Alright fine, so it’s actually almost a month after Christmas, and by now the trees have all been tossed on the street or are currently shedding all over the living room, like mine is.  But with the season of Christ’s birth came my introduction to a wave of attacks against the Gospels through Jesus’ infancy narratives.  Steve Mason has written one of these (which my arguments focus on refuting specifically) Here.  I suggest that his article be read before continuing.

Steve Mason begins his article on the birthplace of Christ with a short disclaimer.  He states that historians must be careful when testing the veracity of the New Testament, and that these people generally fall into two categories: “Interpreters tend either to overlook ordinary historical questions when reading them or, in some cases, to overcompensate by an unusually aggressive dismissal of their claims.”  His own lack of knowledge pertaining to scripture, assertion of facts without pointing out any objections to his logic and the facetious manner in which he presents the material clearly points to this article falling into the latter category.  A note must first be made, that Mason’s skepticism is not based on a good historian’s attitude of approaching texts, but instead upon an a priori against the inerrancy of scripture.

Mason first confuses his own position with that of the Gospel writer’s.  He poses the question:  “But what did these writers really know about Jesus’ birthplace?” without realizing how early the New Testament was written.  Indeed, do we not know the birthplace of Adolf Hitler?  Yet these facts are from many decades ago.  I tell you, not nearly as much time had passed between the birth of Jesus and the writing of the Gospels as has passed between World War II and this very day.  Mason persists in his audacity, however, and says later: “Further, all four Gospels are anonymous texts.” It would be amazing to see how much about these authors isn’t a mystery.  For example, how much is known of Luke, a major part of this article?  Just from skimming his Gospel, Acts and Paul’s epistles, it can be known that he was a companion of Paul who called him the beloved physician, and that he wrote Luke and Acts.  We know such because the author of each addresses Theophilus in preface of both and both contain such similar linguistics that the majority of historians consider the authors one in the same.

And Mason continues, not only making the same point, but adding another.  And I tell you, it is not the fact that he mentions these things, as anyone against scripture’s truth should, but the manner by which he states such, speaking of each proposition as if it is to be accepted on a whim; as if no one could dispute such single sentenced proposals: “Although we cannot identify the authors or the precise dates of the Gospels”.  On whose authority is such spoken?  To further elucidate the validity of Luke’s writings historically, an analogy may be made.  Suppose a book was written (as many have) on the World Trade Centers.  The ending of this particular book, however, left the Twin Towers still standing in their majesty.  Now, would it be wrong to assume that this book was written before, perhaps, September 11, 2001?  Of course not, it is to be expected that such a catastrophe would be included.  So then when it is noted that the Temple, the main focus of Jewish law, religion, politics, society, et cetera, was destroyed in 70 AD, but such not mentioned in Acts among the many historical points he makes, is not the logical conclusion that Acts was written before 70 AD?  Indeed, only forty years after Jesus’ death.  And the fact that a main focus of Acts was the lives of James and Paul, who died around 62 (Josephus) and after 68 (during the reign of Tiberius) respectively, yet no mention of this was made, shows that the Acts can easily be considered written prior to 62 AD.  If Acts was written that early, then Luke’s Gospel must have been written before such as stated in Acts 1:1.  Such a simple summary of the arguments for an early written account easily defeats Mason’s statements.  And it is upon statements such as this that his argument teeters.

Mason makes one last statement on the ambiguity of the New Testament authors: “The familiar attributions of the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John come from the mid-second century and later, and we have no good historical reason to accept these attributions.”  Guthrie states that many scholars hold that early tradition, witnessed by the Muratorian Canon, Irenaeus (c.170), Clement of Alexandria, Origin, and Tertullian, believed that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were both written by Luke, a companion of Paul.  Still, how soon is that time to Luke’s publishing his work?  Again he confuses our knowledge of 2,000 years past with the early church fathers, only 150 or so.  Yet do we not know who wrote The Origin of Species?  Cleary not according to Mason, who fails to recall the fact that many manuscripts did not survive from before that time (150 years after Christ’s death), thus the chances of finding one with the names of the authors is much slimmer.  It is also worthy to point out that he gives no good historical reason to reject these attributions. 

Thus Mason ends his spiel on how scripture is barely known historically, and continues to the actual topic of this essay.  “Paul mentions Jesus’ ancestry only twice, and then incidentally. The first time, he is writing to some gentile converts in Galatia, trying to discourage them from their zeal to adopt Judaism. Just as Jesus, though he had been born “under the law” and “of a woman,” achieved spiritual sonship and freedom from the law (Galatians 4:4), so also the Galatians, who have achieved spiritual sonship, must not regress by enslaving themselves to a physical regimen (as Paul characterizes the Jewish calendar and circumcision).”  Here he makes a false case on Paul and Judaism.  This is increasingly ironic as he quotes a verse which defeats this theory of his. 

5:6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love.
Galatians 5:6 RSV

How much clearer can Paul be on how becoming circumcised means nothing, but only faith in Christ will matter?  Where exactly does Paul even hint at circumcision meaning being enslaved to anything?  Indeed, does not Paul have Timothy circumcised? 

16:1And he came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer; but his father was a Greek. 16:2He was well spoken of by the brethren at Lystra and Ico’nium. 16:3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
Acts 16:1-3 RSV

If he thought circumcision was to be considered “enslavement to physical regimen” would he have a friend undergo such an atrocity?  Paul even goes as far to say:

3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 3:2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God.
Romans 3:1-2 RSV

Circumcision is “great in every respect.”  Maybe Mason is reading a different New Testament.  Paul also explains in great detail the Law, and what it means to Jews and Christians, who are both under the control of sin:

7:14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin. 7:15 I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 7:16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. 7:17 So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. 7:18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. 7:19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. 7:20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. 7:21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 7:22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self, 7:23 but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members. 7:24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 7:25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.
Romans 7:14-25 RSV

Here Paul makes several key points.  The first of which is that humanity is ruled by sin, while the second is that the Law (which condemns man) is good (as Paul knows this condemnation to be good, and so tries to be good in light of the Law).  The final point is that Jesus Christ is the one who sets us free of “the law of sin.”  He also explains the relationship of the Law and circumcision:

2:25Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. 2:26So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 2:27 Then those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. 2:28 For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. 2:29 He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal. His praise is not from men but from God.
Romans 2:25-29 RSV

Paul clarifies on the previous verses, saying again that circumcision means nothing, but the following of the Law is great in the eyes of God.  In the next verse, Paul concludes (through all these different letters) that it is the circumcised who do not follow the Law that attempt to convert the Gentiles:

6:11 See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand. 6:12 It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that would compel you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.
Galatians 6:11-12 RSV

As shown, Paul did not disagree with the Law; however, he understood that none were lawful under the Law, but only through Jesus Christ.  He also noted that circumcision means nothing compared to practice of the Law.  When the Jews (circumcised, yet unlawful) attempted to subvert the Gentiles, Paul fought back.

 

Finally, Mason moves from Paul and onto a book where infancy narratives are actually mentioned. 

“When Jesus moves to Capernaum, everyone continues to address him as a Nazarene. “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth?” ask the locals in the Capernaum synagogue (Mark 1:24; see also 10:47, 14:67, 16:6). When Jesus returns to his “hometown” (Greek patris, “ancestral home”), he goes to Nazareth (Mark 6:1). When he teaches in the Nazareth synagogue, the locals are offended at his pretensions because they have long known him, his mother, his brothers and his sisters (Mark 6:1–3). Although the author does not say “since birth,” that seems to be assumed. Jesus responds famously: “Prophets are not without honor, except in their hometown, among their own kin, and in their own home” (Mark 6:4).The author of Mark is not simply silent about Bethlehem; he appears to assume that Jesus was born and raised in Nazareth. Anyone who read Mark alone, without benefit of Matthew or Luke (which Mark’s first readers would not have known), would receive that impression. Mark makes no effort to explain any other origin.”

This point seems, well, pointless.  I am Aaron of Harrington Park, yet I was born in Englewood.  Strange, no?  I just filled out my college applications.  For some odd reason I put Harrington Park as my home town.

 

Mason then moves to the actual infancy narrative of Matthew: “Finally, there are obvious historical difficulties with Matthew’s birth narrative, including the mysterious star that somehow identified a particular house in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:9–11).”  But this is not a historical matter at all.  Do not let him fool you; Mason brings astrology into the picture.  Not only is this clearly not his area of ‘expertise’, it is also easily refuted, as James Kiefer in his online article “The Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke” shows:

Jupiter makes a complete circuit of the Zodiac about once every 12 years (that is, it moves about 30 degrees per year. Saturn makes a complete curcuit of the Zodiac about once every 30 years — that is, it moves about 12 degrees a year. Thus every year Jupiter gains about 18 degrees on Saturn, and about every 20 years (actually closer to 19.87 years) it laps the track and passes Saturn from behind. When they are neck and neck, we say that they are in conjunction. A minority of these conjunctions (about one in six) are triple conjunctions, meaning that Jupiter passes Saturn, then falls behind, then passes again. This is rare enough to attract attention. In 7 BC, Jupiter and Saturn had a triple conjunction in the constellation Pisces, and it did attract attention. In fact, astronomers were looking forward to it at least ten years before it occurred. A cuneiform tablet (The Almanac of Sippur), written in 17 BC, gives the motions of the planets for the next few years, and clearly regards this triple conjunction as the major astronomical event in the immediate future. The times for all the events of the conjunction (the times when the two planets began to move backwards, the times when they resumed their forward motions, the three times at which they had the same longitude) have been calculated and recorded in loving detail. In 1981, Jupiter and Saturn had another triple conjunction (not in Pisces), the one hundredth conjunction and the fourteenth triple conjunction since that of 7 BC. The triple conjunction of 1464 is, as far as I can learn, the only triple conjunction in Pisces since 7 BC. Using round numbers, we may say that we have a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn every 20 years, a triple conjunction on the average about once every 120 years, and a triple conjunction in Pisces on the average about once every 1440 years.
. . .
Bethlehem is about five miles south of Jerusalem. A reasonable travel time, by camel or on foot, say at three miles an hour, would be about an hour and forty minutes. Assuming that we are dealing with the second conjunction, the October one, the planets, which at the first conjunction in late May were rising a few hours before sunrise, would now be rising a few hours before sunset. There would have been about an hour and forty minutes between the time when the planets became visible after sunset and the time when they reached their meridian (i.e. when they were due south of the observers and had reached their maximum height above the horizon). If the Magi left Jerusalem when they saw the star in the southern sky, the fact that the road to Bethlehem led them straight toward the star, give or take a few degrees, and that when they reached Bethlehem the star was at its greatest height (which is probably what is meant by saying that it halted) would have struck them as very definitely a good omen, worthy of comment.

Mason’s second point actually deals with his profession, but is also easily refuted: “and Herod’s slaughter of children—an event that is not recorded in any other first-century A.D. source. Matthew’s contemporary Josephus wrote several volumes excoriating Herod for his violations of Jewish custom.  It seems highly unlikely that if a slaughter of babies had taken place near Jerusalem, Josephus would not have heard about it and used it as an example of Herod’s heinous crimes.”  Again Mason makes an excellent point, based entirely on speculation.  Not only may the killing of a few children not be enough to condemn Herod among his even worse crimes, but Mason can be defeated by his own logic: But what did Josephus really know about Herod’s slaying of children?  But I refuse to let my speculation defeat his.  Wallace comments on this very issue in one of his articles:

Josephus tells us much about Herod. The best word to describe his reign is ‘overkill.’ He murdered his favorite wife’s father, drowned her brother–and even killed her! He executed one of his most trusted friends, his barber, and 300 military leaders–all in a day’s work! Then he slew three of his sons, allegedly suspecting them of treason. Josephus tells us that “Herod inflicted such outrages upon (the Jews) as not even a beast could have done if it possessed the power to rule over men” (Antiquities of the Jews 17:310). Killing babies was not out of character for this cruel king. And killing them up to two years old–to make sure he got the baby Jesus lines up with his insane jealousy for power.

Josephus might have omitted the slaying of the babies for one of two reasons: first, he was no friend of Christianity and he left it out intentionally; or second, just before Herod died he locked up 3000 of the nation’s leading citizens and gave orders that they were to be executed at the hour of his death. He wanted to make sure that there would be mourning when he died. . . Israel was so preoccupied with this that the clandestine murder of a few babies might have gone unnoticed. . .

The final portion of Mason’s work is a list of “improbabilities” of events (Kiefer actually refutes all of these himself; however I will reword most of his arguments for clarity’s sake) that Luke records: “Luke’s effort to link Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem with the census is, however, plagued by historical inconsistencies and improbabilities. The census described by Josephus occurred in 6 A.D., several years after Jesus’ birth (see the second sidebar to this article).”  It is true that Josephus fails to mention a census in the last years of Herod, but only mentions the census in 6 AD.  Josephus also tells us that the result of this was a major revolt, which was repudiated through a number of battles (Acts 5:37).  However, Mason’s argument overlooks the delay between the registering of property and the collection of the first taxes on it.  Kiefer again proves this:

These were separate events. Even in Egypt, which was always well organized where land taxes were concerned, there was an interval of several years, and in Gaul it took forty years from the beginning of the APOGRAPHE (listing of names) to the end of the first APOTIMESIS (collecting of taxes). People who submit quietly when their land is surveyed and title deeds are filed may very well revolt a few years later, when the tax collector comes around demanding cash, just as experience has shown that young men who submit peacefully to draft registration may rebel at actually being drafted. Besides, a dissatisfied people is more likely to rise up at the beginning of a reign than in the middle, when the king is firmly in the saddle and has shown himself prompt, capable, and ruthless in suppressing previous revolts. Also, Herod, who understood Jewish customs and ideas, and made an effort (remodeling and enlarging the Temple, for example) to be popular with his subjects whenever that didn’t get in the way of more important things, may have known, better than a Roman governor, how to conduct a census with a minimum of offense, or at any rate a minimum of resistance.

As clearly shown, the revolt was a result of the census only during the time when the taxes were actually collected, and after Herod’s death.  This supports Luke’s assertion that Joseph was called to list his name (apographe).

The second argument he makes against Luke is: “It was not a worldwide census, although it apparently included Syria along with Judea.”  Actually,the creation of several “worldwide” censuses is one of the undertakings which Augustus had engraved on his monument.  Again it must be noted that the Roman procedure was different from the consensus of today which is completed at a single moment.  The census takers in Roman times, however, worked incessantly, moving throughout the country.  (Remember that there were two stages: apographe, where descriptions and the names of the owner were written; and apotimesis, the actual assessment of taxes.)  Kiefer also brings up another point not specifically mentioned:

It is argued that a Roman census would not have included Herod’s territory, since he was nominally not a subject of Rome but an independent king, a Friend of Caesar and Ally of the Roman People. But we know that the city-state of Apamea in Syria, although officially described as autonomous, was subject to a census (carried out, as the inscriptions show, under Quirinius). The Nabataean kingdom of Petra, which minted its own silver coins (unlike Herod, who was allowed by the Romans to mint copper coins only), was likewise subject to Roman supervision of its taxation system. It is unlikely that Herod would be exempt. Moreover, in 8 BC, Augustus quarreled with Herod, and told him that he would thereafter treat him not as a friend but as a subject. (Josephus says that he soon restored him to favor, but Josephus has an axe to grind: he is concerned to magnify the influence of the man who represented Herod in this matter. Even if Augustus ceased to be angry, it is contrary to the nature of a department of taxation to give up a jurisdiction after having once established it.) So that it seems probable that Augustus, having curbed Herod’s independence in 8 BC, would order a census of his territory beginning in 8 or 7 BC. We know that in 7 BC Herod had several thousand Pharisees put to death for refusing to swear allegiance to Caesar. Presumably such an oath would have been administered in connection with the imperial census. We therefore have good grounds, even apart from Luke’s statement, for supposing that there was a Roman census in Palestine in about 7 BC. 

Mason continues: “And requiring people to travel far away from where they were living would defeat the purpose of a Roman census, which was to assess current property for taxation.”  But Kiefer continues as well:

This is by no means certain, or even probable. In the first place, we have papyrus records of the Roman census in Egypt, and there people were explicitly required to return to the villages of their birth to be registered — not just the heads of families, but everyone. Now it is possible that the Egyptian rules were special. It has been suggested, for example, that Egyptian peasants had a tendency to leave the farms and migrate to the cities, and that the Romans, who depended on Egyptian grain, were determined to get them back to the farms. We do not know whether the Egyptian rules were applied to the census in Syria and Palestine. But even if they were not, there is another reason why Joseph may have thought himself bound to make the journey. If Joseph’s family had come from Bethlehem, he may very well have been owner or part owner of some small bit of land thereabouts, not necessarily of great commercial value, but of great value to him as representing his ancestral inheritance. When the census takers were working at Bethlehem, that land would be surveyed and registered, and any owner or part owner not presenting his claims in person stood to lose them.

Indeed, and since land was considered a gift from God back in that time, would not Joseph seek to redeem it?  Even more-so that it is extremely likely this plot of land had been in Joseph’s family’s possession for five to twelve generations, maybe even to the time of David and before.  Would not that land be especially cherished, so that the long journey seemed necessary?

And at last there is an end to this madness: “Moreover, only the household head would need to report to a local administrative center.”  As stated above, Joseph would have been required to bring Mary along if the census was under the Egyptian rules.  But even if the Egyptian rules were not applicable (though no proof of this claim was argued) Kiefer contends:

However, if he were going to Bethlehem to save the family estate from confiscation, and if Mary had inherited some Bethlehem property in her own right (a possibility we shall come back to later), then she would come along for the same reason. The Roman methods of census taking meant that Joseph would probably have to stay in Bethlehem for some time; thus, it would make sense for Mary to come with him rather than waiting alone in Nazareth for the baby to be born. Another consideration is that Matthew makes it explicit that Joseph and Mary were not formally married until after Mary was already pregnant. In order to spare Mary the gossip that would result from her giving birth less than nine months after the wedding, Joseph may have decided to bring her to Bethlehem fairly early in her pregnancy, and to remain there with her for at least a few years.

The above also destroys any thought that “Mary would have killed Jesus in going the great distance to Bethlehem.”  Thus, in dealing with not a mere handful of Mason’s points, but through meticulous extraction and refutation of each inconsistency and ridiculous attestation, all notions of the fabrication of the infancy narratives have been dispelled.  For it is written:  

24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
Matthew 24:35 RSV

-Aaron

Posted: 01|22|08 at 9:59 pm. Filed under: Aaron's Posts, Apologetics.
Comment | Trackback