According to the New Testament, Jesus was born in Bethlehem but was raised in Nazareth and lived here for most part of his life. Thereby, he was called Jesus of Nazareth.
Some scholars, mainly "liberal" ones, are skeptical of Jesus being born in Bethlehem. They claim that Jesus was actually born in Nazareth. Let's to comment on two main arguments, common in the literature, supporting this contention:
1) Jesus was called "of Nazareth", therefore he was born there. The reference to Bethlehem is a later invention by the Church, created when Jesus' figure was already exalted, and hence the early Christians had the theological necessity to create a Jesus which fits with the Old Testament predictions about the Messiah's birth in Bethlehem.
2) In John 7:41-43, we can read a testimony (from the lips of Jesus' enemies) regarding Jesus' birth place: "Others said, “He is the Messiah.” Still others asked, “How can the Messiah come from Galilee? 42 Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David’s descendants and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived? Thus the people were divided because of Jesus"
Let's to critically examine both arguments:
Objections to argument 1
Against argument 1 militates the fact that the only specific birth narratives in the Gospels can be found in the Gospels of Mattew and the Gospels of Luke, and they explicitly AGREE that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Moreover, those traditions are contained in the specific, early, independent sources used by each Gospel, and hence provide an example of multiple attestation.
The criterion of multiple attestation is one of the most important criteria of authenticity for the study of the historical Jesus. Used properly (that is, as a sufficient, but not a necessary, condition of historical reliability) the criterion provides supportive reasons to think that a given tradition goes back to the historical Jesus.
Marcus Borg explains with simple words the rationale for this criterion:
if a tradition appears in an early source and in another independent source, then not only is it early, but it is also unlikely to have been made up (The Meaning of Jesus, p.12)
Note that a tradition being singly attested is not a reason for non-historicity (because it is possible that Jesus did or said something which only one source of information recorded). But if the same tradition is multiply attested by independent, early sources, it gives us a reason to think that it is historically reliable, since it is unlikely to have been invented.
Precisely for this reason, just on the grounds that Jesus' birth narratives are found on independent sources which agree about Jesus being born in Bethlehem provide a case of multiple attestation and hence of historical reliability.
Please, note very carefully that the argument that such tradition is a later invention is based on the following (anti-Christian) assumptions (not on facts):
a)That the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah's birth in Bethlehem is false or cannot be true.
b)That Jesus was not the Messiah referred to by such prophecies
c)That the early Christians were NOT interested in the truth about their loved master.
d)That (contrary to Jesus' ethical teachings and the view that lies come from the Devil) the early Christians were intentionally dishonest and deliberately and fully knowing the truth about Jesus' birth place, twisted it for theological reasons.
e)That the Gospels' traditions about Jesus are guilty until proven innocent.
f)That the mere assumption of inventions (or the sheer possibility of it) overrides the positive and concrete application of the criteria of authenticity when the latter supports the Christian view of Jesus.
g)That the widely accepted criterion of multiple attestation, which is applicable in this case, is absolutely irrelevant and doesn't count at all to counterbalance all the above assumptions.
When you ask for specific EVIDENCE for each of these specific assumptions (that is, specific evidence which passes positively the criteria of authenticity), you get NONE. What criteria of authenticity supports, for example, point a)? Or point c)? Or more importantly, point f, (which is itself a self-serving methodological assumption about the value of anti-Christian assumptions!)?
I've dedicated my best efforts to find concrete, positive evidence for each of these assumptions, and I've only found... more assumptions. For some scholars, it suffices to claim "that's an invention" when a given tradition supports the divine view of Jesus, and this regardless of the evidence supporting such tradition. For these scholars, It doesn't matter that the evidence supporting the divine view of Jesus passes the criterion of multiple attestation, dissimilarity or embarrasment, IT HAS TO BE AN INVENTION. To the hell with the criteria of authenticity!.
I call this the "fallacy of making assumptions more important than evidence and historical facts".
Not even in the heated and long debate on parapsychology between "skeptics" and "believers" I've seen so strong and committed bias against a given position (in this case, the Christian view of Jesus). It is just astonishing.
Note very carefully (because I'm sorry to say that some of my readers seem to be impaired or seriously challenged to do accurate reading and understanding) that my argument here is NOT theological. I'm NOT saying "Hello everybody, I believe that Christianity is true, and I'm angry because mean, dishonest, biased atheist or liberal scholars are bad and want to deny the truth of Jesus our savior".
NO. My argumentation is purely methodological and historical. It is fully compatible with the possibility of Christianity being false. Even an atheist, provided he knows the literature and has mastered the criteria of authenticity (and has not an axe to grind against Christianity), could see that all the above anti-Christian assumptions don't pass any historical criteria of authenticity and are sheer speculations.
The truth of the matter (which can be tested by any person) is this: For many radical and skeptical scholars, (specially atheist and liberal ones), any High Christologocal view of Jesus is itself a criterion of non-historicity which overrides any positive, concrete evidence (based on the standard criteria of historicity) for such divine view of Jesus. This biased and self-serving methodolology guarantees, in advance, that any reconstruction of the historical Jesus will be anti-Christian. Pure pseudo-scholarship and charlatanism.
Objections to argument 2
Remember that the second argument used by some skeptical scholars to support the claim that Jesus was born in Nazareth is that in John 7:41-43, we can read a testimony (from the lips of Jesus' enemies) regarding Jesus' birth place: "Others said, “He is the Messiah.” Still others asked, “How can the Messiah come from Galilee? 42 Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David’s descendants and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived? Thus the people were divided because of Jesus"
Comments:
1)John's Gospel is considered unreliable by most scholars (mainly due to the more explicit view of Jesus as divine in such Gospel, which is, remember, itself used as the overriding criterion of non-historicity by "skeptics"). Since this Gospel is the most explicitly Christological, it is therefore the most unreliable.
Obviously this is another assumption, since it assumes, without proving, that the divine view of Jesus is false. But let that pass.
Despite of this, some scholars argue that a testimony put on the lips of Jesus' enemies (even if found in John's Gospel) has historical value. Let's call this the "criterion of enemies's testimonies" I fully agree with it, but as shown below, this criterion of enemy's testimonies is not used consistently by such scholars (see evidence discussed in point 3 below).
2) It is true that the testimony coming from enemies may be good evidence, since enemies won't support your cause. They have not motivation at all to defend your interests, so if their implicit or explicit concessions are favourable to you, this is evidence in your favor.
But read carefully John 7:41-43, what is exactly being claimed there? Clearly, what John is showing is that some of Jesus' enemies THOUGHT that he was born in Nazareth. But does it imply that Jesus was ACTUALLY born there? How exactly you can infer from what the some enemies' thought to the historical conclusion that such thought was true?
Moreover, note that John is simply reporting the debate between the people in Jesus' time. He says some said "Jesus is the Messiah" and others disagreed. In John's word "Thus the people were divided because of Jesus". John's intention seems to be to simply report the fact that Jesus caused controversy among people, not to settle factual problems about his nature (Messianic or not), or his birth place, nor to assess the plausibility of the arguments of each side in the debate.
Reporting, as a historian or reporter, that in Jesus' time did existed some competing views or disagreement about Jesus is not, itself, evidence that some of such competing views were true. It would be wholly a different matter whether John itself, or Jesus or his family, explicitly claimed that he was born in Nazareth. But such claim from a reliable source like Jesus, or his family (Mary or James, let's say), or his disciples, or the Gospel's authors is never found (except, as said above, in the birth narratives of Jesus contained in Matthew and Luke, which mutiply attest to Jesus's birth in Bethlehem).
In conclusion, the evidence provided by John 7:41-43 is at most strong evidence for what some people (specially some enemies of Jesus) in Jesus' time THOUGHT about him, but by itself it cannot settle the question about the place of Jesus' birth.
How could the mere testimony and beliefs of Jesus' enemies to settle the problem about his birth place? Why exactly Jesus' enemies are in better position to know Jesus' birth place than Jesus' followers and the multiple, early, independently attested traditions contained in Matthew and Luke?
3)The skeptical scholars don't apply consistently the criterion that the enemy's testimonies have probative value. For them, it is only valuable when (in the skeptic's interpretation) it supports anti-Christian conclusions. (Note that the criterion of appealing to the enemy's testimony is different than the criterion of embarassment. The former appeals to what an enemy says, implying that an enemy is not interested in supporting your cause; the latter appeals to the fact that nobody intentionally creates or invent something which is contrary or problematic to his own interests).
The inconsistency, misapplication and selective use of of the criterion of "enemies' testimonies" by skeptical scholars to support anti-Christian conclusions may be seen in the following examples:
In the Gospel of John, we also find interesting testimonies from Jesus' enemies about Jesus' own claims of divinity. In John 19:7 we can read:
The Jewish leaders insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.
So, in that example, that Jesus' claimed to be the Son of God doesn't come from Jesus' lips (nor from the lips of his followers), but from his enemies! Why exactly such testimonies of enemies supporting Jesus' divine self-perception are false, but the testimonies of enemies about Jesus' birth are accurate, true and even have overriding force over the criterion of multiple attestation?
In Matthew's Gospel, the enemies of Jesus ALSO implied that Jesus regarded himself as the Son of God. In Matthew 27: 39-41, we can read:
Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads 40 and saying, “You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!” 41 In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him.
And in Luke 23:35 we can read more comments from enemies of Jesus:
The people stood watching, and the rulers even sneered at him. They said, “He saved others; let him save himself if he is God’s Messiah, the Chosen One.
And in Mark 15: 31-32:
In the same way the chief priests and the teachers of the law mocked him among themselves. “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! 32 Let this Messiah, this king of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him
But obviously, for these skeptical scholars, the bunch of testimonies from Jesus' enemies claiming that he was God's Messiah, the Chosen One and the Son of God (with the power of saving others) don't count as evidence in this case, because (remember) any tradition having High Christological components is seen as non-historical!
Keep in mind that, in the case of Mark, the above passage is preceded by another in which Jesus himself explicitly claimed to have a divine status and such claim increased the charges of blasphemy. In Mark 14:61-65:
61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.
Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”
62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”
They all condemned him as worthy of death. 65 Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, “Prophesy!” And the guards took him and beat him.
But all of this is irrelevant to some skeptical scholars. They are fixed (by emotional and theological reasons) to the view that Jesus never claimed such a thing. The evidence supporting the authenticity of these claims is worthless. It doesn't matter that Jesus' divinity was put in the lips of his enemies too. All of these HAVE to be a later invention, period.
To the hell with the criteria of authenticity!!!!
Yeah, sure...
0 comments:
Post a Comment