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?
Jerusalem is Despoiled
"Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God. Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the Lord's hand double for all her sins." Isaiah 40:1,2
Amid the hustle and bustle of the holiday season it is easy to forget why we celebrate Christmas. Most of us know, of course, that it is a celebration of the birth of Christ. But why is the birth of Christ worth celebrating? What is so special about a baby born in Bethlehem 2,000 years ago?
It was, in fact, an event for which pious Jews had been waiting for literally centuries. One of the striking features of the religion of ancient Israel was the work and ministry of the prophets. A prophet was a person who received direct revelations from God, and was thus authorized to speak on His behalf. The writings of many of these prophets are contained in the Bible, especially in certain sections of the Old Testament, the oldest part of the Bible, and the part that was written mainly in Hebrew.
Much of what the prophets had to say was directed toward their contemporaries. They denounced sin and corruption and warned of impending judgment from God. But their warnings came in a historical context. They had a sense of Israel's past, and had a vision of the future as well. Thus as a part of their prophecies they would sometimes predict future events.
One of the greatest of all the prophets was Isaiah who was active around 740 to 690 B.C. It was a time of moral and spiritual decline in Israel, and a time when Israel was threatened by its powerful neighbor to the north, the Assyrian Empire. Isaiah warned what would happen if Israel did not repent of its sins. The northern kingdom of Israel, in fact, was conquered and taken away into captivity by the Assyrians in 722/721 B.C., leaving only the beleaguered southern kingdom of Judah.
Later, a strange incident happened. King Hezekiah of Judah made the mistake of showing a visitor from Babylon all of the royal treasures. Isaiah was alarmed and made a stunning prediction: the royal treasures, along with the royal family, would someday be carried off to Babylon.
This, of course, raises huge questions. First of all, why? And secondly, is there any hope? Will the captivity eventually end? And then there is the theological question: if Israel was God's chosen people, how then could He allow them to be carried into captivity by a pagan empire?
It is these momentous issues that are addressed in the second half of the Book of Isaiah. The theme of this part of the book is introduced by the quotation at the beginning of this blogpost – a text memorably set to music by George Frederick Handel in Messiah. The message comes from God Himself and is directed to His people Israel. In these latter chapters of the book Isaiah will point out that the cause of the disasters that will befall Judah is the sins of the people. But the prevailing tone of this part of the book is one of comfort and hope: "Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God" (Isa. 40:1). Her "warfare" (military service, hardship, calamity) is "accomplished," or completed. But in order for that to happen something else must happen: "her iniquity is pardoned": and that, in turn, requires something else: "for she hath received from the Lord's hand double for all her sin" (v. 2).
The kingdom of Judah would be carried away into captivity because of her sins. Yet God would have mercy, and her captivity would eventually end. But as we read through the second have of Isaiah it become evident that something larger is in view – something grander and more majestic. For sin is a universal problem that affects the entire human race. And the forgiveness of sin will require something extraordinary in the way of an atonement. And so, way back in the 8th Century B.C. the prophet Isaiah had a vision of a coming Messiah Who would bring salvation to the world at large. Isaiah could look forward, and under divine inspiration could see, however dimly, the glory to come. Today we have the advantage of being able to look back seeing it actually accomplished. And the fulfillment of the prophecy began on that Christmas Day 2,000 years ago in Bethlehem.
Yesterday (Friday, Dec. 7) the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will take up two cases involving same sex marriage. At issue in one case is Proposition 8, a California law passed by popular referendum that bars homosexual marriages. The other case involves the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage for federal benefit purposes as a union between a man and a woman. The justices are expected to hear oral arguments some time in March and issue their opinion by late June.
Should homosexual couples be allowed to marry? We might begin by asking what interest the state has in the question at all. The answer, it would seem, is that the state has a compelling interest in establishing stable home environments in which to raise children. It will be noted in this connection that it is the behavior of heterosexuals, that homosexuals, that is the real concern here, for it is heterosexual couples that are most likely to have children.
How then does homosexual marriage affect the behavior of heterosexuals? The essential problem involves the value system of society and how we define what is "normal" and accepted behavior. Traditionally society has defined the norm as a nuclear family built on a monogamous, heterosexual marriage. "Family life" required a certain kind of behavior from each spouse, and any kind of infidelity was frowned upon. The object, from society's standpoint, was to create a cohesive family unit in which the physical and emotional needs of children could be met.
But if homosexuals are permitted to marry, then what becomes the norm? What, exactly, is the purpose of marriage? What is the rational basis for the legal institution? Why not legalize polygamy or prostitution? Is society prepared to endorse any kind of living arrangement?
The problem can be illustrated by what happened in one of the mainline Protestant denominations, the Presbyterian Church (USA). Prior to 2011 the PCUSA's constitution contained what was known as "the fidelity and chastity clause," which read as follows: "Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic standards of the church. Among those standards is the requirement to live in either fidelity within a covenant marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness." It was clear and explicit as to exactly what was required in the area of sexual conduct.
But in 2011 the General Assembly (the church's highest governing body) voted to permit the ordination of practicing homosexuals.. This required amending the section mentioned above. It now reads: ". . . standards for ordained service reflect the church's desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life . . . Governing bodies shall by guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates." But it is left to individual presbyteries to decide what it means to "submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ" in sexual matters. In the end it all comes down to a matter of personal opinion. For all practical purposes the PCUSA no longer has a definable standard.
What is worse is that it makes the moral pronouncements of the church on almost any subject suspect – whether social justice, international peace, or environmental responsibility. The church can no longer say with any degree of certainty what is moral behavior in any area of life. And if the Presbyterian Church, long noted for its theological acumen, cannot say, where does that leave the rest of society?
The absence of clearly defined sexual norms, in turn, leads inevitably to the breakdown of the family. Adultery, divorce and fornication all have the effect of destabilizing the family and creating the pattern we now have of single parent households headed by women with a variety of male partners who come and go, and none of which are involved in the lives of their biological offspring. The effects on the children are devastating. An increase in the number of single parent households can be correlated with an attendant rise in crime and poverty.
The loss of moral bearings has implications for the rest of the culture as well. In his Farewell Address George Washington observed that "of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensible supports." He went on to ask a pointed question: "Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice"? When we cut loose the bonds of moral restraint no one's rights are safe, because there is no recognizable moral obligation to respect them. Law becomes a function of power, not morality. Might makes right. And once both God and family are removed as controlling influences in society, the state of necessity fills the void.
A Supreme Court decision adverse to traditional morality seems likely, but this is a development that did not happen in a moment. It is the result of decades of erosion of traditional values. We have become, for all practical purposes, an amoral society. No doubt one day near the end of June we will wake up and realize that we now live in a post-Christian culture. But the challenge will be, can we function without a cohesive family structure?
You may also want to see:
Should Same Sex Marriage Be Made Legal
The Future of Playboy America
The Annunciation, Lorenzo di Credi
"Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary. And having come in, the angel said to her, 'Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!'" (Luke 1:26-28; NKJV).
One of our readers and frequent commentators, Cedric Katesby, wants to know why we would believe "some guy, writing 2.000 years ago about how he met an angel," if we would not believe Mr. Katesby if he were to say that he had met an angel. The question is a fair one to ask, and deserves a serious answer.
The Christmas season having set upon us, it is worth noting that in the first two chapters of the Gospel According to Luke there are no less than three different accounts of angels appearing to various people. In the fist of these (Lu. 1:13-20) the angel Gabriel appears to Zacharias, who would become the father of John the Baptist. In the second incident (1:26-38), the same angel appears to Mary, and begins by telling her the words quoted in the heading of this blogpost. In the third incident (2:8-14), a whole choir of angels appears to the shepherds to announce the birth of the Savior. So the question is, was Luke relating historical facts which cannot be ignored, or are these mere myths and legends which can be easily dismissed?
Mr. Katesby's question does, in fact, strike right at the very heart of the crisis of Western Civilization. At no other time of the year is the influence of Christianity on Western culture more keenly felt than at Christmas. And yet the holiday revolves around a narrative which many educated Westerners no longer believe. In the end it all comes back to the historical reliability of the four gospels.
Luke himself certainly believed that he has relating historical fact. In his prologue he tells us that he "followed all things closely for some time past," and that his aim was so that his readers might "have certainty concerning the things you have been taught" (Lu. 1:3,4; ESV). Moreover, he tells us that he had access to "those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and minister of the word," meaning, no doubt, the apostles, those who had lived and worked with Jesus and had been sent by Him to proclaim the message of the gospel (v. 2).
So then, why believe Luke and not Mr. Katesby? What Mr. Katesby undoubtedly wants us to say is that we would believe neither. His grounds for saying this are that the claim of an alleged witness about a supernatural event has to be gauged against what we already know about reality, and there are no verifiable instances in our modern experience of angels appearing to people. The rational inference, then, is that such appearances do not happen, and any claims to the contrary should be viewed with suspicion.
How much weight one attaches to this argument will depend partially on one's worldview. If one is a naturalistic materialist, the argument is practically conclusive. Not only is it highly unlikely that such incidents have occurred in the past, but if there actually was such a phenomenon a natural explanation must be sought. The subject in question might have met a mysterious looking person, or he may simply have been hallucinating. (Now that recreational pot is legal in Washington state and Colorado, who knows what sort of apparitions might appear in the days to come!) In this case almost no amount of evidence will be sufficient to convince the determined skeptic.
But if one is a Christian theist there is no inherent impossibility in an angel appearing to human beings. It is quite conceivable that they exist and have appeared to people in the past. So why not today? Might not Mr. Katesby expect a friendly knock on his door someday?
A Christian understanding of such things must be based on Scripture – the written instructions that God has given us to guide us through life. While God is theoretically capable of doing anything He wants anywhere and at anytime He wants, He ordinarily works according to a certain pattern. Miracles are generally restricted to certain periods in history. They are meant to function as "signs" to validate the ministry of a prophet or apostle. They usually occur at the decisive turning points of redemptive history. The first of these was in the time of Moses during the exodus of Israel from Egypt. The second was during the ministries of Elijah and Elisha, when the nation of Israel was sunk in a state of degradation and apostasy. The final time was the climactic moment in history when the Savior was born into the world. Obviously some means had to be employed to explain to Mary the unique role that she was to play in the drama, and hence the mission of Gabriel. It was an extraordinary event under an extraordinary circumstance.
Since the close of the apostolic age the Christian ministry has largely proceeded by ordinary means. The Holy Spirit teaches and leads through the illumination of Scripture. And while Mr. Katesby certainly has his rightful place in the cosmic scheme of things, it is unlikely that God is going to send an angel knocking on his door. (It is probably the RCMP at the door!)
But to return to Luke for a moment, how do we know that he is telling the truth about Mary's experience? In all likelihood his source of information was Mary herself. He generally tells the story from her perspective, and in two places he makes the intriguing comment "But Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart" (Lu. 2:19,51; NKJV). Significantly, in this section of the narrative Luke shifts to a style of Greek that has a highly Semitic coloring, suggested an underlying Hebrew source, either in the form of oral testimony or a written document. And from what we know of Luke's use of Mark, Luke is very careful in his use of sources. All of which points back to Mary herself. The story is an extraordinary one. How could she ever forget?
And what did the angel tell her? That she would conceive by the Holy Spirit and give birth to Jesus, that her child would be the Son of God and would reign on the throne of David forever.
As the angels later told the shepherds: "Glory to God in the highest, / And on earth peace, goodwill toward men!" (Lu. 2:14). Have a happy holiday!
Related blogposts you might find interesting:
Are the Gospels Historically Reliable?
Who Wrote the Gospels?
How Do We Know that Jesus Rose from the Dead?
Doubting Thomas
Indeed, congress moves in a mysterious way, its wonders to perform. It is a little hard to know exactly what is going on right now in Washington, amid all the posturing and finger pointing, but apparently Congress is not going to resolve the fiscal crisis until we go over the "fiscal cliff" on January 1.
The difficulty appears to be this: 95% of the Republican members of the current Congress have taken Grover Norquist's "Taxpayer Protection Pledge," in which they promised not to raise taxes. It may be an effective way to attract votes in conservative districts, but as a matter of statecraft it is reckless and irresponsible. Anyone who would sign such a pledge is unfit to hold a seat in a deliberative body such as Congress. Ronald Reagan had more sense than that, and he was in the executive branch of the government! What is likely to happen is that Congress will fail to act before the end of the year, the Bush era tax cuts will automatically expire, and then when Congress takes up the subject again in January they will be able to claim that they are cutting taxes instead of raising them!
One only has to contemplate how huge the national debt is to see how ludicrous such a pledge is. In 2009 the federal deficit was over $1.4 trillion. That year we spent $3.50 for every $2.00 we collected in revenue, and borrowed the rest. The following year the debt stood at $13.5 trillion. The government owes $44,174 for every man, woman and child in America. We paid $414 billion in interest. Yet most Republicans in Congress have committed themselves to never raising taxes. It is obvious that to control a deficit of that size more than just spending cuts will be needed.
In 2010 President Obama, after Congress failed to act on its own, appointed a bi-partisan commission to study the fiscal crisis and make recommendations. The commission, headed by Erskine Bowles and Alan K. Simpson, issued a report, but without the necessary votes to make it official. The plan would cut spending by $2 for very $1 in increased tax revenue. It assumes that the Bush era tax cuts will be extended except for those earning more that $250,000. Reimbursements to Medicare physicians would freeze and defense spending would decrease in line with current administration policy.
On the spending side, what to do about Social Security is pretty clear and obvious. To make the system solvent we need to raise the retirement age, lower cost of living adjustments, and raise the Social Security tax.
Medicare and Medicaid are far more difficult problems to solve. In the last election Vice-Presidential candidate Paul Ryan suggested turning these programs into block grants in which the federal government would provide a fixed subsidy and the states and beneficiaries would pay the rest. The problem with this approach is that it does not address the underlying causes of rising healthcare costs but simply shifts the cost to the beneficiaries instead. From the standpoint of the beneficiaries, this is no solution at all. A better approach, in our opinion, would be to change the way providers are reimbursed, including the pharmaceutical companies and medical equipment manufacturers. Tort reform should also be a part of the solution – the object here is to provide healthcare on a cost-effective basis, not enable trial-lawyers to enrich themselves at the taxpayers' expense!
Our military commitments abroad need to be reexamined. On this issue we think that many Republicans are suffering from political and fiscal schizophrenia. They say that they want smaller government and lower taxes, and yet support a huge military-industrial complex. They seem unable to come to grips with the fact that wars cost money – lots of money. The United States currently spends more money on defense than the next 24 countries combined.
Here is something for American conservatives to think about: George Washington, himself a man of some military experience, warned us against entangling foreign alliances, and if there was one thing that the Founding Fathers dreaded, it was a large standing army in times of peace. Moreover, counter-insurgency campaigns in foreign countries almost never make any sense either militarily, politically, or morally (I speak as a Vietnam veteran). Nations that have aspired to imperial domination have generally had to resort to confiscatory taxation in order to maintain the necessary military strength. That is a very different vision of government from that contemplated by our Founding Fathers. We cannot be both Thomas Jefferson and Julius Caesar at the same time. If we wish to return to Jefferson's vision for America, Caesar must go. We might then find it easier to balance the budget.
As far as tax reform goes, the idea of eliminating credits and deductions, the so-called "tax expenditures," is certainly in order. One that is bound to be controversial is the mortgage interest deduction, which frankly benefits wealthy homeowners over everyone else. We should also look at the Earned Income Tax Credit, something from which I personally have benefited, but it is hard to justify from a budgetary standpoint. It is a blatant giveaway at a time when the government doesn't have any money to give away.
One interesting aspect of the tax code that came to light in the last election was the fact that "passive income" is taxed at only a 15% marginal rate. This means that Mitt Romney, whose income is mostly derived from investments, was taxed at an effective rate less than that of President Obama, who arguably has the most difficult and most important job in the world. Why? Wouldn't it be fairer to tax all categories of personal income at the same rates?
Your comments are welcome. This is a serious issue in urgent need of discussion, and what better place to do it than around the great kitchen table of the blogosphere? Let your opinions be known!
You may also enjoy ( or dread, as the case may be!):
The Path Ahead
The Social Agenda of the Tea Party
American Militarism
