Contra Pagels on Christmas

 Apropos my last post, the New York Times (NYT) has since released an interview with Elaine Pagels on Christmas. To be fair to Nicholas Kristof, the interviewer, he has interviewed more evangelical writers, like Tim Keller and Beth Moore. I wish he had reached out to more conservative scholars to discuss the Nativity--like Darrell Bock, Craig Blomberg, Craig Keener or Richard Bauckham--but alas, we all fall short! 

"They are not written simply as history; often they speak in metaphor. We can take them seriously without taking everything literally."

But Pagels does not give us any reason for thinking that the infancy narratives are metaphorical/not history. On the contrary, the Gospels are histories. My co-bloggers and I have posted several different essays on the subject, the reader should consult those. 

"Yes, these stories circulated after Jesus’ death among members of the Jewish community who regarded him as a false messiah, saying that Jesus’ father was a Roman soldier. I used to dismiss such stories as ancient slander. Yet while we do not know what happened, there are too many points of circumstantial evidence to simply ignore them. The name Panthera, sometimes spelled differently in ancient sources, may refer to a panther skin that certain soldiers wore. The discovery of the grave of a Roman soldier named Tiberius Panthera, member of a cohort of Syrian archers stationed in Palestine in the first century, might support those ancient rumors."

So, a rumor proposed by Celsus in response to the infancy narratives--not a pre-Matthean or Lukan tradition--is what Pagels is hanging her hat on? Interesting. Furthermore, how does Pagels make the jump from "we have some evidence a man called Panthera existed" to "He impregnated Mary?" It is these sort of logical leaps that allowed J. Gresham Machen to observe long ago: “But however early the story of the adultery of Mary may be, it is now agreed by all serious historians that far from representing any independent tradition, it is based merely (by way of polemic) upon the Christian story of the virgin birth" (The Virgin Birth of Christ, p. 11).

"Calling something a miracle is a way of interpreting an event. A friend of mine was hit by a car and thrown about 20 feet, and was unharmed. She told me that this was a miracle. Someone else might have said, “I was lucky.” Calling it a miracle interprets an event that others might see differently. This often happens with remissions of illness: Some people see many miracles, and some never see any."

1) We need to distinguish between an act of providence and the miraculous. We as Christians can observe divine providence in our day to day lives; we make it home with just enough gas in our car. The boss, for no apparent reason, allows us to leave work early in order that we can make some sort of important event. You get the point. On the other hand, you have miracles, an event that would not have happened if the laws of nature were left to their own devices absent intervention from an outside agent. Something like a dead man coming back to life after prayer; spontaneous healing from terminal cancer, or, in this case, a virgin giving birth. 

I would like to also to note that miracles are also acts of providence, but not all acts of providence are miraculous; for if naturalism were true, and the laws of nature were all that governed our lives, the case of the boss letting us off early could still easily obtain. I just draw a sharp distinction here, in this essay, so the reader can further understand the subtle differences. 

 2) So, yes, one can interpret an act of providence however they may like--but interpreting a miracle in a different way is to be in outright denial. 

"The Gospels most often speak in the language of stories and poetry. Intellectualizing these traditions — or turning them into dogma — doesn’t make them spiritually deep. What we call Christianity is not a single thing."

What "stories" and "poetry" is Pagels referring to? The parables? We know the parables didn't happen (though Christ's telling the parables did), but that is the whole point of them being parables. Furthermore, if the Gospels were intended to be poetry, why aren't they just written in the form of what we find in, say, Revelation 5:9-13? As previously mentioned, the Gospels were written as histories [1], we can dispute whether the events contained therein actually occurred, but the authors and earliest followers of Christianity certainty thought they did. 

Attacking the First Noel

 Christmastide is upon us. As we begin our shopping for our families, preparing meals & the like, our cultural outlets begin to attack the accounts we have about the birth of our Lord. One such example is Time Magazine--a copy of which I picked up the other day at the pharmacy. The magazine has several different entries about the life of Christ; but, of course, the main draw at this time of the year is the Nativity accounts. Time Magazine remains omnipresent in places we commonly visit, such as the waiting room at the doctor's office--despite the fact that print media has become increasingly obsolete. In lieu of this, I figured a response to the Christmas entry by David Van Biema was worth a response. 

"And yet, how peculiar it is to find that the actual Gospel Nativity is the part of Jesus's biography about which Bible experts have the greatest sense of uncertainty." (18)

I will grant this, actually. Hardly any apologists or conservative NT scholars propose arguments in favor of the integrity of the Nativity accounts in Matthew & Luke. 

"Indeed, thus Christmas story that Christians know by heart is actually a collection of mysteries...Where was Jesus actually born?" (ibid)

The Gospels repeatedly tell us Christ was born in Bethlehem (Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:1-7). If we are taking the Gospels at their word, then there is no mystery. That is, unless Van Biema wants to give us an argument as to why we should not trust what is reported. 

"Mark and John do not tell us about the Nativity at all. And despite agreeing on the big ideas, Matthew and Luke diverge in conspicuous ways on details of the event." (20)

1: Before going in to the finer details, it is worth noting that skeptics like Van Biema not only doubt Matthew & Luke; they also doubt the other two Gospels. Would someone like Van Biema stop doubting the infancy narratives in Matthew & Luke if he were to find them in Mark & John? I have my doubts. 

2: Patricia McDonald's appendix in New Perspectives on the Nativity (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2009) covers a number of the similarities between the two accounts: 

1. Jesus' birth is related to the reign of Herod the Great (Matt 2:1; Luke 1:5).

2. Mary, a virgin, is engaged to Joseph but not yet living with him (Matt 1:18; Luke 1:27, 34).

3. Joseph belongs to the house of David (Matt 1:1-16; Luke 1:27), and because of him, Jesus belongs to David's line.

4. An angel announces Jesus' coming birth to one of the parents (Matt 1:20, Joseph; Luke 1:26, Mary; cf. annunciation to Zechariah about John in 1:13).

5. Jesus is recognized as son of David (Matt 1:17, 25; Luke 1:27, 33).

6. Jesus is conceived through the Holy Spirit; an angel announces this to Joseph (Matt 1:20) or Mary (Luke 1:35).

7. Jesus' conception does not involve Joseph (Matt 1:18-19; Luke 1:34-35).

8. "Jesus" is the name given by the angel before the birth (Matt 1:21; Luke

1:31).

9, An angel identifies Jesus as savior (Matt 1:21; Luke 2:11).

10. Jesus is born after Mary and Joseph come to live together (Matt 1:25; Luke

2:5-7), though Mary is still engaged (emnesteumene) to Joseph in Luke 2:5.

11. Jesus is born in Bethlehem (Matt 2:1; Luke 2:5-7).

12, Outsiders see a sign in the night sky (star, angels), come to visit, enter from the open air, see the child, and return whence they came (magi in Matthew; shepherds in Luke).

13. There is external testimony to Jesus (magi in Matt 2:1-12; Simeon and Anna in Luke 2:25-38),

14. Joseph, Mary, and Jesus settle in Nazareth (Matt 2;23; Luke 2:39, cf. 1:26).

15. Jesus is referred to either as king (basileus) of the Jews (Matt 2:2) or as one who will inherit David's throne and reign (basileuein) eternally over Jacob's house, and have an unending kingdom (basileia, Luke 1:32-33).

16. An angel appears to a male figure Joseph in Matt 1:20; Zechariah in Luke

1:11).

17. Light imagery is used: the star seen at its rising (en te anatole) in Matthew (2:2, 9; cf. 2:1); in Luke, the shepherds at night see the glory of the Lord (2:8-9), the dawn is from on high (anatole, 1:78), and God's salvation Jesus?) is a light for revelation to the Gentiles (2:32).

18. Jesus is termed Christ (Christos) in Matt 1:1, 16, 17; 2:4 and Luke 2:11 (and, perhaps, implicitly also in 1:32-33).

19. There are strong, but different, links with Judaism in each story (Old Testament formula citations in Matthew; temple and other liturgy in Luke).

20. Herod or Zechariah *is afraid" (tarassein, in Matt 2:3; Luke 1:12).

21. Notes about "joy" and "rejoicing" (chara, chairein: Matt 2:10 [both]; Luke 1:14 [verb]; 2:10 [noun]; cf. 1:47).

22. Spilling of male children's blood (by death, Matt 2:16-18) or circumcision (Luke 1:59; 2:21).

For more parallels, see this post by Jason Engwer.

 "There is no better introduction to the differences between Matthew and Luke's approaches to the Nativity story than their telling of the...angelic announcement"

I assume, here, Van Biema is suggesting that there is a contradiction between the annunciation scenes in Matthew & Luke. But I do struggle to follow this sort of reasoning, as it amounts to nothing more than an argument from silence. Matthew, coming from the perspective of Joseph, is going to place an emphasis on his story. Van Biema is going to need to give us an argument as to why an angel didn't appear to both Joseph & Mary independently. If one accepts divine action in general, & angelic forces in particular, I see no implausibility. 

"But by the time Luke wrote, says John Dominic Crossan...'Christians are competing in a bigger world now, not just the Jewish world...and in this wider world, Alexander the Great is the model for Augustus, and Augustus becomes the model for Jesus.'" 

I find it interesting that Van Biema will name-drop Crossan, but will not add the important qualifiers of his fringe views on various subjects (not uncommon for the infamous Jesus Seminar!) Why not bring in a better scholar to represent your views, such as James Crossley, Bart Ehrman (whom I am certainly no fan of), et al? Anyway, continuing.

1: What is Crosson's reasoning for thinking the life of Christ is modeled on that of Augustus? 

2: Luke writes in a style much similar to Jewish history books, such as 1 & 2 Maccabees, & other OT biographies. What, specifically, is the parallel between Luke's account & other Mediterranean 'competitors?' Lastly, we know Luke deliberately parallels much of his infancy account with Sarah's birth giving in Genesis 17, as documented in Edwards' commentary on Luke.

3: J. Gresham Machen addressed many of these objections in his defense of the virgin birth long ago. Funny enough, Van Biema goes on to cite (p. 24) more of the same examples Machen dealt with, such as Plato and Perseus (cf. Machen, p. 319ff)! For now, 'll take a few quotes from Machen-the first conveniently regarding Alexander, & the remaining quotes addressing the Jewishness of the Lukan narrative:

“…for in the pagan sources the word ‘virgin’ does not seem to occur. It could not well occur in the story of Alexander; for according to that story the mother was already married when the conception occurred, and no stress…seems to be laid upon the absence of previous intercourse between the mother and the human father before the divine begetting took place...When the admires of Alexander desired to represent him as a demigod, like Hercules, they conceived of his mother as being beloved, as Hercules mother was, by Zeus. Thus the entire background of these stories is anthropomorphic polytheism of the crassest possible kind.” (p. 335, 337)

 "...the parents of John the Baptist are described in thoroughly Old Testament terms; the course of Abia is mentioned as though familiarity with priestly conditions were the most natural thing in the world; and the piety of Zacharias and Elisabeth is characterized in a way quite typical of the Old Testament and of Jewish feeling...Elisabeth, it is said, was barren, and both she and Zacharias were "advanced in their days” [Lk. 1:7].” This barrenness was regarded as bringing upon Elisabeth "shame" or reproach [Lk. 1:25]. Here we have the characteristic Jewish attitude toward child-bearing. It is to be doubted very much whether such an attitude could be paralleled in the Gentile world of that day, where exposure of infants was quite a common practice, and where at least the passionate Jewish desire for children and the feeling of shame when they were absent would have seemed to be rather a strange and foreign thing.” (p. 63, 64)

"The very first Christians thought Jesus had become God's son at his resurrection; Mark, the first Gospel written, seemed to locate the moment at his baptism in the Jordan.."

1: Actually, the first Christians believed Christ to be the divine Son from the get-go, cf. the pre-Pauline formulas in 1 Cor. 8:6 & Phil. 2:6-11. 

2: Christ is divine from the outset of Mark (Mark 1:2-4).

3: It is convenient that Van Biema, talks to several scholars, however, he doesn't talk to Michael Bird, who has a fairly recent monograph relevant to this point, Jesus The Eternal Son: Answering Adoptionist Christology (Eerdmans, 2017)

Is the Telephone Game a Good Analogy for the Gospels?

Critics of the historical credibility of the Gospels often point out the time gap between Jesus and when the Gospels were being written and compare it to the “telephone game.”

Bart Ehrman comments: 

This is how Christianity spread, year after year, decade after decade, until eventually someone wrote down the stories…Did you or your kids ever play the telephone game at a birthday party? The kids sit in a circle, and one child tells a story to the girl sitting next to her, who tells it to the next girl, who tells it to the next, and so on, until it comes back to the one who first told the story. And it’s now a different story…(If it weren’t a different story the game would be a bit pointless.)...Is it any wonder that the Gospels are so full of discrepancies?[1]

In a later tome, he cites several laboratory studies to demonstrate the unreliability of both individual eyewitness memory and group memory. [2]

Moreover, Ehrman cites F.C. Barlett’s famous experiment on serial production in which a short story passed along a chain of subjects unsurprisingly corrupts overtime. [3]

Thus, Ehrman concludes that experimental psychology experiments confirms his “telephone game” model for the transmission of the Jesus tradition

There are several issues with Ehrman and others' attempted analogy.

 

Laboratory settings do not reflect the social context in which actual remembering occurs. 

 New Testament scholar Alan Kirk points out: 

“...[D]istortion experiments typically are de-contextualized from the natural social environments in which actual remembering occurs.”[4]

Subjects in these experiments usually have no social connection to each other or the material they are asked to memorize. In this particular experiment, Barrett failed to tell the subjects that their task was part of a test. This means that the subjects had even less of a motivation to seriously connect with the material.

Moreover, laboratory experiments usually utilize single chains of transmission which primarily deal with semantic memory (which is basically memory concerning general knowledge and concepts). The context in which actual remembering occurs, however, relates more to “net” transmission and communal/group memory. (Keener, Christobiography 410 cf. n. 44)

The cultural memory expert David C. Rubin describes the difference between net and chain transmission:

For a single individual, the chain would have a single line leading in and a single line leading out. In contrast, for a single individual, the net would have an indefinite number of lines leading in and out. . . . That is, the difference between chains and nets is that in a chain an individual hears only one version and transmits it to only one other person, whereas in a net individuals can hear and combine many versions before passing on their own version any number of times to any number of people…[thus] [t]he changes that occur when a passage is transmitted from person to person are much greater in psychology experiments than they are in oral traditions. [5]

[6]

The latter model produces a more stable transmission. Again David C. Rubin says:

The main advantage of a net over a chain is that if the version transmitted by one singer omits parts or introduces changes that are outside the tradition, then other versions can be substituted for these lapses. . . . Multiple versions from many sources serve another purpose. They allow a listener to learn the range of acceptable variation...transmission in oral traditions . . . is much more complex and much more conducive to stable transmission. [7]

In fact, one could point out that oral tradition is specifically designed to counter the weaknesses of memory. For example, oral transmission allows for more overlearning, spaced practice, and recitation (Keener Christobiography, 410). Additionally, oral tradition relies on cues and constraints such as rhythm, meaning, imagery, and sound that strengthen the stability. [8]

Additionally, Jesus and his disciples preached publicly to many people, not a few isolated people secretly spreading teachings. Those in the audience who misunderstood the tradition had both original eyewitnesses in leadership roles into the 50s (Gal. 1:18-19; 2:9; 1 Cor. 1:12;3:22;9:5; 15:5) and delegates (Acts 6:6; 14:23; 2 Tim. 2:2; Tit 1:5; James 5:14; Gal. 6:6; 1 Thess. 5:12-13; 1 Pet. 5:5; 3 John 9) to correct them. Tradition core to the early Christian community would not be treated as mere “party games.”