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)
No comments:
Post a Comment