1. A stereotypical objection to the virgin birth is that it's only attested in two of the four Gospels. Likewise, Paul is silent on the subject.
A potential problem with stereotypical objections is how they condition people who view an issue. If an issue is routinely framed in a particular way, it may not occur to people to think outside that framework.
2. Before getting to my main point, Paul's silence is to be expected. He was an adult living in Jerusalem at the time of Christ's public ministry. It's hardly surprising that he talks about events so close to his own time and place, in the life of Christ. By contrast, the birth of Christ probably took place several years before Paul was born.
3 Apropos (1), I'd recast the issue. If anything, what's striking is not that the virgin birth wasn't recorded in more than two Gospels, but that's recorded at all. Reporting the circumstances of his conception poses a dilemma. In the nature of the case, a NT author can't mention the virgin birth without simultaneously informing his readers that Mary was pregnant out of wedlock. After all, you can't have one without the other.
But the moment he says Mary was pregnant out of wedlock, that opens a can of worms. Only people who are already Christian believe the story of the virgin birth. By contrast, people who aren't Christian are inclined to view the virgin birth as a cover story for a prenuptial scandal.
Indeed, that was Joseph's initial reaction. When he discovered that she was pregnant, he was planning to divorce her, on the assumption that she had a child by another man.
So why would Matthew and Luke record the virgin birth unless they thought it happened? You might say the reported the virgin birth despite the virgin birth. For surely they knew that by recording that story, their account invited a contrary interpretation.
By narrating the virginal conception of Christ, they were starting a fire they couldn't extinguish. Enemies of the faith will seize on that to discredit Jesus. They will say this is a transparent alibi to camouflage the fact that Mary had premarital sex. Not only would that stigmatize the mother, but stigmatize the illegitimate child.
So, if you think about it, NT writers had to overcome a disincentive to report it at all, since the very mention of it would play into the hands of their enemies. They only record it because that's what happened, even though it hands enemies of the faith a propaganda coup. Sometimes you have to tell a true story knowing that people will twist the truth.
4. Now, a critic might object that my explanation misses the point. Given the rumors of a prenuptial scandal, they had to say something to squelch the rumors. But there are problems with that objection. For instance:
i) That would be a counterproductive alibi. Rather than draw attention away from the specter of a prenuptial scandal, it would draw attention to the specter of a prenuptial scandal. Hostile readers will view this as a coverup.
ii) If the Gospel writers were attempting to conceal a prenuptial scandal, and if they felt free to invent a cover story, why not just say Jesus was conceived after Mary and Joseph got married? After all, the Incarnation doesn't require a virgin birth. The sinlessness of Jesus doesn't require a virgin birth.
If some people find the story of the virgin birth fishy, there's nothing suspicious about saying he was born to married parents. So that would be a better cover story.
5. But a critic might say that misses the point. If Mary was known to be pregnant out of wedlock, then it's too late for Matthew and Luke to fabricate a cover story that denies that fact. The best they can do is to spray paint it with miraculous whitewash. But there are problems with that objection, even on its own grounds:
i) People who deny the virgin birth typically think Matthew and Luke were written about a century after the birth of Christ. They don't think Matthew or Luke had access to firsthand information about the circumstances surrounding his conception and birth. So what, exactly, is there to rationalize or cover up? By that late date, who knews any better what really happened?
ii) Likewise, even if we take the historicity of Matthew and Luke far more seriously, how many people were really privy to the timing of Mary's pregnancy in relation to her engagement and marriage? Other than some relatives and villagers, who else would know about it? Mary wasn't born famous. She was a nobody. She's one of those people who becomes retroactively famous in association with a famous person. Jesus himself only became relatively famous towards the end of his short life, and even then he was just a local celebrity at the time of his death. Had anyone heard of him outside some pockets in Palestine? So why assume, decades later–when Matthew and Luke were written–that there'd be a widespread rumor about the illegitimacy of Jesus?
iii) Presumably, the target audience for Matthew and Luke are people who don't already know about the life of Christ. So what would possess Matthew and Luke to introduce a cover story about the circumstances of his conception? That would create a problem that hadn't existed before in the mind of the reader. For the average reader would never have reason to suspect anything untoward unless Matthew and Luke gratuitously interject this subterfuge.
Left to their druthers, I wouldn't expect any NT writer to mention the circumstances of Christ's conception if they could avoid it, since the story of the virgin birth will be used against them. It's one of those dilemmas where doing the right thing looks like doing the wrong thing. What's striking, therefore, is that we have even one, much less two Gospels, that record the virgin birth. For they must do that despite the derision which that will provoke.
If you agree with Bauckham that the phrase that Mark was "careful to omit nothing" is mere literary convention, not to be taken literally, then I have to wonder why you take the "nor falsify anything" part of that exact same context as a literal truth. Believing in biblical inerrancy doesn't give you the right to just assign authorial intent as expediency dictates.
ReplyDeleteIs there some special important reason why skeptics and liberals are just blinding themselves to the truth when they assert that because the "did not falsify anything" part of the sentence is literally true, that therefore, the words right next to them, saying "careful to omit nothing" were also literally true?
Or will you say that arguing on the basis of what can be properly inferred known truths in a specific context is just a trick of the devil?
Without good quality rebuttal from you or some other apologist/scholar, I think the skeptical/liberal position that says Mark didn't mention the virgin birth because he never knew about any such thing, is legitimately drawn from an objective consideration of not only Papias' words, but also from a reasonable rebuttal to Bauckham's "mere literary convention" excuse.
Or i could ask you why you ever thought the virgin birth doctrine was any more "essential" and required belief for salvation, than you think the story of Jesus being tempted by the devil.
Your complaint is peculiar. You accuse me of missing a target I wasn't aiming for. You act as though I'm supposed to make a statement by Papias my standard of comparison.
DeleteYou then say: "I think the skeptical/liberal position that says Mark didn't mention the virgin birth because he never knew about any such thing."
You act as though that would be a damaging admission. To the contrary, I'm completely open to the possibility that he didn't mention the virgin bit because he never heard of it. So what?
Mark was probably a teenager at the time Jesus conducted his public ministry. Mark writes about contemporaneous events because that's where he himself comes into the picture. He writes from experience.
By contrast, he doesn't write about the childhood of Jesus, since that was well before his time. The "omission" of a virgin birth account in particular is no more suspicious than the omission of any account about the childhood of Jesus in general. It's not as if he wrote an infancy Gospel, but omitted the part about a virgin birth. No, he says nothing about the childhood of Jesus at all. That doesn't mean he thinks Jesus sprang into existence as an adult, c. 30 AD.
If Jesus was virginally conceived, then the only person who had direct knowledge regarding the circumstances of his conception is Mary. Just one person. Even Joseph only knew about it indirectly via angelic revelation.
That wouldn't be common knowledge unless Mary and/or Joseph made it common knowledge. Other than discreetly informing some relatives during her gestation, who else would have occasion to brought into their confidence?
Now, that might have become family lore. Perhaps Mary explained it to the stepbrothers or stepsisters of Jesus. And they, in turn, might explain it to Matthew or Luke, if the question came up.
But unless they volunteered that information, there's no reason to suppose that was generally known. Indeed, it was the Gospels of Matthew and Luke that made it common currency. Before then, it might well be limited to a little coterie. You only get answers to questions you ask. Unless you thought to ask a question about the circumstances surrounding the conception of Christ, what occasion would there be to find out?
barry,
DeleteOur information on Mark is derived from a lot of sources, not just Papias. There are reasons to believe in Mark's accuracy other than the comment of Papias you've cited. We would also look at how the gospel of Mark was received among other sources, what evidence we have for its genre, evidence pertaining to the historicity of individual portions of it, evidence for its Divine inspiration, etc.
But as far as Papias is concerned, why are we supposed to read his comments the way you're reading them? In what context is Papias saying that Mark didn't omit anything? He probably wasn't saying that Mark recorded everything that could be said about Jesus. For one thing, it would be unlikely that anybody would think that a document like Mark's gospel, as short as it is and focusing on so little of Jesus' life as it does, is exhaustive in that sense. Secondly, interpreting Papias that way doesn't make sense in light of his references to the other gospels and extrabiblical traditions. Why would he say that Mark was exhaustive in the manner under consideration here, yet go on to refer positively to other gospels and extrabiblical traditions that contain material on Jesus that Mark doesn't? That interpretation of Papias doesn't make sense in the abstract, and it doesn't make sense in the context of Papias' other comments.
Most likely, Papias was saying that Mark didn't omit anything in a particular context. Since Papias refers to how Mark recorded the public teaching of Peter, there probably was some material that Peter often repeated, which defined the core of his ministry, that Mark wanted to convey in his gospel. It doesn't follow that Peter never said anything else about Jesus, much less that other people didn't either or that Mark didn't know anything else.
The structure of Mark's gospel is reminiscent of Peter's comments about apostleship and the gospel in Acts. Like Luke's gospel (as described in Acts 1:1), Mark is addressing "the beginning of the gospel" (Mark 1:1). He doesn't address everything. He doesn't discuss Jesus' ascension, for example. He begins with John's baptism (Acts 1:22) and ends just before Peter became an apostle, in the fullest sense of the term, by seeing the risen Christ and being commissioned by the risen Christ to be a public witness (Acts 10:40-2). I suspect that what Mark was doing was presenting the gospel message Peter had received and proclaimed in his public ministry. Mark wanted to end his account before that ministry began, since the ministry involved faithfully proclaiming what had been received. Thus, he anticipates the resurrection appearances, but doesn't narrate them. He ends just before Peter sees the risen Christ and, therefore, begins his public ministry.
Mark surely had some information about Jesus that he didn't record in his gospel (e.g., the name of Jesus' father, Jesus' resurrection appearances). So, Papias most likely either meant that Mark recorded everything he remembered within a narrower context (not everything he remembered without qualification) or was mistaken.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
DeleteRegarding the virgin birth, see here for a summary of the evidence we have that the virgin birth was widely accepted early on. Most likely, men like Paul, Mark, and John were aware of the doctrine and accepted it. Concerning Mark in particular, see my discussion of Mark 6:3 here. The best explanation for why the premarital timing of Mary's pregnancy wasn't more of a scandal in early Christianity is that belief in the premarital timing was accompanied by belief in a virginal conception.
Furthermore, any argument you want to make that depends on Markan priority has to address what significance Markan priority would have if true. If Mark was the first gospel written, but the other Synoptics were written months or years later (rather than a decade or more later), then Markan priority doesn't have much significance. The shorter the timespan between Mark and the other gospels, the less significance Markan priority has. See here for some of the evidence we have that the other Synoptics were written months or years after Mark, not a decade or more later.
Jason,
DeleteDo you believe Peter would have agreed with today's conservative Christians, that belief in the virgin birth of Jesus was one of the essentials necessary for salvation?
Does it make sense to say Peter, with such a belief, would have included at least the "essentials" in his gospel preaching?
Did Papias qualify his words and say Mark wrote down whatever he REMEMBERED from Peter's preaching?
Can we safely infer that, had Peter preached the virgin birth, Mark would have known this?
Can we safely infer that, between non-essentials and essentials, Mark would have had a better memory of those parts of Peter's preaching which mentioned the "essentials" of salvation?
Then you cannot explain Mark's silence on the virgin birth as a case of him not knowing the story, and unless you say Papias got it wrong, you cannot explain Mark's silence on the virgin birth by saying as a case of him having unintentionally forgotten that story.
You are free to say Papias got it wrong, but under conservative assumptions that you seem to hold, you cannot just assume a church father's uncorroborated statements are wrong, you need to make a compelling case that he was more than likely in the wrong. You've so far only suggested his being wrong is a possibility. Historiography is not determined by possibilities, but probabilities.
I am not trying to disprove the virgin birth of Jesus. I'm only trying to disprove the fundamentalist contention that denial of the historicity of the virgin birth cannot be reasonably justified. It surely can, and on grounds far more scholarly and serious than simply carping that we already know that miracles cannot happen.
You say Mark's accuracy is believed for reasons beyond Papias' statement. But my point was that you likely interpret Papias' statement about Mark's accuracy in a ‘literal’ fashion, which I then used to force you to admit that the other words in the same sentence of Papias (i.e, that Mark was careful to ‘omit nothing’ of what he remembered from Peter’s preaching) were also intended by Papias for the reader to take literally. The point was that Bauckham's interpretation of Papias' statement as mere literary convention, not to be taken literally, is false, in which case "omitted nothing" was literal...in which case you cannot explain Mark's silence on the virgin birth as a case of his choice to omit something. You will have to come up with another theory, or perhaps suddenly discover that Papias got it wrong.
You ask why we should read Papias’ comments the way I say. I already explained why Bauckham's "mere literary convention" interpretation was more than likely false, so that Papias' "Mark omitted nothing of which he remembered" must be taken literally, in which case Mark's silence on the virgin birth cannot be explained by saying he chose to omit some essentials of salvation…unless you suddenly discover that Papias was wrong…raising the question of why you think Papias got something wrong if you have no direct proof he got it wrong, when in fact conservative procedure is to first believe anything written in church history unless positive rebuttal can be established.
"He probably wasn't saying that Mark recorded everything that could be said about Jesus."
--------that's right, Papias says Mark wrote down whatever he had "remembered", so there's the limit, and now you must explain how Mark can have remembered non-essentials (Mark 1:13), but forgot an essential such as the virgin birth.
barry,
DeleteSteve's original post said nothing about Papias and nothing about Richard Bauckham. You're the one who brought both into this discussion. I don't believe that acceptance of the virgin birth is essential. And I've been interacting with opponents of the virgin birth, including scholars, for years. I don't need you to tell me how "reasonable" and "scholarly" they can be. You'd know that if you'd read some of my material on the virgin birth, like what I linked in my last response to you.
You've ignored most of what I said and haven't advanced the discussion much. You write:
"But my point was that you likely interpret Papias' statement about Mark's accuracy in a ‘literal’ fashion, which I then used to force you to admit that the other words in the same sentence of Papias (i.e, that Mark was careful to ‘omit nothing’ of what he remembered from Peter’s preaching) were also intended by Papias for the reader to take literally."
The fact that one part of a sentence isn't literal doesn't prove that another part isn't. Let's say that I've told you something (call it X) eleven times. To emphasize how often I've told you, I remark, "I've told you X a million times." The fact that "a million times" is hyperbole doesn't lead us to the conclusion that X is hyperbole as well.
I've given you reasons for taking Papias' comments about what Mark included in his gospel in a qualified way. You haven't given us any reason to do the same with Papias' comment about Mark's accuracy. Since his comment on Mark's accuracy makes sense in the abstract, is consistent with Papias' other comments, and aligns so well with how other sources viewed Mark around the same time, we don't have warrant for taking his comment in the sort of qualified sense in which we take his other comments that are under discussion here.
You go on to say:
"Papias says Mark wrote down whatever he had 'remembered', so there's the limit"
It's a limit, but not the limit. I've already given you examples of material Mark doesn't include in his gospel, even though he would be unlikely to have not remembered those things. The name of Jesus' father, for example, was widely known, as the other three gospels illustrate. Mark knew the name of Jesus' mother (Mark 6:3), and it's doubtful that somebody living in such a patriarchal society would remember a mother's name, but not a father's. And it's extremely unlikely that Mark didn't remember anything Peter (and others) said about the resurrection appearances, yet Mark doesn't narrate any of them.
I'm struggling with the objection that there are "just" two attestations in Scripture. If something is affirmed once in all of God's word, is that not sufficient to warrant our attention?
ReplyDeleteKen,
DeleteIf you are expecting your audience to be only inerrantists, then yes, scripture only needs to mention something once, to warrant attention. But if you are debating non-Christians, well, those types certainly don't feel compelled to think a singular mention in the bible warrants our attention.
Jason has placed on the table the option that Papias was wrong to speak about Mark's motives and acts in such an extreme way. Jason would hardly make effort to keep that option open if my atheist-interpretation of the patristic evidence was wholly unreasonable. Jason is clearly worried that charging Papias with error might be the only way to overcome my attack on the historicity of the virgin-birth, despite a recent conservative, scholarly and thorough treatment that found Papias to be entirely reliable and credible, "Papias and the New Testament" by Monte Shanks.
I'll Jason's preparing such a last-resort bombshell as a compliment that whatever might be wrong with my use of the patristic data, it is not my interpretation of it.
barry writes:
Delete"Jason is clearly worried that charging Papias with error might be the only way to overcome my attack on the historicity of the virgin-birth…I'll Jason's preparing such a last-resort bombshell as a compliment that whatever might be wrong with my use of the patristic data, it is not my interpretation of it."
I'm a long way from being worried about anything you've said. And acknowledging the possibility that Papias was mistaken isn't a "last-resort bombshell". It's standard practice in making historical judgments, not only about Papias, but about historical sources in general.
Your misuse of Papias doesn't amount to much of an "attack on the historicity of the virgin-birth". Papias has some relevance to the doctrine's historicity, but not much.
Jason,
DeletePlease demonstrate exactly why my interpreting literally Papias' comments about Mark, constitute "misuse" of Papias.
Did I draw an inference not supportable by what Papias said?
Did I attribute words to Papias that he never said?
Must we assume that because other second-century authors failed to live up to their preface-statements about "careful to omit nothing", that therefore, they never intended the reader to take those statements literally?
Bauckham supported his "mere literary convention" position very well with reference to Josephus, but what's wrong with the theory that Josephus and other ancient authors were no different than modern authors, and merely played up their levels of accuracy more than the content of those writings would actually bear?
Many Christian authors today publish books in which they say lots of stupid silly things that make it easy to criticize and ridicule them...that doesn't mean these authors only wanted their audiences to interpret the stuff on the face of the book ("explosive new evidence!", etc) as anything other than literal.
So why should such hype be taken as "mere literary convention" instead of literal when we see it in ancient authors?
barry,
DeleteI explained my reasoning in earlier posts, and you've ignored most of what I said in those posts.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteOne of your explanations is "By contrast, he doesn't write about the childhood of Jesus, since that was well before his time." From what place in Mark, the bible, or extra-biblical post-apostolic source or church father do you derive sufficient positive information to justify your belief that it wasn't Mark's purpose to record Jesus-events that had occurred before Mark was born?
On the contrary, if Eusebius/Papias can be trusted, Mark's motive was to write "whatever he remembered" of Peter's preaching, and that phrase is not qualified in such a specifically nuanced way that you can get "but Mark wouldn't have wished to mention Jesus-events that occurred before he was born". There is PLENTY of room in Papias' phrasing to justify the conclusion that if Peter preached it AND Mark "remembered" it, then Mark would have included it in his written gospel, whether the Jesus-event in question would have been something that happened before or after Mark himself was born.
And if the virgin birth doctrine is one of those essential doctrines that must be believed at a minimum in order to be saved, as most conservatives insist, then the most natural expectation under this conservative assumption is that Peter surely would have believed the same thing during his preaching, and thus would have no more "excluded" mention of the virgin birth during his preaching, than conservative Christians "exclude" the virgin birth from their statements of essential doctrine.
And if Peter would surely have mentioned the essentials of salvation in his preaching, then since Mark doesn't mention it, the question becomes one of how likely it is that Mark's memory would have been so imperfect that he would have "forgotten" those parts of Peter's preaching which mentioned "essentials" of salvation. Gospel preaching that doesn't include "essentials" (!?)
That Mark likely wouldn't have forgotten "essential" doctrine preached by Peter may be safely inferred from the fact that he certainly gave some priority to non-essential doctrine (devil tempting Jesus, Mark 1:13, a story nobody says must be one of this historical matters that must be believed in order to effect salvation), from which we may safely infer that, had Mark remembered any part of Peter's preaching that was more essential to salvation than a generalized blurb about Jesus being tempted 40 days by the devil, Mark likely would have found such essentials at least as important as this non-essential tidbit about Jesus being tempted...and accordingly would have included any "essential" in his written work.
barry,
DeleteI've given you an explanation for why Mark would have begun and ended his gospel as he did, based on what Peter said about the nature of the ministry of an apostle in Acts. If a framework like what Peter discusses in Acts is what determined the structure of Mark's gospel, then the virgin birth could easily not be included even if Mark believed in the concept and considered it important. And I've provided evidence that Mark probably did believe in the virgin birth. You keep repeating what you said earlier while ignoring the counterarguments you've been provided with.
I've also explained why your reading of Papias is unlikely. You keep ignoring that as well.
"I've given you an explanation for why Mark would have begun and ended his gospel as he did, based on what Peter said about the nature of the ministry of an apostle in Acts."
Delete-------Correct. What you didn't do was set forth such a powerful case for your theory that it showed your theory more likely true than mine. Contrary to fundamentalist rhetoric, disagreeing with you does not constitute disagreeing with God.
"If a framework like what Peter discusses in Acts is what determined the structure of Mark's gospel, then the virgin birth could easily not be included even if Mark believed in the concept and considered it important."
--------It could also be just as easily explained as "Peter doesn't mention the virgin birth in Acts because he didn't believe it relevant to salvation." Again, all you've done is propose a possible theory, you've done exactly nothing, so far, to show that your theory is more likely true than mine.
"And I've provided evidence that Mark probably did believe in the virgin birth."
---------Your discussion of Mark 6:3 in your link ignores the fact that there is a strongly attested reading there of "son of the Mason" in an early scribe’s apparent assimilation to Matthew 13:55...which textual variant would hardly have arisen had "son of Mary" been perceived by other Christians to be this powerful apologetic you think it is.
And the Word Biblical Commentary reveals that an implication of the virgin birth is only one among many different interpretations Christians and scholars have tried to see in 6:3, and the WBC seems to favor an interpretation of "Mary's son" that does not imply anything significant about Jesus’ birth:
quote----
Mark’s text has received various explanations: (a) theologically motivated by the virgin birth (Klostermann, 55), (b) a reference to Jesus as being illegitimate (Stauffer, Neotestamentica, 121–22), (c) Mary was a widow (e.g., Schweizer, 124), or simply (d) Mark was not “interested” in Jesus’ father whom he never mentions (Crossan, NovT 15 [1973] 102).
McArthur examines the various alternatives by seeking parallels in the OT and Judaism and concludes that none can be supported by the evidence (NovT 15 [1973] 55). Thus, he concludes that “son of Mary” represents an “informal descriptive” rather than a “formal genealogical” way of identifying Jesus by his well-known mother, since his father was “presumably long since dead” (NovT 15 [1973] 55). He supports this usage by OT and NT examples (Judg 11:1–2; 1 Kgs 17:17; Luke 7:12; Acts 16:1; 23:16; Gal 4:21–31). Whatever the answer, “son of Mary” need not be a cruel insult. Neither the reference to his trade nor his brothers and sisters connotes anything pejorative.
Guelich, R. A. (2002). Vol. 34A: Word Biblical Commentary : Mark 1-8:26. Word Biblical Commentary (Page 309). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
endquote-----
So now your problem is that other Christian scholars don't even see the apologetic value in Mark 6:3 that you do. And because they are Christian, you cannot chalk up their disagreement with you to just willful spiritual blindness.
barry wrote:
Delete"What you didn't do was set forth such a powerful case for your theory that it showed your theory more likely true than mine."
You need to interact with my argument rather than just asserting that it's worse than yours. I explained why I disagree with your position. I cited aspects of Mark's gospel that are inconsistent with your view (e.g., material Mark left out that he would have remembered), I cited Petrine material in Acts that better explains why Mark's gospel has the structure it has, etc.
You write:
"Your discussion of Mark 6:3 in your link ignores the fact that there is a strongly attested reading there of 'son of the Mason' in an early scribe’s apparent assimilation to Matthew 13:55...which textual variant would hardly have arisen had 'son of Mary' been perceived by other Christians to be this powerful apologetic you think it is. And the Word Biblical Commentary reveals that an implication of the virgin birth is only one among many different interpretations Christians and scholars have tried to see in 6:3"
You keep making false assumptions about your opponents' beliefs and keep misrepresenting their positions, even after you've been corrected. My article that discusses Mark 6:3 doesn't argue that the passage is referring to the virgin birth. Rather, the article argues that the passage involves a charge of illegitimacy. I cited Mark 6:3 in the context of the premarital pregnancy and its scandalous nature. Neither my comments here nor my comments in the article I linked suggest that Mark 6 is affirming the virgin birth.
And you don't seem to realize that the textual variant you're citing supports my position rather than undermining it. As Robert Guelich explains, in a portion of his comments you left out, "The variant readings for this passage (see Note c) reflect a concern about the awkward 'son of Mary,' a rare way of identifying someone." (309)
In what you did quote from Guelich, he mentions the arguments of McArthur, but McArthur's position is addressed in my article. You keep ignoring counterarguments that have already been offered.
You write:
"So now your problem is that other Christian scholars don't even see the apologetic value in Mark 6:3 that you do. And because they are Christian, you cannot chalk up their disagreement with you to just willful spiritual blindness."
That's another strawman. I haven't "chalked up their disagreement with me to just willful spiritual blindness", nor have I suggested that I would respond to them that way. Rather, I've argued against their position. And you keep ignoring or misrepresenting those arguments.
Just to clarify my intentions, I'm not responding to Barry for Barry's sake. Barry's framework, assumptions, agreement, are not my standard of comparison. I have nothing to prove to Barry. I'm responding for the benefit of other readers.
Delete"From what place in Mark, the bible, or extra-biblical post-apostolic source or church father do you derive sufficient positive information to justify your belief that it wasn't Mark's purpose to record Jesus-events that had occurred before Mark was born?"
For the obvious reason that Mark doesn't record anything about the life of Christ prior to his public ministry. Nothing about his childhood. Nothing about his adulthood until his public ministry.
"There is PLENTY of room in Papias' phrasing to justify the conclusion that if Peter preached it AND Mark 'remembered' it, then Mark would have included it in his written gospel, whether the Jesus-event in question would have been something that happened before or after Mark himself was born."
i) I don't accept your imposition of Papias as my frame of reference for Mark. Papias is an important historical witness, but that's not my starting-point. Rather, my starting point is Mark's Gospel itself, along with other things said about John-Mark in the NT.
ii) There's no evidence that Peter preached the virgin birth. That isn't mentioned in the Petrine sermons in Acts, or 1-2 Peter.
"And if the virgin birth doctrine is one of those essential doctrines that must be believed at a minimum in order to be saved, as most conservatives insist, then the most natural expectation under this conservative assumption is that Peter surely would have believed the same thing during his preaching…"
i) It would be grossly anachronistic for me to use The Fundamentals (1910-15) as my frame of reference for inferring Mark's intentions. I employ grammatico-historical exegesis.
ii) The Fundamentals, which included the virgin birth as an article of the faith, were drawn up on response to modernism. That's a completely different intellectual climate than 1C Christianity. Prior to the Enlightenment and 19C, professing Christians never denied the virgin birth.
A comparison would be the need of Christians to begin listing the books of the canon after Marcion and the proliferation of NT apocrypha, or the need of Jews to begin listing the books of the OT canon after the destruction of the Temple. Prior to Marcion and the proliferation of NT apocrypha, that distinction was unnecessary.
Likewise, so long as the Temple existed, the Jews had a de facto canon. By the same token, when Josephus is writing to gentiles, he outlines the canon. The occasion for that is his gentile audience. Were he writing for Jews, he could take the canon for granted.
Cont.
Deleteiii) I don't assume that Mark got all or even most of his information from Peter. Rather, as a resident of Jerusalem during the public ministry of Christ, I allow for the possibility or probability that most of his material derives from direct observation.
At best, he uses the apostles who were living in Jerusalem to fill gaps in his knowledge. But for whatever reason, he takes no interest in documenting the life of Christ prior to his public ministry. Probably because he was an eyewitness to the public ministry of Christ, and prefers to write about events he personally experienced, perhaps supplemented by the apostles, to fill in gaps, but covering the same period.
iv) A person can be saved without believing the virgin birth. If, say, all a person had was the Gospel of John, he could certainly be saved by believing the Gospel of John, even though that doesn't mention the virgin birth.
v) Apropos (iv), there's a difference between not believing in something because you never heard of it and denying something. Isaiah didn't know who Jesus of Nazareth was, yet he was saved, despite not believing in the historical Christ. But that's very different than disbelieving something you know about.
vi) Apropos (v), the virgin birth became a litmus test in 20C fundamentalism because modernists denied it, and they denied it because they denied miracles in general. But ancient Jews and Christians didn't operate with that secular, closed-system outlook. So the situational context of Mark is completely different.
vii) To put it philosophically, the virgin birth is a truth of fact, not a truth of reason. The virgin birth isn't a necessary truth in the sense that the Trinity, divine attributes, or deity of the Son are necessary truths–but a contingent truth, like the Exodus. Essential in that respect.
viii) I'd say the theological function of the virgin birth is primarily pedagogical. If Jesus had a human mother and divine Father, that's a compact way to illustrate the two natures of Christ. A compact way to symbolize the Incarnation. ("Symbolic" in the same way the Passover lamb and scapegoat symbolize penal substitution and vicarious atonement).
ix) In addition to its pedagogical value and emblematic significance, in the ancient world, miraculous circumstances surrounding someone's birth draw attention to the fact that there's something special about this individual.
I forgot to respond to another argument Steve made. He said:
ReplyDelete"By narrating the virginal conception of Christ, they were starting a fire they couldn't extinguish. Enemies of the faith will seize on that to discredit Jesus. They will say this is a transparent alibi to camouflage the fact that Mary had premarital sex. Not only would that stigmatize the mother, but stigmatize the illegitimate child.
So, if you think about it, NT writers had to overcome a disincentive to report it at all, since the very mention of it would play into the hands of their enemies. They only record it because that's what happened, even though it hands enemies of the faith a propaganda coup. Sometimes you have to tell a true story knowing that people will twist the truth."
----------------
But you cannot know how worried Matthew was to reluctantly tell historical truths that would provide ammo to his enemies unless you know what type of audience he was writing to. Standard NT Introductions universally admit that exactly what audience-types were intended to be addressed by the authors of Matthew and Luke, are nearly entirely speculative.
In that case, it it no less likely that Matthew and Luke were written to already-believing Christians, in which case he would have no need to fear that this faith-text would ever get into the hands of unbelieving Jews within his lifetime and use a potentially scandalous virgin birth story against him. Matthew 27:8 and 28:15 speak about earlier matters being true "to this day" making it reasonable to suppose Matthew wrote to inform a church of a later age, and perhaps wrote late enough in his own life that he wasn't worried he'd live long enough to see unbelieving Jews get a hold of his gospel and use it against him.
As far as Luke's promise in the preface to have investigated everything carefully, Luke was a product of his time, and prefaces similar to Luke's are often found in similarly ancient works, none of which today's inerrantists think told the truth about all matters mentioned in those works.
Finally, the problem of the silence of all other NT authors on this allegedly "essential" virgin birth story is wholly unexpected given the "essential belief" status accorded it by fundamentalists, and therefore, their silence cannot be explained under the theory that they didn't see the need to repeat what their target audiences already believed.
For all these reasons, we need not consider that Matthew was telling truth due to how he must have known it would give his enemies ammo, anymore than we need to consider the possibility that Joseph Smith was telling truth due to the how he must have know his Book of Mormon would give his enemies ammo. People often write very silly fraudulent things, without concerning themselves with how that can be used to kick their teeth out the back of their skull.
It happens with witnesses in courtrooms all the time.
barry wrote:
Delete"In that case, it it no less likely that Matthew and Luke were written to already-believing Christians, in which case he would have no need to fear that this faith-text would ever get into the hands of unbelieving Jews within his lifetime and use a potentially scandalous virgin birth story against him."
You don't write a document like Matthew or Luke and expect only Christians to read it, hear it being read, discuss what's in it, etc. The nature of early Christianity (the characteristics of church services, Christian interest in evangelism, Christian interest in apologetics, etc.) would make it likely that non-Christians would come across the material in some way or another. The nature of life in general makes it likely.
From the second century onward, we have explicit and widespread evidence of non-Christian possession of the gospels and other Christian documents and familiarity with the contents of those documents. For a lot of examples, see here. Matthew's gospel was the most prominent Christian document among the early patristic Christians and their opponents. That sort of situation is unlikely to have arisen from a first-century context that was radically different. Continuity is more likely than discontinuity.
You mentioned Matthew 28:15, but seem to have missed the significance of the surrounding context. Matthew is referring to interactions between Christians and their Jewish opponents that had been going on for decades (28:11-5). In that sort of environment, you don't mention that your movement's leader was conceived outside of marriage and expect those same opponents to not find out about it or not use it against you. If you're making up an infancy narrative, you're probably going to say that the pregnancy occurred within marriage, like the supernatural pregnancies of the Old Testament.
And what is referring to a gospel as a "faith-text" supposed to prove? If you're assuming some sort of anti- or non-intellectual definition of faith, then you need to argue for that definition rather than just assuming it.
Jason,
DeleteYou cannot pontificate on the originally intended audience of Matthew and Luke because you cannot find a conservative Christian commentary that will do that. They ALL admit that exactly to whom these gospels were written, requires under present evidence a certain degree of speculation.
And while I cannot deny Jews would eventually get hold of Matthew's and Luke's gospels, I was careful to say that they would not have had much reason to think they'd live long enough for the material to become sufficiently far-spread that Jews would use the material as ammo.
Thank you for admitting that much when you say your evidence against the proposition comes from the 2nd century and forward. Matthew and Luke more than likely died before the 2nd century.
You admit what Matthew says in the context of 28:15 are events that have been going on for decades. Which means Matthew was in his older years and closer to death, when he wrote out this gospel to his community.
Again, you try to analogize the virgin-birth to OT pregnancies, when our inability to pinpoint Matthew's and Luke's audience leaves the door open to the possibility that they made up the virgin birth story to satisfy the pagan Gentiles who in their culture naturally expected divine men to have weird births.
I wasn't implying anything about lack of external corroboration by calling the gospels "faith-texts". i only meant to imply that the way the text is written, either there was a severe lack of critical thining Matthew expected on the part of his intended readership (i.e.,just swallow whatever Matthew says, since he doesn't try to document anything), or else he write so presumptuously because he is, in fact, writing to an already-Christian community unlikely to question anything an original apostle might have to say.
barry wrote:
Delete"You cannot pontificate on the originally intended audience of Matthew and Luke because you cannot find a conservative Christian commentary that will do that. They ALL admit that exactly to whom these gospels were written, requires under present evidence a certain degree of speculation."
You don't have to know "exactly" who an audience was in order to know some of their characteristics. And the initial audiences of the gospels aren't all that matter. For reasons I explained above, people other than the initial audiences would be likely to attain the relevant information and attain it early.
You write:
"And while I cannot deny Jews would eventually get hold of Matthew's and Luke's gospels, I was careful to say that they would not have had much reason to think they'd live long enough for the material to become sufficiently far-spread that Jews would use the material as ammo."
The authors didn't need "much" reason in order to have some reason, and they didn't need "far-spread" opposition in order to have some opposition. If the gospel authors were making up accounts, it would have been in their interest to have had Jesus conceived within marriage rather than outside of it. Arguing (erroneously) that a premarital pregnancy wasn't detrimental much doesn't change the fact that it was detrimental.
And why should we think both gospel authors were as unethical as you're implying and were unethical in the same manner? We don't begin with a default assumption that authors have those characteristics.
Furthermore, I've argued that the premarital pregnancy and/or virgin birth are corroborated in other New Testament documents (Mark 6:3, 1 Timothy 5:18). I've also argued for widespread support of one or both of those concepts in other early sources. It's not just a matter of what Matthew and Luke tell us.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
DeleteYou write:
"Thank you for admitting that much when you say your evidence against the proposition comes from the 2nd century and forward. Matthew and Luke more than likely died before the 2nd century."
That's not what I said. I referred to "explicit and widespread evidence" from the second century onward. I also provided reasons for thinking the same type of situation existed in the first century. You've ignored what I said about the first century and have singled out and misrepresented my comments on the second century.
You write:
"Again, you try to analogize the virgin-birth to OT pregnancies, when our inability to pinpoint Matthew's and Luke's audience leaves the door open to the possibility that they made up the virgin birth story to satisfy the pagan Gentiles who in their culture naturally expected divine men to have weird births."
Earlier, you said that we need to focus on probabilities rather than possibilities. Now you're putting forward a possibility without any supporting argument.
See here and here concerning some of the problems with explaining the virgin birth claim as an attempt to appeal to pagans.
Your reference to "weird births" doesn't explain what we see in the gospels. A birth can be unusual without involving a virgin, without a premarital conception, without diminishing Jesus' claim to Davidic ancestry as much as the virgin birth does, and without departing from Old Testament precedent as much as Jesus' birth does. Vaguely referring to "weird births" is evasive. It doesn't explain what needs to be explained.
You write:
"i only meant to imply that the way the text is written, either there was a severe lack of critical thining Matthew expected on the part of his intended readership (i.e.,just swallow whatever Matthew says, since he doesn't try to document anything), or else he write so presumptuously because he is, in fact, writing to an already-Christian community unlikely to question anything an original apostle might have to say."
Do you realize the irony in the fact that you keep making claims like the ones above without arguing for them, without any supporting documentation, etc.?
Regarding the alleged "lack of critical thinking", not "documenting anything", etc., see here. The series I just linked is about Luke, but many of the same principles apply to Matthew. On the intellectual character of the early Christians in general, see here, especially the resources cited in the first paragraph. See, also, pages 37-42 in the e-book here.
"But you cannot know how worried Matthew was to reluctantly tell historical truths that would provide ammo to his enemies unless you know what type of audience he was writing to. Standard NT Introductions universally admit that exactly what audience-types were intended to be addressed by the authors of Matthew and Luke, are nearly entirely speculative.
DeleteIn that case, it it no less likely that Matthew and Luke were written to already-believing Christians, in which case he would have no need to fear that this faith-text would ever get into the hands of unbelieving Jews within his lifetime and use a potentially scandalous virgin birth story against him. Matthew 27:8 and 28:15 speak about earlier matters being true "to this day" making it reasonable to suppose Matthew wrote to inform a church of a later age, and perhaps wrote late enough in his own life that he wasn't worried he'd live long enough to see unbelieving Jews get a hold of his gospel and use it against him."
i) Once a document is published, it is both literally and figuratively out of the author's hands. He has no control over who reads it. He can't prevent the "wrong" person from reading it.
ii) Christianity isn't like Free Masonry or the mystery religions, where you had to be an initiate to be exposed to Christian doctrine. Christianity is a public faith. Church services are open to the general public. The Apostolic kerygma was public.
There'd be no intention to keep the Gospels out of the hands of unbelievers. To the contrary, Christianity is an aggressively missionary faith that disseminates the message through the mass medium of writing as well as preaching.
iii) My position was never predicated on "unbelieving Jews" in particular. Rather, Jews and pagans alike would scoff at the story the virgin birth.
For that matter, I doubt Mary's own relatives believed her story on her say-so alone. Rather, what made it credible to her relatives is corroborative evidence. Joseph could vouch for her by recounting his dream. You had signs and portents heralding Jesus. You had miracles involving the conception of his cousin, John the Baptist.
In that larger context, the virgin birth would be plausible explanation for her out-of-wedlock pregnancy.
"For all these reasons, we need not consider that Matthew was telling truth due to how he must have known it would give his enemies ammo"
That was never my argument. My argument, rather, is in response to people who say that if the virgin birth were true, we'd expect it to be more widely reported in the NT.
The whole "just mentioned two times" is incredibly misleading, Matthew and Luke are the only two gospels that tell us ANYTHING about Jesus's childhood and they both mention it. Why would Mark and John be expected to mention it if they said nothing about Jesus's childhood? If mark and John had infancy narratives and didn't mention it then that would raise some eyebrows, but they didn't.
ReplyDeleteGood point. I've made the same point.
Delete