In previous articles (here, here, and here), I've argued that the earliest Christians thought they were conveying historical accounts when they discussed Jesus' infancy. But it’s often suggested that the gospels of Matthew and Luke were composed in the late first century by unknown authors, several decades after Jesus’ birth, and that the authors of those gospels and/or their sources largely made up stories about events that nobody alive at that time knew much about. Even if the earliest Christians believed that what they reported about Jesus' infancy was historical, did they have sufficient reason to believe it?
We have no good reason to reject the universal early testimony that the two gospels were written by Matthew and Luke. See, for example, here and here and the relevant material in D.A. Carson and Douglas Moo, An Introduction To The New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2005).
We also have no good reason to date these documents as late as some critics do. There isn't as much detail in Matthew 24 as a post-70 author seems likely to have included, nor does the author mention any fulfillment of the prophecy. (Matthew puts a lot of emphasis on prophecy fulfillment elsewhere.) The gospel's emphasis on the Sadducees makes more sense pre-70 as well. D.A. Carson notes that "Matthew records more warnings against the Sadducees than all other NT writers combined; and after A.D. 70 the Sadducees no longer existed as a center of authority" (The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Matthew, Chapters 1 Through 12 [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1995], pp. 20-21). Luke doesn't seem to be dependent on Paul's letters in Acts, and Paul's situation in Rome at the end of Acts, without any mention of events like the fall of Jerusalem and the martyrdom of James and Paul, is best explained by the conclusion that Luke wrote prior to such events. For these and other reasons, Matthew and Luke ought to be dated prior to 70 A.D.
Whether we date the gospels toward the middle of the century or toward the end, however, the fact remains that many reliable sources of information on Jesus' background would have been available in either timeframe. Jesus, His relatives, and others around them would have been interested in and would have known about many aspects of His background. 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). Shortly after Jesus' earthly ministry, we find interest in issues like Jesus' ancestry, the timing of His birth, and prophecy fulfillment in general in the writings of Paul (Romans 1:3, Galatians 4:4). 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.
Mary would have known about many of the events mentioned in the infancy narratives, and the early Christians were in contact with her (John 19:27, Acts 1:14). They also were in contact with Jesus’ brothers and other relatives of Jesus, some of whom are known to have lived a few decades into church history (James) or even into the closing years of the first century (Jesus’ cousin Symeon). Hegesippus, a Christian of the second century, wrote:
"They [relatives of Jesus] came, therefore, and took the lead of every church as witnesses and as relatives of the Lord. And profound peace being established in every church, they remained until the reign of the Emperor Trajan [late first and early second centuries], and until the above-mentioned Symeon, son of Clopas, an uncle of the Lord, was informed against by the heretics, and was himself in like manner accused for the same cause before the governor Atticus." (cited in Eusebius, Church History, 3:32:6)
Notice that there was interest in these relatives of Jesus "as witnesses and as relatives". The early Christians were concerned with eyewitness testimony and other forms of historical evidence, as we see in Paul's writings, the gospels, and elsewhere. It's highly unlikely that such a concern wasn't applied to information about Jesus' background.
If the traditional attribution of the two gospels to Matthew and Luke is correct, as the evidence suggests, then we know that Matthew and Luke were each in contact with at least one member of Jesus’ immediate family (Acts 1:13-14, 21:18). The infancy narratives name government officials and some public events, so a large number of sources involved with those people and those events would be able to provide information (Acts 13:1, for example). The early Christians were in contact with Jesus Himself, and it’s unlikely that Jesus would never have discussed issues of His birthplace, for example, with His disciples. It’s also unlikely that the Christians who had access to people like Mary and James would never have asked them questions about Jesus’ childhood.
The enemies of Jesus and His followers would likely have looked into Jesus’ background as well. Concepts such as the Davidic lineage of the Messiah and His association with Bethlehem were widely known by both the early Christians and their early enemies, so both sides would have had interest in Jesus’ background from the start. As ancient Jewish tradition suggests, there would have been investigation of the background of a perceived false teacher like Jesus:
"If a man is suspected of apostasy, the circumstances of his birth are to be investigated. For the mamser (bastard) is inclined toward rebellion and blasphemy. (Lev. 24, 10 ff.; Targum same place; S. Lev. 24, 10 ff.; Kalla 41 d. The mamser must be distinguished from the beduki and the shethuki. The beduki is a child whose birth still requires investigation [Kid. 4, 2; B Kid. 74 a; J Kid. 4, 65 d]. The shethuki is a child whose father can no longer be determined [Kid. 4, 1; B Kid. 69 a; 73 a; Yeb. 100 b].)" (Ethelbert Stauffer, Jesus And His Story [New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1960], p. 207)
The early opponents of Christianity didn't arrange to have Jesus crucified because they were apathetic about Him. Paul, in the letters that are accepted as Pauline across the scholarly spectrum, repeatedly refers to how he had been a persecutor of the church and how he was often persecuted as a Christian and often was argued against by his opponents. It doesn't seem that the early enemies of Christianity were too apathetic to investigate and dispute the claims being made by the early Christians.
Christians who lived in the second century referred to government records and other information from non-Christian sources pertaining to the events surrounding Jesus’ birth. We need to remember that there were far more sources available in the past than are available today. Luke refers to "many" accounts (Luke 1:1). (Note also that his reference in Luke 1:3 to examining everything carefully comes just before his account of Jesus’ childhood.) Men like Irenaeus and Eusebius refer to documents of the contemporaries of the apostles that were extant in their day, but aren’t extant today. We shouldn’t think that our lack of sources today leads to the conclusion that Matthew and Luke had a similar lack of sources. The concept that the gospel writers had little or no reliable information to go by, and that they therefore would have to have fabricated stories to fill in the gaps, is highly unlikely. The comments of Luke 1:1-4 aren't the sentiments of an author who's about to go off on flights of speculation about what he thinks must have happened according to his own impressions or the expectations of other people.
As mentioned above, every gospel, not just Matthew and Luke, refers to issues related to Jesus' background being discussed before Jesus died. If critics want to argue that Jesus wasn't actually a descendant of David or wasn't actually born in Bethlehem, for example, then they need to cite early sources who agreed with them and explain how everybody else would have been mistaken. A lot of information about Jesus' background would have been available to the early opponents of Christianity as well, not just the early Christians. While critics question the reports we have from first century Christian sources, they aren't so critical of the lack of sources supporting their own theories.
Do you have any reason for suggesting that the facts would have been checked? You talk about Mary being in contact with early Christians. How old is Mary at the time these texts are written? Maybe 90 years old? When the average life expectancy for a male that survives child birth is 45 for a person living in 1st century Palestine, what are the chances she is still alive to corroborate this story?
ReplyDeleteWhat of Jesus disciples? If they're not already martyred then they must be well beyond the average life expectancy in age. They would be expected to be mostly dead. If they were lucky enough to get out of Palestine before the ravages of the war, then they would be in lands where the facts are difficult to check.
But there is little evidence to think that converts had any interest in checking the facts even if they could have. Richard Carrier discusses early Christian converts in the book of Acts and early Christian apologists. See chapters 7 and 13. The record shows that early Christians by and large have little to no interest in checking the facts. This claim of yours (which goes along with your claims about the gullibility of people from that time period) is one of your repeated assertions which I find to be transparently false.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/improbable/
jon curry
ReplyDeletesaid...
“Do you have any reason for suggesting that the facts would have been checked? You talk about Mary being in contact with early Christians. How old is Mary at the time these texts are written? Maybe 90 years old?”
i) Mary was probably in her early teens when she married.
ii) You are also making some assumptions about the dating of the gospels.
“When the average life expectancy for a male that survives child birth is 45 for a person living in 1st century Palestine, what are the chances she is still alive to corroborate this story? “
What exactly do you base this on? Average of what?
Figures like this can be very misleading. It’s like saying the average number of kids in a nuclear family is 1.7 children.
Of course, there’s no such thing as 1.7 children. That’s just a statistical mean.
Likewise, you can arrive at an “average” lifespan by factoring in everyone who died before the age of 20.
In a time of high infant morality, when many children didn’t survive to adulthood, that will bring the average way down.
But this doesn’t suggest that no one lived past the age of 45 or 50. The statistical mean is simply a mathematical abstraction.
You can say the same thing about Colonial Americans. A low average life-expectancy due to high infant morality and the like. That didn’t prevent Colonial Americans from living into their 70s and 80s.
“What of Jesus disciples? If they're not already martyred then they must be well beyond the average life expectancy in age. They would be expected to be mostly dead.”
Same fallacy as above.
“If they were lucky enough to get out of Palestine before the ravages of the war, then they would be in lands where the facts are difficult to check.”
i) Once again, you’re assuming, without benefit of argument, a post-70 AD date for the gospels.
Even if we make that assumption, there’s a big difference between, say, 75 AD and 95 AD as far as the outer limits of “average” lifespan.
ii) More to the point, you’re failing to draw an elementary distinction between the date of the gospels and the date of the sources underlying the gospels.
On the basis of retrotranslation from Greek back into Aramaic, Maurice Casey has argued that the primary source material for the Synoptic Gospels could well be contemporaneous with Jesus.
“But there is little evidence to think that converts had any interest in checking the facts even if they could have. Richard Carrier discusses early Christian converts in the book of Acts and early Christian apologists. See chapters 7 and 13. The record shows that early Christians by and large have little to no interest in checking the facts. This claim of yours (which goes along with your claims about the gullibility of people from that time period) is one of your repeated assertions which I find to be transparently false.”
A good example of modern gullibility is a guy like Jon Curry who cites Richard Carrier as if he’s a world authority on early church history. Is Carrier a patrologist by training?
Steve, your posts and comments are so consistently irrational and muddled that I feel no need to respond. You have reading comprehension problems, so many logical problems. I truly wonder if some of the less clueless Christians around here are embarassed by you. I'll wait for Jason's response. He usually gives me at least something that is worth responding to.
ReplyDeleteJon Curry said:
ReplyDelete"Do you have any reason for suggesting that the facts would have been checked?"
Yes, and I've discussed some of those reasons in this thread and previous ones.
You write:
"You talk about Mary being in contact with early Christians. How old is Mary at the time these texts are written? Maybe 90 years old?"
Given that Acts ends with events in 62 A.D., and given that the gospel of Luke was written earlier than Acts, Mary might have been in her seventies when Luke's gospel was written. Matthew may have been written something like a decade later, but it also may have been written earlier. Regardless, I wasn't just addressing the timing of the writing of the gospels. People would have been gathering information about Jesus' background before any gospel was written, and Luke's research (Luke 1:1-4), for example, would have predated his gospel.
You write:
"When the average life expectancy for a male that survives child birth is 45 for a person living in 1st century Palestine, what are the chances she is still alive to corroborate this story?"
You offer us no documentation for your "average life expectancy", Mary wasn't "a male", and we have credible historical sources who report that she lived past 30-33 A.D. (John 19:27, Acts 1:14). If she was in her teens when she gave birth to Jesus, then living past 30-33 A.D. would place her past your "average life expectancy". Maybe she had better than average health.
Regardless, as I explained above, I wasn't just addressing the writing of the gospels. The research that went into the gospels would also be relevant, and so would the historical knowledge of the early Christians in general. If people like the apostles and Jesus' siblings had discussions with Mary about Jesus' background, as they surely would have, then the gospel writers could get that information from those sources without having met Mary themselves.
You write:
"What of Jesus disciples? If they're not already martyred then they must be well beyond the average life expectancy in age. They would be expected to be mostly dead."
Regarding "average life expectancy", I would repeat what I said above about Mary. We don't know much about the dating of the deaths of some of the apostles, but we do have some information. The deaths of Peter, Paul, and James can be placed in the sixties. John lived until the time of the emperor Trajan. So did Jesus' cousin Symeon. We do have some details for some of the relevant sources, but not all of them. Even with the ones we don't have such specific information for, they don't have to have lived long in order for my argument to stand. If an apostle had died in the thirties, for example, shortly after Jesus' death, he would still have been able to have told other people what he knew before he died. And the apostles aren't the only people who were in contact with Mary and other sources with information on Jesus' background.
You write:
"If they were lucky enough to get out of Palestine before the ravages of the war, then they would be in lands where the facts are difficult to check."
I've already explained that I date Matthew and Luke prior to 70 A.D. Besides, not everybody would have left Israel or been killed in "the ravages of the war". And there would have been relevant sources of information outside of Israel, sources that wouldn't be "difficult to check". The apostles traveled widely outside of Israel, some of the churches they were in contact with were well known, and the early churches were highly networked. Cities like Rome, Antioch, and Ephesus were in contact with multiple apostles and other relevant sources. The events surrounding 70 A.D. wouldn't have removed people's memories about what Christians had believed regarding Jesus' background for the first few decades of church history. It's not as if Christians for nearly 40 years would believe and teach that Jesus was born in Nazareth, then all traces of that belief would be eliminated by the events surrounding 70 A.D., then a Bethlehem birthplace would be fabricated and become universally accepted. Some of the people who were alive prior to 70 A.D. would still be alive in the decades afterward. The events surrounding 70 A.D. would disrupt some people's lives in Israel, but that sort of disruption in some lives wouldn't result in widespread forgetting of what had been believed prior to those events or widespread acceptance of fabricated accounts that arose after 70 A.D.
You write:
"But there is little evidence to think that converts had any interest in checking the facts even if they could have."
The issue isn't whether you can find some "converts" who didn't have "any interest in checking the facts". Many belief systems have followers who are largely fideistic, but those more fideistic followers can be accompanied by others who are more concerned with evidence. My first post in this thread discusses some of the reasons why we should believe that there was a significant amount of "checking the facts". I also cited some other sources that discuss the subject, such as Chris Price's article on the book of Acts.
As I said in the first post in this thread, the comments of Luke 1:1-4 aren't the sentiments of an author who's about to go off on flights of speculation about what he thinks must have happened according to his own impressions or the expectations of other people. Objecting that Luke doesn't give us more details about his sources or methods, for example, doesn't change the fact that he tells us that he was interested in eyewitness testimony and careful investigation. The sort of information he reports couldn't have been attained by somebody who didn't have "any interest in checking the facts". You don't attain hundreds of details about timeframes, names, political titles, social customs, weather patterns, geography, etc. by not having "any interest in checking the facts" (see, for example, http://www.parsagard.com).
Even when we have a source who wasn't as knowledgeable as Luke or didn't make as much of an effort to investigate, we can have reason to trust what that source reported. Historians think they can reach many reliable historical conclusions from the letters of Paul, for example, even though those letters weren't works of a historical genre and even though Paul doesn't go into depth about his sources, his methods of research, etc. When a witness testifies in a court of law, we don't expect him to demonstrate that he has all of the knowledge and critical skills of the latest historical scholarship before we'll accept his testimony. Similarly, we rely on what other people tell us in our everyday lives, even if those people aren't specialists and don't give us detailed accounts of their sources and methodology. It wouldn't require much knowledge or effort for Jesus' disciples to ask Him where He was born or for the people of the church of Jerusalem to speak with James about Jesus' background, for example.
You write:
"Richard Carrier discusses early Christian converts in the book of Acts and early Christian apologists. See chapters 7 and 13. The record shows that early Christians by and large have little to no interest in checking the facts. This claim of yours (which goes along with your claims about the gullibility of people from that time period) is one of your repeated assertions which I find to be transparently false."
I've only read portions of Carrier's reply to Holding, and I've read portions of Holding's response:
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose_CC2.html
I've read Carrier's article on the alleged gullibility of ancient people, and I've read Glenn Miller's response:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/mqfx.html
I don't know what you mean by "early Christians by and large". If somebody like Paul or Luke had significant evidence supporting his beliefs, then the fact that some other Christians didn't have such evidence doesn't do much to make your case.
Your claim about "little to no interest in checking the facts" has been refuted on this blog and elsewhere repeatedly, and you've repeatedly failed to respond. The early Christians refer to the significance of eyewitness testimony (Luke 1:2, John 19:35, Acts 1:8, 1:21-22, 2:22, 2:32, 1 Corinthians 9:1, 15:15, Hebrews 2:3, 2 Peter 1:16, 1 John 1:1-3), refer to the significance of physical evidence (Luke 24:12, 24:39, John 20:27, 1 John 1:1-3), refer to the importance of practicing discernment (Matthew 10:16, Acts 17:11, 1 Corinthians 14:20, 1 Thessalonians 5:21, 2 Peter 1:16, Revelation 2:2), refer to their own skepticism about supernatural claims (Luke 24:11, 24:21-24, John 20:2, 20:15, 20:24-25), acknowledge and interact with the arguments of their enemies (Matthew 28:13-15, Mark 3:22, John 12:29, Acts 17:2-3, 18:28, Romans 3:8), etc. These aren't the marks of people who have "no interest in checking the facts", and you don't tell us what "little interest" would be or how it would make your case.
Much of what's reported in the New Testament was of such a public and easily falsifiable nature that both the early Christians and their earliest enemies wouldn't have needed much knowledge or effort to determine that the claims being made were false. If Jesus didn't even exist, as you and Richard Carrier maintain, then somebody like Luke wouldn't need to have the knowledge and skills of a modern historian in order to realize it. Similarly, it wouldn't have required a high degree of education in order for somebody who met an apostle or who was a member of James' church in Jerusalem to ask such sources about Jesus' background (where He was born, whether He was of Davidic descent, etc.). The primary issue isn't whether the early Christians had the highest standards we can imagine. Rather, the primary issue is whether their standards and other relevant historical data are sufficient to warrant conclusions of historical probability. You've done nothing to show us that your conclusions are more probable.
Jon Curry writes:
ReplyDelete"Steve, your posts and comments are so consistently irrational and muddled that I feel no need to respond. You have reading comprehension problems, so many logical problems. I truly wonder if some of the less clueless Christians around here are embarassed by you."
Since you go on to suggest that I'm "less clueless", then I'll respond to what you "truly wonder". No, I'm not embarrassed by Steve. Everybody makes mistakes, including me and including Steve. But the material on this blog demonstrates that he's highly knowledgeable and that he makes far fewer mistakes and mistakes of a less significant nature than you do, for example.
Since you go on to suggest that I'm "less clueless", then I'll respond to what you "truly wonder". No, I'm not embarrassed by Steve.
ReplyDeleteReally? I'm truly suspicious that you are not being honest. Often when I see him making irrational statements I find that you hold your silence. For instance, do you agree that we unbelievers should be ridiculed? I know you do ridicule us, but I haven't seen you defend ridicule biblically. Do you agree with Steve on this? Do you also agree with Steve that the golden rule doesn't apply to non-Christians? You may have argued for the same thing in order to avoid the conclusion that you need to give to those that ask, so perhaps you do agree with him on that.
I also notice that you wisely don't tangle with my brother on the in's and out's of Bayes' Theorem. I think you recognize him as the expert he is on this subject. Steve cluelessly throws himself in and is made to look a fool, though he probably doesn't realize it. You should try and help him out by advising him to take your tack.
I'll have to comment on your response later.
Given that Acts ends with events in 62 A.D., and given that the gospel of Luke was written earlier than Acts, Mary might have been in her seventies when Luke's gospel was written.
ReplyDeleteYes, but given that critical scholarship dates the book of Acts between 80 and 130 Mary might have been in her 140's by the time Acts is written and might further have been in her 150's by the time she gets access to the book in time to correct it.
People would have been gathering information about Jesus' background before any gospel was written, and Luke's research (Luke 1:1-4), for example, would have predated his gospel.
This is a major problem with your reasoning. You assume your own conclusions to derive your conclusions. You are examining the claims about the historicity of these narratives. If you are going to assume the skeptical claim and discuss the problems with it you have to assume the paradigm that comes with it. The paradigm that comes with it would not require that the author explore the facts prior to writing the text. That's only within your paradigm. These writers might look for the historical facts of Jesus' birth if you are right and what they are writing is truthful. But if what they are writing is not truthful, but instead is a midrashic retelling of stories about Jesus, which is a common literary style at the time, then there is no reason to assume that they would be looking for historical evidences prior to writing. You are imposing your conclusions on to the skeptic and saying that within your framework the skeptic is wrong. This is arguing in a circle.
You offer us no documentation for your "average life expectancy"
This is a claim that Richard Carrier has made, and he is an expert in ancient history.
Mary wasn't "a male"
Really? Thanks for that. I said "male" because that is the information I have, and based upon that you can estimate what female life expectancy would be.
If she was in her teens when she gave birth to Jesus, then living past 30-33 A.D. would place her past your "average life expectancy". Maybe she had better than average health.
What does living past 33 AD have to do with anything? Luke is not written by the year 33, so she can't corroborate anything that is said.
If people like the apostles and Jesus' siblings had discussions with Mary about Jesus' background, as they surely would have, then the gospel writers could get that information from those sources without having met Mary themselves.
Could have. Might have. Possibly. Well, another possibility is that they didn't. They didn't say they got this information from any of these sources. Luke goes out of his way to say that he's trying to be careful about what he's recording, talking about how many others have attempted to record the events, and yet he doesn't bother to indicate that he got information from important sources, whether Paul or Jesus siblings, or the disciples. Your hanging your hat on a lot of speculation.
If an apostle had died in the thirties, for example, shortly after Jesus' death, he would still have been able to have told other people what he knew before he died. And the apostles aren't the only people who were in contact with Mary and other sources with information on Jesus' background.
But think about what your saying. Again, if you are going to give your critics a fair hearing, you have to examine their claims within their own paradigm. You can't just assume that people are in contact with relatives and apostles. Your critics are saying these things aren't historical. So if that were true what would it mean? It would mean that 40 years after the events someone reads this book we're calling Luke and sees this claim about Jesus' birth. This reader is probably nowhere near Palestine and has no way to find out if the claims are accurate. What this means is that IF these things are not historical THEN there would be a small likelihood of people attempting to verify claims. That seems true to me.
Besides, not everybody would have left Israel or been killed in "the ravages of the war".
Who said "everyone" was killed? If the disciples were still alive at this time they could very easily have been killed, and now the facts are difficult to check.
And there would have been relevant sources of information outside of Israel, sources that wouldn't be "difficult to check". The apostles traveled widely outside of Israel, some of the churches they were in contact with were well known, and the early churches were highly networked.
That doesn't help much. Suppose this is not historical and further suppose I'm in Rome and I read Luke for the first time, which talks about Jesus birth. If I go to Ephesus to verify it, how can they verify it? They look at it and have no information that contradicts it. Or maybe they do, but it's contained in gnostic documents, like the Infancy Narrative. They say, throw out the infancy narrative. This Lukan version had Jesus as a flesh and blood resurrected body. This must be the good stuff. They probably have no way of proving it wrong. And if everybody in Rome likes the story and it starts to gain a foot hold it's not going to be likely to change.
The events surrounding 70 A.D. wouldn't have removed people's memories about what Christians had believed regarding Jesus' background for the first few decades of church history.
Even if you assume Jesus is historical, anybody that had memories of his childhood would be dead.
It's not as if Christians for nearly 40 years would believe and teach that Jesus was born in Nazareth, then all traces of that belief would be eliminated by the events surrounding 70 A.D., then a Bethlehem birthplace would be fabricated and become universally accepted.
Why assume that they did teach and believe he was born in Nazareth for 40 years? Our earliest sources have nothing at all about where he was born. They don't concern themselves which such things. Paul has nothing about any specific things he did on earth at all of course. Mark doesn't have a birth narrative.
Some of the people who were alive prior to 70 A.D. would still be alive in the decades afterward. The events surrounding 70 A.D. would disrupt some people's lives in Israel, but that sort of disruption in some lives wouldn't result in widespread forgetting of what had been believed prior to those events or widespread acceptance of fabricated accounts that arose after 70 A.D.
The question is not about whether people forget. The question is about whether a truth seeker has any way of disconfirming a false claim, or if there is any interest at all in disconfirming false claims. When whole masses of people with information about Jesus are killed, this simply makes it more difficult to go back and seek out the facts.
My first post in this thread discusses some of the reasons why we should believe that there was a significant amount of "checking the facts". I also cited some other sources that discuss the subject, such as Chris Price's article on the book of Acts.
My citations from Richard Carrier thoroughly rebut your claims.
As I said in the first post in this thread, the comments of Luke 1:1-4 aren't the sentiments of an author who's about to go off on flights of speculation about what he thinks must have happened according to his own impressions or the expectations of other people.
This is more question begging. Luke is the point in dispute, so you can't just say that since Luke says he's trying to be accurate we should assume that is the case.
You don't attain hundreds of details about timeframes, names, political titles, social customs, weather patterns, geography, etc. by not having "any interest in checking the facts" (see, for example, http://www.parsagard.com).
Dan Brown's books have all kinds of accurate descriptions of all of these things. This does not make his stories true.
I've only read portions of Carrier's reply to Holding, and I've read portions of Holding's response:
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose_CC2.html
Which portions of Holding's response are relevant to the discussion?
I don't know what you mean by "early Christians by and large". If somebody like Paul or Luke had significant evidence supporting his beliefs, then the fact that some other Christians didn't have such evidence doesn't do much to make your case.
Sure it does. The question is about whether or not readers would have checked the facts. If Luke wrote what is false, would readers have checked? You say they would have. I say they wouldn't and I give reasons. You respond as if my evidence that they wouldn't makes no difference. It's directly relevant to your claims. I don't know why you don't see how this does make my case.
Your claim about "little to no interest in checking the facts" has been refuted on this blog and elsewhere repeatedly, and you've repeatedly failed to respond. The early Christians refer to the significance of eyewitness testimony (Luke 1:2, John 19:35, Acts 1:8, 1:21-22, 2:22, 2:32, 1 Corinthians 9:1, 15:15, Hebrews 2:3, 2 Peter 1:16, 1 John 1:1-3), refer to the significance of physical evidence (Luke 24:12, 24:39, John 20:27, 1 John 1:1-3), refer to the importance of practicing discernment (Matthew 10:16, Acts 17:11, 1 Corinthians 14:20, 1 Thessalonians 5:21, 2 Peter 1:16, Revelation 2:2), refer to their own skepticism about supernatural claims (Luke 24:11, 24:21-24, John 20:2, 20:15, 20:24-25), acknowledge and interact with the arguments of their enemies (Matthew 28:13-15, Mark 3:22, John 12:29, Acts 17:2-3, 18:28, Romans 3:8), etc. These aren't the marks of people who have "no interest in checking the facts", and you don't tell us what "little interest" would be or how it would make your case.
Despite the fact that early Christians mouthed concern for checking evidence and so forth the actions described of the early Christians indicate that they either did not know how to go about checking facts or had no interest in doing it. Suggesting that eyewitness testimony is important is great, but when the early Christian record indicates mass conversions without evidence, and downright disparaging of historical critical methods, this doesn't bode well for your assertions. I do highly recommend that you read the two sections from Carrier that I suggested.
If Jesus didn't even exist, as you and Richard Carrier maintain, then somebody like Luke wouldn't need to have the knowledge and skills of a modern historian in order to realize it.
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on when he's writing, where he's located, who he has access to. I can very easily write historical fiction without the existence of eyewitnesses to my claims.
Similarly, it wouldn't have required a high degree of education in order for somebody who met an apostle or who was a member of James' church in Jerusalem to ask such sources about Jesus' background (where He was born, whether He was of Davidic descent, etc.).
How would you go about doing that when James is dead and the whole church is destroyed due to the war? That's what was going on by the time these claims are being made. There is no evidence that these claims were made prior to this.
Jon Curry writes:
ReplyDelete"Often when I see him making irrational statements I find that you hold your silence. For instance, do you agree that we unbelievers should be ridiculed? I know you do ridicule us, but I haven't seen you defend ridicule biblically. Do you agree with Steve on this? Do you also agree with Steve that the golden rule doesn't apply to non-Christians? You may have argued for the same thing in order to avoid the conclusion that you need to give to those that ask, so perhaps you do agree with him on that. I also notice that you wisely don't tangle with my brother on the in's and out's of Bayes' Theorem. I think you recognize him as the expert he is on this subject. Steve cluelessly throws himself in and is made to look a fool, though he probably doesn't realize it."
In a given week, Steve might post a couple dozen times or more, if you combine his articles and what he writes in the comment boxes. I'm not going to write a response to every one of his posts. I'll probably only write responses to a small minority of them, if any, even if I agree with most or all of them.
In addition to speculating about what you think my motives are for not responding to some of Steve's posts, you tell us that I "may have argued for the same thing" when discussing Matthew 5:42. I didn't argue that the passage is only applicable to believers. That's not my position.
Steve's arguments have been more nuanced than what you describe above, and whether I agree with him is going to vary from case to case. Issues such as which language is acceptable and which isn't or how different people should be treated in different contexts are often difficult to judge and depend largely on motivations that can't be known by anybody other than the person who's speaking. I sometimes disagree with an approach Steve will take toward other people, and he'll sometimes disagree with the approach I take. I also disagree with the approach taken by some of the non-Christians who post here, but I usually don't comment on the subject. Disagreements over issues of the proper treatment of other people are going to occur frequently in a context like this blog. It's not plausible to make an issue out of it more than a small percentage of the time it happens. You have to make judgments about whether you think the person already realizes that he did something wrong, whether somebody else has already corrected him, etc. There are some non-Christians who post here who have never been criticized by me, as far as I recall, in part because other people have already said what would need to be said.
Unbelievers are to be respected as bearers of the image of God and are to be loved, for example, although some passages cited to support such concepts are addressing only some unbelievers or don't have some of the implications people often assume that they have. It can be appropriate to ridicule if the term "ridicule" is understood properly. If characteristics such as an absence of all respect or an absence of all love are included, then ridicule of that sort isn't acceptable. I try to avoid getting close to the borderline between what's acceptable and unacceptable, though I sometimes err. Something like a taunt song can be appropriate in some circumstances, but, from what I know of my own sinful tendencies, I think it's better for me to keep a distance from it, at least as a general principle. I don't have Divine inspiration giving me detailed knowledge of just what language is appropriate in specific circumstances. I'm not an author of scripture.
If Steve makes a bad judgment in a given post about how to treat another person or misinterprets a passage of scripture relevant to the subject, I don't think that such an error places him in a category comparable to or worse than yours. The errors in your posts are of a significantly different nature than what you're criticizing Steve for (as discussed, for example, at http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/11/jon-curry-and-those-clueless.html). You frequently err on subjects that are less difficult to judge, and you err more often and to a higher degree.
Steve has already said much of what needs to be said in response to Jon. I'll add some comments of my own.
ReplyDeleteJon writes:
"But if what they are writing is not truthful, but instead is a midrashic retelling of stories about Jesus, which is a common literary style at the time, then there is no reason to assume that they would be looking for historical evidences prior to writing."
I've already addressed the genre of the infancy narratives and the gospels in general. If you want to argue that unhistorical midrash is involved, then you need to document that assertion and interact with what I've documented.
You write:
"This is a claim that Richard Carrier has made, and he is an expert in ancient history."
In addition to what Steve has said about Richard Carrier, you would need to cite a source within Carrier's writings. Telling us that you read it in Richard Carrier's writings doesn't give us much to work with.
You write:
"I said 'male' because that is the information I have, and based upon that you can estimate what female life expectancy would be."
How are you estimating it? A lot would depend on whether factors like male involvement in warfare is significantly influencing the figure for males.
You write:
"Luke is not written by the year 33, so she can't corroborate anything that is said."
Again, the writing of the gospels and corroboration after their writing aren't the only relevant issues. If Mary was in contact with people like the disciples and Jesus' siblings, as she surely would have been, then we can reasonably expect her to have influenced their view of Jesus' background. As I explained before, if people like Mary, Joseph, Jesus, and James had spent decades thinking and saying that Jesus was born in Nazareth, for example, we would expect such a situation to leave ripples in the historical record. We wouldn't expect all Christians to change their view on the subject as soon as people like Jesus' brothers had died, and we wouldn't expect the opponents of Christianity to go along with such a change. Even if Mary had died in the thirties, she still would have influenced how people viewed Jesus' background, and so would other sources who lived past the thirties.
You write:
"Well, another possibility is that they didn't. They didn't say they got this information from any of these sources."
The issue is probability, not possibility. The relatives of Jesus are prominent in the New Testament, and Hegesippus' report about their prominence late in the first century is credible. If people were interested in Jesus' background, as they would have been and as the New Testament documents reflect, they would see the logical connection between Jesus' relatives and knowledge of Jesus' background. Your suggestion that they might not have consulted those relatives, despite being with them and having them in prominent positions in the church for decades, is absurd. As I've documented, the earliest Christians repeatedly refer to their concern for eyewitness testimony. The idea that they would have failed to have seen the logical connection between Jesus' relatives and eyewitness testimony about Jesus' background is ridiculous. It's also ridiculous to suggest that people wouldn't have been asking Jesus and His relatives about issues like His birthplace and His ancestry during His public ministry. Even if we were to accept the unreasonable concept that there wasn't much interest in seeking such information from such sources, those sources would have been in a position to influence any information that was circulating from other sources. If Paul refers to Jesus as a descendant of David, or Luke refers to Jesus as born in Bethlehem, somebody like James would be able to correct any misconceptions. If you want to suggest that such sources either remained silent or were ignored when they attempted to make corrections, then you're piling improbability upon improbability. If a community of people highly concerned with eyewitness testimony and in contact with Jesus and some of His closest relatives report that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, for example, why are we supposed to conclude that it's probable that he was born somewhere else?
You write:
"Luke goes out of his way to say that he's trying to be careful about what he's recording, talking about how many others have attempted to record the events, and yet he doesn't bother to indicate that he got information from important sources, whether Paul or Jesus siblings, or the disciples."
Luke's contemporaries knew who he was. He was known to be active in apostolic circles. The "we" passages in Acts place him in contact with Paul, James, and other prominent figures of the apostolic era. It's absurd to suggest that a person who expresses so much concern with eyewitness testimony, and who refers to the apostles and brothers of Jesus as contemporaries, some of whom he had met, wouldn't be getting information from them about Jesus and His background. To suggest that Luke would travel with Paul and meet James, for example, yet would only go to sources more distant from Jesus to get his information, is unreasonable. Even if he didn't consult sources like the apostles and Jesus' relatives on issues surrounding Jesus' background, such sources would have been around to influence those other sources Luke consulted and to correct any misconceptions Luke or anybody else had.
You're suggesting that Jesus and His relatives didn't have much influence on how the early Christians viewed Jesus' background. That's an absurd suggestion. It's not a probability. It's an appeal to a highly unlikely possibility, because you don't like what's probable.
You write:
"You can't just assume that people are in contact with relatives and apostles. Your critics are saying these things aren't historical."
I've repeatedly given documentation for Jesus' existence. If He existed, then He probably had some living relatives. I've also offered documentation for the existence of specific relatives, such as Mary and James. If you want us to believe that all of these sources are wrong, then you need to explain why. Instead, you've repeatedly left threads in which I've discussed such issues, without interacting with what I've argued.
You write:
"If the disciples were still alive at this time they could very easily have been killed, and now the facts are difficult to check."
Again, we have sources who refer to men like John living past 70 A.D. Even if all of the apostles and Jesus' relatives had died in 70 A.D. or earlier, the people they influenced wouldn't have all died or all forgotten what they had been told. And the opponents of Christianity wouldn't have all died or all forgotten what the earliest Christians had believed.
You write:
"Suppose this is not historical and further suppose I'm in Rome and I read Luke for the first time, which talks about Jesus birth. If I go to Ephesus to verify it, how can they verify it?"
Men like Peter, Paul, and John were in such cities, and other relevant sources, like James, were in contact with cities like Antioch. Information about Jesus' background would have been circulating long before any of the gospels were written. It's not as if people in Rome, Ephesus, or Antioch would only come to an awareness of issues like Jesus' ancestry and His birthplace when they received a copy of Luke's gospel.
You write:
"Or maybe they do, but it's contained in gnostic documents, like the Infancy Narrative. They say, throw out the infancy narrative. This Lukan version had Jesus as a flesh and blood resurrected body. This must be the good stuff."
You give us no evidence that such a process occurred, and I've repeatedly documented that the canonical process didn't happen in the manner you've suggested. You've repeatedly ignored what I've documented.
You write:
"And if everybody in Rome likes the story and it starts to gain a foot hold it's not going to be likely to change."
Did the early enemies of Christianity "like it" and go along with the change also?
You write:
"Why assume that they did teach and believe he was born in Nazareth for 40 years? Our earliest sources have nothing at all about where he was born. They don't concern themselves which such things. Paul has nothing about any specific things he did on earth at all of course."
Birthplace was a significant issue in ancient times, particularly for a figure perceived as the Messiah. Ancient Jewish tradition, not just the New Testament, considered Micah 5:2 Messianic. Since Paul was writing letters, not biographies, and was writing to people who were already Christians, we have no reason to expect Jesus' birthplace to be directly discussed in his writings.
You write:
"When whole masses of people with information about Jesus are killed, this simply makes it more difficult to go back and seek out the facts."
Which "masses" were killed? And what about the people who weren't killed?
You write:
"My citations from Richard Carrier thoroughly rebut your claims."
So you claim.
You write:
"Luke is the point in dispute, so you can't just say that since Luke says he's trying to be accurate we should assume that is the case."
Are you suggesting that Luke was interested in evidence, but failed to attain it? Or are you suggesting that he was being deceptive? If the former, then why would he have failed and why do you think that he did? If the latter, then why would he try to deceive Christians by telling them that he was interested in evidence, then go on to give hundreds of historical details in a historical narrative? If Luke's contemporary Christians weren't interested in evidence, then why would Luke think that he should make a claim of having evidence in his attempt to deceive them?
Once again, you're rejecting the probable in favor of the highly unlikely. The early Christians repeatedly not only claimed to be interested in eyewitness testimony, but also composed creeds centered on the concept (1 Corinthians 15), set up a church government structure centered on the concept (the apostolic office), used it as a canonical criterion (apostolicity), appealed to it in arguments for Christianity (Acts 2:22, 2:32), etc. Churches in cities like Jerusalem and Rome became prominent largely because of their apostolic ties. From the writings of Paul (Galatians 1:18-2:10) onward (Papias, Irenaeus, etc.), we find Christians seeking out eyewitnesses and traveling to apostolic churches because of the significance placed on such concepts. The early Christians didn't just claim to be interested in eyewitness testimony. They acted on the claim. As Steve has mentioned, I've already cited the work of Richard Bauckham on this subject, as well as a lot of other evidence that you've repeatedly ignored in previous threads.
You write:
"Which portions of Holding's response are relevant to the discussion?"
The portions that respond to the sections of Carrier's work that you've cited are relevant. Holding's response is divided into sections corresponding to Carrier's material.
You write:
"How would you go about doing that when James is dead and the whole church is destroyed due to the war?"
Why are we supposed to think that "the whole church is destroyed due to the war"?
jon curry said...
ReplyDelete"I also notice that you wisely don't tangle with my brother on the in's and out's of Bayes' Theorem. I think you recognize him as the expert he is on this subject."
Is he, now. Perhaps Jon would like to share his brother's curriculum vitae with us. Is Bill Curry a tenured professor of logic at some noted university? Has he published articles on Bayesean probability theory in refereed professional journals? Has MIT published a book of his on Bayesean probability theory?
"Yes, but given that critical scholarship dates the book of Acts between 80 and 130 Mary might have been in her 140's by the time Acts is written and might further have been in her 150's by the time she gets access to the book in time to correct it."
Alluding to critical opinion is not the same thing as making a reasoned case. Where are the supporting arguments?
"This is a major problem with your reasoning. You assume your own conclusions to derive your conclusions."
No "assumption." Jason is beginning with a prima facie claim in the primary sources. So the question is where the burden of proof would lie.
Jon's knee-jerk scepticism rules out the possibility of historical knowledge.
"If you are going to assume the skeptical claim and discuss the problems with it you have to assume the paradigm that comes with it. The paradigm that comes with it would not require that the author explore the facts prior to writing the text."
Jason is under no obligation to argue both sides of the case. What reason is there to credit the sceptical paradigm?
"But if what they are writing is not truthful, but instead is a midrashic retelling of stories about Jesus, which is a common literary style at the time, then there is no reason to assume that they would be looking for historical evidences prior to writing."
i) This is an assertion, not an argument. "Midrash" is a very rubbery term. Jon needs to define his terms, using scholarly sources to back up his claims.
ii) And does a Gentile writer like Luke also employ "midrash"?
"You are imposing your conclusions on to the skeptic and saying that within your framework the skeptic is wrong. This is arguing in a circle."
Jason doesn't reinvent the wheel every time he does a new post. But he gives copious documentation for his claims at one time or another.
"This is a claim that Richard Carrier has made, and he is an expert in ancient history."
Ancient history is a very big field. Carrier has nothing beyond an MA He's not a tenured professor. He's published no books by major academic publishing houses like Oxford.
If you want us to consider his arguments, that's one thing. But don't cite him as a world authority.
"Really? Thanks for that. I said 'male' because that is the information I have, and based upon that you can estimate what female life expectancy would be."
This disregards the issue of whether the "average" lifespan is simply a statistical mean. The "average lifespan" for 17-18C Europeans was low. But that didn't prevent famous Europeans from living into their 70s and 80s.
"What does living past 33 AD have to do with anything?"
It goes to the distinction between the date of the primary source and the date of the secondary source. Pretty elementary.
"Luke is not written by the year 33, so she can't corroborate anything that is said."
Now he's trying to shift the burden of proof to corroboration after the fact.
Of course, if we had a putative Gospel According to Mary, Jon would deny the historicity of that document as well.
"Could have. Might have. Possibly. Well, another possibility is that they didn't. They didn't say they got this information from any of these sources. Luke goes out of his way to say that he's trying to be careful about what he's recording, talking about how many others have attempted to record the events, and yet he doesn't bother to indicate that he got information from important sources, whether Paul or Jesus siblings, or the disciples. Your hanging your hat on a lot of speculation."
From people named in the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, we get a good idea of the circle of informants.
Jason recently linked to an important article by Bauckham, which Jon ignores.
The NT church was a tightknit, familial body. Jewish culture was tribal, consisting in extended families. Patronage was the social-glue of Roman culture.
"Again, if you are going to give your critics a fair hearing, you have to examine their claims within their own paradigm. You can't just assume that people are in contact with relatives and apostles."
The onus lies on Jon to make a case for his paradigm.
"Your critics are saying these things aren't historical."
Saying it and showing it are two different things. Are they in a position to know what they're talking about? Historical scepticism cuts both ways. Don't bleed to death from that doubled-edge sword of yours, Jon.
"Who said "everyone" was killed? If the disciples were still alive at this time they could very easily have been killed, and now the facts are difficult to check."
Jon is confusing the localized Jewish revolt, which ended with the sack of Jerusalem in AD 70, with the Bar Kokhba War, which resulted in the expulsion of the Jews from Palestine.
"Dan Brown's books have all kinds of accurate descriptions of all of these things. This does not make his stories true."
Poor analogy. It takes a lot of research to do that. Not at all the same as "Midrash."