by jimwalton » Thu Jan 18, 2018 4:05 pm
Every historiographer is selective in what he or she tells. Any biographer knows that he has to select material that flows, tells the story, and shows us, from the vantage point of the author, what the subject was like. No writer puts in every little detail, word, and action. No one. It's the same with historiography. Read any account of a Civil War battle, the life of Gen. MacArthur, the Battle for Iwo Jima, or the Clinton presidency. You'll get a selective assemblage of stories as chosen by the author.
Why is it unsatisfactory to think that the Gospel writers used the same selective process in their works? Each one of them writes from a different vantage point with a different point to make about who Jesus is. Some show him to be the messianic king, others a servant of the people, and yet another the Son of God. And yet you fault them for excluding data and information peripheral to their purpose in writing.
When Jesus began his formal ministry, there was an inauguration of sorts like the gun-shot at the beginning of the race. The story of the brushing of the mane and putting on the bridle may be totally superfluous to the incredible race that Secretariat ran on the track.
> Even if that's the case, it's still reasonable to ask these questions.
Of course it's still reasonable to ask these questions. It's always good to ask questions. But tell me about how Alexander the Great combed his hair, or Julius Caesar picked out his clothes in the morning. No one knows. While we may be curious about such things, no one thought them as worthy to write about as Alexander's military prowess and Caesar's political accomplishments, so we are without this information. In the case of Jesus, in an era where books were not 700 pages long as they are now, the writers were selective. I wish for more just as much as you do, but it just isn't out there.
I was very intrigued by Anne Rice's "The Young Messiah," made into film in 2016. Fascinating. We'd love to know this stuff and what he was like. But the authors deemed other information more important. Even John wished to write more about the things Jesus said and did during his 3 years of ministry, but settled for the pericopes he selected. His point was basically, "No one can write everything they'd like to say."
You asked, "Were the miraculous circumstances of his birth not generally known?" It's difficult to know this. It seems that when Jesus was in ministry there was some disdain for him with people assuming he was an illegitimate child (Mk. 6.3). It's hard to us to know how many times Mary tried to convince people that Jesus was miraculously conceived, and how many times she just kept her mouth shut and absorbed people's scorn.
For comparison, for instance, one might ask the question, "How did the Jews feel about the Roman destruction of the Temple in AD 70?" Well, good luck on that one. Great question, but no writings. We can guess how they felt, but we can't read how they felt. No one wrote about it.
You asked, "Was he famous for being perfect and sinless as a teenager?" It doesn't seem so. Again, the same Mark passage (6.3). There seems to have been a perception that Jesus was a normal guy. That doesn't imply that he was rowdy and sinful, but only that he doesn't seem to have been famous for being perfect and sinless. He wasn't treated with honor (Mk. 6.4), but only scorn and offense for his messianic claims.
So I'm not cavalierly dismissing the absence of information. I'm recognizing that any writer is selective. In the case of Jesus, it seems that the back story was dull. He was just a normal person going about his life doing normal stuff. The one glimpse we catch of him at age 12 (Lk. 2.41-52) is pretty cool to see, but Luke almost wants to tell the story of Mary & Joseph as much as that of Jesus. More to the point, Luke uses the story, in combination with the story of the disciples on the road to Emmaus (Lk. 24.13-35) like parallel stories, like bookends. Both are at Passover, both a Jerusalem visit. Both upset that Jesus is not with them (in ch 24 Jesus is with them, but unrecognized). Mary and Joe hurry back to the city, as do Cleopas and his friend (after they recognize Jesus). Joseph and Mary search for Jesus in vain for 3 days (that's a pretty obvious parallel to Jesus's death and resurrection in Lk. 24). So even in the telling of this story Luke has an agenda, a reason he brought it up.
OK, I get that. Were there not more stories that could have been used? None that the 4 Gospel writers bothered with. Why? No one knows. It's not a cop-out, but just the hand we were dealt.