Near Emmaus

Tag Archives: James McGrath


by 8 Comments

The state of historical Jesus studies: Le Donne, McCullough, Daley-Bailey, and McGrath

There have been some interesting blog posts on the state of historical Jesus studies around the blogosphere recently:

In order to introduce the topics of memory and gap-filling in historical Jesus studies Anthony Le Donne asks, “Was Jesus breastfed?” in “Of Memory and Mother’s Milk”.

Pat McCullough responds in “Breast was Best for Jesus” by asking why this matters. Then he proposes that we might go a different direction with such questions. Rather than “digging up historical details” about Jesus he finds that these types of questions open the door for different areas of inquiry, such as “gendered discourse” and “group boundaries and ideals.” Then McCullough mentions in “Jesus: All Things to All People” a recent blog post by Kate Daley-Bailey  titled “Jesus’ Remains: Teaching Multiple Jesi” where it is observed that “…our job…is not to magically distill the ‘real’ Jesus from the swill of theology and political packaging, but rather to highlight the nuanced processes of constructing ‘Jesi’ and query the discursive strategies deployed to flesh out the impoverished Jesus.” In other words, most historical Jesus scholars do not find the “real Jesus” they seek, but rather create another Jesus for all to consider, so a more fruitful approach is the embrace the reality we won’t find the ‘real’ Jesus by becomign aquainted with the multiple depictions of Jesus (she calls them “Jesi”) available to us.

James McGrath challenges this pessimism in “Is Historical Jesus Studies Futile?” He observes that while there is diversity in how scholars present Jesus, and even in how the Evangelists present Jesus, that doesn’t mean there isn’t commonality to be found. He advocates the role of “scholarly consensus” as a guide to historical Jesus studies, admitting that the nature of the field is to discover something new, which may create confusion and excessive diversity, but that doesn’t mean there are not aspects of the life of Jesus that most scholars affirm which can tell us something about the man.

About these ads


by 28 Comments

The Massacre of the Innocents: did it happen and does it matter?

The Massacre of the Innocents in Matthew 2:13-18.

The Massacre of the Innocents in Matthew 2:13-18.

James McGrath and Tony Jones have engaged in a blog discussion over the historicity of the “Massacre of the Innocents” as described in Matthew 2:13-18. For some, this may be unattractive because it seems like these sort of topics are discussed ad nauseum, especially around Christmas and Easter, but I think this particular debate is interesting and it may be worth your time to read. Why? McGrath and Jones are discussing the historicity of the narrative because of the contemporary events that occurred last Friday in Newtown, CT. Many have connected the story of the Massacre of the Innocents to the killing of twenty children at Sandy Hook Elementary School because the Massacre of the Innocents is a “Christmas story” in the sense that Herod is described as having ordered for all the children near Bethlehem be killed because his conversation with the visiting Magi from the east lead him to think that another “king of the Jews” had been born there, one who would threaten his reign. In the narrative the one born in Bethlehem is Jesus, and though he escapes to Egypt with his parents due to angelic intervention, the other children in the area are killed.

McGrath wrote the provoking post, “Why I’m Glad the Infancy Narrative isn’t Literally True”, in which he expresses concern with a narrative where an angel would warn one family of impending doom, but not the others. This seems to McGrath to be quite unjust. Why couldn’t the angel have told all the families, saving far more children? Since McGrath finds this story improbable historically he expresses relief that in fact Matthew’s insensitive narrative is something we can ignore, for it doesn’t really tell us about how God acts in the midst of tragedy, merely how Matthew mistakingly depicts God as acting.

James McGrath

James McGrath

McGrath has a variety of reasons for denying, or strongly doubting, the historicity of the event: it is ignored in the Gospel of Luke, it is not mentioned in any other sources, it appears to be motivated by the author’s desire to place Jesus in Egypt so that he can be a “new Israel” with a “new Exodus”. Personally, I don’t find these points to be as devastating a critique as McGrath, especially since (1) the actions fit the Herod we know from other sources; (2) I think scholars often invert Matthew’s exegetical approach depicting him as having read Scripture in order to find events to narrate whereas the peculiarity of Matthew’s exegesis leads me to think he had existent traditions through which he read the text connecting events to Scripture. In other words, I think Matthew had a tradition that Herod killed the children while seeking Jesus and this lead him to read Scripture to see if there was any “foretelling” of such an event. This doesn’t mean that Matthew’s information was correct, but I think it does force us to stop and think before denouncing Matthew as someone who created wild mythologies about the life of Jesus while reading the prophets.

While not to deny the quagmires of theodicy, I don’t feel as troubled as McGrath by this text’s depiction of God’s favoritism toward Jesus. McGrath doesn’t seem to give much thought to the theological reasons for why God may have intervened to save Jesus, the particular favor and role of Jesus in the plan of God, and how if God intervened to stop all evil it would be the eschaton! If he did think about these things, he dismissed them, quickly. As hard as this may be to swallow, Jesus’ life was more important than others, theologically, as is his death at the end of the story. If God saves the world through Jesus then we have to rethink the theodicy of this passage. If God does not save the world through Jesus, then we may have reason for demanding that God be egalitarian about who he rescues from death.

Tony Jones has different qualms with McGrath, which he expresses in “James McGrath is Wrong: Herod Really Did Massacre the Innocents”. He sees this as a liberal side-stepping of the problematic parts of Scripture. Jones is thankful that the Bible contains stories like the Massacre of the Innocents because it matches real life. Some people survive, others die, and God’s role in the world is quite messy. For Jones, McGrath’s exegetical move silences the victims. It doesn’t allow the reader to wrestle with the injustice of the world because the reader can say, “Well, thank God that didn’t actually happen!”

Tony Jones

Tony Jones

The strength of Jones’ argument is it does expose what many “liberal” or “progressive” types like to ignore: there is no objectivity. Even when doing historical work we are prone to accept and reject evidence based on presuppositions and motivations. Many historians would like to think that they “just read the text”, but no one does this. The weakness of Jones’ argument is doesn’t address some of the critiques of the event’s historicity presented by McGrath.

In McGrath’s response titled, “Am I Wrong About the Massacre of the Innocents” this is the direction he takes the conversation. Now, McGrath does use a slight of hand: he says Jones is asking a “theological” question while he is asking a “historical” one. Anyone who read McGrath’s first post should be aware that this is a false dichotomy. Both are asking theological and historical questions. Jones failed to give the historical questions enough attention. That is probably a more accurate assessment. McGrath says the following:

“Ironically, because Tony has justifiable concerns that the text not be misused for theological ends, Tony ends up ignoring the crucial historical question, which has to be paramount when we ask what did or did not occur. We do not say that the Holocaust occurred because otherwise it would let God off the hook. We say that it occurred because the evidence is clear and undeniable, and includes people who lived through it. And if we ask whether Israelites invaded Canaan and slaughtered Canaanites, the answer to that question must be based on the historical evidence, not because it either does or does not let God or Israelites off the hook.”

This is a fair criticism and it will be worth watching to see if Jones aims to address the lurking questions that need to be answered if one is going to demand that the Massacre of the Innocents happened in space-time. (FWIW, this is not a debate between a “liberal” and a “conservative”, so Jones won’t appeal to something like the inerrancy, infallibility, or trustworthiness of Scripture. For those who would approach it from this angle the question of why we should affirm the historicity of these events lingers still.)


by Leave a comment

Even more on Morton Smith and Secret Mark.

About a week ago Craig Evans wrote a piece titled “Doubting Morton Smith and Secret Mark” for the website The Bible and Interpretation. It was greeted with a response from James McGrath titled “Secret Mark vs. Secret Morton” where McGrath expresses his hesitancy to say that Smith created the forgery (if it is a forgery). On this blog Evans wrote a response to McGrath’s response which we titled “More on Morton Smith and Secret Mark” to which McGrath has written another response. In his most recent response McGrath argues that it is most likely a coincidence that Smith expressed certain views that were conveniently confirmed when he “discovered” Secret Mark in the Mar Saba Monastery in the Judean Desert.

I asked Evans if he wanted to write another response at this time, but he preferred that we point readers in the direction of an article where he has already written on why he finds it unlikely that this was a mere “coincidence” (juxtaposing ‘innocent’ and ‘suspicious’ coincidences). So I’ve decided to link to the article. It is titled “Morton Smith and the Secret Gospel of Mark: Exploring the Grounds for Doubt”. It is the paper he presented at the York University Conference. The most relevant pages regarding what McGrath has written will be pp. 22-24.

I am thankful to both Dr. Evans and Dr. McGrath for having been willing to discuss this subject openly online. It has benefited all of us students to learn more about Morton Smith and Secret Mark.


by 23 Comments

Listening to scholarship, critically

Tradition! is not always bad.

Yesterday, Christopher Skinner wrote a post lamenting that one of his colleagues denies that a teacher can separate his/her faith-commitments from his/her teaching in biblical studies (read here). He argues that it is possible to compartmentalize in order to teach objectively. I agree to some extent (i.e. one can pretend objectivity), though I am not as impressed with Academia is she is with herself so I personally don’t feel obligated to be something I am not in order to gain the appreciation of others who won’t be forced to deny their premises. I understand that those seeking to have a successful academic career in the university system must do this. Some are able and to them I tip my hat.

What caught my attention was James McGrath’s comment on the post. He writes (here), “I would comment that, even if the colleague is right, to be unable to separate the two need not mean that one’s faith tradition is allowed to override critical/academic methods. It is possible instead to be a person of faith but to accept that, in light of critical study of the Bible, you will have to change your mind about many things you once assumed.”

Again, I agree to some extent. The operative word here is “have to” and “must”. No, no one has to change their mind about anything because of critical scholarship. For one, critical scholarship has as much disagreement on various things as it does agreement. I understand that the university must discover new and novel insights to secure funding, but the church doesn’t owe the university utter allegiance. We don’t have to go this way and that way with every SBL annual meeting.

Second, there are premises that drive critical scholarship that we may not be able to reconcile with reading through “eyes of faith”. If we believe God speaks in Scripture what can we do. We will read it differently than someone who sees the canon as merely a collection of documents that provide insight into the beginning of a religion.

Third, epistemological humility demands that we do not always forsake the traditions of the church for the whims of academia just because they say something novel. If we decide to be mavericks against the ‘Great Tradition’ it better be in “fear and trembling” to steal a phrase from Kierkegaard! We better be sure in our guts that we are doing the right thing. If you can’t say with Luther, “Here I stand. I can do no other!” then patiently be agnostic about something until you can further explore traditions claims against the new insights of academia.

So I say yes, we must listen to critical scholars. No, we must not affirm their conclusions. To do so by default is (in my opinion) to assume that a certain group of scholars monopolize biblical studies. There are legitimate “scholars” of Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, Pentecostal, and many other persuasions that bring different premises that must be discusses and explored but that do not coincide with a secularized approach to Scripture. These scholars are just as good as secularized scholars and their voices are just as valuable.

So yes, listen, but be critical. Be as critical of what is new as you are of what is old. There is usually a good reason for why Christian tradition has become Christian tradition. There is usually a good reason why it has staying power while modern scholarship fluctuates like the sea.


by 5 Comments

Week in Review – Evolution Addition: 12.11.2010

The topic of evolution seems to be resurfacing among Christians of all persuasions. To add to Brian’s weekly review, I found a few of posts on evolution that have popped up this week:

- James McGrath produces a nice compilation of recent Evolution and Christianity posts.

- Debunking Christianity has highlighted PZ Meyers’s year-old post on Alvin Plantinga and Plantinga’s views on evolution and naturalism.

- Denyse O’Leary of Uncommon Descent reflects on Darwinism, Christianity, and the creeds. Larry Moran of Sandwalk responds.

- Troythulu links the video “How We Know It Happened and Why It Matters” featuring Donald Prothero.

- Progressive Christianity & the Law reflects on how the Darwinism debate can be a distraction from following Christ.


by 15 Comments

Doctor of Philosophy: A Retraction

Brian’s previous title for his John the Baptist series has generated some stir. The first was taken up by Dr. Jim West on the August ’10 Biblical Studies Carnival. The second was taken up by Dr. Marc Cortez on the Western Seminary ThM blog page, and carried into the comments.

Yesterday I posted my interest in a PhD. Today I may have to retract my interest. Brian and I, two mere Master students, simply do not know enough about Seinfeld to know what was going on here—hence Brian’s post requesting help for interpreting Dr. West’s statements. Dr. Cortez obviously knew what was up (here and here).

In light of all this, there are two things I can reasonably conclude: 1) after attaining a PhD one’s time is spent immersed in Seinfeld—all day, every day; or 2) the rigors of a PhD drives one to Seinfeld addiction, possibly starting just after graduation, but more likely at some point during the program’s greatest intensity.

Since I have no intention of becoming a Seinfeld-oid, I will have to retract any excitement about and suppress any thought of pursuing a PhD. Thanks, Jim and Marc, for helping me to make this decision this early in the game!

(By the way, Nick Norelli is obviously an undercover PhD. First, Dr. Chris Tilling consults with Nick on his dissertation (also here). Next, Dr. Nick knew exactly what Dr. Jim was talking about—and Dr. Nick even knew the exact Seinfeld episode and its link to YouTube! Oh, and Dr. James McGrath tries to play innocent—although he’s more of a LOST-oid. Still…)


by 11 Comments

The Wrong or Right of Luke 2.2

Yesterday I mentioned the possibility that Luke 2.2 contains an erroneous statement about Quirinius being the governing one of Syria at the same time that Herod the Great was ruling and Jesus was born. Since about a decade separates the death of Herod and the known governorship of Quirinius this has been dubbed a historical inaccuracy. Both Bill Heroman and James McGrath provided me with articles on the subject which I read yesterday. This first article was by Jared M. Compton and it can be accessed here. The second was by James himself and it can be accessed here.

Since these two articles would provide plenty of reading for those interested in the subject all I want to do here is provide a short list of reasons for why Luke may have been wrong or may have been right in what he said in 2.2. At the end of the day I personally came away agnostic about it. There are serious issues that I think cannot be glazed over apologetically. Likewise, there are large gaps in our knowledge that I think prevent a total indictment of Luke. Here are my thoughts:

(1) I don’t think the criticisms that Caesar would have never taken a census on non-Roman citizens in a vassal kingdom are (a) to be taken lightly nor (b) solid evidence against Luke’s assumptions. For one it does seem problematic that such a census would be taken but Compton argues that it was not beyond possible. What is odd about it is that Luke assumes his reader will have no qualms with his statement. He writes as if this event is a given. So while we should be cautious about vindicating Luke because it is possible that such an event occurred we should not ignore how rare and odd it would have been. Likewise, prior to writing Luke off as mistaken we must realize that if he was so dead wrong he sure was totally oblivious to it since he writes as if his reader will know exactly what he is addressing.

(2) If Luke wrote ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη in reference to a “first census” taken when Quirinius was governor of Syria beginning in 6 CE he is wrong. I don’t think there is any way to get around it. But there is a large blank spot in our history of Quirinius around the time that Herod was ruling so we do not know for sure that Quirinius didn’t serve in some official capacity in  Syria at that time. He would not have been the governor since this position was accounted for but he may have had another official title since ἡγεμονεύοντος does not necessarily refer to the governor but could very well be a reference to another civil office. If Luke knew of an office that Quirinius had held in Syria a decade earlier that gave him authority to take some sort of census that Luke may be vindicated. Either way we have an argument from silence that does favor those skeptical of Luke.

(3) While both articles note the problem with translating ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη as “the census before…” it is not altogether impossible that this is what he meant though it is unlikely. Personally, I would like to browse through Luke-Acts to see how the author uses various forms of πρῶτος. This could be a key to determining whether or not Luke would have used this word to refer to an event “before…Quirinius” was governing Syria. Again, I am agnostic about it.

In the end there are major difficulties with Luke’s statement. If you don’t think this is so I recommend reading James McGrath’s article that I linked above. Likewise, there is too much missing to seal the case which I think Jared M. Compton’s article displays. In the end I echo Bill Heroman who wrote the following last December (see full post here):

“So, did Luke just make a mistake about Quirinius? As believers, we’ll keep hoping he didn’t. However, as I keep pointing out, that only matters if we’re trying to defend scripture. Everything has a time and a place, and when we’re trying to reconstruct events, Quirinius just doesn’t matter. Every viable apologetic on Luke 2:2 still puts Jesus’ birth before Herod’s death. That makes Quirinius moot.”

If you have your own thoughts to share please feel free to leave a comment.