governor. The inscription does not name the governor, but some scholars have proposed that Quirinius may well have been appointed as a secondary governor during his campaign against the Hemonadensians.
3. The simplest explanation is simply that the Greek word “prote” can be translated in one of two ways, yielding the alternative translation: “This census was before Quirinius was governor of Syria.”
Oh, and – as noted above – Luke knew Jesus’ brother. There is an ever-so-slight possibility that James could have corrected him were he truly off by over a decade. It seems that the greater likelihood is that Luke was right, but limited sources have left him as-of-yet uncorroborated.
BIRTH STORIES
Luke leaves out the details regarding the family’s flight to Egypt and the events prompting the exodus.
I read a few possible explanations for this, but the only thing that truly matters is this: A lack of detail is simply not a contradiction. The exodus to Egypt strikes a parallel to the Old Testament story that chronicles the enslavement of the Israelites. Matthew, writing to a Jewish audience, went out of his way to draw parallels between the Old Testament and the New. The parallel here should not be surprising. Luke may have simply omitted the story. The chronology, however, remains intact.
JESUS’ LAST MOMENTS ON THE CROSS
Matthew says that “Jesus cried out.” Luke cites Jesus as having said, “Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit.” John tells us that Jesus said simply, “It is finished.”
Each of the gospel authors gives writes a different description of what is often called “Jesus’ last words.” Each of these descriptions, however, accord well with one another, even if they are not verbatim. During this period of history, quotations simply did not exist. Jesus’ words may well serve the literary function of bringing the crucifixion story to a close or they may simply be alternative ways of bringing the same message: Jesus spoke His last. In either case, there is no contradictory message. Jesus spoke/cried a message of finality then He died.
THE TOMB
Matthew
Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary” visit the tomb.
There is an earthquake that causes the guards great fear.
One angel appears atop the stone and instructs the women to tell the disciples of the resurrection.
Jesus appears to the women after they have left the tomb and tells them that He will visit the disciples in Galilee.
Jesus visits the disciples in Galilee.
Mark
Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome visit the tomb.
The stone “had been rolled away.”
One angel (who they see as they enter the tomb) instructs the women to tell the disciples of the resurrection.
Luke
“The women” visited the tomb.
They found the stone rolled away.
Two angels tell them of Jesus’ resurrection.
Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, Joanna, and “others” tell the disciples of the resurrection.
Peter verifies that Jesus is not there.
Jesus visits two men then vanishes after they recognize Him.
Jesus visits the disciples (Luke does not name the location).
Details following the resurrection vary in descriptiveness.
Hopefully, since none of the stories mention the number of women who visited the tomb, the names of the women will not be too terribly appalling to anyone. Each refers to the Mary’s. Luke makes it clear that several others were with the twosome and Mark and Luke each refers to one additional participant by name. A likely explanation is that each chose to name the women with whom they were familiar.
Matthew specifically mentions the guards, whereas the others do not. The others may have simply written under the assumption that their audience would know that the guards were present or simply would not care about a detail that is certainly rendered minor in comparison to the resurrection. In either case, such a detail does not a contradiction make.
Where the stories seem to diverge is in the descriptions of the angel/angels. Part of what I enjoy when reading the gospels is the fact that each has access to very similar sources, but each reports the stories with different details. For example, though Luke almost certainly had access to Mark and reiterated Mark’s descriptions throughout, he reports as fact that two angels were present at the tomb whereas Mark reports only one. Why? The most plausible explanation is that Luke heard and believed reports that two angels were present. Hence, we can conclude that he was earnest in his attempts to relay the story of Jesus. It would be much easier to simply copy Mark’s account.
Is one account wrong? Adherents to the idea of a divinely-inspired scripture would likely point out that Matthew and Mark wrote of one angel who spoke, but did not say that only one was present. Others have hypothesized that the visitors to the tomb may have come at different times. For our purposes, it’s easier to acknowledge the possibility of discrepancies in the texts, since such discrepancies simply would not detract from the story. Certainly the presence of one or two angels is a minor detail in comparison to the major detail of the resurrection.
In the end, the possible discrepancies are so minor and so few that the three synoptic gospels yield a very clear picture of Jesus. Luke is explicit that his sources are second only to Christ Himself and Matthew and Mark corroborate fully Luke’s description of Jesus. The variances in style and details are such that collusion is unlikely. Yes, Matthew and Luke incorporate a large bit of Mark’s gospel into their own works, but each adds a great deal to his own gospel that cannot be attributed to Mark. We’re left with three different sources that tell the same story.
FINAL THOUGHT
I want to reiterate the point that the gospel authors had absolutely nothing to gain by concocting a story of the Christ. Further, the gospels were written years after the death of Christ. The church had already begun. The leaders were already established. From the preservation and spread of the gospels themselves, we can surmise that the early church supported the teachings documented by the synoptic gospel authors. This support should not be taken lightly. If indeed there were multitudinous eyewitnesses as the New Testament describes (and the population of the early church seems to corroborate), written accounts contrary to the actual teachings of the disciples would almost certainly die out as quickly as they were composed. The works that were circulated and mass-produced into the second and third centuries were evidently widely considered to be truthful accounts of Christ. One can still debate whether the ignorant hoards were corrupted by the “false teachings” of the disciples, but I think it is fair to say that the synoptic gospels paint a very clear picture of what the early Christians truly believed.
Posts
23 comments:
Hey Randy, I’m glad the “perfect storm” has passed, or at least lightened up! Luke has so many great passages in it.
A few thoughts mostly focusing on the birth narrative for time’s sake:
As for the Quirinius governorship, some have proposed that the Bible has not been translated correctly, as you pointed out. This approach has not gained traction in current translations, as we can read. Others have suggested that Quirinius was governor of Syria twice or that there were two different Quiriniuses. This does not work too well since scholars know who the previous governors of Syria were. While some unknown footnote of history is always possible, it’s also highly likely that the author of Luke made a simple mistake.
Also, people being required to return to their ancestral homes for a census is unlikely. While there are historical references to people being required to return to their homes for a census, and to tend their house, this is far different than, say, me being required to return to Massachusetts for he census because I am descended from a Pilgrim. And that was only 400 years ago. David lived probably 1,000 years before Christ.
In Luke, Mary and Joseph live in Nazareth and are required to go to Bethlehem for the census. This is different than in Matthew, where Joseph and Mary already live in Bethlehem and then move to Nazareth after returning from Egypt. Note in Luke, that Mary and Joseph return to Nazareth, “their own town”, right after taking Jesus to Jerusalem for his circumcision. So the Egypt trip is not only left out, but also contradicted, since in Matthew they move to Nazareth after returning from Egypt. The Egypt trip was most likely a literary device to show parallels between Jesus and Moses. Just like Jesus’ father Joseph, and his many dreams, in Matthew parallel Joseph, the great interpreter of dreams, in the Old Testament.
Another problem with Luke’s account of the census is that there never was a worldwide census while Octavius Augustus was emperor. There was, however, a census of Judea, Samaria and Idumea, the territories ruled by Herod the Great’s son Archelaus, while Quirinius was governor of Syria. Once again, the most likely scenario is that the author of Luke made a simple mistake. As E.P. Sanders states in his book “The Historical Figure of Jesus” : “This is a relatively slight historical error for an ancient author who worked without archives, or even a standard calendar, and who wrote about a period some eighty or so years earlier.”
The genealogies are not accurate, as you pointed out. Since the writer traces back through Joseph, and not Mary as some say, it seems most likely that the genealogies serve theological purpose rather than literal historical purposes. Neither author of Matthew or Luke states that they are tracing Jesus’ lineage through Mary, though I have read bits of the attempts to explain Luke’s genealogy through Mary.
I am curious about your idea that the gospels would increase in historical accuracy as more time passes. While possible, isn't it just as likely (or more so) that they went the other way?
"What this tells us about the synoptic gospels is that each almost certainly had access to the earliest writings of the church and that each was able to consult with the church founders (i.e. the disciples)"
"The variances in style and details are such that collusion is unlikely."
When the gospels disagree, it is seen as proof that they are accurate. When they agree it is seen as proof that they are accurate. While I don't disagree entirely (for surely they share a common message - Jesus as Messiah), I think we must consider the idea that they used common sources and felt free to change them around as it suited the needs of their particular audience. We see this in Luke and Matthew's treatment of passages most likely taken from Mark, for instance.
“toss aside the entirety of the Bible because you’re uncertain whether the soldiers who accompanied Saul on the road to Damascus could “hear” God”
If this is a reference to something I have written concerning the three different accounts in Acts of Paul’s conversion experience (and it may not be), you might have misunderstood my point. My point is the same as yours - the author of Luke/Acts didn’t care about recording events with total factual accuracy. He was concerned with communicating the overall point - the specifics (did Paul’s companions fall to the ground or stand? did they hear and not see? or see and not hear? what were Jesus’ exact words?) did not matter so much, which is obvious from his treatment of them.
“I want to reiterate the point that the gospel authors had absolutely nothing to gain by concocting a story of the Christ”
This is tough to know. What do you gain by writing 52 blogs? What do I gain by commenting?
Also, I think that if Jesus was a truly exceptional leader, whose program they believed in, they would have much motivation to do whatever they could to continue the ministry.
As for Acts, we have discussed the differences in events described by Luke as opposed to Paul’s accounts. The “we” used in Acts, that you mentioned, may be a literary device. We know it was common to write as if you were someone else back then. In fact, many of the letters of the NT seem to do exactly that.
I am interested to know your thoughts on the ascension in Acts. Is it symbolic, since we know today that heaven is not literally beyond the clouds, as the gospel writers believed?
Talk to you soon!
After a brief review of some of the literature regarding memory, recall, cognition, and so forth, I was not able to find much of anything that supports your baseless, reaching, and conspicuously convenient assertion that the recall of an event grows in detail and accuracy as it is told and retold through time. Do you have anything to backup your claim other than theological tail chasing? Perhaps something peer reviewed from social psychology, cognitive psychology, or at the very least an anecdotal story of this happening without it revolving around something you feel greatly compelled to believe in? Where’s the science?
Randy,
when you have a moment, I would love your opinion on the following short article. It communicates my position fairly well in a very succinct way. Thanks to Skyhook for pointing it out.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/jul/12/religion-christianity-belief-science/print
Steven-
Quirinius/Census- The truth of the matter is that we don’t have “hard” archeological evidence at this point to prove Luke’s claims in this case (good evidence that leads to reasonable explanations, but no proof, per se). In light of the fact that in the instances when archeology has been able to weigh in as evidence, it has proven Luke to be accurate time and time again, my view is that it is reasonable to accept Luke’s history in this case as well, unless there is a very compelling reason not to. Is it your view that we should take a purely skeptical approach to Luke’s history and doubt every detail that has yet to be fully corroborated (even in light of his archeological track record)?
“This is different than in Matthew, where Joseph and Mary already live in Bethlehem…”
There is no verse in Matthew which states that Mary and Joseph already lived in Bethlehem. I guess you feel like this is somehow implied?
“Note in Luke, that Mary and Joseph return to Nazareth, “their own town”, right after taking Jesus to Jerusalem for his circumcision. So the Egypt trip is not only left out, but also contradicted, since in Matthew they move to Nazareth after returning from Egypt.”
In Luke, they do not return to Nazareth “right after” the circumcision. There next section of the writing mentions the dedication ceremony which took place after Mary’s purification, which would have lasted for 40 days. After Luke recounts the details of this ceremony, he briefly mentions the return to Nazareth. For all we know, this could have been months later (the next paragraph jumps nearly 12 years!) I don’t know why Luke would choose to leave out the flight to Egypt, but it certainly isn’t appropriate to call this exclusion contradictory.
“I am curious about your idea that the gospels would increase in historical accuracy as more time passes. While possible, isn't it just as likely (or more so) that they went the other way?”
I think you’ve misunderstood Randy’s point- Randy, correct me if I’m wrong. Luke’s gospel contains more detailed information than the other two discussed thus far. And his gospel was the latest to be written. The only correlation between these two facts is that Luke may have seen a greater need for details because as the lifetimes of eyewitnesses came to an end and Jesus had not yet returned, he felt a more pressing need than Mark or Matthew to preserve the story for future generations. This is in no way a claim that historical accuracy invariably increases as time passes.
“When the gospels disagree, it is seen as proof that they are accurate. When they agree it is seen as proof that they are accurate.”
No one used the word proof. It simply is true that given any event, one would expect three separate accounts to have basically the same description of the event as a whole, but would also expect different interpretations and certain details to be included/excluded depending on the author’s discretion. The gospels fall in line with exactly those expectations. It would be extremely suspicious to find three identical accounts. Likewise, if three accounts differed wildly on key issues, we would have to be suspicious of one or all of the accounts. That is not the case here.
Skyhook- "... I was not able to find much of anything that supports your...assertion that the recall of an event grows in detail and accuracy as it is told and retold through time."
I find no such assertion in the original post. Could you direct me to Randy's quote?
"Using such logic, it is reasonable to assume that later gospel writings should become more detailed."
"Where Mark gave the least detail (likely a result of being the earliest work), Luke is very explicit in his descriptions and delves more into Jesus’ messages of sacrifice and inclusion."
I think the evidence is fairly compelling in the Quirinius census matter that Luke most likely made a simple mistake - conflating the Quirinius census, that occurred 10 years or so after Herod the Great's death, with Herod the Great's reign.
Also, if we read the birth story in Matthew, it seems fairly straightforward that the family did not move to Nazareth until after returning from Egypt.
You are right about the purification after childbirth thing - I completely left that out - they would have done it 40 days after Jesus was born. Then the gospel states that they returned home to Nazareth
"When they had finished everything required by the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to theri own town of Nazareth." - Luke 2:39
If we read the gospels as written independently of each other, still using some of the same sources (Mark, Q), then the most parsimonious assumption is that Luke had no knowledge of the Egypt tradition and Matthew had no knowledge of the census/already-living-in-Nazareth tradition.
Detail, yes. Accuracy, no. That would be silly.
Increase in detail without an increase in accuracy... and all we are asking for is reasonable doubt.
It could not be much easier...
Steven-
"Also, if we read the birth story in Matthew, it seems fairly straightforward that the family did not move to Nazareth until after returning from Egypt."
I absolutely disagree. Matthew's audience would have known that Mary and Joseph were from Nazareth. It is meaningless that he did not spell this out to them.
"If we read the gospels as written independently of each other, still using some of the same sources (Mark, Q), then the most parsimonious assumption is that Luke had no knowledge of the Egypt tradition and Matthew had no knowledge of the census/already-living-in-Nazareth tradition."
It's absolutely possible that Luke was unaware of some facts and Matthew of others. My only point was- this is not a contradiction.
Skyhook-
Person A: I went to the store today with person B. (100% accurate)
Person B: At 11:00am this morning, I drove to Target in my Honda Accord with Person A in order to purchase apples, grapes, and bananas. (100% accurate)
The later account did not increase in accuracy although it did increase in detail. Obviously, there is much "reason" for you to doubt person B's story...either that or your logic is flawed.
Kristin-
You do not have a solid grasp on how memory works. Memory does not work like a tape recording that can be played back several years later and be just as crisp as it was when it was first told. According the scientific studies of memory, details can and do change between the initial encoding and subsequent recalls. Many factors affect the changes between encode and recall including:
- Ineffective initial encoding (was all the info recorded exactly as it happened?)
- Decay – corruption of memory over time (giving the benefit to Randy, we are talking about decades here)
- Interference – competition from other information (this is especially potent if the information is similar…. As in reading or listening to other accounts of a similar story)
--Retroactive interference – new information interfering with what was originally encoded (other texts, other people reciting the story, etc…)
--Proactive interference – old information interfering with what has already been learned (similar myths that predate the myth we are discussing….)
- Motivated forgetting – forgetting things that do not fit with one’s larger narrative (conscious or unconscious)
We are not talking about two people recalling their trip to the store earlier in the day. We are talking about people telling stories about events that took place several decades prior to the recording of the event. Furthermore, if it were a story as plain as a trip to the store, I would not care much either way. But if the claim is being made, and Randy is making such claim, that it is most reasonable to believe that the laws of physics were broken (and hence unreasonable to believe otherwise), then we are going to need much better evidence than decades old recall that seems to pick up detail as time passes.
Also, in Kristin’s irrelevant caricature involving person A and person B, assuming nobody is lying, the accuracy is greater in person B’s account than in person A’s.
Accuracy is a quality of being near to the actual value. If in fact A and B did go to Target in an Accord to buy apples, grapes, and bananas, then person B’s story is more detailed and more accurate.
Had to clean up my last comment
Kristin -"I absolutely disagree. Matthew's audience would have known that Mary and Joseph were from Nazareth. It is meaningless that he did not spell this out to them."
Matthew was probably written in Antioch, although other locations are very possible. It is difficult to know what different Christians communities said about Jesus' parentage, etc.
However, yes, we read that Jesus was from Nazareth. Matthew writes that the family settled there after Herod's death, because Archelaus took over. The moved to Nazareth because Galilee was still unsafe. Luke writes that they lived in Nazareth previously and traveled to Bethlehem for the census. In Matthew they spend time in Egypt after Jesus' birth. In Luke they return to their home in Nazareth after they fulfilled everything for the law of the Lord.
The real interesting thing about the stories is why people created these narratives, worthy of the birth of a Caesar, for a peasant in Galilee. That's the beautiful (and powerful) part.
There are a few problems with the "memory recall" explanation.
1. Extraordinary events tend to entrench themselves into memory (especially in an oral society).
As an example, rent the Band of Brothers series and sincerely ask yourself whether the details given by the veterans appear legitimate.
2. You seem to be making the assumption that the gospels remained in the heads of the disciples for some 30 years then they all-of-the-sudden decided to write some things down.
It's more likely that someone was taking notes and then made a compilation. The documents we have are dated by the last recorded event, but that doesn't mean they were composed in an afternoon.
Regardless of whether you agree with me on the above points, they're writing about a man performing miracles, claiming divinity, and conquering death. These details are not likely a result of retroactive interference or motivated decay.
Where is the science?
I think it is interesting that you use Band of Brothers as your example when there are many scientific studies look at how fixed and indelible combat memories are (they’re not). Conventional wisdom leads us to believe that such major memories are likely to be fixed and accurate, however, empirical studies indicate otherwise. I am in no way saying that the accuracy of memories are reduced to zero, what I am saying is that the varieties of interference affect one’s recall of an event. We need better evidence than people recalling and recalling a story, with semi-literate people taking notes, continually telling and retelling a story over several decades. Reasonable doubt is easily found here.
A story going from “the tomb is empty” to “our Christ was raised from the dead” is not a wild stretch. Anybody can see the simple mutations the story can easily pick up to get from A to B. The assumptions one must take on to believe that the story changed are much more probable than the maximally large assumptions one must take on to say that a mammal’s rotting carcass defied thermodynamics as it got up, walked around, performed miracles, and defied gravity as it traveled up, and defied the speed of light as it exited our universe.
It is fine if you want to believe this is the truth, hell, it may be, but in order to place high value on science, reason, and logic, we must have better evidence. Can you imagine overturning general relativity through a story told, retold, jotted down, retold, retold, and the written down over several decades a few thousand years ago? Absolutely not. This is not the way science, reason, and logic work. We need much better evidence.
I can’t help but notice that science has been completely absent in the latest posts. One begins to wonder had you studied psychology rather than physics if we would still be using science in these posts. Where’s the science?
Sometimes science simply doesn't apply. What science would you apply to a historical account? This is where the reason-and-logic portion comes in.
The empirical studies supporting interference - science. The fact is that the situation you describe is nearly a recipe for recall interference. And all we are saying is there is reasonable doubt.
All studies I have read point out that the conventional wisdom that oral tradition preserves facts better than scribal tradition (as put forth by Craig Blomberg in "The Case for Christ") is false. Oral tradition has different values - it tends to prize storytelling/emotional truth over factual details.
I know that you are not a fan of John Dominic Crossan, but his book "The Birth of Christianity" is a massive, methodologically disciplined work. He incorporates textual criticism, 1st century archaeology, social anthropology, scientific studies of memory and so much more to construct the possibilities of what happened between the crucifixion and Paul's first letters. Interesting stuff for sure. I feel confident in saying that no one cares more than he does about finding the factual history in the different levels of theological history.
One study he cites had 106 college students write down their memory of what they were doing when they heard that the Challenger had exploded. They wrote down their memories the day after the event in 1986. This was a moment not unlike the JFK assassination in its potential ability to "imprint" a memory.
2 1/2 years later, the students were asked to re-write their memory - to duplicate what they had written. A significant portion of the students didn't even remember writing the original recollection.
on a scale of 1-7, with 7 being the most accurate duplication, the mean score was 2.95. But the mean for reported confidence in the accuracy of their memory was 4.17 out of 5! And the mean for "visual vividness" was 5.35 out of 7.
Interesting stuff.
But calling this the "memory recall" explanation is inaccurate as it is just one of many factors in the swirling complexity of trying to reconstruct historical events. Especially if we are leaving the door open for natural laws and causality not to apply.
Does admitting that it is reasonable to have a different view of the early facts of Christianity have theological problems for a conservative believer? Would it be to admit that God has not given us enough evidence for it to be beyond all reasonable doubt? I don't subscribe to the idea of "God THEN" trumping "God NOW", but does salvation, for a conservative believer, depend on how good a historian one is?
Enjoyable discussion.
Christmas story - in order to avoid contradictions between Matthew and Luke is this the way it must have happened?
Mary and Joseph live in Nazareth. They go to Bethlehem for a census, because Joseph is related to David who lived 1,000 years previously. Jesus is born in Bethlehem. Then, 8 days later, they go to Jerusalem. A few weeks after that they return to Nazareth. But they like Bethlehem so much that they decide to move there. Then the Magi find them (because of a star that has been in the air since Jesus was born and leads them geographically to Bethlehem, despite his living in Nazareth. Did it follow Jesus from Nazareth to Bethlehem?), and Herod, who is still alive (he died in 4 BCE) does his deal with the Wise Men and the brutal slaying of all boys under 2. The holy family, now living in Bethlehem, flees to Egypt until Herod dies. Then they start to return to Bethlehem, their home, but decide instead to move (back) to Nazareth where they set up a new home.
Is this right?
Trying to find the Best Dating Site? Create an account and find your perfect match.
Post a Comment