Sunday, November 19, 2006

Why Are The Infancy Narratives So Different?

Robert Stein lists eleven points of agreement between the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke (The New American Commentary: Luke [Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 2003], n. 9 on pp. 70-71). Darrell Bock lists nineteen (Luke, Volume 1, 1:1-9:50 [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1994], pp. 71-72). We can arrive at a lower or higher number, depending on how many details we include. Critics make much of the differences between the two gospels, but there's a lot of overlap, and the differences can be harmonized:

"But the stories [in the infancy narratives] have long been shown to be compatible (Machen), even mutually complementary. Moreover literary independence of Matthew and Luke at this point does not demand the conclusion that the two evangelists were ignorant of the other's content. Yet if they were, their differences suggest to some the strength of mutual compatibility without collusion. Matthew focuses largely on Joseph, Luke on Mary. R.E. Brown (Birth of Messiah, p. 35) does not accept this because he finds it inconceivable that Joseph could have told his story without mentioning the Annunciation or that Mary could have passed on her story without mentioning the flight to Egypt. True enough, though it does not follow that the evangelists were bound to include all they knew. It is hard to imagine how the Annunciation would have fit in very well with Matthew's themes. Moreover we have already observed that Matthew was prepared to omit things he knew in order to present his chosen themes coherently and concisely." (D.A. Carson, The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Matthew, Chapters 1 Through 12 [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1995], p. 71)

Mark would have known of some of Jesus' resurrection appearances (Mark 16:7, 1 Corinthians 15:5-8), yet he chose not to include them in his gospel. John's gospel closes with a reference to other material that could have been included, but wasn't (John 21:25). Matthew and Luke, covering months or years of events surrounding Jesus' birth, and doing so with different sources and different objectives, can plausibly differ to a significant degree. One of Luke's objectives in writing his gospel was to supplement what was already available (Luke 1:1-4).

As I've mentioned in previous articles (here and here), the gospels of Matthew and Luke were widely accepted and interpreted as giving harmonious historical accounts early on. A small minority of sources, such as Marcion and his followers, would reject one or both of the two gospels on other grounds (not because of inconsistencies in the infancy accounts), but the large majority of professing Christians accepted both. Not only were Matthew and Luke accepted across the Christian mainstream, but Irenaeus comments that they were widely accepted among heretical groups as well (Against Heresies, 3:11:7, 3:12:12).

It can't be argued that the early Christians accepted both gospels and interpreted them as harmonious historical accounts because they were unaware of the differences. Gospel harmonies such as Tatian's wouldn't have existed if there was no awareness of the differences among the gospels. Eusebius refers to how "every believer" offered an explanation for the differences between the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke (Church History, 1:7:1). The early Christians were willing to dispute the canonicity of books like 2 Peter and Revelation, so it doesn't seem that they accepted the canonical books, like the gospels, uncritically. If Matthew and Luke were giving radically contradictory accounts of the events surrounding Jesus' infancy, as modern critics often allege, the earliest Christians, including contemporaries of the apostles and people who lived just after their time, don't seem to have been aware of it. There doesn't seem to have been any separation between a Matthean community and a Lukan community that's left any traces in the historical record. Rather, the two gospels were accepted together as harmonious from as far back as we can trace the issue. Given Luke's apostolic ties and his positive portrayal of the apostles and other early church leaders in Luke and Acts, it makes sense that he and Matthew would hold similar views.

To keep the differences between the infancy narratives in perspective, let's consider what sort of contradictions could have existed. If the gospel authors were as unconcerned with evidence and as isolated from other Christians as modern critics often suggest, then why don't we see something like one gospel describing a virgin birth while the other describes conception by sexual intercourse? Why doesn't one gospel have Jesus come to earth as a grown man around 20 B.C. while the other has Jesus born into a family around 10 A.D.? Why do they even mention Nazareth, if the gospel authors were as unconcerned with historical accuracy as some critics suggest? Why not just have Jesus in Bethlehem throughout His pre-ministry life? Etc. More reasonable critics will acknowledge that there's a significant core of agreement between Matthew and Luke and that there was some significant concern about historical accuracy by both authors.

Harmonization is commonplace in historical research. Different sources will often focus on different issues. A biographer of John F. Kennedy who wants to focus on Kennedy's foreign policy will differ significantly from another biographer who's focusing on Kennedy's influence on the civil rights movement. When discussing the role of religion in the founding of America, an atheist web site might focus on the anti-religious and unorthodox sentiments of men like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, while a Christian web site might focus on their pro-religious and orthodox beliefs. Most of the time, both representations of the men are accurate, but in different contexts. The same man who speaks negatively of religion in the context of discussing state churches might speak positively of the influence of religious principles on society. Quotes that may seem significantly different on the surface can be harmonized upon closer analysis.

Matthew was a Jew writing largely for a Jewish audience, whereas Luke was a Gentile writing largely for a Gentile audience. Matthew begins his genealogy with Abraham, the father of the Jewish people, whereas Luke traces Jesus' genealogy back to Adam. That's a difference, but not a contradiction, and it's a difference on an issue about which all would agree that both authors knew the relevant facts. Nobody would argue that Matthew was unaware that the human race can be traced back further than Abraham. Similarly, Matthew and Luke would have known that Joseph and Mary both needed an explanation for Mary's pregnancy. Matthew chooses to focus on how Joseph came to the conclusion that God was involved, and Luke focuses on Mary. But it would be ridiculous to suggest that Matthew thought that Mary didn't need any explanation and that she never discussed the issue with Joseph or anybody else. Matthew had to have known about and thought about more than what he writes about. Matthew would have known that Jesus was circumcised and that He and His parents went through other traditional Jewish practices, even though he doesn't discuss such issues as Luke does. Similarly, Luke decides to discuss John the Baptist's background and to parallel it with the background of Jesus, whereas Matthew doesn't. Yet, as the remainder of Matthew's gospel shows, Matthew was aware that Jesus and John were around the same age and had close ties (Matthew 3:14). There are many events and themes surrounding the infancy of Jesus, and it makes sense for two authors to make some different choices about what to address and in what manner. If they could differ when discussing issues where both are known to have been aware of the relevant facts, such as in the examples discussed above, then we should be cautious in reaching the conclusion that they contradicted each other in areas where we have less information.

To make an accurate assessment of the consistency of the birth narratives, we have to know what to compare. Instead of comparing Matthew 1-2 to Luke 1-2 and the genealogy in Luke 3, it makes more sense to compare Matthew 1 to Luke's material. In other words, the events of Matthew 2 seem to postdate the events Luke addresses. Matthew 2:16 suggests that a significant amount of time may have passed ("two years old and under"). Luke is concerned with addressing the family's submission to the Jewish law, and so he concludes his account of Jesus' infancy there and mentions that the family settled in Nazareth afterward (Luke 2:39). If the proper comparison is primarily between Matthew 1 and Luke's material (Matthew 2 has some relevance, but is from a later timeframe), then there isn't much to explain. The material in Matthew 1 is of a general nature and is consistent with what Luke records. The most significant difference would be between the genealogies, and it was common practice in ancient times to arrange genealogies according to numerical patterns, to follow legal rather than biological relationships, to leave out some generations, etc.:

"In general, people map out genealogies to accomplish political, social, or religious purposes such as to explain how peoples are related to one another or to legitimate a political union of groups and peoples or to authenticate leadership status for certain families. They often begin with a common ancestor, finish with the immediate ancestors of the person making the genealogy, and are abbreviated or have variations in the middle." (Anthony J. Saldarini, in James D.G. Dunn and John W. Rogerson, ed., Eerdmans Commentary On The Bible [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2003], p. 1006)

There are multiple ways to harmonize the genealogies of Matthew and Luke (see, for example, here and Steve Hays' comments on pages 155-158 of his e-book This Joyful Eastertide). The primary issue here, when considering historicity, ought to be the upfront plausibility of the gospel writers’ composing reliable genealogies. We know that at least some sources kept genealogical records during the timeframe in question, and we know that Matthew and Luke were early sources living at a time when many relatives of Jesus were still alive and in prominent places in the church. The availability of such sources is more significant than the differences between the genealogies, since it was commonplace for genealogies to be rendered in different ways according to different principles.

What about the geographical setting of Matthew 1? Critics make much of the reference to Bethlehem in Matthew 2:1 by suggesting that it justifies an assumption that everything that occurred in chapter 1 occurred in Bethlehem, which would contradict Luke's account. But Matthew 2:1 only places the birth itself there, which agrees with Luke. Rather than creating a problem, Matthew 2:1 is further evidence of agreement between the two accounts, particularly given the fact that Matthew refrains from mentioning a location earlier:

"In the larger shape of Matthew's narrative it is a little surprising to have the location and timing of Jesus' birth introduced for the first time here [in Matthew 2:1] and not at the point where Mary, Joseph, and Jesus first enter the narrative...Matthew offers no comment on how it is that the birth happened to take place in Bethlehem." (John Nolland, The Gospel Of Matthew [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2005], p. 107)

Contrast Matthew's initial silence on the location of the events with his emphasis on locations in chapter 2 (verses 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 13-16, 20-23). Matthew may have had more information on locations for the later events, so that he refrained from commenting on locations earlier, associating Bethlehem with the birth itself, not the earlier events.

Issues like these have been addressed in many places by conservative scholarship, such as in Craig Keener's commentary on Matthew (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1999) and Darrell Bock's commentary on Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1994). Even if we were to conclude that there are some inconsistencies between the accounts in Matthew and Luke, we'd still have to address the historicity of the material. The accounts could have some errors and inconsistencies, yet still be largely historical. Many people, such as Raymond Brown, have accepted some significant portions of the infancy narratives as historically plausible or probable while rejecting inerrancy. Some people accept the historicity of something like the virgin birth or Jesus' resurrection without believing in the inerrancy of scripture. As I've said before, though I don't consider such a position the best option, it is more reasonable than the radical skepticism of naturalists and some other critics of Christianity.

However, we don't have any good reason to conclude that the infancy accounts are inconsistent. As the large number of events discussed in both gospels illustrates, and as the timeframe referred to in Matthew 2:16 suggests, Matthew and Luke would have had many issues, themes, and angles to choose from in compiling an account. They agree in the general outlines of their narratives, and they differ in much of what they include and don't include. The differences aren't sufficient to justify the conclusion that either account is erroneous, much less that both accounts are as unhistorical as some critics claim.

8 comments:

  1. John Loftus said:

    "I noticed you rely on books published by Eerdmans, Baker Books, Broadman Press, and Zondervan. Conservative presses. If this is all you read then I see why you can skip over the problems in the birth Narratives. That was one of my points. I didn't just read conservative books."

    My series on the infancy narratives has also cited books by publishers like Hendrickson, Oxford University Press, and Prentice Hall. The first post in the series quoted Clayton Jefford. He's a liberal and a member of the Jesus Seminar. I also cited Bart Ehrman, who isn't a conservative. Two of the books I've cited in this series have been edited by Raymond Brown, the same source you focused on. I also quoted Brown in my series on the infancy narratives last year. You claim that publishers like Eerdmans are "conservative presses", yet the Eerdmans commentary cited by me in this thread is edited by James Dunn, who isn't a conservative, and the commentary argues for late dates for Old Testament books or portions of them, such as Isaiah and Daniel. The contributors repeatedly argue that the Bible is in error, including in the infancy narratives. I cited John Nolland's commentary on Matthew. Nolland is a moderate, not a conservative, and his commentary was published by Eerdmans. Would you explain why we're supposed to think that Eerdmans is a "conservative press" that should be dismissed as you dismiss it above?

    Even if I had only cited conservative sources, you'd still have to address their arguments. Judging from past experiences, I doubt that you're well prepared to do it. That's why you repeatedly use bad arguments that were refuted long ago. That's why you so often leave discussions without interacting with what other people have argued against your position.

    In addition to the modern sources I've consulted, I've read thousands of pages of early Christian literature. Whether the publishers of the books I've cited are conservative by your standards isn't the only relevant issue.

    You write:

    "But until you explain every single discrepancy you have not harmonized the accounts."

    Different people claim different discrepancies. I've addressed some of the alleged errors, and I've given references to other sources that discuss these issues.

    You write:

    "Many scholars come to think that the gospel writers wrote portions of their story based upon OT prophecies, and that's what I think too."

    I've already addressed that argument, earlier in this series and elsewhere.

    You write:

    "Take for instance the Bethlehem star. It was symbolic and taken directly from Numbers 24:17, just like the Micah 5;2 prophecy about a king born in Bethlehem was actualized in Luke."

    What do you mean by "it was symbolic"? Something can occur as a historical event, yet be symbolic, so what's your point? And what do you mean when you say that it was "taken directly from Numbers 24:17"? Do you mean that the passage formed an expectation among some first century Jews, like Matthew? Do you mean that Matthew fabricated the account because he thought that it would be appropriate to associate a star with Jesus under the influence of Numbers 24?

    John Nolland writes:

    "But specific links are not to be found: the star in Numbers does not signal the ruler but is the ruler. Where common vocabulary does occur in Mt. 2:16 and Nu. 22:27, 29, the referent in Matthew is Herod and not the Magi as required to create the parallel....the LXX of Nu. 24:17 looks striking at first, but a different word is used for star, and the star arises 'out of Jacob', not in the heavens." (The Gospel Of Matthew [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2005], p. 111 and n. 111 on p. 111)

    Furthermore, Matthew frequently mentions prophecy fulfillment. His infancy material repeatedly refers to events occurring to fulfill what the scriptures predicted. He makes no such comment about the star and Numbers 24. If he did think of Numbers 24 Messianically, there would be no way for us to know that he fabricated his account of the star as a result. I've discussed issues of genre and prophecy fulfillment in previous posts in this series. As I said in one of those posts:

    "The concept that the gospels are making up stories to fulfill Old Testament prophecies or themes is likewise dubious. Rather than making up stories to align with Old Testament passages, Matthew has so much difficulty finding an Old Testament parallel for Jesus’ living in Nazareth that he appeals to a general theme of the prophets (plural) rather than citing a specific Old Testament text (Matthew 2:23). We have no evidence of Jews prior to Matthew’s time expecting the Messiah to come from Egypt in fulfillment of Hosea 11:1. Yet, Matthew cites the passage (Matthew 2:15). It seems, then, that Matthew was looking for Old Testament passages relevant to recent events rather than making up stories to align with Messianic expectations. Instead of the Old Testament shaping Matthew’s account of Jesus’ early life, the historical information Matthew had concerning Jesus’ early life shaped his use of the Old Testament. R.T. France comments that 'there is no indication that either [Jeremiah 31:15 or Hosea 11:1] was interpreted Messianically at the time; and the 'quotation' in Matthew 2:23 does not appear in the Old Testament at all…In fact the aim of the formula-quotations in chapter 2 [of Matthew] seems to be primarily apologetic, explaining some of the unexpected features in Jesus’ background, particularly his geographical origins. It would be a strange apologetic which invented 'facts' in order to defend them!' (Matthew [Grand Rapids, Michigan: InterVarsity Press, 1999], p. 71) Luke’s infancy account comes just after his prologue that expresses concern for historical information coming from eyewitnesses and research (Luke 1:1-4). Whether Matthew and Luke were accurate in the historical information they conveyed is an issue I'll be addressing in future posts, but my focus here is on their intention to convey historical information. The concept that Luke would write the prologue that he wrote for his gospel, then proceed to borrow from pagan mythology or otherwise give accounts that he didn't consider historical, surely isn't the most natural way to read the text." (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/11/were-infancy-narratives-meant-to.html)

    Regarding the historicity of the star, Nolland argues that "a miraculously provided heavenly light" would be needed to explain some elements of the passage, though other elements could be explained by some natural event (p. 110). He goes on:

    "Since various constellations of stars could be associated with the birth of a king (see Hengel and Merkel, 'Magier', 147 n. 40, for references) and ancient astrology is only imperfectly understood, we can have no great confidence in any particular proposal." (n. 109 on p. 111)

    Matthew 2:9 is often taken as evidence that the event was at least partially supernatural. See also Steve Hays' comments in This Joyful Eastertide (http://www.reformed.plus.com/triablogue/ebooks.html), p. 6, and see J.P. Holding's comments at http://www.tektonics.org/af/birthnarr.html.

    Regarding Micah 5 and the Bethlehem birthplace, you can consult the archives to read the material I've posted on the subject in the past. I'll be addressing it again later this year.

    You write:

    "H. R. Reimarus (A.D. 1768) observed long ago that even if it were some sort of comet with a tail, 'it is too high to point to a specific house.'"

    And scholars who have lived more recently than the eighteenth century have noted that Matthew 2:9 doesn't mention the identification of a house. We don't know how the magi found the house, nor do we need to know. A newborn child wouldn't be too difficult to find once the city was known, if it was a small city. We don't know whether the star served as confirmation of the city or identified the particular dwelling place of the child.

    You write:

    "Pope Leo I (A.D. 461) proposed that the star was invisible to the Jews because of their blindness."

    What relevance is that supposed to have? I'm not Leo, I'm not a Roman Catholic, I doubt that any Catholics consider his comments on the subject infallible, and the use of bad arguments by other professing Christians doesn't do much to affect the quality of my arguments. A lot of atheists have used bad arguments as well.

    You write:

    "E. P. Sanders asks, 'Why take the star of Matthew’s story to be a real astral event and ignore what the author says about it?' [The Historical Figure of Jesus (p. 55)]."

    We take Matthew's account as historical because he's a reliable source, he was writing in a historical genre, his account is historically plausible, and it seems to have been interpreted as a reference to a historical event by the earliest interpreters.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The L-Train states "Eerdmans, Baker Books...Conservative presses.

    Oh Johnny you really don't know what you're talking about here. While these publisher might have been conservative presses back in the day...they are not now.

    Keep up on your homework John.

    ReplyDelete
  3. John W. Loftus said...
    "I noticed you rely on books published by Eerdmans, Baker Books, Broadman Press, and Zondervan. Conservative presses."

    i)The rule of thumb is that conservatives read liberals, but liberals don't read conservatives.

    So even if your accusation were true (which it's not), conservative books interact with liberal objections.

    ii)But, assuming for the sake of argument, that Jason overlooked some important liberal objections, then you can point them out to him.

    Just to say that he may have left out some liberal objections because he only reads conservative literature, even if this were true (which it isn't), doesn't amount to any sort of argument that he has, in fact, left out some liberal objections.

    And if he has, then—since you are now on the other side of the fence—you can raise any objections you please, and we'll respond accordingly.

    "Jeffy, I know they have moved to the left somewhat, but what does that say about conservatism as a whole? What starts out as conservative drifts to the left. That's why seminaries that used to be conservative also move to the left and conservative split off and start new ones every so often. Do your homeword on why this is so. It couldn't be that the arguments just aren't there, could it? Naw."

    Several problems with your analysis:

    i)Institutions aren't individuals. They are corporate abstractions. The fact that an institution may liberalize does not imply that individuals went liberal. It may merely mean that a once-conservative institution was infiltrated from the outside by liberals coming in and diluting the conservative constituency. Or by second and third-generation members who were never conservative to begin with.

    ii)Liberals don't start their own churches or parachurch ministries (e.g. seminaries, Christian colleges).

    Rather, they infiltrate preexisting institutions. They take over preexisting institutions.

    iii)And when they succeed in pulling a Christian institution to the left, the institution begins to wither and die.

    iv)It's true that some individuals start out on the right, and migrate to the left.

    It's equally true that some individuals start out on the left, and migrate to the right.

    There's no leftward trend at the individual level. In every generation you have liberals and conservatives.

    In every generation, you have some defection from one side to the other. It goes both ways.

    v)Evangelical institutions expand while liberal institutions contract.

    "Jason, you can keep on saying that my arguments have been refuted long ago, all you want to."

    No, Jason doesn't merely *say* that. Rather, he demonstrates that fact from one post after another.

    "I think your worldview has been refuted long ago in people like David Hume too."

    There are a number of secular philosophers who admit that Hume's critique of natural theology and/or miracles is deeply flawed.

    "But old fashioneded ideas die out slowly. I mean, after all, Amish people still defend their lifestyle from the Bible."

    Atheism is another old idea. After all, unbelievers still defend their infidelity from Hume, Kant, Astruc, Voltaire, and Thomas Paine.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Matthew and Luke, covering months or years of events surrounding Jesus' birth, and doing so with different sources and different objectives, can plausibly differ to a significant degree.

    They could. But how much would they have to disagree before you'd concede that they contradict one another? I think it would take an amount of disagreement that would be unlikely to actually be seen. They date the birth at different times. They locate Jesus immediately following the birth at different places. They describe different ancestors for Jesus' earthly father. None of this is a problem for you. If these aren't problems, what would be a problem?

    It's the same with other bible contradictions. Just to pick one at random, what would you need to see in the descriptions of Judas' death to finally concede you're dealing with contradictory accounts? At one place he hangs himself and at another he falls headlong and his guts spew on the rocks. That's not contradictory you say. Well, what would be? If the text said he shot himself at one location and said he was beheaded at another, you'd say he shot himself, but not fatally, then later was beheaded. If he slit his wrists in one text, but jumped off a bridge in another, you'd say he slit his wrists while falling from the bridge. If he consumed cyanide in one text, was devoured by a tiger in another, and was electrocuted in a third you'd say he swallowed the cyanide, fell into a bathtub with a toaster and the tiger ate him while he was electrocuted and the tiger probably died along with him.

    Probably an even better example is the descriptions of Mary Magadalene at the tomb. In the synoptics she discovers the tomb where the angel explains to her that Jesus is risen. She goes to tell the disciples and on the way meets Jesus and she clasps his feet in worship. She then proceeds to tell the disciples what has happened. But according to John she arrives to tell the disciples and says "They've taken my Lord and I don't know where they've laid him. They've stolen the body." If these authors are so reliable, why do they disagree about probably the most critical event that occurred in Jesus life and the discovery of this event? You fail to see the contradiction here. Is this really because you are persuaded by the arguments from Zondervan and Eardmans? Or is it becuase there is no description possible that you would admit as contradictory?

    Do you concede that this is true for many of your Roman Catholic opponents, or perhaps your Mormon opponents, or your JW opponents? There is nothing that could be said in Romans that would get Dave Armstrong to concede that justification is by grace through faith alone. There is nothing that the Pope could do to show that the claim of papal infallibility is false. He'll say otherwise. He'd probably give examples. But since he knows his examples are not a current reality he knows he will not be obligated to change his view.

    Now, why is he like that? We both concede that he is. It's pretty simple. He has a prior theological committment to such claims and he will not see the evidence in any other way.

    Why do you think it is that you don't seem to think that Mt and Lk disagree on the date of Jesus' birth? Is it really because you just read these things and find them to be complimentary? Or is it because you have a prior committment to the belief that they are not contradictory and you will not see the evidence in any other way?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I just wanted to vomment on this:

    Probably an even better example is the descriptions of Mary Magadalene at the tomb. In the synoptics she discovers the tomb where the angel explains to her that Jesus is risen. She goes to tell the disciples and on the way meets Jesus and she clasps his feet in worship. She then proceeds to tell the disciples what has happened. But according to John she arrives to tell the disciples and says "They've taken my Lord and I don't know where they've laid him. They've stolen the body." If these authors are so reliable, why do they disagree about probably the most critical event that occurred in Jesus life and the discovery of this event? You fail to see the contradiction here. Is this really because you are persuaded by the arguments from Zondervan and Eardmans? Or is it becuase there is no description possible that you would admit as contradictory?

    This is a msuqote of what Jon said since he doesn't quote Mary as saying "I don't know", but rather has her saying "WE don't know". cf. John 20:2

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jon Curry writes:

    "But how much would they have to disagree before you'd concede that they contradict one another?"

    I've addressed that issue before, but you frequently ignore what you've been told. The plausibility of a harmonization depends on whether a harmonization is logically possible, the credibility of the sources involved, and the plausibility of the alternative. I gave some examples of potential contradictions at the beginning of this thread, and I've discussed other examples with you in the past. Not only have you apparently forgotten our past discussions of the subject, but you also seem to have forgotten what you read in this thread before you typed your response, assuming that you did read my whole post before responding.

    You write:

    "They date the birth at different times. They locate Jesus immediately following the birth at different places. They describe different ancestors for Jesus' earthly father."

    I addressed all three of those issues in this thread and in another thread this past Saturday (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/11/some-common-objections-to-infancy.html), and you've done nothing to interact with what I said. Again, did you even read the entirety of my post before responding?

    You write:

    "It's the same with other bible contradictions. Just to pick one at random, what would you need to see in the descriptions of Judas' death to finally concede you're dealing with contradictory accounts?...Do you concede that this is true for many of your Roman Catholic opponents, or perhaps your Mormon opponents, or your JW opponents? There is nothing that could be said in Romans that would get Dave Armstrong to concede that justification is by grace through faith alone."

    I addressed both of those arguments in our discussion on Greg Krehbiel's board last year. You left without interacting with what I'd argued. (And I told you earlier this year where you could find a thread in which I discussed Mary Magdalene and the resurrection.) I explained why Matthew and Luke would have focused on different aspects of what happened to Judas, and I used Galatians 3 as an illustration of a passage on justification that couldn't be reconciled with Roman Catholic soteriology. Your response was to tell us that you still had the impression that Matthew and Luke contradicted each other about Judas, even though you couldn't demonstrate that my explanation of the passages was incorrect, and you didn't even attempt to reconcile Galatians 3 with Roman Catholicism.

    You've gone through this process repeatedly. You did it with James White when you spoke with him on his webcast, and you've done it with me more than once. You claim that two Biblical passages contradict each other, and you compare attempts to argue otherwise with people defending a belief system such as Mormonism or Roman Catholicism. Then, when the two Biblical passages are shown to be consistent, you tell us that you think they're contradictory anyway, even though you can't show us that the proposed reconciliation is in error. And when we give you reasons for why we trust the Biblical authors, citing evidence that doesn't exist for systems such as Mormonism and Roman Catholicism, you repeatedly leave the discussions without interacting with what we've said.

    The same argument you're using can be turned against your own system. You deny that Jesus existed. I've asked you how you reconcile passages like 1 Corinthians 2:8 and Galatians 1:19 with that view. You appeal to interpretations of those passages that are rejected by almost every scholar in the world, far more scholars than reject my view of passages such as the ones about Judas. And there's no evidence supporting the view that Jesus didn't exist that's comparable to the evidence we have for the Divine inspiration of the Bible or the historical reliability of Matthew and Luke, for example. You tell us that you can't accept something like a harmonization of the passages about Judas, yet you are willing to accept interpretations of 1 Corinthians 2 and Galatians 1 involving a non-earthly Jesus. You're willing to believe one ridiculous implication after another that follows from the theory of Jesus' non-existence, and on some issues involving the textual record and Biblical authorship, for example, you've taken views so absurd that they're to the left of the Jesus Seminar and even to the left of Earl Doherty. You repeatedly underestimate the difficulties with your own belief system, if you even address them at all, while overestimating the difficulties of the belief system you oppose.

    If we were to take your simplistic approach toward these issues, we could just mention how difficult we think it is to believe your interpretation of a passage like 1 Corinthians 2, then compare you to a Mormon if you made any attempt to defend your view of the passage. Or we could comment on how unreasonable we think your explanation of the resurrection appearances of 1 Corinthians 15 is, then compare you to a Roman Catholic if you made any attempt to defend your position.

    All of our belief systems involve harmonization. The difference is that we address our difficulties more than you address yours, and our difficulties aren't as weighty as yours.

    You write:

    "Now, why is he like that? We both concede that he is. It's pretty simple. He has a prior theological committment to such claims and he will not see the evidence in any other way."

    Now, why is Jon Curry like that? Why does he defend his view of passages like 1 Corinthians 2 and Galatians 1? Why does he keep trying to dismiss the resurrection appearances as some sort of naturalistic experience? Why does he look for ways to dismiss Biblical prophecy? Why does he keep arguing that every passage in the gospels about Jesus didn't actually happen, even though those gospels were accepted as historical accounts across the Christian world when contemporaries of Jesus and the apostles were still alive? Why does Jon argue that the many early non-Christian sources who referred to Jesus as a historical figure were mistaken? It's pretty simple. Jon has a prior theological committment to such claims and he will not see the evidence in any other way.

    You write:

    "Why do you think it is that you don't seem to think that Mt and Lk disagree on the date of Jesus' birth? Is it really because you just read these things and find them to be complimentary? Or is it because you have a prior committment to the belief that they are not contradictory and you will not see the evidence in any other way?"

    Most scholars, including non-conservatives, agree with me that Matthew and Luke both place Jesus' birth during the reign of Herod the Great. Do you realize that Richard Carrier's theory that Luke places Jesus' birth after Herod's death is a minority position (in addition to being a highly unlikely reading of Luke's text - see http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2004/10/when-does-luke-indicate-jesus-was-born.html)? Or are you referring to some other argument? If so, what do you have in mind? Why do you keep making such claims without citing any evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  7. You repeated mantra that you've "answered all the arguments before" is another example of reasoning you engage in that you probably recognize as flawed in your theological opponents. For you if you provide what you call an "answer" and we skeptics don't respond, this can only mean that this is because we don't know how to respond. It could never be because we simply do not have the free time on our hands that you do.

    Apparently the problem is the same with every skeptic you deal with. I've seen this claim made from you about John Loftus a number of times. Matthew Green. Why do you really think it is that we don't respond. Do you really think we don't know what to say?

    Where I find your arguments to be persuasive (such as your claims on dates of certain manuscripts, or your claims about what is meant in 2 Pet about the phrase "since the fathers have died") I do not come back and repeat an argument that you've answered. But where I find your arguments to be less than persuasive (Jesus intention at Mt 16, Mt 24, contradictions in the birth narratives, claims about the amount of gold and silver Solomon had, claims about discarding texts you don't like) I do repeat claims even though I haven't gone into detail on your supposed refutation. This is because you will always post a supposed refutation and I can't respond indefinitely.

    Now, in a debate if a person continues to repeat an argument that has already been refuted, well that is just a point for his opponent. If I'm repeating arguments that have been so clearly refuted, well then I guess the readers here are not in any way threatened by what I say. Unless of course even now they really don't understand the refutation because your refutations bring to mind what I call the fog machine. What you respond with is convoluted and long winded and hence not all that beneficial. Do you really think anybody here can answer my description of the Mary Magdalene problem simply because you claim to have pointed at some point to a thread where you discussed it? I don't think they can. If they could somebody would say something as I continually bring it up.

    I don't respond to your arguments about Galatians 3 and how it can't be reconciled with RC-ism because I don't believe it can be reconciled with RC-ism. You have failed to grasp my point again.

    And no, the same argument about prior theological committment cannot be used on me. I have no committment to the belief that Jesus is myth. Why would I care if Jesus is myth or not? I was perfectly content to believe Jesus was not myth as I rejected Christianity and I'll be perfectly happy to believe it again if I decide that the evidence points in that way after I've studied it in more depth. I've already made this point. You've ignored it.

    Are you content to go either way with regards to whether Jesus is a myth? Or do your recognize that you approach the question with a desire to prove Jesus is not myth? Is your mind already made up, even though you haven't read anybody that makes the case in any depth. Same with a Bible contradiction. Do you approach Judas' death with a desire to show the claims are not contradictory? I do not care. I don't need the accounts of Judas' death to be contradictory. I go wherever the evidence leads. Can you say the same? I think it is obvious that you cannot. That's the difference between me on one side of the fence and you, Dave Armstrong, Mormons, and Scientologists on the other side.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jon Curry wrote:

    "For you if you provide what you call an 'answer' and we skeptics don't respond, this can only mean that this is because we don't know how to respond. It could never be because we simply do not have the free time on our hands that you do."

    If you don't have much time, then why do you keep initiating discussions in other threads while neglecting previous threads? Why do you repeat arguments you used previously without attempting to interact with what's been said in response to those arguments previously? That's not just a matter of time. Saying that you don't have much time doesn't explain the poor quality of your arguments, and it makes your involvement in so many threads even more inexcusable. You don't know the issues well, and you tell us that you don't have much time to spend here, yet you keep involving yourself in so many threads.

    You write:

    "Apparently the problem is the same with every skeptic you deal with. I've seen this claim made from you about John Loftus a number of times. Matthew Green. Why do you really think it is that we don't respond. Do you really think we don't know what to say?"

    That would have to be judged case-by-case. The two men you've named aren't as wrong as you are on some issues, they both seem to be more widely read than you are, and they both offer better documentation for their claims than you offer for yours. John Loftus does have a problem with involving himself in too many discussions that he doesn't follow through on, but I haven't seen Matthew Green do that to nearly the extent John has or you have.

    You write:

    "Now, in a debate if a person continues to repeat an argument that has already been refuted, well that is just a point for his opponent. If I'm repeating arguments that have been so clearly refuted, well then I guess the readers here are not in any way threatened by what I say."

    Whether people who read all of the threads are "threatened" isn't the only relevant issue. Not everybody reads all of the threads. And even if everybody had read all of the threads you participated in, it would take time for us to read your reposting of bad arguments that were refuted previously, and it would be dishonest for you to keep repeating those arguments. Our time and your dishonesty are relevant issues.

    You write:

    "What you respond with is convoluted and long winded and hence not all that beneficial."

    I could write less if I were as unconcerned with accuracy and documentation as you are.

    You write:

    "Do you really think anybody here can answer my description of the Mary Magdalene problem simply because you claim to have pointed at some point to a thread where you discussed it? I don't think they can. If they could somebody would say something as I continually bring it up."

    Or it could be that they've seen how unreasonable you are and they know that I've already addressed the issue. You make a lot of ridiculous claims that not many people respond to. For example, when you deny that Jesus exists, claim that Pauline authorship of Philemon is "suspicious", or repeatedly link to an absurd Wikipedia article on Jesus and paganism, an article that carries a warning about its own content and is refuted in its own comments section, why do you think it is that you don't get much of a response? Could it be that people recognize how unreasonable you are and would prefer to let me or somebody else respond, or have nobody respond, rather than doing it themselves?

    You write:

    "I don't respond to your arguments about Galatians 3 and how it can't be reconciled with RC-ism because I don't believe it can be reconciled with RC-ism. You have failed to grasp my point again."

    You're the one who isn't grasping the point. I wasn't asking you to give a reconciliation between Galatians 3 and Roman Catholicism that you believe in. I'm aware that you don't believe that the Roman Catholic view of justification is Biblical. Your suggestion that I was expecting you to believe in the reconciliation you proposed is ridiculous. I was asking you to give a reconciliation that you think would be comparable to my argument regarding Judas. My argument about Judas requires only one step, regarding Luke's intention in writing what he did, and you were unable to refute that one-step argument. It takes more than one step to reconcile Galatians 3 to Roman Catholicism, and any steps you would propose I can dispute more effectively than you could dispute my reading of Acts 1.

    You write:

    "And no, the same argument about prior theological committment cannot be used on me. I have no committment to the belief that Jesus is myth."

    You refer to "prior theological commitment", but then you go on to refer to "commitment", without the "prior" qualifier. You've said that you hold the position that Jesus didn't exist. Whether you want to call it a "commitment" or not, it's your belief. Just as you can claim that the evidence led you to your belief, I would claim that I was led by evidence to mine. Just as you can claim that you might change your mind in the future, I would say the same.

    ReplyDelete