Introduction, Chapters 1 thru 2

[Manny]

Introduction, Chapters 1 and 2
Summary

Introduction:
(1) Longenecker describes a children’s Christmas play where the full mythic notion of the Three Wise Men are on display. (2) He transitions to all the childish legends we now hold of Christmas, such as Santa Claus and Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer. (3) He outlines how real historical facts can become legend and then myth, such as with King Arthur. He reaches this conclusion:

In a similar way, in most historical accounts of the ancient world there are kernels of fact beneath the fanciful tales. Over the years the much-loved stories are shared and elaborated. They evolve with time and the telling. People move and take their stories with them. New cultures interact with old, and the stories develop and change. It is the work of scholars to dig deep and find the foundation of truth that lies beneath the legend.

(4) Longenecker turns to the actual record of the Magi in Matthew’s Gospel and he points out what is missing.

Anyone who reads Matthew’s story closely will notice immediately that certain details we all take for granted are missing. There are no camels. The wise men are not named Caspar, Balthasar, and Melchior. And the text does not say that there are only three of them. Matthew doesn’t even hint that the wise men are kings, and he doesn’t say they came from Persia, India, China, or Africa. In fact, he doesn’t say they came from far away. He simply says they were “from the East.” Neither does the text say that they followed the star across the desert sands to Jerusalem. It simply says, “We saw his star when it rose.”

Finally, the popular idea, reinforced by millions of crèches, that the wise men adored the child alongside the shepherds in the stable on Christmas night has no basis in Matthew’s account. There are no shepherds when the Magi arrive in Bethlehem, and they find Mary and the child not in a stable but in a “house.” Furthermore, we get the impression that the “child” is no longer a newborn.

(5) So is the Magi story historically true? And if it’s not how can one trust the Bible? This seems to undermine those who Longenecker calls “Believers with Blinders.”

(6) On the other hand, those Longenecker calls “Scholars and Skeptics” dismiss the entire Magi story, the whole thing being fanciful.

(7) Longenecker outlines the plan for his book, understanding Matthew, understanding the historical circumstances, who could the wise men have been, and are there natural explanations.

Chapter 1: “Is the Bible True?”

(1) Longenecker describes the three ways to understand “truth.” (2) He describes how skeptics from the seventeenth century to the present have questioned the historical validity of the Bible stories. (3) He describes how recent scholarship has reexamined the history to find that aspects of the stories may have had foundation in history, including the infancy stories, despite scholar’s skepticism.

In the early twentieth century, Biblical scholars began to write off the stories of Jesus’ birth—especially the story of the wise men—as pious fantasies. They did so without considering whether the stories might at least be rooted in real events, so they never did the necessary research to uncover the historical element buried beneath layers of legend. Once they decided, based on their preconceived notions, that the stories were not historical, they didn’t give the question a serious consideration.

(4) This book is going to challenge that skepticism and try to find the real history beneath the legend. (5) Longenecker then describes how to properly read the Bible as those in the first century would have understood it.

Chapter 2: “Matthew: Man of History”

(1) To understand the Magi story, Longenecker stipulates we must understand the “mind of Matthew and his world.” (2) According to several sources, Matthew originally wrote a “sayings” Gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic, which was an early version of the Gospel According to Matthew. (2) But ultimately the Greek version of Matthew’s Gospel relied on Mark’s Gospel.

The detective work becomes more intriguing because much of the language in Matthew’s gospel is virtually identical to that in Mark’s gospel, leading scholars to suppose that the author of the Greek version of Matthew’s gospel used Mark’s account as a source, adding Mark’s stories to Matthew’s original Hebrew collection of sayings for a more complete gospel story.

(3) Was the Magi story, which is only in Matthew, a later added embellishment or an early Matthew sayings?

If the stories and sayings found only in Matthew’s gospel date back to that older, Hebrew redaction of oral traditions, then they are among the earliest recorded and must have come from people who had first-hand knowledge. As the renowned New Testament scholar Raymond Brown—no traditionalist—concluded, “The simplest explanation of the pre-Mathean background of the magi story is that it is factual history passed down from the time of Jesus’ birth in family circles.”

(4) Longenecker goes through an intricate analysis of dating Matthew’s Gospel, and comes to the conclusion that the earlier sayings Gospel was written ten to twenty years after Christ’s death.

If, however, it was Matthew the apostle who began to collect the stories and sayings of Jesus that were circulating just ten or twenty years after his death, then it is probable that the story of the Magi originated with people close to the actual events. If this is so, it is far less likely that the story of the Magi is a mere fable.

(5) Longenecker stipulates it is important to keep in mind that Matthew was a Jew writing to Jewish Christians:

Matthew had the task of convincing his fellow Jews not only that Jesus was the long-looked-for Messiah but also that the Gentiles were part of God’s plan.

The second thing to remember is that Matthew’s audience of Jewish Christians in the first years after Jesus’ death and resurrection—a small underground group—were persecuted by the Romans for being Jews and by their fellow Jews for being Christians. We will see later why appreciating this double persecution is crucial to understanding Matthew’s telling of the Magi story.

(6) Longenecker shows how through the “criterion of dissimilarity” the Magi story should be considered authentic. (7) He also shows how through “criterion of embarrassment” the Magi should also be considered true. (8) Finally if one can show that the Magi story also satisfies the criterion of cultural and historical congruency” then we can firmly believe in its veracity. That’s what the book will attempt to do.

[Joseph]

Having spent entirely too much time with ancient texts both in and out of seminary, Fr. Longenecker's critiques and engagement are very refreshing for biblical texts. His analysis of the textual history of Matthew's Gospel is probably the most nuanced one that I've seen since you still see a lot of scholars trying to prop up the Q hypothesis despite its increasingly apparent problems and other scholars make oddly simplistic arguments for Matthean priority. That being said, the use of historical-critical "tools" like the criterion of embarrassment and the criterion of dissimilarity have their own problems, but if he's using them to beat the skeptics at their own game then I think it's a fair maneuver.

[Kerstin]

In "King Arthur and Santa" Longenecker writes:

The fact of the matter is that facts matter. If an event is historical, it is real, and if it is real, then it affects the rest of history. If an event really happened, we have to pay attention and fit it into our vision of reality. If we regard the Bible stories as fairy tales but then learn that they are historical, we are compelled to reconsider our understanding of history and the other claims of Christianity.

It is a sad fact when one has to state the obvious. The modernists have done their very best to discredit biblical stories they deem to be too fanciful and unbelievable. Unbelievable to whom? I would say it is those who've not only lost faith, but also have lost their sense of enchantment in this utilitarian age. In contrast, during the Middle Ages we still lived in a world where the seen and unseen intertwined and we weren't so worried about utilitarian facts stripped to their bones, but what is morally and spiritually true had equal value as well. So from this perspective the very notion that the Magi story got embellished over time has little or no bearing at all. They didn't change the meaning of the story or the spiritual insights.

[Kerstin]

Joseph wrote: " you still see a lot of scholars trying to prop up the Q hypothesis..."

When I first heard of Q it made no sense to me. A document so obscure - but essential! - that not even the Church Fathers mentioned it. It's something only an academic could make up.

[Manny]

I love the way Longenecker builds his logic. He reminds me of someone. Is it Chesterton? I think I hear echoes of Chesterton in a number of places.

Kerstin and Joseph, I agree with both your comments. I don't know if it was in this book or some other place I just saw but I completely support the argument that the Gospels were were all written before 70 AD. I think it was in this book. I'll find it. But there was no way they could have written Christ's prediction of the Temple's destruction and yet not mention its fulfillment. I firmly believe in the Church's original dating of the Gospels, which is a lot earlier than current dating, and not this 68-100 AD the modern scholars have come up. I remember having a dispute with someone here on Catholic Thought in one of our Gospel reads over it.

[Joseph]

Agreed Manny. The assertion that the Gospels had to be written after the destruction of the temple is straight up Modernism. That being said, the traditional dating of St. John's Gospel is pretty late, possibly as late as the 90s. The synoptics though I agree were most likely written in that 50-70 time frame and the possibilty of St. Luke having written at the later end of that spectrum is pretty slim, as Fr. Longenecker points out.

[Manny]

I'm torn about John's Gospel. He makes no mention of the destruction of the Temple and he might be considered the most anti-Jewish of the four. Why would he not mention it? It would seem he would be the most likely to mention it if he wrote his Gospel after the fact.

[Joseph]

His is the most unique of all the Gospel accounts. Dr. John Bergsma did a graduate seminar on John which is available on recording where he discusses the dating, among other things. It's worth the listen if you have some time.

[Manny]

It also occurs to me that we assume John (or any of the four) wrote his Gospel in one sitting. It could be that he wrote it in layers over time and the married it all together. There are four distinct parts to John’s Gospel, all of which could have been written separately. There’s the intro in chapter 1, then the book of signs, and I would divide the book of glory into at least two parts, the last supper discourse and the passion events. And even the passion events could be divided into the passion and resurrection. It could be he wrote parts before the temple’s destruction and parts after. He may not have found a reason to bring it up in the parts he wrote after.

Bergsma is great. I’ll try to find that.

[Casey]

I found the introduction and bits of the opening chapter off-putting for its overemphasis on the skeptic. I feel the author's argument would be better served by offering the positive case of what's to come with a nod to the skeptic along the way. Chapter 2 it's really where we begin.

[Manny]

Casey wrote: "I found the introduction and bits of the opening chapter off-putting for its overemphasis on the skeptic. I feel the author's argument would be better served by offering the positive case of what's..."

I did feel Longenecker was a little disingenuous by creating an equal balance between the skeptic and the "Believer with Blinders." I think he's a little more in tune with the Believer than the skeptic and it seems his primary purpose is to prove the skeptic wrong. That's just an impression on my part, and I could be reading my preference into the book.

[Kerstin]

What I see Fr. Longenecker doing is wading through the morass of modernist interpretation first and pointing out why these are problematic.

[Celia]

The pastor of my parish loves to marry events in the Old Testament with those of the New. Identifying fulfillment of Old Testament prophesies in the New Testament is really his thing and now it is mine too. Tell me I have rose colored glasses on, but this sentence had my , well... upset.

"The skeptics have two problems with this. First, they don’t believe it is possible for someone to prophesy the future. Secondly, they suspect that the author of Mathew’s gospel invented stories deliberately to fulfill the prophecies."

Yes, the author says skeptics, but I never even thought there would BE skeptics.

[Casey]

Kerstin wrote: "What I see Fr. Longenecker doing is wading through the morass of modernist interpretation first and pointing out why these are problematic."

Yes, but it sets the book off immediately into a defensive mode and the rest of the book will now be read as a response to the skeptic. And that is disappointing as it is ultimately tangential to the book's central idea. The positive assertion that the visit of the Magi really happened ought to be primary, while the skeptic's critiques could be interjected and addressed as they come along.

[Manny]

Celia, there are lots of skeptics. The skeptics are at least two fold. (1) the atheists who are looking to tear down anything in religion and (2) the what I'll call the "semi-believers" who want to strip away all miracles from the Gospels and have everyone live with a religion that has no supernatural. While they may believe in God, they don't believe in the supernatural. I think both of these fall into Fr. Longenecker's category of "skeptics."

I hope I resolved what you were puzzled over. If not, let me know. Maybe I misunderstood you.

[Manny]

Casey wrote: "Yes, but it sets the book off immediately into a defensive mode and the rest of the book will now be read as a response to the skeptic.."

It does. I didn't particularly like the approach of finding a middle ground between the two views. On reflection from what you wrote Casey, I think you're right. He should have held knocking down both critics until the end in a summary section. I haven't gotten to the end, but I assume now he will have repeat himself.

[Celia]

Manny wrote: "Celia, there are lots of skeptics. The skeptics are at least two fold. (1) the atheists who are looking to tear down anything in religion and (2) the what I'll call the "semi-believers" who want to..."

Just to clarify, I am not puzzled, but sad and disappointed. I love to see the prophesies fulfilled and to think that there are naysayers hurts my heart.

I DO appreciate you classifying these skeptics for me. The good news is I learned something.

🤩

[Gerri]

Skeptics are out there, for sure, and I don't mind that Longenecker comes out swinging. He's pushing back against deeply ingrained channels. My late-in-life undergrad studies included a minor in Religious Studies, so in the late 2000s and early 2010s I was inundated with Q theory and the various criteria (embarrassment, dissimilarity, etc.) used by scholars. I lapped it all up. The PhDs teaching the courses knew their stuff, and most actually fell within the believers camp. The college had been a Baptist institution until the mid 1990s. But they were academics. I came away hoping Q would be discovered, and soon!

Ahem, I'm already seeing better. I'm enjoying the Magi book a lot. I had no clue Matthew could have been written as early as Longenecker suggests. But everything he points out make so much sense.

[Manny]

I did find this fascinating on Matthew's Gospel:

Irenaeus wrote, “Matthew also published a gospel, written among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel and founding the church in Rome.”1 The historian Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, writing in the early fourth century, records an even earlier witness—Papias, a bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, who lived just fifty or sixty years after the death of Jesus. Drawing on those who knew the apostles, Papias asserted that “Matthew set in order the logia [sayings] of Jesus in a Hebrew dialect.”

I mentioned in comment 5 above having a dispute on the dating of the Gospels. We also disputed on whether Matthew was written first or Mark, which is the consensus opinion today. I held that Matthew was first, which the Catholic Church always held until recently. Now if Matthew's Gospel was originally a "sayings Gospel" in Hebrew and then rewritten to integrate Mark's narrative form, I can see how were would both be right. Longenecker brings up some really solid facts to support that.

[Manny]

Here Longenecker sums up Matthew's Gospel:

If the stories and sayings found only in Matthew’s gospel date back to that older, Hebrew redaction of oral traditions, then they are among the earliest recorded and must have come from people who had first-hand knowledge. As the renowned New Testament scholar Raymond Brown—no traditionalist—concluded, “The simplest explanation of the pre-Mathean background of the magi story is that it is factual history passed down from the time of Jesus’ birth in family circles.”

It has been my pet theory that all the Gospels based their events on isolated memories written down individually and disseminated. There was no Gospel Q but isolated scrolls that told individual stories. The Gospel writers then collected these stories and interwove them into a narrative. That's why each of the synoptic Gospels have some stories and don't have others. It's not that there was a Q, but a bunch of little Q's in various places.

[Gerri]

That makes a lot of sense to me, Manny. Oral tradition was so strong and accurate in those times. The memories shared and then written down must have been vast and widespread across settlements and along nomadic routes.

When I was very young, we were taught that Matthew was written first. I don't remember when I learned that, no, Mark was written first (or so it's claimed). But I remember hearing about the change. Not sure when, maybe 1960s or 1970s.

[Manny]

I subscribe to The St. Paul Center for weekly emails on the Sunday Mass readings. This is Scott Hahn's organization and he usually provides a short explanation of the readings akin to a homily. This coming Sunday (Jan 2) is the Epiphany of the Lord, where we get the readings on the Magi, and you can listen to Scott give his thoughts on these readings here:
https://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/f/d/6/fd6a...

It's apparent Scott has not read Fr. Longenecker's book. He says the Magi "probably came from Persia." Well we now know otherwise! They came from the Nabatean Kingdom. Is n't it something that we know something about Catholicism that the great Scott Hahn doesn't? ;) At least Scott says "probably."