Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, in his recent article in Newsweek magazine entitled "The Myths of Jesus," concludes by saying that the gospels of the New Testament "are books that meant to declare religious truths, not historical facts." But this raises a perplexing question: what kind of "religious truths" can exist apart from "historical facts"? Can a narrative be historically false but nevertheless theologically true? What exactly is a "religious truth"?
Dr. Ehrman attempts to explain: ". . . for those with a broader vision, a more generous appreciation of literature, and a fuller sense of theological meaning, the story of the Christchild and his appearance in the world can be founded not on what actually happened, but in what actually does happen, in the lives of those who believe that stories such as these can convey a greater truth."
 |
| Friedrich Schleiermacher |
The suggestion is not new. Ever since the days of the Enlightenment the literal truth of the biblical narratives has been challenged by skeptics. It was the German theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher who tried to find a way around the problem by appealing to "feeling" as the basis for religion. In his view faith does not depend on the literal truth of the Bible, but on subjective feelings or inward intuition. This basic approach, with various modifications, has been typical of liberal theology down to the present day.
While this solution is certainly appealing, it nevertheless has some serious problems. First of all, it rests on a dishonest reading of Scripture.. Dr. Ehrman tells us that "these are books that meant to declare religious truths, not historical facts." But the biblical writers themselves did not see it that way.. They insisted that they were describing what God had actually done in real space and time. In the prologue to his gospel, the specific gospel that Dr. Ehrman attacks as unhistorical, Luke specifically states that "it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught" (Lu. 1:3,4; ESV). In so doing he specifically appealed to eyewitness testimony. In other words, Luke self-consciously set out to write history, and now some "good news" that was based on metaphors and myths, and his aim was specifically to let his readers know what had actually happened.
And so did all the biblical writers, from Moses in the Old Testament to John the apostle in the New. A major part of their polemical argument against polytheism was based on the fact that the Lord God of Israel really does act in history. This is what distinguishes Him from the dumb and useless idols of the surrounding nations. If the events described did not actually happen, however, then the all argument falls to the ground.
But more importantly, if our faith rests on nothing more substantial than figures of speech and subjective feelings, then it becomes impossible to distinguish our "broad vision" and "fuller sense of theological meaning" from pure fantasy. Our faith is disconnected from objective reality and amounts to little more than wishful thinking. This, in fact, apparently turned out to be the case in Dr. Ehrman himself. We understand that he now considers himself to be an agnostic. His grasp of "theological meaning" appears to be slipping through his fingers.
In short, "religious truths" that are not related to actual events in history are nothing more than fairy tales – make-believe stories about things that exist nowhere except in our own imaginations. Something is either true or it is not true – it either corresponds to reality or it does not. If the literal truth of who we are and where we got here is evolution, and if the Bible is nothing more than a collection of ancient myths and legends that reflect an obsolete pre-scientific worldview, then it is useless to pretend that the Bible has any relevance for us today. The biblical writers did not know what they were talking about and were just plain wrong about a lot of things.
But what if they were telling the truth about what they claimed they saw?
Other blogposts related to the issue:
Are the Gospels Historically Reliable?
The Problem with Liberal Theology
Letter to a Unitarian Minister
Every year around Christmas and Easter the major newsweeklies are prone to run feature articles about the historical Jesus, often written by prominent liberal scholars who claim to know what really happened 2,000 years ago. This year is no exception, and in the current issue of Newsweek we are treated to an article by Dr. Bart D. Ehrman entitled "The Myths of Jesus." Dr. Ehrman is a Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the author of several best-selling books. At one time he was an evangelical Christian. We understand that he currently considers himself to be an agnostic.
Dr. Ehrman begins his article by mentioning several stories about the birth of Jesus that are not in the Bible, but then goes on to question the historical accuracy of the biblical narratives themselves. He discusses two alleged discrepancies in particular.
The first surrounds the genealogy of Jesus. Both Matthew and Luke contain a geneaology; the problem is that the two genealogies are different from each other. According to Matthew, "Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ" (Matt. 1:16). Luke, on the other hand, says that Jesus was "(as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli" (Luke 3:23). So, then, who was Joseph's father, Jacob or Heli?
Dr. Ehrman tries to tell us that neither Matthew nor Luke "has access to the kind of reliable data they need for the task. So they have provided genealogies that have been invented for the purpose and that, as a result, are necessarily at odds with each other."
But how does Dr. Ehrman know this? The fact of the matter is that the ancient Jews kept meticulous genealogies. Josephus, for example, the ancient Jewish-Roman historian, could trace his own lineage, and he pointed out that the Jews were especially careful to document the lineage of the priests. The reason was obvious. The priesthood was a hereditary office; it was of critical importance to know who had the proper lineage. This would have been no less true for those who of the royal lineage of David.
Why, then, do we have two different genealogies for Jesus? The answer should be readily apparent to a biblical scholar of Dr. Ehrman's caliber. There was undoubtedly a "levirate" marriage involved. Under Jewish law if a man died childless, leaving no heirs, a close male relative was expected to take the widow and father a child by her. The child thus conceived would be considered the heir of the deceased husband (Deut. 25:5-10). In this particular case we have it on the authority of an ancient church historian, Julius Africanus, that is what actually happened. To make a long story short, Jacob was Joseph's biological father, while Heli was the previously deceased legal father. Both genealogies are, in fact, correct.
 |
| Caesar Augustus |
The other issue that Dr. Ehrman discusses is a bit more difficult to resolve. This involves the census under Caesar Augustus. In the familiar words of Luke 2:1-3: "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, everyone into his own city." There problem here is that we have no record, outside of Luke's account, of this "census" or "register" (for that is what the Greek word actually means). Dr. Ehrman says that "we have good documentation about the reign of Caesar Augustus, and there never was a census of his entire empire."
This is a considerable overstatement on Dr. Ehrman's part. The archives of ancient Rome have not survived the ravages of time, and as for ancient Roman historians, " . . . in the history of Dio Cassius there is a gap from 747-757 [7 B.C.-A.D. 3], -- the very period in which Luke states this taxing to have been held. Suetonius is very brief, as also Tacitus . . . It has often been remarked how little attention historians of that time gave to the most important measures of civil administration in comparison with military affairs, and even in comparison with things of a momentary popular interest, as games, public buildings, and the like" (Samuel J. Andrews, The Life of our Lord upon the Earth, Part I). It should be noted that Suetonius and Tacitus both lived in the 2nd Century, after Luke, and that Dio Cassius lived even later, in the 3rd Century. Luke, on the other hand, lived in the 1st Century, and is believed to have originally come from Antioch, the capital of the Roman province of Syria. Thus Luke has an even better claim to be a primary source than the others.
Dr. Ehrman has given us, in effect, an argument from silence. Because the records do not exist, the event did not happen. While it is certainly true that no surviving record of such a census has come down to us, there is nothing implausible in Luke's account. We know that Augustus was an energetic ruler who took matters firmly into hand. Like any good ruler he looked for the most efficient ways to raise revenue. We are also faced with the fact that both Matthew and Luke state that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, even though Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth. Why would Joseph have taken his pregnant wife on a hazardous trip to Bethlehem if there was no compelling necessity? Dr. Ehrman tells us that "it is a narrative designed to show how Jesus could have been born in Bethlehem – whence the Messiah was to come – when everyone knew in fact that he came from Nazareth." But could Mary have forgotten where she had given birth to her famous son? Could both Matthew and Luke have fabricated the story? What we have here is a classic example of a modern scholar making a bold assertion on the flimsiest of evidence.
Dr. Ehrman concludes by saying "Conundrums such as these have been debated for many years, of course, with some Christian scholars and their lay followers finding ingenious solutions to them and more critical historians insisting that in fact they are bona fide problems that show that these Gospel sources, whatever else they are, are not historically reliable descriptions of what really happened when Jesus was born." We beg to differ with Dr. Ehrman. Matthew and Luke were in a far better position to know what happened in 1st Century Palestine than the 19th and 20th Century critics in Germany and America. Whom should we believe?
You may also enjoy:
Are the Gospels Historically Reliable?
