Board index ‹ Resurrection of Christ

[Big Clocks]

> You're right that we have no extra-biblical corroboration of this, and yet any scholar would admit that there is so little 1st-c. Jewish history outside the Bible and Josephus that arguments from silence prove nothing here. But there is potentially indirect evidence for this custom in at least three ancient non-Christian sources. Antiquities 20.9.3 describes Jewish leaders persuading Albinus, the prefect in AD 62, to release ten prisoners when he first arrived in Jerusalem at a Passover festival. The Babylonian Talmud, in Pesahim 91a, contains legislation for a prisoner’s being released at Passover. And the Roman historian, Livy (History of Rome 5.13.5-8), describes a 4th-c. BC event in which Rome released prisoners at a festival in Rome. So the biblical account coheres well with what was historically plausible.

Leaders in many cultures have shown their magnanimity by releasing prisoners. They didn't ever do it by asking a baying mob who hated them who they wanted to be released. That would be an incredibly stupid thing to do.

[jimwalton]

Not necessarily. According to the Bible, Pilate was convinced that Jesus was innocent. He may have thought he could get out of this by offering a scoundrel, thinking, "They'll never choose a criminal over this calm, innocent man." It was like a shoe-in, but then it failed.

We know from history that Palestine was a tumultuous place, and that rulers who didn't keep the peace lost favor with Rome. We also know from Josephus that Pilate was eventually deposed. The picture of Pilate here complies with what we know from other (outside of the Bible) sources. His concern about public pressure and his penchant to overcompensate with a violent solution is familiar to the records we have. Pliny wrote, "Pilate was a man with a very inflexible disposition, merciless and most obstinate, possessed by most ferocious passions and someone who was widely feared because of his corruption, acts of insolence, rapine behavior, habit of insulting people, cruelty, continual murders of people untried and uncondemned, and his never ending, gratuitous and most grievous inhumanity." I'm quite convinced that his bargaining with Barabbas is quite plausible and not necessarily an incredibly stupid thing to do. Pilate was a politician, and it wouldn't be a surprise that he tried to manipulate matters to make himself look good.

[Cicero]

I agree, it’s been a great debate so far, with plenty of constructive Christian responses.

As for this particular subject, I know the infancy narratives are less relevant to the thesis of my OP but I can’t let the subject pass without indicating just how strong the evidence against you is on this one. Please do respond if you want to discuss it

First off, I find it astonishing that Christians can defend the Magi story without in any way referring to the fact that it’s based in its entirety on the discredited science of astrology. Stars don’t give you information about momentous world events. Full stop, end of debate. We need go no further than that to establish that this story is pigswill.

But let’s imagine that the story were plausible. Even then, the problem Christians have here is much worse than simply a few dodgy parallels. Infancy narratives everywhere, throughout the ancient world, show a strong tendency to be unhistorical where they appear. This is partly due to high infant mortality; it was a waste of time to document peoples’ birth and infancy because chances were they’d die before they got much further. When interest in infancy narrative emerges, it is typically a long time after the person in question has become famous, when all extant information is unreliable. Which is why most infancy narratives are crap.
In other words, the Bayesian priors are strongly against any ancient infancy narrative, even an ostensibly kosher narrative, being historical. This isn’t an ostensibly kosher narrative. Therefore Christians have an overwhelming burden of proof in this case which they usually fail to recognise and which “could have” scenarios don’t counter.

In addition, fiction tends to display specific patterns and as we would expect, these patterns manifest very strongly in infancy narratives. Infancy narratives are almost always written in such a way as to in some way foreshadow the future or nature of the person involved. Dreams often play a crucial role. Why should real events follow the conventions of contemporary myth? Reality doesn’t work like that.

Furthermore, the evidence shows that historical plausibility isn’t nearly as significant as Christians want us to believe. For instance, Donatus in his life of Virgil begins a clearly fictitious infancy narrative by giving the month of Virgil’s birth, the consuls at his birth and the region where he was born, and is thus grounded in a precise and accurate historical setting. This clearly negates your insistence that historical “plausibility” can redeem a story with all the trappings of fiction.

As an added bonus, early Christians have done us the favour of writing a second infancy narrative (Luke 1-2) which contradicts almost everything Matthew says and throws in a few gratuitous historical inaccuracies of its own.

This is why even centre-ground Christian scholars like Raymond Brown agree with me on this one. The infancy stories are among the most historically indefensible narratives in the New Testament.

[jimwalton]

> First off, I find it astonishing that Christians can defend the Magi story without in any way referring to the fact that it’s based in its entirety on the discredited science of astrology. Stars don’t give you information about momentous world events. Full stop, end of debate.

Glad to engage, as usual. You misread the astronomy/astrology going on in the story. Remember that the ancients didn't know what planets were. They called them "wandering stars." Suppose (for instance), looking from Babylon they saw Jupiter (king planet) and Regulus (king star) in the Leo constellation (lion). Behind Leo comes Virgo (the virgin) with Venus (the mother) in it. They take this to be an omen of a king's birth. They know of the writings of the prophet Daniel (a Persian magus), and they head out for Jerusalem. They are not following a star but only claim "From the east we saw his star." Or possibly it was a conjunction of Jupiter and Venus. Who knows, but it's not just "full stop, end of debate."

Now, if they get to Jerusalem, depending on when it was, you could look south and see Jupiter (same "star"). Because of retrograde planetary motion, Jupiter may appear to stop in the sky, suspended over Bethlehem. They were just told that the king would be born in Bethlehem, so this isn't rocket science. They were told Bethlehem, the king star (Jupiter) is there suspended, and they ride. It's only six miles away, so it's not like a huge trip.

"After they had heard the king (that the king was to be born in Bethlehem), they went on their way, and the star they had seen in the east went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was." OK, so they get to Bethlehem, inquire about the child, find him, and they're there.

You're so quick to say it's pigswill, but I say the text makes sense.

> Infancy narratives everywhere, throughout the ancient world, show a strong tendency to be unhistorical where they appear.

This surely is a logical fallacy. Obviously not every infancy narrative is unhistorical just because some are.

> As an added bonus, early Christians have done us the favour of writing a second infancy narrative (Luke 1-2) which contradicts almost everything Matthew says and throws in a few gratuitous historical inaccuracies of its own.

Several problems here. We need to consider the broader picture. Matthew has absolutely nothing to gain from a virgin birth story unless it's true.

1. Matthew was trying to present a case that Jesus was of the line of David. He even starts his book with “Jesus, son of David...” It hurt his case to claim that Joseph wasn’t involved in the conception. Jewish messianic expectation included Davidic descent, so no one was expecting a virginal conception.

2. Matthew would have absolutely no motive for inventing such a story. It only made his writing seem mythological. No convincing motive for contriving such a story has yet been suggested.

3. Traditional Jewish monotheism would have abhorred the notion of a story about God replacing a human male in the act of conception.

4. Since Isa. 7.14 (the prophecy referred to in Mt. 1.23) was not understood to predict a virginal conception, there was little reason for Matthew to invent it.

5. The only logical reason that Matthew and Luke would have included a virginal conception is if they were convinced that’s what actually happened. It goes against reason and the known biology, even at that time. (They didn’t understand what we know about gynecology, but they knew it took two to tango.)

It does very little to Christian religious tradition to claim that Jesus was born of a virgin. His virgin birth is never tied in, by Scripture, to his sinlessness or anything else. As a matter of fact, it never comes up again in Scripture. It's almost a non-factor, and yet it's there. Why? There as nothing to gain from such a teaching, unless they were just reporting what happened.

Secondly, there are at least a dozen places where Luke and Matthew's infancy narratives agree.

1. Jesus's birth is related to the reign of Herod (Lk. 1.5; Mt. 2.1).

2. Mary, his mother to be, is a virgin engaged to Joseph, but they have not yet come to live together (Lk. 1.27, 34; 2.5; Mt. 1.18)

3. Joseph is of the house and lineage of David (Lk. 1.27; 2.4; Mt. 1.16, 20)

4. An angel from heaven announces the coming birth of Jesus (Lk. 1.28-30; Mt. 1.20-21).

5. Jesus is recognized himself to be a son of David (Lk. 1.32; Mt. 1.1).

6. Jesus's conception is to take place through the Holy Spirit (Lk. 1.35; Mt. 1.18, 20).

7. Joseph is not involved in the conception (Lk. 1.34; Mt. 1.18-25).

8. The name Jesus is imposed by heaven prior to his birth (Lk. 1.31; Mt. 1.21).

9. The angel identifies Jesus as Savior (Lk. 2.11; Mt. 1.21).

10. Jesus is born after Mary and Joseph come to live together (Lk. 2.4-7; Mt. 1.24-25).

11. Jesus is born at Bethlehem (Lk. 2.4-7; Mt. 2.1).

12. Jesus settles, with Mary and Joseph, in Nazareth in Galilee (Lk. 2.39, 51; Mt. 2.22-23).

Again, you're just to quick and cavalier about tossing the stories out. the alleged "contradictions" are telling the story from different perspectives with different reasons for telling it. As you might guess I'd say, I find that the birth narratives are ultimately defensible.

[Mmm Jeff]

> You mention that the gospels are a record of what did happen and that, "There's no evidence that the record was distorted to conform to prophecies. Rather, it's a later telling of what did happen."

Which would mean that if there are any inconsistencies between the gospels it would denote a mistake in documentation or possible misinterpretation, right?

Now, I know that I used the nativity/Magi as an example which as per both of your replies is in hindsight not the best example related to the Op so I thought of another example that might be more relevant. Whether the Magian story is true or not, obviously no one can disprove with 100% certainty but can you indulge me and can we use another example that I remember from the gospels?

The part where Jesus rides into Jerusalem:

In Mark's gospel, Jesus rides a colt into town:

When they were approaching Jerusalem, at Bethphage, near the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples and said to them, ‘Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden; untie it and bring it. If anyone says to you, “Why are you doing this?” just say this, “The Lord needs it and will send it back here immediately.”‘ They went away and found a colt tied near a door, outside in the street. As they were untying it, some of the bystanders said to them, ‘What are you doing, untying the colt?’ They told them what Jesus had said; and they allowed them to take it. Then they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks on it; and he sat on it. [Mark 11:1-7]

In Luke, Jesus sits on one donkey as well:

When he had come near Bethphage and Bethany, at the place called the Mount of Olives, he sent two of the disciples, saying, ‘Go into the village ahead of you, and as you enter it you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden. Untie it and bring it here. If anyone ask you, “Why are you untying it?” just say this: “The Lord needs it.”‘ So those who were sent departed and found it as he had told them. As they were untying the colt, its owners asked them, ‘Why are you untying the colt?’ They said, ‘The Lord needs it. Then they brought it to Jesus and after throwing their cloaks on the colt, they set Jesus on it. [Luke 19:29-35 ]

In John, the same:
Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it; as it is written: ‘Do not be afraid, daughter of Zion. Look, your king is coming, sitting on a donkey’s colt!’ [John 12:14-15 ]

In Matthew however Jesus sits ON A DONKEY AND COLT:

When they had come near Jerusalem and had reached Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, ‘Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, just say this, “The Lord needs them.” And he will send them immediately.’ This took place to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet, saying, ‘Tell the daughter of Zion, Look your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.’ The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them; they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their clothes on them, and he sat on them. [Matthew 21:1-7]

How is this possible? Is this a simple error in documentation? Or is it deliberate change in story?

[jimwalton]

> Which would mean that if there are any inconsistencies between the gospels it would denote a mistake in documentation or possible misinterpretation, right?

No, this is not right. Their era was not OCD in technical conformity and precision as ours is. for instance, in the book of Acts, the author tells the story of the conversion of Paul three separate times. All three are different. It's the same author, and in two of the cases it's Paul telling his own story. And yet there are differences. In a world of the oral transmission of stories a certain amount of leeway was allowed in the telling, as long as the core, the essential elements, and the point were there, much like the way we tell jokes. The stories have a literary interdependence, but the entire story was informal.

Your example of the donkey and colt easily falls into that category. Mark, Luke, and John only mention one animal—the one on which Jesus rode, because that's the important animal in the story. Matthew adds a detail that the others didn't bother with: there were actually two animals. It's like me telling about a party and saying, "Ethan and Sheldon were there!" I am by no means implying that's all who were there (what kind of party would THAT be!), but I am naming the ones important to the story I am telling.

Mark and Luke show that Jesus rode the colt. Matthew doesn't contradict that, referring to the garments put on the colt by them ("sat on them"—the garments); Jesus sat on the garments, not two animals.

The two disciples went into the village and found the two animals and brought them to Jesus. The disciples threw their coats over both animals, and Jesus rode the colt—the one that had never been ridden before. Mark, Luke, and John only mention the colt, since that's the one Jesus rode on.

It is neither an error in documentation, a possible misinterpretation, nor a deliberate change in story. It's selective historiography.

[Mmm Jeff]

> That Mathew brings Gentile magi on the scene as the first protagonists and the first worshippers is significant. Matthew continues that theme in 4.15-16, and on through the book. It's one of his threads.

But if one is tailoring a historical biography into a specific theme, isn't it likely that one is forging history to fit that particular theme in such a way that history can become fabricated? If for example Mary could be the source of the gospel narratives, why did Matthew write about his nativity but not so much about his early childhood if this is a historical biography. Why leave out a lot of history?

> He was.

So that would mean that we would find evidence of Persia and its inhabitants also converting to Christianity at the time, correct?

> Who knows. Is there anything to the truth of astrology, psychic powers, or various fortune-telling media? It's quite a discussion.

I don't know but from a Judeo-Christian perspective it should be a resounding no because it is asserted no one knows the future but God. To consider God giving people abilities to foretell future events is rather intriguing. Here of course the Magi learn about the future in a dream from God himself so that might be different.

If we do go down plausibility, I suppose you could say that the star was not necessarily a star but a bright object visible only in a small region to the group of people living within the boundaries of these towns, like a satellite which would follow the men to where they needed to be or perhaps it was a forced hallucination that could only be seen by them. Obviously, the possibilities are greater if one adds supernatural intervention to the mix.

[jimwalton]

> But if one is tailoring a historical biography into a specific theme, isn't it likely that one is forging history to fit that particular theme in such a way that history can become fabricated?

Not at all. Suppose we have the writing of an African man writing about slavery in the South before the Civil War. He's going to tell his story from the eyes of the slave, not from that of the land-owner. That doesn't mean he is forging history in such a way as to fabricate the telling. It's historiography from a vantage point. We would get the same kind of effect of a Jew writing about the Holocaust, a Democrat writing about Hilary Clinton, or a refugee immigrant in a holding camp. It doesn't indicate that the story is fabricated.

> If for example Mary could be the source of the gospel narratives, why did Matthew write about his nativity but not so much about his early childhood if this is a historical biography. Why leave out a lot of history?

Every historian is selective. And every historian writes an interpretation of the events at hand. History is always interpretive, giving us the author's perspective on the event through selection and emphasis.

None of the Gospel writers tell us about the childhood of Jesus. We don't really know why, but obviously they all felt that his miraculous birth was worth a few chapters, but then they focus on his three years of ministry. Every historian leaves out a lot of history. I've read several biographies of Abraham Lincoln. They're all different, despite their overlapping of material. And they're all selective.

> So that would mean that we would find evidence of Persia and its inhabitants also converting to Christianity at the time, correct?

No, this is not correct. The ancient Persians were primarily Zoroastrians. They are not insistently monotheistic. They could recognize the birth of an important person, even a king, bring gifts to honor him and do obeisance to him, but that doesn't mean they became Christ followers.

The story, however, could have impact on other individuals and groups of people. The visit of the magi could have had effect on the Bethlehemites as well as some Jerusalemites. The narrative doesn't follow that thread of the story, so we just don't (and at this point can't) know.

But it seems apparent that God's intent is to convert people to Christianity right from the start.

> I don't know but from a Judeo-Christian perspective it should be a resounding no because it is asserted no one knows the future but God.

This isn't true. Christianity recognizes that some of the "dark arts," so to speak, have a spiritual power in them. We are told to avoid them because they are corrupted and misleading, not because they never tell the truth. Sometimes they do, and they can lead people in the wrong direction.

> I suppose you could say that the star was not necessarily a star but a bright object visible only in a small region to the group of people

No, that's not what I'm claiming. I wrote it in a previous post, but I'll cut and paste it here so you don't have to go searching for it.

Remember that the ancients didn't know what planets were. They called them "wandering stars." Suppose (for instance), looking from Babylon they saw Jupiter (king planet) and Regulus (king star) in the Leo constellation (lion). Behind Leo comes Virgo (the virgin) with Venus (the mother) in it. They take this to be an omen of a king's birth. They know of the writings of the prophet Daniel (a Persian magus), and they head out for Jerusalem. They are not following a star but only claim "From the east we saw his star." Or possibly it was a conjunction of Jupiter and Venus. Who knows, but it's not just "full stop, end of debate."

Now, if they get to Jerusalem, depending on when it was, you could look south and see Jupiter (same "star"). Because of retrograde planetary motion, Jupiter may appear to stop in the sky, suspended over Bethlehem. They were just told that the king would be born in Bethlehem, so this isn't rocket science. They were told Bethlehem, the king star (Jupiter) is there suspended, and they ride. It's only six miles away, so it's not like a huge trip.

"After they had heard the king (that the king was to be born in Bethlehem), they went on their way, and the star they had seen in the east went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was." OK, so they get to Bethlehem, inquire about the child, find him, and they're there.

So it's not necessarily a bright object visible only in a small region to the group of people...etc.

[Cicero]

> Suppose (for instance), looking from Babylon they saw Jupiter (king planet) and Regulus (king star) in the Leo constellation (lion). Behind Leo comes Virgo (the virgin) with Venus (the mother) in it. They take this to be an omen of a king's birth.

I don’t understand how you’re contradicting me here. You say I misinterpret it the astrology and then show how it makes astrological sense...? My point is that the narrative is refuted by there being any astrology at all.

Remember, Matthew probably believed astrology was real. We now know it isn’t. Christians basically have to make a special case of the Magi story, and assume that astrological principles were valid in this one case only because God supernaturally made them so.

> Or possibly it was a conjunction of Jupiter and Venus. Who knows

Surely this is trivially easy for an astronomer to work out?

> This surely is a logical fallacy. Obviously not every infancy narrative is unhistorical just because some are.

That’s not what I said. It’s a burden of proof issue.

To take an only half-serious comparison, most shaggy dog stories are unhistorical. Maybe there’s a shaggy dog story somewhere that’s real but when I hear a shaggy dog story I sure do assume by default that it’s fictitious.

In addition, some of your arguments for the historicity of the infancy narratives could be used of any of these infancy narratives as well, strongly implying they are valid for none.

> Matthew has absolutely nothing to gain from a virgin birth story unless it's true.

This is tangential to our purposes as I agree that the virgin birth theme clearly predates Matthew’s account. Probably you’re right and Matthew took it as a historical datum. At any rate this is not a point on which Mt and Lk disagree so I’m not sure why you consider it a response to that particular argument of mine.

Matthew and Luke disagree on the fundamental outline of the story. In Matthew, Joseph lives in Bethlehem and moves to Nazareth because Bethlehem is dangerous. In Luke, Joseph lives in Nazareth and moves to Bethlehem for a census. You’re right that they agree on certain things. Clearly there’s an expectation on what “needs” to happen (viz. Jesus is born in Bethlehem as prophecy demands and is brought up in Nazareth as reality demands) but you can’t just ignore the fact that they fulfil these expectations in completely contradictory ways.

To briefly address your arguments on the virgin birth, the obvious reason for inventing the story is a high Christology: to have God born of human sexual intercourse is far more obnoxious to monotheist sensibilities than to have him born of a divine act. As a clergyman I once discussed this with said, it may sound weird but when you think about it there's no other way it could have been done.

Also, the Septuagint predicts the virgin birth (it’s a mistranslation but then that’s the joke). You say it was not thus understood, would you mind clarifying?

And it doesn’t contradict their knowledge of biology nearly as much as ours. For them, IIRC, the mother was the material cause and the father the formal cause of the child. God supplying the formal cause instead of the father makes perfect sense in the light of Jesus’ being both human and divine. Today Christians basically need to assume God supplied DNA of his own which really makes much less intuitive sense.

As for the information on which Luke and Matthew agree, your points 3, 5 and 11 are demanded by prophecy; 2, 6 and 7 are required by the virgin birth; 12 is historically undeniable; 4, 8-10 are trivial and pretty much required by the story. That leaves only 1 (his birth during the reign of Herod) and the virginity theme, which does indeed suggest a kernel of a pre-existing myth common to Matthew and Luke. But none of that explains the lack of agreement in the story they build on this framework.

Basically your instances of agreement prove the exact opposite of what you’re implying. The agreement on a framework with the practical details differing proves precisely how this story was built “bottom-up” through the gradual accretion of myth.
you're just to quick and cavalier about tossing the stories out

I don’t wish to make an argument from authority here, but just out of interest, do you accept that most Christian scholars aren’t with you on this one? Do you think Brown is “too quick and cavalier” about these stories as well?

[jimwalton]

> You say I misinterpret it the astrology and then show how it makes astrological sense...? My point is that the narrative is refuted by there being any astrology at all.
> Remember, Matthew probably believed astrology was real. We now know it isn’t.

Astrology was a discredited science only in that it was incomplete knowledge, from the wrong source, that could be misleading. The Bible never claims that there is nothing to the "dark arts," but only that they are to be avoided in favor of God's wisdom, which is complete knowledge, from the right source, that is not misleading. There just may be something to astrology, but we are to avoid it because it's deceptive. So it's OK that Matthew believed in it, and even that God used it.

> Surely this is trivially easy for an astronomer to work out?

Yes, it has been attempted, with some success. The problem is that we don't know when Jesus was born. There are several different astronomical scenarios that could have been what the magi were observing, but it could have been something else also. I have the "Starry Night" software on my computer, so I can look at the sky, from Babylon looking westward, all through that era. There are several possibilities (I outlined one, mentioned another), but ultimately we don't know because (1) we don't know when he was born, and (2) they're not specific enough about what they were seeing to help us out much.

> some of your arguments for the historicity of the infancy narratives could be used of any of these infancy narratives as well, strongly implying they are valid for none.

This again is a logical fallacy. The mythological character of some (or even most) famous-person infancy narrative still doesn't strongly imply they are valid for none. If God truly visited the Earth, I could justifiably expect some sort of phenomenological evidence, so we can't blanket disclaim that miraculous accompaniment must by logic be false.

> Matthew and Luke disagree on the fundamental outline of the story. In Matthew, Joseph lives in Bethlehem and moves to Nazareth because Bethlehem is dangerous. In Luke, Joseph lives in Nazareth and moves to Bethlehem for a census.

You and I have discussed this before. It's quite obvious many times over that you continue to want to discuss, but my points don 't persuade you.

So the possible sequence of events is: Jesus is born in Bethlehem. He is circumcised and presented in the temple in Jerusalem. The family travels to Nazareth (Lk. 2.39), but then return to Bethlehem (possibly undesirable stigma and ostracism are a daily occurrence in Nazareth). The magi visit Jesus in a home in Bethlehem. Joseph is warned in a dream and flees to Egypt. Herod slaughters the children in Bethlehem. After Herod dies Joseph and family return to Nazareth because they fear to live in Bethlehem, so close to Jerusalem and Archelaus.

> To briefly address your arguments on the virgin birth, the obvious reason for inventing the story is a high Christology: to have God born of human sexual intercourse is far more obnoxious to monotheist sensibilities than to have him born of a divine act.

Yet no one was expecting a virgin birth. Nor is a virgin birth necessary for high Christology. There's nothing about sexual intercourse that is obnoxious to monotheist sensibilities. Sexual intercourse is a beautiful gift from God, and have children was a blessing.

> As for the information on which Luke and Matthew agree

I was only countering your claim that the two narratives had nothing in common.

> demanded by prophecy

"Demanded by prophecy" doesn't mean they were fabricated. Possibly you could open your mind to the prospect that these events were prophesied and fulfilled.

> Required by the virgin birth

Again, possibly not required, but that it happened that way.

> proves precisely how this story was built “bottom-up” through the gradual accretion of myth.

It proves no such thing, but is only the result of confirmation bias on your part.

> do you accept that most Christian scholars aren’t with you on this one?

It depends whether you are talking about Christian scholars or scholars who comment on the Christian text. Most Christian scholars are with me on this one.

And, to be honest, I don't even know who Raymond Brown is. So I just googled him: A Catholic biblical scholar. OK.