|
|
Post by metacrock on Dec 17, 2008 3:26:31 GMT
Just saw PBS show about it. The show assumed it was a true event and p reported to find historical links about the origins of it.
how seriously do you all take that and the other infant narrative story?
|
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Dec 17, 2008 18:57:35 GMT
Personally I take it as accurate, as I believe the evidence supports the Gospels being direct first hand (or based on first hand) accounts. Luke in particular is an educated, methodical writer who is regarded as a pretty accurate historian.
Having said that, I'm always very skeptical of what I see on TV regarding this stuff, even if it ends up supporting my view!!!
What do you think yourself, metacrock?
|
|
|
|
Post by metacrock on Dec 18, 2008 3:28:13 GMT
Personally I take it as accurate, as I believe the evidence supports the Gospels being direct first hand (or based on first hand) accounts. Luke in particular is an educated, methodical writer who is regarded as a pretty accurate historian. Having said that, I'm always very skeptical of what I see on TV regarding this stuff, even if it ends up supporting my view!!! What do you think yourself, metacrock? well the show was crap. even though it brought out some interesting stuff. I is interesting that the Zorasterians had a phrophsy about the Jewish messiah, and that may be where Mat got the info on the Magi. It may be that the Magi learned of the Jewish Messaih form the Hebrews in captivity. I don't see any evidence to support the infant narrative. I can live with it as an embellishment. To me that's a rather minar issue. I am not an itinerantist. But I do accept the Gospels as historical documents. I also believe in the inspiration of the HolySpirit. But it doesn't have to be historically ture in a literal sense in everything it says. |
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Dec 18, 2008 14:44:03 GMT
From what I understand, some scholars regard the nativity narrative as a pious and rather audacious embellishment; ancient writers didn't think about history in the same way we do and by bringing in a virgin birth it elevates the messiah to the level of the Roman emperors who claimed divine parentage. Personally I think the general outline of the nativity story is true and I would be interested to see if there is evidence supporting it beyond the gospel narratives.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Dec 18, 2008 15:37:34 GMT
The birth narratives may well be true, but I don't think I could classify them as historical in the sense of being part of the proper study of history. I'd rather say they were beyond history - stories where the truth or otherwise is of secondary importance (unles you are a literalist or new atheist).
Best wishes
James
|
|
|
|
Post by rfmoo on Dec 18, 2008 16:43:47 GMT
The historicity of the voyage of the Magi has been contested, but I think it possible. I agree that it is not essential literally, though as symbolism it is powerful and important.
The virgin birth is another matter. It is a doctrine accepted by virtually all orthodox branches of Christianity and by the most seminal early credal statements. If Jesus is a God man, the son of the Father, then he IS son of the Father. No human father will do. As for the virginity of non christian mothers of heroes and gods, they almost always are impregnated carnally by an intracosmic divinity, in which act they lose their virginity. The ubiquity of this myth may actually support the gospel account. Mythmakers intuitively recognize the pristine uniqueness appropriate to the conception of the divine or semidivine being.
Besides, this account must be taken in cultural and religious context. Yahweh is not an intracosmic anthropomorphic fertility divinity who goes about siring little gods (goddesses) or demidivinities on whatever nubile maiden who takes his fancy. This is the Jewish transcendental divinity, the Holy of Holies. Either the event is to be taken on face value (shocking and unprecedented as that is to Hebrew religious sensibilities) or it is the foulest blasphemy. Saul of Tarsus was not alone among Jews in emphatically embracing the latter view until he had his cataclysmic encounter with the Incarnate Word on the road to Damascus.
Best,
Richard Moorton
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Dec 18, 2008 20:44:52 GMT
The birth narratives may well be true, but I don't think I could classify them as historical in the sense of being part of the proper study of history. I'd rather say they were beyond history - stories where the truth or otherwise is of secondary importance (unles you are a literalist or new atheist). Best wishes James I am not a historian, but I have read a lot of historians and other scholars writing on the New Testament. Most seem to take the view that there are several classes of story or text in the New Testament - (1) what they affirm as probably historical, (2) what they believe is not historical, and (3) events whose historicity they believe cannot be decided by historical evidence, but must be judged on other grounds. Most miracles and some other stories fall into the latter category, because they say a person's metaphysics will determine whether they believe in them. The best historical analysis can do is determine whether the stories were believed by the people of the day, and how soon after the alleged event the stories were believed. Thus for example, historians will judge that the resurrection stories go right back to the earliest days of christianity, but few historians will say that the resurrection is an event that can be affirmed by historical analysis alone. I have seen historians deal with the birth stories, for example Geza Vermes' book "The Nativity", and they generally are fairly sceptical - e.g. the dating of the stories in Matthew and Luke appear to be contradictory, although there are possible explanations, and the virgin birth is thought by many to be based on a wrong translation from the Old Testament. But I don't see any great reason for scepticism, even though I agree with those who don't think the question highly important. I accept that Jesus really did heal people and really was resurrected, even though the historians can only say that the belief that he did these things was early and widespread, because my faith builds on what the historians conclude. So I don't have any real difficulty in doing the same here. So I can accept that the birth stories may not be the "proper study of history" (although historical analysis is required to come to that conclusion, and new evidence may change that conclusion), but I would not agree that their "truth or otherwise is of secondary importance". In the end, like Richard, I trust the NT writers to be reasonably accurate. But of course, some of the trappings of the Magi story (e.g. that there were three of them) are the stuff of Christmas cards and not scripture, and we need not be too concerned about them. |
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Dec 19, 2008 7:35:09 GMT
I think if our friend Dick Dawkins were here, he might say something along the lines of "either its true, or its not!". I think he wrote in one of his books, obstensively about biology, that the virgin birth was based on a mistranslation.
|
|
|
|
Post by rfmoo on Dec 19, 2008 16:08:03 GMT
Dear Humphrey,
Dawkins better reread the story of the Annunciation in Luke. The mistranslation to which he refers (and I don't have the Hebrew to decide) is the Christian assertion that Isaiah 7:14 foretells the virgin birth of Christ (does "almah" mean virgin or young woman?). But Luke is so detailed about Mary's virginity at the Annunciation and her impregnation by the Holy Spirit at the moment of assent or soon after that I don't think that Dawkins (that great biblical scholar) has a prayer (so to speak) of making this argument work.
Best,
Richard Moorton
|
|
|
|
Post by rfmoo on Dec 20, 2008 2:24:26 GMT
I notice that an error in attribution I made in the above post has been quietly corrected by parties unknown. Thanks to my good angel, whoever you are.
Very fallibly,
Richard Moorton
|
|
