Amy-Jill Levine recently wrote an editorial about Christmas for the Washington Post. She makes no effort to interact with the counterarguments to her position. Her article is largely about the allegedly unhistorical genre of the infancy narratives. See my post on that subject here.
Why does a New Testament scholar like Levine put forward a view that's so contrary to the historical evidence? And why is the public so easily misled by arguments like Levine's and so poorly prepared to argue against her position?
Once again, we find a scholar coming up with a (baby) Jesus that tells more about herself than the history behind it.
ReplyDeleteIf you have not challenged Ms. Levine directly in print, Jason, I urge you to do so. Few are better equipped than you to do the job.
ReplyDelete