Nicole Irvin

SRT 280
Week 5 – Introduction to Historical Study of Jesus and Events

Step 1: Explain (in paragraph form--no PPT) the three criteria for historical studies and
provide an example of each. (Use Ehrman and the video to explain.) 
The three criteria for historical studies are:
1. Multiple (Independent) Attestation: This is having multiple witnesses who
independently agree in their accounts. This would provide stronger evidence than having
only one person who witnesses an event. Traditions ascribed to Jesus in more than one
independent source are more likely to be historically accurate (Ehrman, 60).
a. Some examples: did Jesus have brothers? There were multiple accounts saying
Jesus did in fact have brothers (Mark, Q, John). Also, Jesus tells parables that
likens the Kingdom of God to seeds. Once again, multiple accounts showing this
(Mark, Q, Thomas). Lastly, the trial of Jesus before Pilate. Mark, John, Gospel of
Peter, Josephus, and Tacitus agree this in fact did take place.
2. Embarrassment/Dissimilarity: This is when a testimony by a witness works against
their own vested interest. This can be particularly valuable. A story that does not advance
the interests of the Christians telling the story is more likely to be true. When a witness
testifies under oath that he did see his best friend commit the crime (Ehrman, 60).
a. Some examples: Jesus coming from Nazareth. To a historian this is an important
piece of evidence. Being from Nazareth would be embarrassing and there is
nothing important about Nazareth. Another would be Jesus was baptized by John.
This would be embarrassing because you would think John would be baptized by
Jesus.
3. Contextual Credibility: A witness’s testimony will be discounted if it does not coincide
with what are known to be facts of a case. Jesus was a 1st century Jew, what he said and
did should make sense in the context of that 1st century Judaism (Ehrman 60-61).
a. An example of this could be the Gospel of Thomas (114). Simon Peter said to
Jesus, “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.” Jesus said, “I
myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a
living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male
will enter the kingdom of heaven.” This is not talking about Mary having a sex
change, it is in spirit become a male. Men were supposed to be spiritually closer
to God in Gnostic understanding.
Step 2: Analyzing the Birth Accounts: (You have already seen when studying Matthew and
Luke that there are differences in the birth narratives. Now we will look at these
differences the way a historian would.

1. How credible would a historian find the birth narratives to be historically? (provide
specific points) (208-214)

Overall, I would believe historians would not find a ton of credibility to the birth narratives.
First, the narratives can only be found in Matthew and Luke. Even in those two Gospels, events
 of the Infancy Narratives are almost never referred to once Chapter 3 of each Gospel is reached
(Meier, 209). Second, unlike the public ministry of Jesus, where eyewitnesses were prominent
leaders in the early Church, almost all witnesses to the events of Jesus’s birth were dead or
unavailable (Meier, 209). Some feel Mary the mother of Jesus was the one person who survived
into the days of the early Church and is thought to be the source of the Infancy Narratives. But
Mary cannot be the source in both Matthew and Luke because they contradict themselves at key
points. Mary is often thought to be the source of Luke because she is more prominent in his
version. Although Luke appears to make some glaring errors in “things Jewish,” especially with
regards to Mary’s purification, for which Mary would presumably have to be his source (Meier,
210). The story of Mary’s purification confuses several Jewish rituals. The best Greek texts start
the story with “their purification” (Luke 2:22). Most would naturally think “their” would be
referred to as Mary and Joseph. But in 1st century A.D. the Jewish husband would not go under
any kind of purification with the wife. Luke is inaccurate when speaking about the redemption of
the firstborn male child which required a payment of five shekels to the temple but not a visit.
Luke describes the bringing of the child to the temple as according to the Mosaic Law. He is
incorrect when he connects the redemption of Jesus with the sacrifice of doves, which is a part of
the purification ritual and speaks nothing about the five shekels (Meier, 210). The traditions
behind the Infancy Narratives differ from those of the public ministry and passion. In the Infancy
Narratives, we cannot identify any eyewitnesses of the original events who could be a reliable
source (Meier, 210).

The third problem with the Infancy Narratives is there are many contradictions between
Matthew’s and Luke’s versions. In Matthew’s version, Joseph is approached by an angel
regarding Mary’s pregnancy. In Luke, Mary receives a visit from an angel to tell her about her
pregnancy. Next, there are differing accounts on the journeys of Joseph and Mary. In Matthew,
the Magi find Mary and Joseph in their house, not a stable or cave. This house that Mary and
Joseph stay in is permanently in Bethlehem. Herod orders the slaying of boys two years and
younger to assure the death of Jesus. After fleeing to Egypt, Mary and Joseph settle down in a
city called Nazareth. Matthew presents Nazareth as it is just now being formally introduced (it
was not in the story prior). Luke’s story is the exact opposite. Mary and Joseph are both located
in Nazareth of Galilee. Jesus is born in Bethlehem and quickly becomes known not only in
Bethlehem but also Jerusalem (Meier, 213). After the purification in the temple, Mary, Joseph,
and Jesus return to Nazareth.

It is easy to see why historians have a hard time finding credibility in the birth narratives. When
the Gospels were written, most witnesses to the events were dead. Also, the stories surrounding
where Mary and Joseph came from are different. After the birth of Jesus, Matthew shares the
story of Mary and Joseph fleeing to Egypt while Luke tells the story of the purification. It is hard
to say what story holds truth and what does not. It is up to the individual to make that decision
for themselves. Historians would need to research time frames and what seems to fit together like
a puzzle. I honestly do not know if we will ever know the real truth!

2. Was Jesus born in Bethlehem? Why might a historian question it? (Explain!) (214-
16)
Both Matthew and Luke affirm Jesus’s birth in Bethlehem. Although these are the only accounts,
it cannot be found nowhere else in the Infancy Narratives. The only other time Bethlehem was
mentioned in the Infancy Narratives is John 7:42. The concluding section of John 7 reveals
various reactions from Jewish groups and individuals. Some believe his is the eschatological
profit (v 40), while others believe he is the Messiah. To this objective in vv 41-42: “The Messiah
isn’t going to come from Galilee, is he? Doesn’t the Scriptures say the Messiah will be
descended from David and will come from Bethlehem?” (Meier, 214). In John’s Gospel this
objection can be read two different ways. If someone believes the evangelist and his readers
knew of the Infancy Narrative and the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, the irony is then those
objecting Jesus claiming to know of his origins are ignorant of his true hometown. There is no
clear indication in the Johannine writings of the New Testament that readers in the Johannine
communities would have known the Infancy Narrative traditional about Bethlehem. In effect, the
claims that John’s readers knew about Bethlehem being the birthplace of Jesus is involved in a
vicious circle (Meier, 215).

It is probable that John’s 7:42 should be interpreted in a different way. In John’s mind the
objectors are correct in saying Jesus comes from Nazareth, not Bethlehem. Ultimately, the irony
is that the origin of Jesus, whether Nazareth or Bethlehem, is not of consequence. Jesus makes a
point in the same temple discourse: “You are from below; I am from above” (8:23). The
reference John makes in 7:42 regarding Bethlehem is open for interpretation and is of
questionable value. Overall, while Jesus being born in Bethlehem cannot be ruled out, the
predominant view in the Gospels and Acts is that Jesus came from Nazareth. I can understand
why historians would question the account of where Jesus was born. Only Matthew and Luke
speak about Jesus being born in Bethlehem. But also in those Gospels he is referred to as Jesus
of Nazareth, Jesus the Nazarene, or Jesus the Nazorean. Why would he be given those names if
he is from Bethlehem?

Second, Read Michael Daling and Christopher Hays, "The Historical Jesus,"

in Evangelical Faith and the Challenge of Historical Criticism,  pages 170-174. In about 300
words, explain: What historical questions arise around the virgin birth, and why might it
matter for believers?

The subject of the virgin birth only appears in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. These Gospels
were written at a time when most witnesses of the virgin birth were dead. This resulted in no one
having the ability to confirm or deny these claims. The text also shares a variety of historical
problems within the infancy narratives. There was claims that Quirinius was governor of Syria
near the end of the reign of Herod the Great and this does not fit with the other sources in the
time frame. Also, there are questions around finding evidence regarding Herod ordering the
slaughter of babies in and around Bethlehem (Daling, 171). Surely with the extreme order of
Herod slaughtering babies, it would have caught a historian’s attention. Matthew and Luke also
tell very different stories surrounding the conception and infancy of Jesus.

There are many opinions surrounding the virgin birth. They range from optimistic openness to
denial. Markus Bockmuehl concluded that the Christian faith in the virgin birth is certainly
compatible with what can be known from history. Robert Funk in that he believes the opposite,
Mary did not conceive Jesus without the assistance of human male sperm (Daling, 172). One’s
view of the way Jesus saves people from sins is significantly influenced by one’s understanding
of what kind of being Jesus was and is (Daling, 173). If someone would deny the virgin birth,
one would have to interpret Jesus in a completely different way. A historical reconstruction that
is suggested by Dunn would be compatible with an adoptionism account of the divinity of Jesus,
claiming Jesus was God but not by a virgin birth (Daling, 173). This is not a view that would be
accepted by evangelicals, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox.

Overall, it is important to appreciate others point of views when it comes to the virgin birth. I can
see how some would question its legitimacy. It only appears in the Gospels of Matthew and
Luke. There were no witnesses that could confirm or deny the events. Also, Matthew and Luke’s
stories were very different in the conception and infancy of Jesus. Matthew tells the story of the
magi and Mary and Joseph fleeing to Egypt. Luke tells the tale of gaping shepherds and a
dedication in the temple (Daling, 171). I think for some people the “science” is not present in the
virgin birth. The virgin birth of Jesus was a miraculous event and I think some just can’t wrap
their heads around the concept. But in reading the Gospels I have learned, sometimes you must
believe things in your heart and mind even though you cannot physically see them. Just because I
cannot see Jesus doesn’t mean he is not real. I have been blessed many times and I believe my
faith is the reason.