A Rebuttal to Newsweek's Cover Story on 'The Myths of Jesus'

Suppose you were to read an overall negative article about a man who outwardly appeared to be respectable---but then, suppose you found out that, unbeknownst to the readers of the article, it was actually penned by his ex-wife? Wouldn't that make you at least a little suspicious about the article's contents?

So it is with Newsweek's cover story on Jesus (Dec. 17), entitled, "The Myths of Jesus." They show a Nativity scene with bubble quotes asking these questions: "Who Was Jesus?" "How Many Wise Men Were There?" "Did He Have a Wife?" "In a Manger or a Cave?" "Why Bethlehem?" Just in time for Christmas, they choose to stir up doubt.

What the article doesn't tell you is much about the author's (Dr. Bart D. Ehrman) own background. Newsweek mentions him as the author of "Did Jesus Exist?" and "Jesus Interrupted." But he formerly professed to be an evangelical Christian, who writes best-selling books that purport to debunk the reliability of the New Testament, such as "Forged," which postulates that much of the New Testament was forged (a charge easily dismissed).

I'm not saying that Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, a respected scholar and professor of religion at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, can't be fair and balanced per se. But the average reader of Newsweek isn't told about his biased perspective, nor is it hinted. As could be expected, knowing Dr. Ehrman's life work, the article overall leads one to doubt the historical veracity of the Gospels, at least when it comes to the birth narratives.

After writing about a highly suspicious late document about Jesus (c. A.D. 300+)---a document that conservative and liberal scholars would agree is totally questionable---he asks, "Are the stories about Jesus' birth in the New Testament any less unbelievable?" (p. 27).

Of the census in Luke 2 (the one called by Caesar Augustus where "all the world should be taxed"), Ehrman writes, "This is not a story based on historical fact." (p. 28).

Yet Dr. Paul L. Maier of Western Michigan University once told me in a television interview: "When Augustus died, he had two bronze plaques erected in front of his mausoleum in Rome in which he listed the 36 things for which he most wanted to be remembered. Point No. 8: 'I took a census of the Empire three times.'"

Ehrman also mentions the common problem of the two seemingly contradictory genealogies of Jesus (Matthew 1 vs. Luke 3). It's difficult, but not insurmountable. The short answer is that Matthew tells the nativity story from Joseph's perspective and does the same with the genealogy. Luke tells Mary's story and includes the annunciation and the Magnificat (Mary's song). The genealogy in Luke is believed to be that of Mary.

Generally, the Jews did not list women in the genealogies. In their "Biblical Encyclopedia," McClintock and Strong observe that when the blood of the grandfather passed to a grandson through a daughter, the name of the daughter was omitted and the daughter's husband was counted as the son of the grandfather. In Matthew 1:16, Jacob is the father of Joseph. Yet in Luke 3:23, Eli (the father of Mary) is listed as the father of Joseph. The answers to the types of issues Ehrman raises in Newsweek can be answered in standard books like the "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties" by the late Dr. Gleason Archer.

The bigger issue Ehrman raises is the view that the Gospels may be fine at communicating religious notions, but don't look to them for historical reliability. Of the Gospels in general, Ehrman states: "These are books that meant to declare religious truths, not historical facts." (p. 28). This seems to separate "religious truths" from "historical facts." But Christianity is based on historical facts.

Ehrman asserts, "… these gospel sources, whatever else they are, are not historically reliable descriptions of what really happened when Jesus was born." (p. 28). A friend of mine is an up-and-coming Jesus scholar named Mike Licona, theology professor at Houston Baptist University. Dr. Licona has debated Dr. Ehrman on occasion. I asked Dr. Licona for a few statements about the historical reliability of the Gospels.

He emailed me: "Ehrman's statement that the Gospels are meant to declare religious truths rather than historical facts is overly simplistic and misleading. Luke 1:1-4 and John 21:24 (cf. 1 John 1:1-3) dispel such a position. One may reject what the Gospels report. But to say the authors did not intend to declare historical facts is terribly naive."

Licona also notes, "This is not to say that everything the Gospels reported was meant to be interpreted in a historical sense. Their authors employed the literary conventions of their day just as modern biographers employ those of today. But Ehrman goes too far, and his understanding of ancient biography appears misguided."

There are details about the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus that could never be verified by historians. (How could a historian prove a birth by a virgin?) But there are many details that can be verified, and we see the Gospels proving reliable time and again. Not to confuse Easter with Christmas, but if Jesus wasn't raised from the dead---in actual history (if that's a "religious truth," but not an "historical fact")---then Christianity is bogus and ought to be explicitly abandoned. But Jesus did walk out of that tomb, and that's why 2,000 years later, a major news magazine ran yet another cover story about Him, albeit a largely negative one.

Jerry Newcombe, D.Min., is co-host of and spokesman for Truth that Transforms with D. James Kennedy (formerly The Coral Ridge Hour). He has also written or co-written 23 books, including The Book That Made America: How the Bible Formed Our Nation and Answers from the Founding Fathers. Jerry co-wrote (with Dr. Peter Lillback) the bestselling, George Washington's Sacred Fire. www.truthinaction.org.

Thanks for this valuable and timely article.

< One of my RCIA students (I teach a class for adults entering the Catholic Church) gave me a book for Christmas called "Dethroning Jesus," which delighted me with several good clear chapters untangling and debunking Bart Ehrman's Biblical skepticism.

The authors, Darrell Bock and Daniel Wallace, say that Ehrman does have actual scholarship to his credit, but he exaggerates, distorts, and rhetorically twists things to do maximum damage. In short, Ehrman has scholarly cred, but his is far from a scholarly perspective.

Just as an example (one out of many) Ehrman makes huge dramatic claims about Biblical "inaccuracies" (actually, textual variants.) He says there are literally tens of thousands of them (and it's true.) What he doesn't tell you, is that the vast majority of them make no difference whatsoever. No difference in meaning. No difference in emphasis. Zip.

This is because (among other things) some texts were written when there was no standard spelling. It's like reading Canturbury Tales and getting bent out of shape because Chaucer spells the color green, and greene," and "grene." Also many textual variants just transpose words with no change in meaning ("sheep and oxen" vs "oxen and sheep.")

Same deal with historic details: Erhman kicks up huge dust storms about tiny distinctions which actually make no difference; or markets suppositions as if they were facts.

Bock and Wallace's "Dethroning Jesus": antidote to Ehrman. I recommend it.

I get a kick out of the “disputes” that some of these details bring up. And that to some, these “disputes” somehow shine doubt on the whole thing. At Christmastime we had a fun little “quiz” for the Sunday school kids. Like “How many wise men?” (Doesn't say. Was probably an entire caravan of people with the rich, powerful “wise men” to support them on their journey).

“What did the wisemen first say when they saw the baby in the manger?” (Trick question - he was 2 or 3 years old when they got there!), etc......

IIRC the “manger” is the feeding trough - not the “stable”. And the animals were kept in caves. Often they were kept in a room in the home too. I had one preacher I respect that talked about he conjectured that Joseph would have had relatives in Bethlehem, and that being a good Dad, he would have made arrangements with the relatives prior to their trip into town. And probably just used the manger as an impromptu crib. Probably stayed with the animals (”no room for them in the “inn”), but perhaps the manger was brought into the home. (I have a photo of me as a baby in the drawer of a dresser in a hotel room - all padded with towels and a blanket!)

Thank you so much for this post! I have tried to find a historical answer to this point of contention many times. For me, it has never been a question, because Dr. Luke was there, had eyewitnesses, and meticulously recorderd facts accurately and chronologically in his Gospel and in the Acts of The Apostles. So I have believed. Of course, it always come down to the issue of credibility. Does one have:

- total confidence in The Faith, that of The Christ, The Lifegiver and The Truth Embodied, declared in the Documented Account of His Progressive Revelation, The Holy Bible;

or,

- a grasping-at-straws blind clinging to the falsehoods and misdirection of that Old Liar, Satan, the Destroyer?

In my early life, I just dodged the issues, until I could no longer ignore them. Now, being converted, regenerated, and trained as a discipler, I contend for The Faith once-and-for-all-time delivered to the saints, given to that body that increases year after year, century after century, to declare the Good News as His Heralds.

Thanks for this valuable and timely article.

One of my RCIA students (I teach a class for adults entering the Catholic Church) gave me a book for Christmas called "Dethroning Jesus," which delighted me with several good clear chapters untangling and debunking Bart Ehrman's Biblical skepticism.

The authors, Darrell Bock and Daniel Wallace, say that Ehrman does have actual research to offer, but he exaggerates, distorts, and rhetorically twists things to do maximum damage. In short, Ehrman has scholarly cred, but his is far from a scholarly perspective.

This is because (among other things) some texts were written when there was no standard spelling. By way of analogy, it's like reading Canturbury Tales and getting hysterically bent out of shape because Chaucer spells the color green, and greene. Also hundreds of textual variants just vary word order with no change in meaning ("sheep and oxen" vs "oxen and sheep.")

Same deal with historic details: Erhman kicks up huge dust storms about tiny distinctions which actually make no difference; or repeatedly thrusts suppositions upon unwary readers as if they were facts.

Bock and Wallace's "Dethroning Jesus": antidote to Ehrman. I recommend it.

For me, if one of these problems comes up, I try to reconcile it. If I can't, I don't ignore it, but I don't let it shake my faith. The problem could be in the 'facts" presented by the questioner. It could be in his interpretation of the facts. It could be in my interpretation of the Bible; something that I willing to change if presented with evidence from the Bible itself, if after study and prayer I cannot refute it. Hasn't happened that much. In the end, I will ask God Himself one day.

What the article doesn't tell you is much about the author's (Dr. Bart D. Ehrman) own background. Newsweek mentions him as the author of "Did Jesus Exist?" and "Jesus Interrupted." But he formerly professed to be an evangelical Christian, who writes best-selling books that purport to debunk the reliability of the New Testament, such as "Forged," which postulates that much of the New Testament was forged (a charge easily dismissed).

He bills himself (or did) as now a "happy agnostic". He is in fact a bitter apostate.

It was a manger (feedbox) IN a cave that was used to shelter livestock.

Wooden barns were rather scarce in an area with few trees.

And there are as many bats in barns as there are in caves!
LOL

(I know you were being facetious, and am just joining in!)

We need to get a few things straight:

So start here...

Then check this out: MICHAEL ROOD, DOOMSDAY PROPHET

Michael John Rood is clearly not a reputable Christian minister and Messianic rabbi as he claims to be, nor is he a reliable source for accurate Bible teaching.. His speculative predictions about end time events, archaeology and other topics have led, and will continue to lead, to more disturbance in the minds of those who accept his theories. His adherence to teachings and practice learned in a cult, and his legalism draw people away from the grace of Jesus Christ which the New Testament teaches. People would be wise to neither accept Rood's teachings nor support his ministry.

If you were around in the '70s and early '80s you might remember the cult 'The Way International' -- that's where this dude got 'ordained'. Just sayin'.

For me, if one of these problems comes up, I try to reconcile it. If I can't, I don't ignore it, but I don't let it shake my faith. ... etc

"Amen!" at least twice. The way is the Word, not the Greater Catechism, or some other uninspired, errant document. But history can sometimes solidly refute speculation, particularly Augustus' bronze tablets for all to see across the known world and across time, irrefutable.

Mary's genealogy is given specifically, though not explicitly stated, where Joseph was not the father in the flesh, her descent from David through Nathan (tribe of Jdah/scepter) cannot be questioned.

But my position here is that Jesus' flesh had no component of her flesh -- that she was a faithful, holy host with a Christ-like yielding of her body ("Lo, I come to do Thy Will, O God!"), accepting a perfect seed implanted by The Holy Ghost -- just as a virgin today could become the host of another couples' seed -- and trusting The God to vindicate her submission against any assertion of illegitimacy.

Well there are two family histories in the infancy chapters. The Gospel of Mathew’s family history is of that of Joseph’s, Mary’s is covered by the Gospel of Luke’s.

Yes, you are right, and that has been mentioned in this thread. I have personally pored over both, and am not neglecting the Matthew account (Jesus the King of royal Hebrew lineage) but Luke's (Jesus the Son of the Human) where later on in His life the scribes and Pharisees tried to intimate that His conception was premartial, therefore a product of fornication, with perhaps the true father not known for sure.

Of course, the whole Hebrew-institutionalized process of espousal was invoked to make one's descent secure and irrefutable. It is not until our recent past that, under the gentile system, paternity could be fully and inescapably confirmed by DNA testing.

Under the Law, the methodology was given in Deuteronomy 22:13-26. The espousal was a preview of establishment of a contracted marriage, with a truly committed envowed husband and wife, but without consummation until the espousal time elapsed guaranteeing paternity, whence the validating virginity test would be conducted immediately without further contention.

Very obviously Husband Joseph would have justly been allowed to put away/divorce espoused Wife Miriam, but he yielded in faith to the Holy Ghost speaking through Gabriel, thus giving The Anointed One his legal royal title, and fatherly protection, as well as apostle brothers and loyal sisters in the future consummation of their marriage according to the will of The God: "Be fruitful and multiply!" an ordinance to not defer by rhythm or mechanical contraception, nor by unnatural continence/celibacy in marriage or abortion.

But my position here is that Jesus' flesh had no component of her flesh -- that she was a faithful, holy host with a Christ-like yielding of her body

If that is the case - that Mary was a "holy incubator" then our Lord would have had some type of flesh that was other than human.This view (Nestorianism) of the Incarnation was condemned by the Third Ecumenical Council.

Opinion on both sides of fallible men. God is capable of creating pure, sinless, everlasting male flesh, as he did for Adam before he fell. That I know. I also know that Miriam could not produce the seed (1st complete cell with y-chromosome) from her flesh. Let the 3rd Ecumenical Council struggle with that. But The God could produce Eve from Adam's flesh, removing the y-chromosome in every single cell in her body. She was an Eve, not a Steve.

Carry your thought a little further than the catechismal box which attempts to put humanistic boundaries on The Omniscient, Omnipotent God from simplistic reasoning without spiritual discernment, even contradicting His Holy Scriptures -- trying to push back original sin one generation by the quasilogical but human-reasoned "immaculate conception." That is just making Miriam's mother a "holy incubator" also.

Come on. You'll just have to face the idea that the early divines lacked the further insight lent by discovery of the method by which The God designed replication of Adam's flesh -- the science of meiosis, mitosis, and genetics. Their conclusions are not Spirit-given -- just unworkable hypothecation.

Better yet, how would you come up with the source of His uncorruptible Holy Blood (red blood cells have no DNA, if that is what is in His Blood). I firmly believe all of that Blood is now placed on the True Heavenly Mercyseat, never to die or corrupt, a precious life-giving sin-washing substance continually providing reconciliation. Was that Blood of Miriam? I think not, in my human reasoning, but I believe in His Person and His Blood as living forever.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.