The Bible and Scholars (1)Doug Focht, Jr. As we have shown in our previous articles, religious leaders and church doctrines often flagrantly contradict Scripture. Naturally, since most people do not read their Bibles very much, they tend to surrender themselves to the teachings of others, assuming that scholars and religious leaders know better than they. If these “holy men” say the Bible contradicts itself or doesn't apply in this or that case, then it must be so, because after all, the Bible is so mysterious and complicated that one has to be a scholar to understand it, right? Wrong. Although one does have to give time to its study, the Bible is not the private domain of scholars. In fact, we will see that while many scholars study about the Bible and around the Bible, few of our modern scholars, especially the ones that are given media attention, study the Bible itself, at least not with a fairness that true scholarship demands. For our example in this article, we will look at the events surrounding the birth of Jesus. Typically, around holidays such as Christmas and Easter, the media becomes quite active in their presentation of biblical events. Articles appear in newspapers and magazines; there are movies and “documentaries” on TV. Our understanding of the Bible can be influenced by these presentations, and by assumptions. See if you are aware of these biblical facts which often contradict our common perceptions of Jesus' birth:
The two accounts of the nativity, found in Matthew 2 and Luke 2 as well as the gospel accounts of other events, do not contradict each other, rather they complement (or “complete”) each other. Without any apparent logic, some “scholars” have concluded that because Matthew and Luke do not tell the same details (for example, Matthew doesn't mention the shepherds in the fields and Luke doesn't mention the wise men), these two accounts contradict each other. They have mistaken contradiction for complementarity. Notice: “The Bible is contradictory in basic parts of its message. Luke tells the story of the taxation ordered by Quirinius that forces Mary and Joseph to go to Bethlehem where Jesus is born in a stable (Luke 2). Matthew assumes that Mary and Joseph are residents of Bethlehem, living in a house over which a star can actually stop (Matt. 2). Both cannot be correct.” (“Would God Rewrite the Bible” by John Shelby Spong, Episcopal bishop of diocese of Newark, NJ. The Bergen Record, February 5, 1989) See? “Both cannot be correct,” he says! Now read the texts for yourself and notice that while Matthew simply says that Joseph, Mary and Jesus were “in the house” when the wise men came, Bishop Spong thinks Matthew says they were “residents in Bethlehem!” He also assumes that the star could not have first led the wise men to Jerusalem, then as they approached Bethlehem, appeared to them again to confirm the identity of the city and to locate the house, nor does he believe that a “star” could actually “stand over” a house (a “star” as we know it could not, but whatever this star was, the recording of it in Matthew does not contradict Luke's account). This is the basis on which the Bible is charged with an irreconcilable contradiction. But notice what happens when you put the two accounts together: (1) Jesus was born in Bethlehem and placed in a manger because there was no room at the inn (the text doesn't specifically say “in a stable,” though it is a reasonable assumption). (2) The shepherds visited Him there that night. (3) The shepherds left. (4) Later (it could be the next day or several days) Joseph and Mary found more suitable lodging “in a house.” (Is it so unreasonable that although the inn had no vacancies on the “spur of the moment,” lodging could not be found later?) (5) The star had led the magi first to Jerusalem, where they announced the purpose of their visit to Herod and inquired concerning the city of the Messiah's birth. (6) As the magi left Jerusalem, the star reappeared to lead them to the specific house in Bethlehem. (7) The magi came and presented their gifts. (8) The magi left. (They could have stayed for several days, weeks, or even months, as we shall soon see.) Where's the contradiction? What kind of scholarship is this which says both accounts can not be right? But that's not all. Continuing: “Luke has Jesus circumcised in a rather leisurely fashion on the eighth day of his life and presented in the Temple on the 40th day—all in Jerusalem (Luke 2:21–40). Matthew says, however, that at the same time this baby boy and his family were fleeing into Egypt to avoid Herod (Matthew 2:13ff). Both cannot be right.” (ibid.) “At the same time?” This takes a little more reading on your part, but it really isn't complicated. Although Luke doesn't specifically mention “40 days,” the completion of the law of purification for first-born male children according to the law of Moses was 40 days (Luke 2:22 and Leviticus 12:6–8). Bishop Spong is correct in his evaluation of Luke's time-frame, but he assumes that Matthew says they left for Egypt very soon, if not immediately after Jesus' birth, failing to notice that by Matthew's own account, when Herod figured out he had been tricked by the wise men, he ordered the slaying of all the male children two years old and younger “according to the time he had ascertained from the magi” (Matt. 2:16). According to Matthew's account nearly two years could have elapsed from the time of Jesus' birth until his escape into Egypt! Again, complementarity, not contradiction! In fairness to Bishop Spong, it should be noted that these specific criticisms of Scripture are not original with him. They are part of the standard repertoire of so-called modern scholars, many of whom have allowed themselves to be influenced by the pre-conceived ideas of others, have simply not done their homework, or are intentionally misrepresenting what the Bible says. In any case, this can hardly be called scholarship, and you don't have to be a scholar to see through this deception! —Reprinted from Growing in Grace, Vol. 1 #4, May 26, 1996 Doug Focht, Jr.
To contact the author, please send e-mail to: dnfj@yahoo.com
|