Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Rebuttal to Newsweek's Cover Story on 'The Myths of Jesus'
Christian Post ^ | 12/27/2012 | Jerry Newcombe

Posted on 12/27/2012 3:50:43 PM PST by SeekAndFind

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.


TOPICS: Apologetics; History; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: jesus; jesusisgod; myth; newsweek; rebuttal
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 last
To: latina4dubya
gosh--i thought this explanation was common knowledge by now... how does Dr. Ehrman not know this?

He's going after the "low information" Christian. Shame on him.
When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 1 Corinthians 8:12

41 posted on 12/28/2012 6:16:28 AM PST by stayathomemom (Beware of kittens modifying your posts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai; Alamo-Girl; wmfights; P-Marlowe; wagglebee
Ultimately, the only rebuttal necessary is: It’s Newsweek.

I agree about this being, "just newsweek".

However, I watched enough of John Scott's(?) piece on the birth of Jesus the other day to know that Fox News is no better. It was on liberal "scholar" after another with nary an attempt to provide the "fair and balanced" other side of the story.

Fox News should have been ashamed, but they're too busy trying to be mainstream to dirty their hands with solid, reliable, conservative scholarship.

42 posted on 12/28/2012 6:45:57 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle
Typical baloney fed from many seminary professors these days.

This is exactly why pastors coming out today do not know what they are doing. They do not teach prophesy because they are not taught it in school. They refuse to also teach it because they are afraid to scare people. Don't touch Daniel or Revelation, we might scare the old folks. People who do not know Jesus Christ better be scared. For their souls!!!

43 posted on 12/28/2012 6:49:35 AM PST by RetiredArmy (1 Cor 15: 50-54 & 1 Thess 4: 13-17. That about covers it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #44 Removed by Moderator

To: imardmd1; don-o
I think a good explanation is that the genealogy in Matthew is Joseph's genealogy, which would establish Jesus' legal claim to the throne of David, since, being Joseph's legal (though not biological) heir, he would legally be of the House of David.

Luke's genealogy is through Mary, and goes back to David as well, and further, goes all the way back to Adam.

Mary is the biological mother of Jesus, not just an incubator. For one thing, to be our Savior, He must be true God and true Man. To be true Man has has to actually be the Son of Man, an offspring of the human race, with real ancestors. He has to be one of us according to the flesh (Romans 1:1-3)

"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ,
called to be an apostle,
set apart for the gospel of God,
which he promised beforehand
through his prophets in the holy scriptures,
the gospel concerning his Son,
who was descended from David
according to the flesh.
"

This fulfills the wonderful prophecy in Genesis 3:15. God says to the serpent:

"I will put enmity between you
and the Woman;
between your seed
and her seed.

He shall crush your head
And you will lie in wait for his heel."

This refers to the coming Savior, and he must be the seed of the woman. This is clearly foretold in Scripture. This is further explained by St. Paul in Galatians 4:4:

"But when the fullness of time
had come,
God sent forth His Son,
born of a Woman,
born under the law
."

Further, the Archangel Gabriel tells Mary (Luke 1:31)

"Behold, Mary,
you will "conceive in the womb
and bring forth a Son."

Conception happens when the mother's "seed" or ovum is fertilized (thereafter called a zygote or embryo) and the young embryo implants itself in his mother's womb. Mary didn't just "bear" Him, she conceived Him --- the "seed of the woman", her offspring, was Jesus --- therefore Mary was His true, bodily, genetic, biologically procreative mother.

45 posted on 12/28/2012 8:54:32 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (May the Lord bless you, May the Lord keep you, May He turn to you His countenance and give you peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: NoCmpromiz
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'

Watch Rood refute the way international and his past views.

Michael Rood and his associates who come from a number of religious beliefs are making great progress in disproving the false teachings of western churchianity and rabbinical Judaism.

And FYI, I do and will continue to support the pursuit of the truth. Unless we question, evaluate, and continue to seek answers, we fall into the unquestioning religious fanatic category where it only depends on who gets to you first.

46 posted on 12/28/2012 9:10:07 AM PST by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Errant
"making great progress in disproving the false teachings of western churchianity"

Always glad to see unorthodox errors refuted by the Church.

47 posted on 12/28/2012 9:32:55 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("The Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” -1 Timothy 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Fox News’ “course correction” is set in now, like fungus in a tree trunk. I don’t expect anything resembling truth out of them since Ailes announced that back in September of 2011. Enough people thought of them as having lost their objectivity when they switched from the slogan “We Report; You Decide” to “Fair and Balanced”, too, and I can’t fault them either . . .


48 posted on 12/28/2012 10:18:32 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle

There will be no peace in Jerusalem or Israel until Christ’s foot touches down on the Mount of Olives. Not till. There might be moments, but not peace. God did not agree to a two state resolution. He gave the land to Israel. He will decide that in the end. I fully and 100% support Israel, but not those Arabs that call themselves by a name that never existed until the Romans called that land “Palestine.” Until that time, there had never been a county or people called that.


49 posted on 12/28/2012 10:54:43 AM PST by RetiredArmy (1 Cor 15: 50-54 & 1 Thess 4: 13-17. That about covers it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I have worked within academia for nearly forty years. The idea that scholars are objective and unbiased is totally wrong. Scholars have their own agendas and worldviews. It is important to remember that one does not advance in academia by defending traditional views. You have to find something new and controversial in order to gain notoriety. There is nothing that will call attention to yourself more than attacking traditional Christian beliefs. For those less knowledgeable of biblical scholarship, it is easy to muddy the waters with half-truths.


50 posted on 12/28/2012 12:15:03 PM PST by Nemoque
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy
You're right, I think it was called "Syria Palestina" after the Bar Kochba rebellion. But the identification of that very much disputed parcel of land switched back and forth a lot. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, the term Palestine referred to the entire area between Phoenicia and Egypt in 5th century BC. Herodotus wrote of a 'district of Syria, called Palaistinê' including the Judean mountains and the Jordan Rift Valley.

I don't mean to slight the Jewish Kingdoms, not at all. And the Jews have every right to Israel on the basis of :

Purchase (because the Zionist Movement bought tracts of land in the late-19th early-20th century from the previous owners)

Legal mandate (all that post-Ottoman business with the British)

Settlement (they lived there, occupied the place)

Development (they made creative constructive improvements)

International Lawfulness (member of the UN, diplomatic recognition by 100+ other nations, that must count for something)

Successful defense (they repelled, and continue to repel, attacks and challenges)

Internal lawfulness (they have a system of law which is as internally consistent as any other nation: good as any, better'n some)

51 posted on 12/28/2012 1:47:24 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Hatikvah hannoshanah Lashuv le’eretz avoteinu, La‘ir bah David k'hanah.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

`


52 posted on 12/28/2012 1:49:57 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Hatikvah hannoshanah Lashuv le'eretz avoteinu, La'ir bah David k'hanah.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!


53 posted on 12/30/2012 9:23:45 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson