Evangelical: "You know what really convinces me that the Bible is true? Its coherency. So many books, so many stories, and there's no contradictions anywhere."
Me, reaching for a copy of the Bible: "OK, what about this one between ***flickflickflick*** Matthew 2:14 and ***flickflick*** Luke 2:22. One states that the family ran straight off to Egypt and stayed there until Herod had copped it. The other states that, immediately after the "time of purification" (40 days, as per Leviticus), the family went to Jerusalem. FYI, Jerusalem and Egypt are on opposite sides of Bethlehem. How is this not a contradiction?
Evangelist: "Huh, I never noticed that. Did you get that off one of your atheist websites?"
Me: "No, I got it about five minutes into a personal attempt to see how the various Gospel stories line up. It's not exactly a subtle error."
Evangelist: "Mind if I get back to you on this?"
Moral of the story: It's very easy to be sure you're right about something, simply because you haven't solicited enough critical scrutiny. I have no grounds to be smug here - I know I've done the same thing in the past. All I can say is that I'm aware of the problem and do my best to counter it.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
A contradiction or skipping over the other steps to Nazareth?
I've lived in 6 states during my life, but I only mention them if they are directly related to the conversation I am having with someone. Leaving out some information doesn't always constitute a contradiction.
But anyways.....I just read a good book that you might find useful if you wanted a general read about the Gospels and some of the issues surrounding their historicity.
Lord or Legend? Wrestling with the Jesus Dilemma, by Gregory Boyd and Paul Rhodes Eddy.
c-ya
A contradiction or skipping over the other steps to Nazareth?
One says they left during the night and went to Egypt, the other says they waited 40
days then went to Jerusalem. Draw your own conclusions.
Lord or Legend? Wrestling with the Jesus Dilemma, by Gregory Boyd and Paul Rhodes Eddy.
I just watched the first talk of the Alpha Course* with said evangelists, and it was slightly painful for me. The guy giving the talk kept throwing out comments like "there's lots of non-Biblical sources that refer to Jesus", without mentioning that only a couple refer to Christ himself rather than his followers and, of those, one is apparently forgery and one is probably referring to another "Christus".
This has kinda soured me on reading evangelical literature for the moment - it's too hard on the brain - so can I just check: is the book you recommended a skeptical weighing-up of evidence, or is it propaganda material? Nothing wrong with the latter, but I can't take it right now.
* Do you have this in America? It's very popular over here.
I would only point out that you are compressing the narrative.
The wise men were not present the night of Jesus birth; they came much later...possibly one to two years, thus the killing of children two years and younger rather than merely killing infants. So when you say "they ran straight off" you are referring to them leaving right after the wise men had visited, not right after the birth of Jesus.
Re: Alpha Course....it doesn't sound familiar. What's the concept of the show?
Re: the book. Well, it's written from a Christian perspective, so I don't think a skeptic would be fully satisfied with it. Some of the arguments would not get very far with a true skeptic. On the other hand, I think it does a pretty good job of addressing the nature of the written Gospels, the differing persepctives of ancient people vs. our modern perspective, and the probability of certain theories related to the legendary Jesus theory.
It's really aimed at brushing aside the theory that Jesus never actually existed as an historic person, and secondly addresses the reliability of the gospels.
Certain parts would make you groan, others I think could provide you with a "huh...I never thought about that before" kind of moment.
The wise men were not present the night of Jesus birth; they came much later...possibly one to two years, thus the killing of children two years and younger rather than merely killing infants. So when you say "they ran straight off" you are referring to them leaving right after the wise men had visited, not right after the birth of Jesus.
Luke 2:39 states that, after going to Jerusalem, they went back to Galilee, not Bethlehem. If the magi had come a couple of years down the line, Jesus would not have been in Bethlehem to receive them. Unless you want to claim that he made a special trip back to Bethlehem just to say hi?
I'm not just being picky here. The reason I'm harping on about this contradiction is because it's a very concrete manifestation of a general phenomenon: the complete lack of overlap between the birth stories in Matthew and Luke. The only common feature is that the birth occurs in Bethlehem.
The most plausible explanation I've seen for this is that both stories were coined independently as part of a general attempt to "prove" that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. The thought process I'm imagining runs like this:
1) Jesus was the Messiah
2) Therefore he must have fulfilled the OT prophecies
3) But we have no record of him fulfilling this prophecy about being born in Bethlehem.
4) In fact, wasn't he raised in Galilee? Crap.
5) Of course, the old lady down the road says her nephew's wife's cousin's grandpa had a story that Jesus was taken to Jerusalem during a census.
6) Yeah, what was that census we had a few years back? It was that bloke Quirinius, wasn't it.
7) That must explain it, then. *Phew*.
8) Better tell my mates so they know what to say if any Jews ask them about this.
9) [Repeat ad nauseam, throughout the community. Most people assume it's true, or why would all those other Christians believe it?]
10) Hey, Luke, I hear you're writing a biography of Jesus. Better include the story of his birth.
Repeat the process for the story in Matthew, then add the fact that both Gospels were circulating independently before they were compiled into a single document (so they couldn't be edited to make them match up). Et voila.
What makes this plausible to me is that the same process of justification compounded by word-of-mouth transmission is still going on in the Christian community. For example, the evangelists I spoke to came back with a chronology that purported to resolve the discrepancy. It was completely different from yours. It was also flawed.
So there are at least two mutually-contradictory stories floating around, and neither has received much skeptical scrutiny. Sound familiar?
Re: Alpha Course....it doesn't sound familiar. What's the concept of the show?
Alpha Course Website. It's basically an all-in-one evangelism package, or alternatively a Bible study pack for potential converts. You're supposed to watch the DVDs then discuss the content.
It's mostly aimed at people who haven't thought about this sort of thing much before, so it's a bit fluffy for my tastes. Too much ripping off of CS Lewis - makes my head hurt.
Certain parts would make you groan, others I think could provide you with a "huh...I never thought about that before" kind of moment.
In that case I'll log it to my list of things to read when I'm feeling less groansome. Might take a few weeks, though. Anything in particular you'd like me to think about?
Post a Comment