MetaCatholic

Michael Halcomb has responded in some detail to my post yesterday (which was in turn a comment on this post of his), arguing for the compatibility of the Matthean and Lukan birth narratives. (He is not alone, as this comment by Peter Kirk reveals.) I would again like to repay the compliment. I have a number of points I want to make, not necessarily in the same order as Michael’s argument.

First, I note that he refers to my approach as “minimalistic”. I confess that outside of a fairly narrow (and I think mistaken) approach to the OT, I’m not entirely sure what this means, and even there I think it’s become unhelpful. But generally, I would say that in terms of relating the gospel traditions to Jesus-questing (a fascinating pursuit of limited value) I’m generally much nearer Wright’s “maximalist” approach than the Jesus’ seminar’s “minimalist” one. My stance on the historicity of the birth narratives is, I think, a consequence of my reading of them side by side. My reading is not a consequence of my stance, and is somewhat different in its judgement on historicity from my reading of the main narratives.

The first major point Michael makes is this one:

Doug, in my opinion, is wrong that in order to maintain the integrity of the narratives, one must choose which narrative they will use. Clearly, Doug fears the word harmonization. Now, I’m not calling for another Diatessaron but it is not unthinkable that the Gospel writers’ stories at some points, should not harmonize.

I agree, in principle, that the stories at some points may be harmonised, but I would also assert than any attempt at doing so has to begin with the integrity of each as a literary and theological work. Only when we have reached an understanding of what any particular author is doing can we compare and contrast their work fully, though in the case of the Synoptics this is to some extent a circular process, since the comparison aids the understanding of authorial intent. My view is that the birth narratives present such significantly different narratives, tailored to the role of prologue in terms of their respective gospel’s themes, that harmonisation as a means of historical or literary study violates their integrity. I have previously noted some of the differences in this post. It is not unthinkable that at some points the stories should harmonise, it is, in my view inappropriate in this particular case.

Michael goes on to say:

Doug seems to forget that they used one another’s works (in what order, as we know, is debatable).

I’m not sure how he makes this observation on the basis of my post. I would note, however, that different solutions to the Synoptic problem actually suggest different routes through this material.

• If one adopts the two document hypothesis, then it is possible to notice some common elements to the two narratives (perhaps supported in part by an independent cave tradition shown in the Protoevangelium of James and Justin) which might suggest an earlier tradition on which both Matthew and Luke build. This hypothetical tradition knows of an announcement of Jesus birth by an angel (but perhaps not to whom); the idea that Jesus name is given by the angel; the conception of Jesus by the Virgin through the Holy Spirit; the birth at Bethlehem and the final settlement of the Holy Family at Nazareth.
• This first route through the material permits harmonising, though it also suggests that both Matthew and Luke may be embellishing an early source for narrative and theological purposes. It doesn’t particularly encourage us to suppose that the one selected accidentally exactly the bits of the story that the other omitted and vice versa. They treat no other source in this way, whether Mark or the contested Q.
• If one follows the Farrer hypothesis, then we have to accept that Luke almost completely rewrites Matthew, either because he doesn’t like Matthew’s material, believes Matthew has got it wrong and that he (Luke) has better sources / better ideas / better stories, or some combination of the lot. In that case there is less evidence (if any) for an earlier tradition.
• This second route through the material makes it fairly obvious, I would have thought, that Luke would not approve of harmonising his story with Matthew. After all, he chose to leave out the greater part of its detail, and tell it very differently. He is hardly going to thank his later readers for putting it all back in. On the Farrer hypothesis, at least, there are clear grounds for saying that harmonising violates Luke’s integrity.

He follows up this point (which I hope I have shown does not lead to his conclusion) by saying:

If we follow the minimialistic approach that Doug uses, to its logical conclusions, we end up with a number of different Jesuses, a number of different Christ’s crucified and resurrected, etc. We no longer just have four perspectives on the same event but four different events in and of themselves.

I think this is simply mistaken, although it is a mistake that much Jesus research seems to tempt one to. From an historian’s point of view, one interrogates the four witnesses, as one might any evidence before a jury, and from listening to their different accounts and standpoints, seeks to determine what actually happened. (It is, of course, more complex than that analogy suggests, but widely different witness statements are not unknown before a jury.) I think that such an exercise has a limited apologetic value, and is intellectually fascinating to all of us who love detective stories.

From the viewpoint of faith, however, we are listening to people tell stories about someone both we and they know and experience in word, sacrament, prayer and action. Just as many of our family anecdotes capture an aspect of a person without necessarily being factually accurate, so do theirs. We are not primarily doing history in reading the gospels, we are relating to Jesus. I think a firm, and overall, historically trustworthy core is both a necessary and real component of the gospels taken together, but they are not there to satisfy the curiosities of a twenty-first century historian, although they give (I think) a remarkably good historical picture when compared to any other bioi from the period.

But they also throw up many inconsistencies and anomalies, not just as all testimony does in the judicial world of weighing evidence, but as narratives told to shape faith in line with the particular responses and beliefs of their authors, for whom, like us, a common faith has very diverse emphases. Harmonisation is simply mistaken as an overall approach: how many times did Jesus cleanse the temple? If we harmonise, we must say three, in which case you might have expected the money changers to say “Hey, quick lads, pack up your bags, it’s that Jesus bloke coming in again.” It doesn’t work. Michael is simply wrong: It is if we harmonise that we have several different versions of the same event, rather than three perspectives on one event.

Finally, I can’t help noting that Michael shows a general tendency to be more certain than the evidence allows, which extends also to his linguistic analysis.

A little knowledge of Luke and Matthew’s Greek (which I’m sure Doug is capable of understanding or may already be familiar with) shows clearly that the Jesus family stayed in the front room of a multi-roomed house.

I am not sure what Michael is getting at here. As far as Matthew goes, the only possible relevant word is οἰκία (house). That contains no connotations about any number of rooms. In Luke, the only relevant word is κατάλυμα (room). Exactly what this means is not clear, but depends on its context, as is the case with words generally, which are not depositories of fixed meanings. It often means a large room, and appears in some places to mean guest-room. But it does not necessarily imply “the front room of a multi-roomed house.” I call to my aid the LXX of Jeremiah 32:38 ἐγκατέλιπεν ὥσπερ λέων κατάλυμα αὐτου — “Like a lion he has left the front room of his multi-roomed house” Hmm, perhaps not.

At every level, I can’t help but feel that Michael is pushing the evidence into an already existing shape. It is the particular peril of harmonisers that they are not sufficiently patient with the details, especially when they reveal ambiguities, aporiai, contradictions and questions.