tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post4488606627939375213..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: A Response To Annette Merz On The Infancy Narratives (Part 8)Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-26409739451243800872016-10-19T19:10:51.574-04:002016-10-19T19:10:51.574-04:00(continued from above)
>>>>>
Merz ...(continued from above)<br /><br />>>>>><br />Merz says the following elsewhere about identifying the Herod of Luke 1:5: <br /><br />"But Luke does not provide any other details to contextualize this important scene-setting phrase ['King Herod of Judea' in Luke 1:5], and thus an unprejudiced reader would automatically think of <i>the</i> Herod who gave name to the dynasty and was famous beyond the borders of his own country - and this is precisely how readers from antiquity onwards have unanimously understood Luke 1:5....The fact that Luke mentions the brothers of Archelaus, Herod (=Antipas) and Philippus, as tetrarchs (literally: ruling as tetrarchs) in 3:1 in my view also contradicts the hypothesis that he would deliberately have applied the wrong title 'king' to Archelaus in 1:5." (481-2, n. 50 on 482)<br /><br />Why doesn't Merz apply the same reasoning when discussing Matthew's account? Like Luke's unqualified reference to "Herod, king of Judea" (1:5), Matthew's unqualified reference to "Herod the king" (2:3) is most naturally taken as a reference to "<i>the</i> Herod who gave name to the dynasty and was famous beyond the borders of his own country". And just as the history of interpretation of Luke 1:5 favors Merz's reading of that passage, the same is true of taking Matthew 2:3 as a reference to Herod the Great. Furthermore, just as we can look at how Luke refers to Herod's sons in other passages in his gospel, we can do the same with Matthew. In Matthew 2:22, we see Archelaus distinguished from the Herod described earlier, and that Herod is referred to as Archelaus' father. How, then, could the Herod in question be Archelaus or one of Archelaus' brothers?<br /><br />Notice that Merz's appeal to the history of interpretation of Luke 1:5 involves an appeal to patristic evidence. And keep in mind that <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-response-to-annette-merz-on-infancy.html" rel="nofollow">she appealed (misleadingly) to The Epistle Of Barnabas when discussing Mark 12:35-7</a>. She acknowledges that the patristic evidence has some significance, and she sometimes appeals to it herself.<br /><br />The notion that Matthew and Luke are referring to different Herods and date Jesus' birth to different years is widely contradicted by the patristic evidence. See <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/12/some-neglected-evidence-relevant-to_12.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/12/some-neglected-evidence-relevant-to_13.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. The scenario Merz suggests, in which Matthew refers to a different Herod than Luke does and thereby places Jesus' birth in a different year, isn't supported by any source in the earliest centuries. <br /><br />Matthew and Luke agree in placing Jesus' birth around the time of the death of Herod the Great. Rather than contradicting each other, Matthew and Luke are agreeing in a way that's best explained by the historicity of what they're agreeing about.<br />>>>>>Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-78075616280753904362016-10-19T19:10:27.166-04:002016-10-19T19:10:27.166-04:00I've come to the conclusion that I misundersto...I've come to the conclusion that I misunderstood Merz's argument about which Herod Jesus was born under. Instead of questioning which Herod Matthew is referring to, Merz seems to be questioning which Herod a possible pre-Matthean source was referring to, a source she thinks may have been behind both Matthew and Luke. I apologize for the error. I've revised the post. The section on Luke's census remains the same, but I've rewritten the section on which Herod Jesus was born under. If anybody wants to see my original text, which is now removed from the post, I'm including it below. I'll have to use multiple comments to post it, due to space limitations:<br /><br />>>>>><br />There's a section in Merz's chapter that suggests that Matthew and Luke might differ in their dating of Jesus' birth by about a decade and argues against the historicity of Luke's census account. I'll begin with her claims about the date of Jesus' birth. <br /><br />After saying that there are "serious doubts" about placing Jesus' birth at the time of Herod the Great (478), Merz tells us that Matthew wanted to parallel Jesus to Moses by having a figure like the Pharaoh of Exodus 1-2 in Jesus' childhood. Therefore, Matthew may have had unhistorical, typological motives for placing Jesus' birth at the time of Herod the Great. I've addressed that argument in a previous response to Merz. See my quotation of Mark Smith and my response to that quotation about halfway through the post <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/09/a-response-to-annette-merz-on-infancy.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. <br /><br />Merz then writes:<br /><br />"From a historical point of view, the slaughter of the innocents most certainly must be regarded as a legend mirroring Pharaoh's order to kill the sons of Israel (Ex 1-2) and echoing Herod's infamous cruelty towards his own family and subjects." (479)<br /><br />Notice, as I've pointed out before, her exaggerated language about her own conclusions, while she's so irrationally skeptical about the positions she disagrees with. Her claim that we "most certainly must" reject the historicity of the Slaughter is absurd, especially given how little of an argument she offers for that conclusion. See <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/08/is-slaughter-of-innocents-historical.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> regarding the historicity of the Slaughter. <br /><br />She continues:<br /><br />"Add to this the fact that, in common parlance, all the ruling descendants of Herod the Great could be referred to as 'King Herod,' and Jesus could have been born under Herod Archelaus (in Judea between 4 BCE and 6 CE) or under Herod Antipas (in Galilee after 4BCE)…In Mark 6:14,22, Herod Antipas, who was not even king, is referred to as 'King Herod;' in Acts 12:1, Herod's grandson Agrippa I is called 'King Herod;' Archealaos is called 'king' by Josephus in Ant 18.93, and he is referred to by the name Herod on his own coins and by Dio Cassius ('Herod of Palestine': 55.27.6); see M.D. Smith, 'Jesus,' 286, with further references." (479, n. 44 on 479)<br /><br />Earlier, she said that the Herod of Matthew 2 behaves in a way similar to how Herod the Great behaved. So, if the <i>behavior</i> of the Herod in Matthew 2 suggests that he's Herod the Great, then we don't just have his <i>name</i> to go by.<br />>>>>><br /><br />(continued below)Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-80458699266631240072016-10-16T20:39:54.875-04:002016-10-16T20:39:54.875-04:00Thanks for the encouragement, Ron!
I wouldn't...Thanks for the encouragement, Ron!<br /><br />I wouldn't argue that the inscription you've mentioned is referencing Quirinius. See <a href="http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Tiburtinus" rel="nofollow">Richard Carrier's comments on the subject in his article I linked above</a>. Stanley Porter discusses the subject on pages 172-3 of the book I cited in my article. He notes that most scholars think the inscription is referring to somebody other than Quirinius (172, n. 20 on 173). He also says that "virtually all" scholars doubt that Quirinius was legate of Syria twice (173).Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-58818660120038393722016-10-16T07:29:13.098-04:002016-10-16T07:29:13.098-04:00Hmmm. Maybe not so recent. Was Creation 36(1) 201...Hmmm. Maybe not so recent. Was Creation 36(1) 2014Ron Van Brenkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15623171051016737306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64353040035262950612016-10-16T07:25:49.366-04:002016-10-16T07:25:49.366-04:00Hi Jason,
More excellent stuff from you. Keep up ...Hi Jason,<br /><br />More excellent stuff from you. Keep up the great work!<br /><br />I have been teaching on the Infancy Narrative for the past few weeks. Here is some additional stuff on that census thing-<br /><br />So firstly, the date of that census of verse 2 is highly contentious. Contentious because the date of The Great Census (7 A.D.) doesn't correspond with the dating that we have for the birth of Jesus (5 or 6 B.C.). Nor does it correspond with the date we know of Quirinius being Governor.<br /><br />However, we do have an ancient Latin manuscript (Tiburtine Inscription- h.t. CMI) that indicates that there was an unknown Governor at the date of that coming out of the womb. A Governor "that ruled twice". And we do know that Quirinius was Governor and in charge of the later Great Census. Not only that, but meticulous Luke knew about that Great Census as well (Acts 5:37).<br /><br />So this "first census" of Quirinius may quite well have preceded the Great Census of Quirinius by a dozen years. Could quite well have been a trial run of the 'bigger and better' Census (for taxation purposes). Much like we had a short-form census 5 years ago, which preceded this year's long-form census in Canada. A census that had more than 98% compliance due to severe penalties for non-compliance.<br /><br />-https://quizzingdv.blogspot.ca/2016/07/luke-2-orderly-account-of-birth-and.html<br /><br />As you can see, I was piggy-backing on a recent article by Jonathan Sarfati in Creation magazine. Seemed a whole lot easier to explain that census discrepancy. <br /><br />Thought that might interest you, Jason.<br />Blessings,<br /><br /> Ron Van Brenkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15623171051016737306noreply@blogger.com