A withering(ton)ly bad apologetic
I have often found many of Ben Witherington’s books helpful and insightful, but he offers an extraordinary post today on Luke’s infancy narrative. The ostensible point is the quite unexceptional one, that Luke’s language by no means necessitates an inn. (While he thinks, quite plausibly, that kataluma means the guest-room, I doubt the evidence, linguistic or archaeological, takes us beyond a large-room – when many houses had only one real room.)
I have no problems at all with this point, but it is the way he treats the whole story as factual. A census for tax purposes takes Joseph to Bethlehem, and Joseph takes Mary to get her away from the wagging tongues in Nazareth speculating about her pregnancy. At this point, Witherington abandons Luke briefly for Matthew (who, of course knows nothing of either census or, indeed, any idea that Nazareth is their home-town) to have an angel nudging Joseph into this pre-martial honeymoon to see the Revenue. Then he’s back to Luke and the Holy Family’s late arrival meaning their relatives have run out of space in the guest-room, which, even if it is the correct translation of kataluma, is another thing completely unknown to Matthew, where Jesus seems to be born in the family home.
Then comes the absolute nadir of the “argument”:
Now I have to tell you, this story is too improbably [sic] NOT TO BE TRUE. I mean, no one would make up a story like this which suggested to the skeptical in the home town and to latter day skeptics ever since that Jesus the Son of God was illegitimate. The story of the virginal conception must surely be true, for an evangelistic religion in that honor and shame culture would never make up a story like this about the birth of their Savior if they wanted to convince a patriarchal world of its truth. It’s too improbable not to be true!
Whatever the truth of the virginal conception (I happen to accept it - sometimes by the skin of my post-Enlightenment mental teeth), any responsible argument (which can’t judge the truth of this kind of eschatological in-breaking of God) really needs to take account of the sheer incompatibility of the Matthean and Lukan narratives, and ask what the authors were doing. But using a mish-mash of Matthew and Luke, ignoring their flat contradictions, and culminating in the idea that improbability is a sufficient argument for truth is just flat out wrong.
Don’t get me wrong, I think that in carefully delineated ways an understanding of the cultural “improbability” of a particular story (or conversely, its neat cultural fit) can be a tool in the historian’s toolbox. I just don’t like it produced as an apologetic bludgeon at the end of an argument that shows no historical sensitivity to the texts being investigated.
Nor do I think it an excuse that this post is called a sermon. How on earth are we to encourage a responsible use of Scripture when even scholars harmonise in the pulpit? What is the point of sounding learned and scholarly about Luke’s vocabulary, when the individuality of Luke’s text, and it’s relation to Matthew’s equally individual text, is entirely ignored?
Sorry for the rant, but this just so irritates me.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Yes but do recall that he accepts the Shroud of Turin as authentic; the James ossuary inscription as authentic; and is an inerrantist. It’s hard to take such things seriously so we shouldn’t be too surprised if the differences between Luke and Matthew go unnoticed.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:51 am
As Secundus commented several years ago when he was studying the gospel: These stories have almost nothing in common. Luke writes of shepherds and Matthew of Magi. Angels and shepherds worship; and some time later, kings. Four words: Joy, Bethlehem, Christ, and Mary are shared. In one story there is a manger, in the other a house. In one case a babe, in the other a child.
I don’t know if I have skin on my teeth. I heard some remarkable things about war-rapes and children in Bosnia - and how the children in their early teens were becoming agents of peace.
December 11th, 2007 at 4:33 am
My favorite BW3 theory is that Lazarus is the disciple whom Jesus loved. You guys are just jealous because his blog is so popular. Months ago, I wrote a brilliant post explaining Matthew and Luke differences: The Gospel according to Joseph and Mary.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Lingamish, I’m afraid your brilliant discovery is a long standing traditional explanation, and one that doesn’t work. The differences are simply incompatible. Back to the literary-theological explanations, I’m afraid.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
I can’t claim that either of my posts on the subject was brilliant (unlike Lingamesh), but I did offer a brief critical appraisal of Witherington’s sermon recently, and before that a treatment of the incompatibility of the two infancy narratives a while back.
December 11th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
James, thanks. Yes, in more thoughtful mode, I must agree that Witherington has a good overall point to make about Christmas. I simply got sidetracked by the “improbability” argument. I must apologise for not picking up on your post - I don’t know how I missed it, especially since you were kind enough to link here.
December 12th, 2007 at 5:16 am
Whoops. Sarcasm detectors were turned off here…
The Joseph/Mary thing is a helpful mnemonic for keeping the stories straight. I resolve the incompatibility of the narratives by not looking too closely. They both stand independently as wonderful stories.
December 12th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
David, sorry. I was feeling ill yesterday, no doubt an irony deficiency in my blood stream.
December 13th, 2007 at 4:02 am