The issue of the historicity of the infancy narratives probably will be getting a lot of attention in the coming weeks. In addition to the usual television programs, magazine articles, and such that we see during this time of the year, a movie on Jesus' infancy is due out in December. I want to begin a series of posts on the infancy narratives today.
Two issues that often come up in discussions of this subject are the genre of the infancy narratives and how widely the accounts were accepted among the earliest Christians. It's often suggested that the authors of Matthew and Luke didn't intend to convey historical accounts or that Paul may not have believed in the virgin birth, for example. Some critics will even argue that the infancy narratives were added to the gospels after their initial circulation. It's sometimes suggested that John 7:42 is evidence that the author of the fourth gospel didn't believe that Bethlehem was Jesus' birthplace.
There are many problems with arguments like these, and I'll be addressing some of the issues involved in future posts. But in this post I want to focus on one source that illustrates the problematic nature of these objections.
One of the questions we should ask is whether early Christianity seems to have been as divided as these theories suggest, particularly with regard to the material in the infancy narratives, but also in more general terms. Do we find early Pauline communities rejecting the virgin birth, while a Matthean community in another part of the world accepts the concept, for example? We should also ask whether it seems plausible that a document like the fourth gospel would be written late in the first century by an author who rejected Jesus' Davidic descent and His birth in Bethlehem. (Though John 7:42 is often cited against the Bethlehem birthplace, it also mentions Davidic descent.) Do we find early references to the material in the infancy narratives? How did the earliest sources interpret that material? Did they view the virgin birth, the Bethlehem birthplace, the visit of the magi, and other such details as unhistorical or as historical? With issues like these in mind, I want to turn to the source I'm focusing on in this article.
Ignatius was a bishop of Antioch who was martyred in the early second century. On the way to his martyrdom, he wrote seven letters, six of them to churches and one to another bishop, Polycarp. His writings are significant in this context not only because of how early he lived and his position as a bishop, for example, but also because of where he served as bishop and who he wrote to.
Antioch was an apostolic church. Peter, Paul, and Barnabas had been there, and so had other men who were active in apostolic circles (Acts 11:19-30, 13:1-3, 14:21-23, 14:26-15:3, 15:22, 15:30-35, 18:22-23, Galatians 2:11-13, 2 Timothy 3:11). The Christians there had been in contact with Jesus' brother James as well (Acts 15:13-23, Galatians 2:12). Much the same can be said of some of the churches Ignatius wrote to, such as the churches in Rome, Smyrna, and Ephesus (Acts 18:19-20:38, 28:14-31, Romans 1:1-7, 1 Corinthians 15:32, 16:8, Ephesians 1:1, 1 Timothy 1:3, 2 Timothy 1:17-18, 4:12, Revelation 2:1-11).
Ignatius was a contemporary of the apostles, lived in an environment that had been in close contact with multiple apostles and associates of the apostles, and was in contact with other Christians who lived in similar circumstances. He seems to have been particularly influenced by the apostle Paul:
"His [Ignatius'] letters are replete with Pauline ideas and letter structure. The most obvious example of this may be found in a comparison of the bishop's letter to the Ephesians with the Pauline letter of Ephesians, which I assume to be a product of the Pauline school and not of Paul himself. The elaborate greeting that Ignatius offers to the Ephesians, which is typical of his other letters as well, undoubtedly has been modeled upon similar Pauline forms. Numerous terms and phrases that Ignatius has employed in this greeting bear striking similarity to those that appear in the Pauline salutation (Eph 1:3-14). The themes and movement of ideas that follow throughout the bishop's letter show further parallels....we discover here a certain acknowledgment by the bishop that the church at Ephesus knew and revered Paul as well....The fact that Ignatius had modeled his own letter to the Ephesians so closely upon the pseudo-Pauline letter to Ephesus suggests that this form would have gained a happy reception by the Christians there....To some extent, he [Ignatius] specifically patterned his letter [to Rome] upon Paul's own letter to Rome....Ignatius borrows constantly from Pauline literary style....Ignatius makes special mention of Paul as a faith link between his own journey and that of the apostle (Ign. Eph. 12.2)." (Clayton N. Jefford, The Apostolic Fathers And The New Testament [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006], pp. 41-42, 138-139)
We also see traces of Johannine influences in his writings, and he was in contact with some Johannine churches, such as the church of Smyrna, as well as John's disciple Polycarp. What, then, did he think of the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke? Was he ignorant of such material? Did he oppose it? No, it seems that, to the contrary, he not only knew of and accepted the gospel of Matthew, but also drew from it often in his letters:
"[Matthew was] widely recognized among the numerous churches of the early second century...A careful reading of the Ignatian correspondence reveals that the bishop is very familiar with this particular gospel in comparison with remaining texts. Though he makes only rare reference to passages from the text of Matthew itself, he uses the work as the springboard for a variety of comments, thus to reveal a close familiarity with Matthean concerns and the ideas that are characteristic of the Matthean mindset. We can easily find a number of these usages....Ignatius makes use of phrases that appear to be unique to the text of Matthew...The potential parallels between Ignatius and the Gospel of Matthew would seem to be endless....it is clear that the Gospel of Matthew, both as a literary source and as a foundation for faith, gained an early status as the most widely known and utilized of our gospel texts through the churches of the early Christian world. The apostolic fathers attest to this fact on a wide scale. Connections to Matthew are evident in the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, throughout the letters of Ignatius, in 1-2 Clement, and in the Martyrdom of Polycarp. This suggests that the text of Matthew circulated quickly around the Mediterranean and gained an authoritative status quite readily among disparate churches in different locations." (ibid., pp. 110, 140-143)
Bruce Metzger, whose book on the canon Bart Ehrman calls "the standard authoritative scholarly account" (Misquoting Jesus [San Francisco, California: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005], n. 10 on p. 220), comments that "It is probable that he [Ignatius] knew the Gospels according to Matthew and John, and perhaps also Luke." (The Canon Of The New Testament [New York: Oxford University Press, 1997], p. 49)
Ignatius not only refers to concepts from the infancy narratives, but even does so in contexts in which he's emphasizing the historical nature of the material he's discussing. Against Docetists he writes:
"He [Jesus] was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh, and the Son of God according to the will and power of God; that He was truly born of a virgin, was baptized by John, in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him; and was truly, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed to the cross for us in His flesh....Now, He suffered all these things for our sakes, that we might be saved. And He suffered truly, even as also He truly raised up Himself, not, as certain unbelievers maintain, that He only seemed to suffer, as they themselves only seem to be Christians. And as they believe, so shall it happen unto them, when they shall be divested of their bodies, and be mere evil spirits." (Letter To The Smyrnaeans, 1-2)
Notice that Ignatius refers to an actual, physical, historical virgin birth. Notice, also, that he mentions the virgin birth along with other prominent concepts of the Christian faith, such as Jesus' Divinity and atoning death, and that he doesn't seem to think that he has to make an argument for the virgin birth. Apparently, he expects his readers to agree with it. He also refers, elsewhere, to the star of Bethlehem as something historical, along with Mary's historical virginity and the historical birth and death of Jesus (Letter To The Ephesians, 19). Notice, again, that we have a contemporary of the apostles who was the bishop of an apostolic church influenced by multiple apostles, and he was writing to other apostolic churches. The apostles who influenced these churches included men such as Paul, John, and Peter, whose purported writings don't say much about Jesus' infancy. Yet, the people and churches they most directly influenced are known to have widely accepted the gospels of Matthew and Luke and the material in the infancy narratives.
Ignatius comes from a church that had recently been in contact with Paul, Peter, and James, he's writing to Pauline and Johannine churches, and he draws material from the gospel of Matthew. The early churches were highly networked, and the sort of variety of influences that we see in Ignatius' life would have been common around the Christian world. We're often told about how the apostles allegedly disagreed with each other, and a supposed Petrine community will be set against an alleged Johannine community, Paul will be set against James, etc. But the earliest Christians themselves thought that the apostles had a large degree of unity (Luke 22:30, John 21:19, 1 Corinthians 15:11, Galatians 2:7-10, Ephesians 2:20, 2 Peter 3:2, 3:15-16, Revelation 21:14), and so did Ignatius and other sources living just after the time of the apostles (Clement of Rome [First Clement, 5, 42, 44]; Ignatius [Letter To The Ephesians, 11; Letter To The Magnesians, 13; Letter To The Romans, 4]; Polycarp [Letter To The Philippians, 9]; Papias [in Eusebius, Church History, 3:39:4]; Aristides [Apology, 2]; The Epistle Of Barnabas [5]).
Issues surrounding Jesus' infancy would have been of significant interest to the early Christians in general from the start. Though different Jews had different concepts of who the Messiah would be, there was widespread belief in concepts such as the Davidic descent of the Messiah and an association with Bethlehem. Such issues probably would have been discussed during Jesus' public ministry and earlier among relatives and some other sources, as the gospels indicate (Matthew 2:4-6, Mark 10:47-48, Luke 20:41-44, John 7:41-42). The concept that there would be widespread neglect of such issues early on, followed by some portions of the early church fabricating stories about Jesus' background near the end of the first century and thereafter gaining such widespread acceptance of those stories among both Christians and non-Christians, is absurd. It's likely that Ignatius of Antioch is a reflection of the sort of concern about Jesus' background that existed from the beginning of church history. And his belief that the material in the infancy narratives is historical in nature is the mainstream view of early Christianity. In the next segment in this series, I'll discuss some more examples.
What the heck, I'll make a comment.
ReplyDeleteFor my part I think it wouldn't be all that surprising to see a single historical claim accepted universally even if that claim were legend. The issue isn't whether or not one community rejected a virgin birth while another accepted it. The issue is, are all communities aware of it. Suppose a Pauline community is unaware of it. If later they start to hear stories about it, it may be new to them, but this doesn't mean they would reject it as unhistorical. They would probably readily believe it. After all it is very impressive. It is probably something they would like to believe. It makes Jesus just as good as the other dying and rising god's of the time, as Horus is also born of a virgin. Or Anakin Skywalker.
Take as another example the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery. Is it unhistorical? Well gosh, if people don't contradict it when they hear it this must give it credence on your view. I don't think so. People may have heard it for the first time in the 2nd century, but this doesn't mean they had heard it was false prior to the 2nd century. They just would have heard nothing about it. So when they heard it and saw it's beauty they would be predisposed to accept it, which everyone has done for centuries. Even though it may very well be completely untrue.
Jon Curry wrote:
ReplyDelete"What the heck, I'll make a comment."
Yes, the phrase "what the heck" does seem to reflect the approach you take toward these discussions.
You write:
"For my part I think it wouldn't be all that surprising to see a single historical claim accepted universally even if that claim were legend."
That wasn't the subject I was addressing. And if it was, your telling us what "wouldn't surprise" you isn't of much significance. You repeatedly argue that a universal belief or a belief of a large majority of historical sources was wrong, and you do so without showing that your conclusion is probable. You speculate that maybe everybody who commented on the subject was wrong about Jesus' existence. Maybe everybody was wrong about the authorship of Mark's gospel. And Matthew's gospel. And John's gospel. Etc. The ease with which you dismiss historical sources doesn't make your dismissals reasonable.
You write:
"The issue is, are all communities aware of it."
No, not all communities would have to be aware of a claim related to the infancy narratives in order for that claim to be credible. Historical conclusions are matters of probability. If 95% of churches accepted a particular doctrine as apostolic, while the other 5% weren't aware of it, the belief of the 95% could make more sense of the evidence, despite the existence of the 5%. Similarly, not every person who knew Abraham Lincoln would have to be aware of a claim about him in order for that claim to be credible.
You aren't giving us any reason to think that my conclusions are incorrect. We make judgments based on the evidence we have, and we don't have comments from "all communities" on these issues. (We don't have historical records expressing the views of everybody who knew Alexander the Great, Tiberius Caesar, and other historical figures either.) If you think that you have evidence that something I've said is wrong, then produce that evidence. Telling us that it "wouldn't surprise" you if everybody who commented on the subject was wrong or asking whether "all communities" held a belief doesn't give us any reason to reject my conclusions.
You write:
"If later they start to hear stories about it, it may be new to them, but this doesn't mean they would reject it as unhistorical. They would probably readily believe it. After all it is very impressive."
Again, that isn't the issue I was addressing.
And why should we believe that the early Christians would accept a doctrine just because "it is very impressive"? The claims of the apocryphal gospels and other documents circulating in early church history were "very impressive" as well, yet those documents and many "very impressive" claims they made were rejected.
I've addressed this issue of the historical credibility of the early Christians many times in previous discussions with you. You've repeatedly ignored what I've documented. You need to go back and interact with what I've already documented regarding the early Christians' moral standards, their concern for eyewitness testimony, their willingness to acknowledge doubts about the authorship of documents whose doctrinal content they agreed with, etc. Your speculative scenario in which the early Christians accept a claim because it's "very impressive" assumes an unusual degree of undiscernment among the earliest Christians, fails to explain why they rejected so many "very impressive" claims, fails to explain why they claimed to be concerned with eyewitness testimony and other forms of historical evidence, fails to explain the actions particular individuals took to investigate the issues they were discussing, fails to explain why the early Christians didn't fabricate other claims in order to resolve their difficulties on other issues, fails to explain why the eyewitnesses and contemporaries of the apostles who were still alive in the earliest generations were so ineffective in stopping these alleged fabrications that you think were occurring with regularity, fails to explain why the earliest opponents of Christianity didn't use the arguments you're using, etc. In other words, you're once again presenting us with a scenario that you apparently haven't given much thought, one that's highly inconsistent with the historical evidence.
You write:
"It makes Jesus just as good as the other dying and rising god's of the time, as Horus is also born of a virgin."
The doctrine of the virgin birth originated in a highly Jewish religion that was centered in Israel. The earliest Christians believed that their gospel was "to the Jew first" (Romans 1:16). They considered the Jewish people their "fathers" (Romans 9:5). They viewed pagan religion as a system of "ignorance" (Acts 17:23) and "foolishness" (Romans 1:22-23). Pagan gods were "no gods" (Galatians 4:8). Pagan religions were viewed as demonic (1 Corinthians 10:14-22). Pagan religions left people "dead in trespasses and sins" and "without God and without hope" (Ephesians 2:1, 2:12). The infancy narratives are written in a highly Jewish context, with many citations of Old Testament scripture, references to Jewish tradition, Hebraisms, etc. If the Jewish context of the infancy narratives sufficiently explains their content, then why would we be looking to pagan religions for an explanation? The earliest Christians don't seem to have had much of a desire to emulate pagan religions, and you've given us no reason to think that they were interested in emulating Horus in particular. You've also failed to document that Horus was viewed as born of a virgin prior to early Christianity.
Even if some pagan god had been viewed as born of a virgin prior to the rise of Christianity, that fact wouldn't by itself suggest that it's probable that Christianity fabricated the concept of Jesus' virgin birth. What was common in paganism was the impregnation of women through sexual intercourse, not virgin births. If Christianity was emulating paganism, then why did the early Christians claim a virgin birth rather than follow the common pagan theme of sexual intercourse with a god?
As I've told you before, the theory that early Christianity was largely derived from paganism is problematic and is rejected by most scholars. See the Introduction and other sections that address the virgin birth and alleged pagan parallels in Steve Hays' recent book on the resurrection. See also Excursus III on Justin Martyr written by Gene Bridges and me:
http://www.reformed.plus.com/triablogue/ThisJoyfulEastertide.pdf
J.P. Holding discusses Horus at:
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html
And Glenn Miller discusses the subject at:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycatwho2.html
You can use Ctrl F and search for "Horus" in both articles.
There is no pre-Christian virgin birth account for Horus that I'm aware of. Give us your documentation of a pre-Christian virgin birth for Horus, and explain to us what evidence you have that Christianity borrowed the concept from Horus.
You write:
"Take as another example the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery. Is it unhistorical? Well gosh, if people don't contradict it when they hear it this must give it credence on your view. I don't think so."
Again, that's not the issue I was addressing. I didn't claim that something like the virgin birth is probable just because "people didn't contradict it when they heard it".
You write:
"People may have heard it for the first time in the 2nd century, but this doesn't mean they had heard it was false prior to the 2nd century. They just would have heard nothing about it. So when they heard it and saw it's beauty they would be predisposed to accept it, which everyone has done for centuries. Even though it may very well be completely untrue."
Speaking of "completely untrue", where are you getting the concept that "everyone" has accepted the account in John 7:53-8:11 "for centuries"? It's not in the earliest manuscripts, and a wide variety of sources for centuries have commented on the problematic nature of the passage. It eventually became popular and was included in many editions of the Bible, but it doesn't therefore follow that it was accepted by "everybody". Bruce Metzger writes:
"The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming. It is absent from such early and diverse manuscripts as Papyrus66.75 Aleph B L N T W X Y D Q Y 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193 al. Codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it is highly probable that neither contained the pericope, for careful measurement discloses that there would not have been space enough on the missing leaves to include the section along with the rest of the text. In the East the passage is absent from the oldest form of the Syriac version (syrc.s. and the best manuscripts of syrp), as well as from the Sahidic and the sub-Achmimic versions and the older Bohairic manuscripts. Some Armenian manuscripts and the old Georgian version omit it. In the West the passage is absent from the Gothic version and from several Old Latin manuscripts (ita.l*.q). No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospels do not contain it....Significantly enough, in many of the witnesses which contain the passage it is marked with asterisks or obeli, indicating that, though the scribes included the account, they were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials." (http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html)
Besides, even if everybody had been wrong on such an issue, it wouldn't therefore follow that it's probable that everybody was wrong on some other issue as well, such as the virgin birth. The fact that widespread error occurred in one context doesn't justify a conclusion that it probably did occur in some other context. Humans are fallible, but they're also correct about many things. We rely on human testimony in order to function in our everyday lives. Historians accept thousands upon thousands of claims made by humans of the past, despite the fact that those humans were fallible and could possibly have been widely mistaken.
Yes, the phrase "what the heck" does seem to reflect the approach you take toward these discussions.
ReplyDeleteThat's right. Laid back. Easy going. You probably sit at your computer in a suit and tie and I've talked about how you often turn from your lectern and talk to the audience as if there is one. That's not a criticism. I've said you can do as you please. You ignore me as I say that of course as you always do, and defend your attitude. I'm not criticising you, but simply pointing out that there is nothing wrong with treating this as a comment section in a blog and not a formal debate. This means I might address only a couple of points, maybe ask some questions. Maybe my references won't include publishing house and date published. That's the same methods many of your fellow bloggers here use, so if you want to criticise me criticise them as well.
Jon-For my part I think it wouldn't be all that surprising to see a single historical claim accepted universally even if that claim were legend."
Jason-That wasn't the subject I was addressing.
Isn't it? You say that the theory that Mt and Lk don't intend to convey history requires early Christians to be divided on the issue. The whole point of my post is that this is not true.
Similarly, not every person who knew Abraham Lincoln would have to be aware of a claim about him in order for that claim to be credible.
This is all completely unrelated to my point.
You aren't giving us any reason to think that my conclusions are incorrect.
I haven't even tried, because that wasn't my point. There are many good reasons for thinking that the infancy narratives are not historical, but I haven't presented them. Again, that's not my point.
If you think that you have evidence that something I've said is wrong, then produce that evidence.
I've done so. Your argument that the unhistorical theories require diversity of opinion on issues like the virgin birth is completely false.
And why should we believe that the early Christians would accept a doctrine just because "it is very impressive"? The claims of the apocryphal gospels and other documents circulating in early church history were "very impressive" as well, yet those documents and many "very impressive" claims they made were rejected.
This is a common fallacious mode of reasoning you engage in. Clearly people want to believe impressive things about their heroes. Just because I believe it is reasonable to think they might accept some this doesn't mean I think it is reasonable that they would accept all. Some impressive things are more believable than others.
You've also failed to document that Horus was viewed as born of a virgin prior to early Christianity.
I've documented it multiple times. You've ignored it.
Again, that's not the issue I was addressing. I didn't claim that something like the virgin birth is probable just because "people didn't contradict it when they heard it".
You talked about early Christians being divided on the issue, Pauline communities "rejecting" the virgin birth, and how these things are implied on the view that Mt and Lk don't intend to convey history. If the unhistorical theory suggests division, and division isn't there, doesn't this show that the virgin birth is probable?
Speaking of "completely untrue", where are you getting the concept that "everyone" has accepted the account in John 7:53-8:11 "for centuries"?
Do you really think by "everyone" I meant every single person. Come on. My point is clear. For a period of more than one century this belief is the dominant belief amongst Chrisitans. This is true today.
Besides, even if everybody had been wrong on such an issue, it wouldn't therefore follow that it's probable that everybody was wrong on some other issue as well, such as the virgin birth.
I didn't say otherwise, and that's not my point. My point is to counter your claim that theories about the unhistorical nature of the infancy narratives imply diversity of opinion on the issue and "rejection" of the claims in certain communities. This is the same treatment I'm usually given by you. You turn modest claims of mine into huge arguments against Christianity, then knock the straw men down.
Jason Engwer: He also refers, elsewhere, to the star of Bethlehem as something historical, along with Mary's historical virginity and the historical birth and death of Jesus (Letter To The Ephesians, 19).
ReplyDeleteYou indicate that Ignatius was familiar with the Gospel of Matthew and treated the infancy narratives as historical in nature. Yet while he does refer to a star, similar to the one mentioned (solely) in Matthew, he describes a much different star:
“A star shone forth in heaven above all the other stars, the light of which was inexpressible, while its novelty struck men with astonishment. And all the rest of the stars, with the sun and moon, formed a chorus to this star, and its light was exceedingly great above them all. And there was agitation felt as to whence this new spectacle came, so unlike to everything else [in the heavens].” Ignatius to Ephesians 19
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-16.htm#P1353_243373
If he treated Matthew as historical, why does he vary from Matthew’s account?
Thanks
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteJon Curry wrote:
ReplyDelete"That's right. Laid back. Easy going....This means I might address only a couple of points, maybe ask some questions. Maybe my references won't include publishing house and date published."
No, I'm not criticizing you for being "laid back" and "easy going". I'm criticizing you for often failing to document your claims, including when you're making claims that are highly questionable or are rejected by all or almost all of modern scholarship. Look at your first post in this thread. You didn't just fail to give "publishing house and date published". You failed to cite any sources. And when you do occasionally cite a source, it's frequently something like an article at Wikipedia or something else that anybody could find with about two minutes of searching on Google. Your arguments are bad, and your lack of documentation and the poor quality of what little documentation you offer suggest that you don't know the issues well. A person who thinks that Jesus didn't exist, thinks that the Pauline authorship of documents like 1 Corinthians and Philemon is "suspicious" for the ridiculous reasons you cited, and frequently relies on Wikipedia for his conclusions, to cite three of many examples that could be cited, isn't somebody who is just "laid back" and "easy going". You have much more significant problems than that.
You write:
"You say that the theory that Mt and Lk don't intend to convey history requires early Christians to be divided on the issue."
No, that's not what I said. I've cited early Christian interpretations of Matthew and Luke as evidence of the intention of the authors. That's part of how any historical document is evaluated. How a document was interpreted by sources living close to that time is significant evidence as to the genre of the document. I didn't say that it's the only evidence or that it "requires" a particular conclusion in the sense of certainty. I've said many times that historical conclusions are matters of probability. I also said, repeatedly, that my post at the beginning of the thread was an introduction to a series. I said that I was citing one example, Ignatius of Antioch, and that I would go on to cite other examples later. You've repeatedly misrepresented what I've said, and it doesn't seem that you have much concern for accuracy. Your "laid back" approach is indistinguishable from carelessness.
You write:
"I haven't even tried, because that wasn't my point. There are many good reasons for thinking that the infancy narratives are not historical, but I haven't presented them. Again, that's not my point."
I was referring to my conclusions in the first post in this thread. I wasn't referring to my conclusions about the infancy narratives in general. This is only the first post in the series, and the series itself isn't intended to address every issue related to the infancy narratives. When I said that you had failed to give us any reason to reject my conclusions, I was saying that you had failed to give us any reason to reject my conclusions in the opening post of this thread. And you did fail to do so.
You write:
"This is a common fallacious mode of reasoning you engage in. Clearly people want to believe impressive things about their heroes. Just because I believe it is reasonable to think they might accept some this doesn't mean I think it is reasonable that they would accept all. Some impressive things are more believable than others."
You're adding qualifiers you didn't mention previously. If the early Christians only accepted some "very impressive" accounts, then what standards do you think they applied to make those judgments? How do you know? You aren't giving us any evidence to support your conclusions. You're just making assertions.
You write:
"I've documented it multiple times. You've ignored it."
You've cited an anonymous Wikipedia article that has a warning at the top about how its content "may not be reliable", and the article is only partially about Horus. Why are we supposed to trust what that article says about Horus? Here's the address for the article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_as_myth
If you go to the comments page for the article...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus_as_myth
...you'll find many examples of the absurd claims the article has contained in its many editions. It's been edited repeatedly, and it still has many problems. It repeatedly makes claims without citing any source.
The Wikipedia article mentions the discredited work of Tom Harpur. In an article responding to Harpur, the Biblical scholar W.Ward Gasque writes:
"I sent an email to 20 of the world's leading Egyptologists, outlining the following claims put forth by Kuhn (and hence Harpur)...That Horus also 'had a virgin birth...[the Egyptologists responded that] there is no evidence for the idea that Horus was virgin born." (http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/na.cgi?nationalupdates/040623was)
The Wikipedia article claims that parallels between Jesus' infancy and that of Horus are "most obvious" in some carvings in a temple in Luxor. But the article by J.P. Holding that I cited links to an article by Richard Carrier (the same Carrier you've cited in the past) arguing against such an interpretation of the Luxor inscription. Carrier writes:
"The Luxor inscription also does not depict impregnation by a spirit, but involves very real sex (indeed, the narrative borders on soft-core porn), and the woman involved is the mythical Queen of Egypt in an archetypal sense, not Isis per se....The inscription in Panel 4 (which is often cited on the web as the key frame) describes the god Amun jumping into bed with the human Queen on her wedding night (or at any rate before she consummates her marriage with the human King) disguised as her husband. But she recognizes the smell of a god, so he reveals himself, then 'enters her' (sic). The narrative then gets a bit risque--the god burning with lust, queen begging to be embraced, there's kissing going on, Amun's buddy Thoth stands by the bed to watch, and after Amun 'does everything he wished with her' she and Amun engage in some divine pillow talk, and so on. At one point the queen exclaims amazement at 'how large' Amun's 'organ of love' is, and she is 'jubilant' when he thrusts it into her....At any rate, the couple relax after 'getting it on', and the god tells her in bed that she is impregnated and will bear his son, Amenophis. To be more exact, the Queen inadvertently chooses the name by telling Amun she loves him, which is what 'Amenophis' means. It follows from this fact that Panel 8 (when the ankh is touched to the Queen's nose) does not depict an impregnation. The queen is already long pregnant in that scene. In fact, she is already 'showing.' Instead, it is the birth that is announced then, not the conception, and Kneph then proceeds to impart the god's soul into the divine fetus, using the ankh (perhaps this indicates quickening, but at any rate the fetus was already there when this happens). The birth itself occurs in Panel 9....Kneph only forms the fetus and the soul and unites them, he does not impregnate the Queen (Amun does that, the old fashioned way)...So I think the parallels here [between the Luxor inscription and the infancy narratives of the New Testament] are very weak." (http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/carrier_luxor_inscription.htm)
In contrast to your careless use of unreliable sources, the material I've recommended from Steve Hays, J.P. Holding, and Glenn Miller cites widely regarded scholars in relevant fields, such as Bruce Metzger and Jonathan Z. Smith. All you've given us is an anonymous Wikipedia article that's been shown to have many errors and doesn't offer us any documentation for the claim we're discussing. Instead of making your case, your citation of that Wikipedia article is further evidence of what I've said about your carelessness.
You write:
"Do you really think by 'everyone' I meant every single person."
Since you didn't give us any context by which to determine that you meant what you now claim that you meant, and since in the past you've rejected appeals to hyperbole in defense of passages in the Bible, why were we supposed to conclude that you meant "everyone" hyperbolically? Do you retract your earlier rejection of hyperbole in explaining passages like Matthew 5?
You write:
"My point is clear. For a period of more than one century this belief is the dominant belief amongst Chrisitans. This is true today."
What is that supposed to prove? Modern Bible translations commonly put John 7:53-8:11 in brackets or mark it off in some other way. How do you know that belief in the passage is "dominant" today? I don't know whether it is. I haven't studied the issue. Even if most people today believed that the passage is authentic, the fact would remain that most people in any belief system aren't going to know much about such issues. Do most Americans study the textual criticism of the writings of America's founders? Do most atheists follow the latest philosophical arguments over issues related to atheism in scholarly journals? Though most people don't involve themselves in such matters, some do. Not every ancient Christian was a Paul, a Luke, a Justin Martyr, or a Julius Africanus, but some were. Your theory that people accepted concepts like the virgin birth because they were "very impressive", without much concern for evidence, can't be sustained by an appeal to the low evidential standards of some people. If other people had higher standards, then you have to address those other people as well. Telling us that some people have believed in the authenticity of John 7:53-8:11, even a majority of people for "more than one century", doesn't overturn anything I've argued.
Why should we think that there's a significant parallel between the virgin birth and John 7:53-8:11? The widespread acceptance of the latter occurred centuries after any eyewitnesses or contemporaries could be consulted, for example, whereas the widespread acceptance of the former (the virgin birth) occurred just after the time of the apostles at the latest. Nothing of much significance hangs upon the Johannine passage. The themes are found elsewhere in scripture, no new doctrines are contained in it, etc. The virgin birth, on the other hand, was a highly unusual claim, something that wasn't expected of the Messiah and would have had many implications with ripples in the historical record. If Jesus' relatives and the earliest Christians had spoken of Joseph as Jesus' biological father for decades, and no claim of a virgin birth was made, then a virgin birth claim with accompanying miracle accounts arose late in the first century, the contrast would be easily noticed by both Christians and non-Christians. Etc. Your appeal to John 7:53-8:11 is weak and fails to refute anything I've argued.
DagoodS said:
ReplyDelete"Yet while he does refer to a star, similar to the one mentioned (solely) in Matthew, he describes a much different star"
I don't deny that Ignatius added comments of his own. I wasn't claiming that he quoted Matthew's gospel. I was claiming that he refers to the star of Bethlehem.
Clayton Jefford, the liberal Jesus Seminar scholar I cited in my original post, mentions the Matthean account of the star of Bethlehem as one of the many passages in Matthew that Ignatius seems to have been familiar with (The Apostolic Fathers And The New Testament [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006], n. 50 on p. 141). Just as Ignatius adds comments of his own to Matthew's account, we see the same in the New Testament writers' use of the Old Testament. The apostle Paul gives details and implications of various Old Testament passages that aren't found in those passages themselves, for example. Christians do the same today. We discuss historical details known from other sources (archeology, contemporary documents, etc.), and we include implications of a passage in our discussion of the passage. I don't see anything in Ignatius that's irreconcilable with Matthew 2.
Even if some details were inconsistent, we'd still have to consider the possibility that Ignatius was relying on a faulty memory, had misread the passage, or had additional information available to him from another source, for example. He probably didn't have any copy of Matthew or the other documents he was relying on opened before him as he wrote. Many of the early references to scripture in the church fathers, including references to the Old Testament, are only allusions or paraphrases, for example, not exact quotes. Just as people today often allude to scripture or paraphrase it from memory without using an exact quote, so did people in ancient times.
Jason Engwer,
ReplyDeleteIf Ignatius was alluding or paraphrasing, or had faulty memory, or misunderstood his source, couldn’t the author of Matthew in the infant narrative, perform those human actions as well?
DagoodS wrote:
ReplyDelete"If Ignatius was alluding or paraphrasing, or had faulty memory, or misunderstood his source, couldn’t the author of Matthew in the infant narrative, perform those human actions as well?"
I don't know of any Christian who denies that it would be possible for Matthew or any other author of scripture to use allusions, paraphrase, have faulty memories, etc. In my response to you above, I cite the example of the apostle Paul. Allusions and paraphrases are common in human literature and other forms of communication in general. These things aren't unique to Christianity. In his infancy narrative, Matthew repeatedly refers to Old Testament themes without using an exact quote or paraphrases something or alludes to something in the Old Testament. You seem to be suggesting that such practices are problematic. How so?
I believe in Biblical inerrancy. I don't think that any faulty memories of somebody like Matthew or Paul resulted in any false assertions made by scripture. But I reach that conclusion by means of evidence for the inerrancy of scripture, evidence we don't have for the writings of somebody like Ignatius. Even in the case of Ignatius, though, I see no reason to conclude that he was misremembering something in his comments on the star of Bethlehem. He seems to have been drawing implications from the account of the star in much the same way that people commonly draw implications from any piece of literature, news account, or other information they have access to.
The infancy narratives involve many subjects and many events. Even if you reject Biblical inerrancy, an appeal to something like faulty memory can only go so far. People do sometimes forget things, but it doesn't therefore follow that it would be reasonable to dismiss large portions of the infancy narratives as a result of such forgetfulness. People may misremember whether a particular co-worker was in the office this morning or what temperature it was outside when they left for work, but they probably aren't going to accidentally reach the conclusion that they were in the White House visiting the President this morning rather than sitting in their office cubicle.