Board index ‹ Christmas

[Chewbacca]

I could say a lot and I still might. It seems like you dismiss a lot of the scholarship and consensus to get to your views on the these accounts. I try to stick to scholarly consensus when it’s not my expertise, does your approach differ on this? If it doesn’t how did we get to different conclusions? Or is it your expertise? I’d be psyched if I was actually talking to a New Testament scholar.

[jimwalton]

> It seems like you dismiss a lot of the scholarship and consensus to get to your views on the these accounts.

Oh, no, I don't dismiss it at all. I digest it voraciously. I have a ream of notes on this issue and add to them regularly as I come across new information. But that doesn't mean that I agree with everyone on it (well, it's impossible to agree with everyone on it because there are conflicting theories and a variety of conclusions). So here's the deal: I study it as deeply as I can, and I weigh the evidence at hand, and I draw my own conclusions, not following consensus, or a particular position, or the loudest voice, like a sheep or a lemming. I use my brain and analyze it myself with all the information I can find.

> I try to stick to scholarly consensus when it’s not my expertise

Sometimes that's a useful strategy, but sometimes even scholarly consensus is politically or positionally motivated. Like, can you just IMAGINE if a well-respected scholar found convincing evidence against a well-grounded theory, like evolution or the Big Bang and came out with it. Can you imagine the ridicule and deprecation that person would receive by going against the "consensus"? I imagine he/she couldn't even get published. The status quo can have intense power.

Just to branch into a different (and controversial) direction, look at the power of the mainstream media and social media to squelch what they consider to be incorrect information, which is usually views voiced by conservatives. It's ASTOUNDING how they try to create an artificial consensus. It has made us very wary and skeptical of all things media in this world of bias and lies. I find that I have to listen critically and with discernment because the "consensus" is sometimes just another means of manipulation.

> Or is it your expertise? I’d be psyched if I was actually talking to a New Testament scholar.

Yes, it's my expertise. Yes, I'm a NT scholar.

[Chewbacca]

Amazing! I have so many questions! First I want to say that my question was malformed, dismiss is the wrong word, it should have been why do you hold views contrary to the scholarly consensus? But you answered that satisfactory. I may be misinterpreting your previous comment but do you hold to traditional authorship of the Gospels? You seem to have an early dating of Matthew, is this correct. From what I gathered in almost all the biblical claims in our back and forth you’ve come out in favour of the bible, is there anything that is in the biblical birth narrative that you don’t think happened in history? And do you think the NT scholars who don’t affirm the massacre of the innocents are maliciously interpreting the texts or are they mistaken?

[jimwalton]

> I may be misinterpreting your previous comment but do you hold to traditional authorship of the Gospels?

I do hold to the traditional authorship of the Gospels. Every piece of external evidence we have points to the traditional authorship. They are all unanimously affirmed by the early Church; there are no competing contenders for an alternate author, and the way they spread throughout the Empire contributes to the plausibility of traditional authors.

Internally, all of the writings (style, level of Greek, themes) match perfectly with the traditional authors. Every piece of stylistic assessment leads in their directions.

I find that the case for traditional authorship, when weighed against the competing case, is stronger and weightier than the case against. I even go for an early date of writing for the 3 Synoptics (late 50s, very early 60s)

I'm working on Matthew quite a bit now.It is said that Matthew copied Mark. I'm up to chapter 8 and I'm not seeing it, but I want to withhold judgment.

Matthew 1 - this material is not in Mark
Mt. 2: Not in Mark.
Mt. 3: This John the Baptist material not in Mark. The baptism material—quite a bit of overlap.
Mt. 4: The Temptation scene, very different. The preaching in Capernaum: not in Mark. Calling the 4 disciples: some overlap, but I'd be hard-pressed to say Mt copied from Mk. Too much is different.
Mt. 5: Not in Mark
Mt. 6: Not in Mark.
Mt. 7: Not in Mark.
Mt. 8.1-4: Healing the leper. 3 of the verses are very similar, but those are mostly quotes from Jesus. The rest is different.
Mt. 8.5-13: Not in Mark
Mt. 8.14-17: Hardly the same as Mark.
Mt. 8.18-22: Not in Mark.

So despite the BIG consensus about Mt being a copycat of Mark, I'm not seeing it, yet. Still working.

As far as date, there are SO many reasons to see Matthew as early (50s-very early 60s). I'll only list some here.

As far as date, there are SO many reasons to see Matthew as early (50s-very early 60s). I'll only list some here.

• Such early theology
• Early eschatology
• Writing as a Jew to Jews, which to me makes a WHOLE lot more sense if it's BEFORE the destruction of Jerusalem.
• early expressions
• Identifying Jesus as "the Son of Man"

...and so many more.

> From what I gathered in almost all the biblical claims in our back and forth you’ve come out in favour of the bible, is there anything that is in the biblical birth narrative that you don’t think happened in history?

No, there isn't. The authors are interested in theology and history, not fabrication or mythology. We can go through the story piece by piece if you wish; I've written a book on it. We can discuss any matter of concern in the narrative; I'm always looking both to learn and to discuss.

> And do you think the NT scholars who don’t affirm the massacre of the innocents are maliciously interpreting the texts or are they mistaken?

I think they want to discard it for 2 reasons: (1) There is no extrabibilical record to corroborate it, which to me is not a strong argument; (2) some of them have an agenda to discredit the Bible, and this is just another platform. Here are some of my points:

1. Matthew rides a theme of the shedding of innocent blood (Mt. 2.16-18; 23.34-39; 27.3-10, 24-25). I don't doubt Judas's suicide or Jesus's crucifixion, so I don't doubt the massacre of the innocents.

2. It fits Herod's personality and behavior, especially late in his life.

3. I wouldn't expect a secret raid on a tiny village to make the official records or to be noticed by later historians. It's possible we're talking about the deaths of maybe 15-20 children. Usually historians pick up major trends and items of concern. We have specific lack of records from reliable historians about other major events.

I don't see a particular reason to doubt the story. There is no particular body of evidence leading me to consider it a fraud.

[Chewbacca]

Very nice, it seems like you really hold the gospels in high regard as a source for history. Now I am not accusing you of personally doing what I am about to describe, but I have listened to many hours of NT scholars who hold very similar views to you. Often times they hold the bible to lower standard than other historical texts, especially ones that have supernatural claims in them, I imagine that like me you also do not believe Alexander the great was born of a God, but rather his parents were Phillip and Olympias. But we have actual historians writing about it, and we know he himself claimed it and people believed it. We have better evidence for Joseph Smith and the golden plates but I am going to go out on a limb and say you don't believe that. We should have low confidence in ancient historical texts, and lower confidence in supernatural claims held within ancient historical texts, and yet lower confidence of supernatural claims within anonymous historical texts written for the sole purpose of evangelizing about those who performed them, which is what we have in the bible. This is a particular reason you should doubt the story. There are no reports of odd astronomical activity like a star hovering over Bethlehem, Another particular reason to doubt the story. Now, I am sure you realize that your points don't convince me, but I can let you know why at least.

The fact that Matthew has a theme is a knock against it being history. Ancient greek historians saw no problem misreporting historical events in the name of furthering there artistic, theological, political, or philosophical ends.

You know how we know it fits Herod's personality? because Josephus often reports on Herod's nefarious exploits, especially ones that effect the Jewish people

see 2 as to why we can expect Josephus to have reported this event.

Thanks for the discourse, BTW if you go into academia in the field of NT scholarship, especially if its at a Christian school, I implore you to beware the statement of faith, its anti truth, and is bias confirming at worst, and a reason for skeptics to disregard you at best.

[jimwalton]

> I imagine that like me you also do not believe Alexander the great was born of a God

Correct, I do not believe A the G was born of a God

> We have better evidence for Joseph Smith and the golden plates but I am going to go out on a limb and say you don't believe that.

Correct. I do not believe the golden plates were legit.

> We should have low confidence in ancient historical texts

Not necessarily. There are good and legitimate reasons to have confidence in textual material, obviously depending on the item under discussion.

> lower confidence in supernatural claims held within ancient historical texts,

Not necessarily. Supernatural claims are not subject to scientific verification any more than we can re-live and observe Brutus stabbing Julius Caesar or Martin Luther nailing his thesis to the Wittenberg door. That doesn't mean or require that I have a low confidence in them; rather, I have to evaluate them by other criteria.

> written for the sole purpose of evangelizing about those who performed them

Here you misunderstand the authors' motives. The purpose of the OT writers was not evangelism but instead preservation. God had done something, or given a message, and they wanted to preserve it. It was often written and then stored in some kind of repository. It was never used evangelically or apologetically.

> This is a particular reason you should doubt the story.

You seem to be claiming that any paper written to make a particular claim is reason to doubt it. And yet "Good scholarship is about convincing others to espouse our view instead of merely asking them to do so." Any scientist who has made a discovery writes to evangelize (share the good news) and to win others to his position by showing the evidence (apologetics). That is not a particular reason to doubt the paper.

> There are no reports of odd astronomical activity like a star hovering over Bethlehem

I would advise that you think differently about the story. Daniel was a respected magus in Babylon, so there is reason to believe the magi 600 years later would know about prophecies of the king of the Jews. They wouldn't need a magic star to lead them to Jerusalem. Matthew never says the star led them from Persia to Jerusalem, only that they had seen an omen in the sky to alert them to a significant birth. All it says is that they had seen an omen (a "star") in the heavens. We don't really know what they saw that was the "tip off." There are many possibilities here. There are other traditions telling us about magian visits to notable persons, namely Alexander the Great. What they saw that motivated the trip to Jerusalem was probably some configuration of constellations, planets, and stars that could have caught their attention. Having received word from Herod's staff that Bethlehem was the goal of their journey, locating the village and a child in it would not present a challenge. They learn the destination of their quest, Bethlehem, and attribute the omen in the sky for guiding them there. What this omen was we will never know. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to follow directions, though (Jewish capital = Jerusalem; conversation with Herod leads to Bethlehem), and being astrologers, they credit the stars with their success. Good for them. Was God involved in this? No doubt, but we don't know what they were "following," so we can't know the nature of the phenomenon.

> Now, I am sure you realize that your points don't convince me,

Not a surprise.

> The fact that Matthew has a theme is a knock against it being history

This DOES surprise me. Every writer has an agenda—something he is trying to communicate. No writer can include everything; all are selective of the material at hand. They make their choices based on their thesis.

> Ancient greek historians saw no problem misreporting historical events in the name of furthering there artistic, theological, political, or philosophical ends.

So is Matthew guilty until proven innocent?

> You know how we know it fits Herod's personality? because Josephus often reports on Herod's nefarious exploits, especially ones that effect the Jewish people

Josephus is not the only reporter of Herod's mania (There is also the Testament of Moses, Macrobius). Regardless, does it make it untrue?

> BTW if you go into academia in the field of NT scholarship, especially if its at a Christian school, I implore you to beware the statement of faith, its anti truth, and is bias confirming at worst, and a reason for skeptics to disregard you at best.

Thanks for the advice, but I'm WAY past this. That boat sailed decades ago.