Readers Reply

004

In our February 2000 issue, we asked, “Where Was Jesus born?” BR 16:01. Steve Mason made the case for the city championed by many scholars but ultimately determined that we couldn’t know where Jesus was born because the earliest Christians to leave a record didn’t know (“O Little Town of…Nazareth?”). The traditional site was defended by Jerome Murphy-O’Connor (“Bethlehem…Of Course,” BR 16:01). But our query was not aimed at scholars alone; we also wanted to know what our readers thought. The result was the largest response since we asked whether we had acted properly when we cropped a work of art showing frontal nudity (the responses appeared in December 1999, see Readers Reply, BR 15:06). On the question of Jesus’ birthplace, readers clearly favored Nazareth over Bethlehem, though not by a wide margin: 31 percent to 24 percent. But even more readers (37 percent) did not express a direct opinion, did not know or did not think it mattered. Another 8 percent suggested other sites as the birthplace, including one vote for Buffalo, New York. Our in-house theologians are still pondering that one.—Ed.

I. Nazareth?

The Gospels Are Not Biographies

I would like to express my wholehearted support in favor of the logically far more compelling position of Steve Mason. Murphy-O’Connor’s view, while it deserves respect, is based on wishful thinking.

From the moment he first appeared in public until his death, Jesus was known to his contemporaries as “Jesus of Nazareth” or “the Galilean.” Pilate had the title “Jesus Nazarenus” written in three languages on the cross.

The nativity stories, while very beautiful, are obviously symbolic. To believe that the gospel writers wrote in order “to tell the truth” presupposes a truly remarkable degree of credulity. For while these texts are doubtless works of extraordinary value and importance, they are so patently redacted for the purpose of proclaiming the emerging new religion—to which end all other aims are made subservient—that one can hardly treat them as reliable biographies.

Unscientific Approach

I can’t tell you where Jesus was born, but clearly Steve Mason has made the better argument. After reading Mason’s careful and thoughtful review of the evidence, I was eager to hear Jerome Murphy-O’Connor’s response; surely he would tear the Nazareth theory to shreds! Alas, it was not to be. Murphy-O’Connor may be a highly respected scholar, but his response was anything but scholarly.

Most distressing were some of Murphy-O’Connor’s statements in his surresponse (“We believe what we are told, or read, unless we have reason to be suspicious about it. We do not automatically ask for proof of truth…”). This approach is the very antithesis of sound scientific methodology.

Thanks again for the wonderful articles. They raised yet another question I had never thought to ask.

Trio con Brio

I laughed out loud when I read Hershel Shanks’s editorial in Editor’s Page, AO 03:02. “In the letters to Biblical Archaeology Review,” he wrote, “we hear people yelling…an almost barbarous war of words.”

You forgot to mention that the same could be said of the articles in their sister magazine BR, especially the debate over the birthplace of the historical Jesus.

Jerome Murphy-O’Connor may be “meticulous” in his preparation of a travel guide, but his scholarly rigor in this debate was lacking. Besides attacking Steve Mason and his position, Murphy-O’Connor chose not to respond directly to any of the points Mason made. Instead, he fell back on “this I know, for the Bible tells me so.” I came away from his pieces 005feeling as if Mason—and, by extension, I—had been rapped on the knuckles with a ruler for daring to question him. Needless to say, I am not happy with that feeling—and for that reason alone would cast my lot with Mason’s case for Nazareth. Happily, Mason provided a host of other reasons to support my choice.

Thank you so much for this trio of small intellectual-niche publications.

Not Even Histories Are Historical

“Where Was Jesus born?” BR 16:01, proved a stimulating joust. I vote for Nazareth, but keep sending them into the arena! My only criticism: Murphy-O’Connor’s labeling of Mason’s critical methods as “agnostic” seems emotive and paradoxical given his own scientific inquiry. Are we to treat ancient writings as historical until proven otherwise? Would Murphy-O’Connor identify Homer’s Odyssey and Virgil’s Aeneid as history? To stamp the Gospels as “history” a priori merely begs the question and circumvents the scientific investigation into their veracity and the literary techniques of the writers. Most, if not all, ancient writings are recognized today as artistic creations with factual and faulty historical elements (even those of Herodotus, the father of history!), but that does not mean our attitude toward them is “agnostic”! We recognize their storytelling techniques and appreciate their poetic beauty while critically identifying what is or is not historical. (Ironically, we could use more of those dead poet historians writing textbooks today!)

Another County Heard From

I, too, have been singing “O Little Town of Nazareth” for many years; and I will continue to do so following Mason’s article (see “O Little Town of…Nazareth?” BR 16:01).

I attended seminary at Brite Divinity School, Texas Christian University, in Fort Worth, Texas. One blustery and rainy day, the chapel speaker, Dr. Jack Suggs, was making the point that whether Jesus was born in Bethlehem or Nazareth should not be a deciding factor in whether we understand Jesus as the Christ (Messiah). He had just stated, “But, for myself, I believe that Jesus was born in Nazareth,” when a bolt of lightning lit up the chapel and a clap of thunder shook the building and left our ears ringing. Dr. Suggs ducked behind the pulpit for protection while all of us cowered in the pews. Then we all heard Dr. Suggs say, in a meek voice, “Bethlehem, Lord. Jesus was born in Bethlehem.”

II. Bethlehem

Where You’re From May Not Be Where You’re From

I found it incredible that Steve Mason does not understand that when someone is from a place—say, Nazareth—that does not mean he or she was born there. For 12 years, my husband and I have traveled extensively 006throughout the United States, coast to coast, working with children. We eat with over 150 families a year, which amounts to over 1,800 families in 12 years. We are continually asked where we come from. We have to find out if they mean where we are from now or where we were born. Most people think we come from Kansas because that is where we have lived for the past 12 years, where our mail goes, where our bookkeeper lives, where we pay taxes, where we construct our programs and where our organization is incorporated. The truth is, we were both born in California and spent 39 years there, compared to only 12 years in Kansas. Is it too incredible to think that Jesus was from Nazareth but was born in Bethlehem? It doesn’t take a university professor to figure this one out, just a children’s worker.

Best Bet: Bethlehem

“O Little Town of Bethlehem.”

Mason did not change my mind. His arguments are like those of the biblical minimalists: Nothing in the Bible is true unless it can be proven by extrabiblical sources. Mason only found instances where an interpretation of the text would suggest that Jesus was born in Nazareth. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor expressed very well my feeling that the plain text of the Bible should be accepted as long as there is no evidence to the contrary.

Two Good Witnesses

Where was Jesus born? Although Luke, a Gentile, understood neither Palestine’s geography nor Jewish customs, he verifies Matthew’s account that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and that Joseph and Mary resided there for the first two years or so of Jesus’ life. That Mark, John and Paul do not say anything about it means only that: They did not say anything about where Jesus was born. To read more into it employs no accepted historical technique.

Say What You Will, But It’s Bethlehem

The Gospel of Luke, either in the King James Version or in Greek, is one of the most beautiful pieces of religious literature ever written, and the description of the nativity is one of its most beautiful parts: “For unto you is born this night in the City of David a saviour…” We Christians were all raised on it, and although my understanding of the nature of Jesus has changed since I became a research-oriented historian, my reverence for the story as told by Luke remains.

You may have trouble with this total lack of logic, but I’ll state it anyway. I am reasonably certain that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem. But when I went to Bethlehem, the city was still sacred to me, because thanks to Luke, the Jesus I loved in my childhood and youth was born in Bethlehem, and so shall it always be.

God Made It Happen

That Jesus was born in Bethlehem is one of the signs that confirms Him as the 007Messiah. His birth there was a prophesied event, something that happened because God made it happen. Glory to God!

III. None of the Above

Mason Practices What He Preaches

Professor Murphy-O’Connor closes his surresponse to my article on Jesus’ birthplace with the speculation that I single out the Gospels for “uniquely harsh treatment,” and that I cannot possibly live by the principles I articulate (see “Response and Surresponse,” BR 16:01). Most of my published research is not on the Gospels, but on the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. A quick check will show that I practice the same historical method there (and with Tacitus and Suetonius) as I do with respect to the Gospels. Murphy-O’Connor’s principle—“We believe what we are told, or read, unless we have reason to be suspicious about it”—represents another way of gaining access to the past: via tradition. In my view, historians (the word means “investigators”) begin by not knowing the answers to their questions, unless and until someone can make a probable case from high-quality evidence. Absent such a case, we cannot know in the historical sense. Believe it: Life is possible, even fun, not knowing most things!

Questions Not Worth Asking

Where was Jesus really born? When was Jesus really born? Was he left-handed or right-handed? Did he prefer butter or jelly? Surely we can be fascinated with our Master, but I believe the Word is ambiguous about such matters in order to teach us their irrelevance. It does not matter where or when we are born—what is important is our soul. It makes for interesting study and reading, I guess, but when you get down to it, does it really matter? All that matters is, He was and He is, still.

The Gospel According to Casey

I think that your two authors fought to a well-deserved draw. Certainly no knock-downs, points just about equal and courtesy preserved throughout. I applaud them both.

As for where Jesus was really born, I have difficulty imagining a less relevant question. One might as well ask where Casey Stengel was born. If it was Missouri, would that change anything? Casey Stengel was still who he was—and the Mets are still the Mets.

With ten pennants and seven World Series championships in pinstripes, BR considers him a Yankee.—Ed.

Jesus Lives

My first issue of BR arrived. Behold! Mason vs. Murphy-O’Connor: 17 pages devoted to analytical assertions concerning the birthplace of Jesus. With deference 046and ingratiating regard for scholarship, the debate is superfluous—Jesus lives!

Yakety Yak

Read the article wondering where Jesus was born.

Read the response.

Read the response to the response.

Remembered why I canceled my subscription to BR.

It seems confused as to its mission, unless the mission is to allow a forum for people to argue.

Destabilizing Caption

I am only lately come to BR, and I must tell you I find it truly fascinating. However, the February 2000 issue contains an egregious mistake (see “Where Was Jesus born?” BR 16:01).

The caption to the Ghirlandaio painting of the nativity says that Mary and Joseph were forced to spend the night in a manger, then goes on to describe the artist’s manger as “Roman ruins with a straw roof.”

Now, even though an African American spiritual speaks of “Little Jesus boy, born in a manger,” and the unwashed probably confuse “manger” with “stable,” you should not. A manger is not a building with a roof, but simply a feed trough (the word itself coincides exactly with the French word meaning “to eat”). It would be very difficult for a pregnant woman to fit in a feed trough to give birth.

Teaching Evolution

Careless Journalism

Ronald Hendel states that he is embarrassed that “Kansas has deleted the teaching of evolution…from the public school curriculum” (“Teaching Creation in Kansas,” BR 16:01). He should rather be embarrassed by his careless journalism, because in fact no such thing happened. The State Board of Education has simply given more control to local school boards in deciding policy in this area. I am not aware of any school district in Kansas that has stopped teaching evolution.

Ronald Hendel responds:

Mr. Sundquist is quite right. I am indeed embarrassed that the sentence, as published, is inaccurate. What I actually wrote was “Kansas has deleted the requirement to teach evolution…in the public school curriculum.” This sentence is correct, but the typesetting or copyediting garbled it. Alas for scribal errors in the transmission of texts, whether journalistic or biblical.

Evolution Is Poor Science

As I opened my trial issue of BR, I was immediately faced with Hendel’s column about the decision made by the Kansas State Board of Education. I have had varying degrees of involvement with this issue for over a year. Disinformation is rampant. Your author is living proof of the prejudice that continues to overshadow the issue.

The Kansas State Board of Education members are college educated. Some are former teachers, one was a popular superintendent, and one practices veterinary medicine. Membership in the board is by election in Kansas, so all are respected citizens.

The state board did not even mention creationism in its policy. All it did was “unprotect” macroevolution. [Macroevolution refers to the evolution of all species from a common ancestor, microevolution to evolution within a single species.—Ed.] They saw that macroevolution has the esteemed position of being the only scientific theory that is sheltered against all rivals. No other theory of origins is allowed in the typical classroom. Students who offer other theories are ridiculed and silenced (that is not an exaggeration). That is not good science by anyone’s standards. There are too many important questions that the theory of evolution cannot answer, too many contradictions that have been ignored, too many other scientific laws that must be discarded (a couple of the laws of thermodynamics, laws of chance, observable mutations, etc.), to blindly accept evolution as the basis of life. Why is it beyond scientific possibility that God could have created man without intermediate stages (none of which have been discovered)? Because then scientists would have to admit to the possibility of the existence of God.

047

It gives me great pleasure to inform you that I am canceling my subscription to your magazine. I prefer to spend my time reading about facts (Bible or otherwise), not the opinions of self-important writers.

Ronald Hendel responds:

I’m sorry for the schoolchildren of Kansas that Mr. Ellsworth is involved in decisions concerning their educational curriculum. Emotional ranting and propaganda are not what these children deserve. But I must admit that I’m rather pleased to have inspired such a juicy letter for the “Cancel My Subscription” file.

Hooray for Kansas

I am just becoming acquainted with BR, and it saddened me to read “Teaching Creation in Kansas.” The commentator may be a fine Hebrew Bible scholar and genuinely interested in the issue, but he apparently has not taken the time to research the scientific data available (or unavailable, as it were) to determine the status evolution should have in a science classroom.

To automatically equate a statistically and biologically improbable theory like macroevolution with science (which by definition must be testable and capable of being disproved) is academically irresponsible, and I believe that is what the Kansas school board was trying to clarify. Bravo! It takes guts to question the entrenched, exclusively atheistic bent of many within the scientific community.

Potpourri

Double Your Money Back

“Did Ecclesiastes Copy Gilgamesh?” by Karel van der Toorn, and “Van Gogh’s Bible,” by Cliff Edwards (BR 16:01), were each worth the price of subscription.

Dating Amenemope

In comparing the Book of Proverbs with the Egyptian Instruction of Amenemope, you say that the Egyptian text dates to the seventh or sixth century B.C. (“Talk like an Egyptian,” sidebar to “Did Ecclesiastes Copy Gilgamesh?” BR 16:01). In “Egyptian Literature (Wisdom),” in the Anchor Bible Dictionary (vol. 2, p. 397), my teacher, the late Ronald J. Williams, correctly provides the evidence that dates it to the 12th century B.C.

This earlier origin is extremely important in assessing the issue of literary dependence.

Artfully Done

I have been a subscriber for only one year, but, in my estimation, the February 2000 issue was your best. The article on Vincent van Gogh was entertaining and inspiring. In addition, I am drawn to your wonderful, sleek covers and the color photographs of artistic works. As a poet, I initially turn to the back of the magazine to read the Gallery section (the poem in December 1998 about Elijah by Anna Kamienska was what hooked me on your magazine, see Gallery, BR 14:06). Then I peruse the table of contents, looking for articles that involve art and literature. Art and religion are inseparable, and your magazine incorporates both masterfully and beautifully.

Thank you.

Were Mary and Joseph Well Off?

Deanna Williams attempts to make the case that Joseph and Mary were much better off, both financially and socially, than generally thought (Readers Reply, BR 16:01). She describes them as “of privileged status with the material comforts of the world.”

I wonder how she accounts for the fact that when they took their baby to the Temple for circumcision, they came “to offer a sacrifice according to what was said in the law of the Lord, ‘A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons’” (Luke 2:24).

The “law of the Lord” referred to in this case is found in Leviticus 12:8, which clearly states that two turtle doves or two young pigeons are acceptable only if a lamb is beyond the means of the new mother. This raises questions about Joseph and Mary’s material comforts.

New Name for BR

After reading several of the articles in the February 2000 BR, I cannot help but conclude that the magazine should be renamed “Bible Debunker,” since so much of its effort seems focused on showing how no one with any sense of logic or credulity could possibly believe any of the material contained in the Bible.

Today’s Money Changers

Attached herewith is the junk you enclosed in my BR. It has come to the point with your magazine that one cannot even turn the pages. This type of commercialism is absolutely abrasive and offensive—now I can feel for Jesus as he ran the money changers out of the Temple. If money is more important than scholarship, why don’t you leave this business to someone better qualified?

047

Correction

The photographs of Shraga Weil’s prints “A Time for War” and “A Time for Peace,” in the February 2000 BR, should have been credited to the Safrai Gallery in Jerusalem. We regret the error.