Peter Kirby

Yes, I should have phrased that differently. Obviously the reference is evidence for something. But apparently it is not sufficient evidence that the story was nonfactual. I would agree with that; it isn't sufficient evidence. But then why did you suggest it would be productive to search for such criticism in ancient times?

It is clear that what one person finds easy another person will find difficult, particularly when it comes to doubting and believing. Some people find it hard to doubt that a jot or tittle in the Word of God is mistaken, while other people find it hard to believe that there is any kernel of truth whatsoever to the Gospels. I fall somewhere in the middle of that spectrum.

The historical kernel that I find in the infancy narratives is that Jesus was born of a woman, probably in Galilee, around the beginning of the Christian era. The infancy stories in Matthew and Luke clearly are designed to express the theological points that Jesus is the fulfillment of biblical typology for a Messiah and that Jesus is a savior for the whole world. Whether the authors thought of the infancy narratives as containing literal truth or not, which is an open question, it is probable that they were not written strictly in response to facts that are accurately recorded so much as to make the point about who Jesus was with a good story.

To say that someone believes without a doubt in any matter of history is to say that the person goes beyond what the evidence shows. I would suggest rather that there are stories in the Gospel of Matthew that fall below a certain threshold on the fact-o-meter and thus are reasonably judged to be nonfactual with a very strong probability. From the other end of the book, there is the famous resurrection of the saints, which is also a clear fiction.

If I were a Christian, then concerning the kernel of truth in the story, I would be in line with folks like Marcus Borg, who says, "With beauty and power, these symbolic narratives express central early Christian convictions about the significance of Jesus." (The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, p. 182)

If you've ever read Josephus straight through, you would realize how much attention is given to detail, and how much space is given to the reign of Herod, such that the whole court intrigue with the magi and the slaughter of the innocent babies would have been a story that Josephus would have relished including in his narrative. But, as illustrated with the quotation from Strauss, the evidence from Josephus merely confirms what a careful analysis of the text in itself shows.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

Music to my ears!

I usually say that i find no positive evidence for a claim. This isusually the case with say, singly attested claims. I do not say they are false but that historically, I do not find sufficient reason to believe in this claim. In the case of the details of the Matthean infancy narrative, I feel secure in saying that most of them are not factual. Brown in BBM, was a little too conservative on this point in my judgment. He stuck with the I can find no positive evidence to substantiate the story line.

In Holding's response he stated there are no valid historical reasons for accepting most of the details of the infanct narratives. Strangely, he still thinks there is valid reason for Xians to believe the accounts are true. I guess its blind faith since inspiration doesn't demonstrate the stories are true.

Unfortunately the Christian canon is not accepted as accurate until demonstrated otherwise. Its not accepted as false until proved otherwise either though.Each instance is to be evaluated carefully from a neutral perspective.


Vinnie

Haran

Sauron... The KJV?!

I'm afraid the archaic language of the KJV will mostly confuse the modern reader.

For instance, the usage of "coasts" here is archaic and obsolete, easy for the modern reader to misunderstand. It makes one think of "coast-to-coast" or extending to the shores of some body of water, but this is incorrect. The more correct modern reading of εν πασι τοις οριοις αυτης would be "in all its vicinity".

In the places I have seen οριοις used, it usually seems to refer to the area/region/vicinity immediately surrounding a particular town or place.

Rachel's tomb was near Bethlehem. Where do you think Ramah was?

Haran

Because I did not know how much detail there was in Celsus denial of the event. If there had been more information to his denial, it might have been a little more productive.

I suppose that what I am saying is that I would like to see an ancient source saying that they do not believe it happened "because"... To see a person closer in time to the actual event give a reason would be much more convincing to me. If the ancients did not question the event, why should we? This was why I though it might be productive. Unfortunately, not knowing Celsus' reasons makes it hard to form a decision. This is why I was curious if there was anyone else. Sometimes the ancients reasons for rejecting things were not so great (just as today).

I would imagine that that fact-o-meter is calibrated rather differently for different people (without necessarily being wrong).

I personally disagree with Borg (i.e. his philosophies). I would probably be more in agreement with the likes of Daniel Wallace.

I've read it, but I think this is overstating the case. Just because it looks like an exhaustive treatment this does not mean that he included everything or even knew everything. Josephus apparently gleaned some of his information from a relative of Herod. Perhaps this relative kept some information to himself?

I'm not saying that Matthew necessarily got every detail of the story correct. I don't know. However, so far I haven't seen a good reason to deny that something similar to his account happened, but I have seen relatively good reasons for believing it might have happened (aside from the fact that it was seemingly stated as a truthful and historical event).

Sauron

That's why I used the ASV to look it up.

I have a Word97 copy of the OT and NT (KJV) for quotation, because it's easily searchable using Word functions. But I checked the meaning via the ASV, at the Bible Gateway.


It was a city given to the Benjaminites.

JOS 18:21 Now the cities of the tribe of the children of Benjamin according to their families were Jericho, and Bethhoglah, and the valley of Keziz,
JOS 18:22 And Betharabah, and Zemaraim, and Bethel,
JOS 18:23 And Avim, and Pharah, and Ophrah,
JOS 18:24 And Chepharhaammonai, and Ophni, and Gaba; twelve cities with their villages:
JOS 18:25 Gibeon, and Ramah, and Beeroth,

It was also mentioned in connection with Samuel:

SA1 16:13 Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward. So Samuel rose up, and went to Ramah.

SA1 28:3 Now Samuel was dead, and all Israel had lamented him, and buried him in Ramah, even in his own city. And Saul had put away those that had familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land

So it's a place-name distinct both in context and geography from Bethlehem.