In one of many arguments to establish the New Testament as unreliable historically, Mangasarian brings up what he feels to be a discrepancy between accounts of what took place during the time immediately after Jesus’ birth.
Matthew records that after Jesus was born, Magi from the east came to visit him and present gifts. Prior to finding Jesus, they approached Herod and asked if he knew where the newborn ‘king of the Jews’ was. (Matthew 2:2) Herod, disturbed, told the Magi to report back to him when they found the location of the newborn ‘king of the Jews,’ no doubt a political move. The Magi were warned in a dream not to return to Herod, while Mary and Joseph were warned in a dream to take Jesus and flee to Egypt. It is important to point out that the length of time the Magi stayed is not specified in Matthew’s account. Luke then records that after Jesus was born, Mary and Joseph took him to the temple to be presented as was the Jewish custom of the time. Are the two in conflict, as Mangasarian claims?
Mangasarian writes, “It is impossible to reconcile the flight to Egypt with the presentation in the temple…Luke says nothing about this hurried flight. On the contrary, he tells us that after the 40 days of purification were over, Jesus was publicly presented at the temple, where Herod, if he really, as Matthew relates, wished to seize him, could have done so without difficulty.”
Luke indeed does write that after the 40 days of purification required by Jewish law were over Jesus was presented at the temple. So what exactly does Mangasarian contend? He is arguing that since Herod wanted to kill Jesus, there is no logical way in the world that Mary and Joseph would have presented Jesus in the temple, because Herod could have seized him. In theory it sounds logical. However, Mangasarian omits to mention Matthew 2:7,8 in which Herod originally told the Magi to report back to him to disclose the location of Jesus so he could worship him. However, the Magi never returned to Herod. It was not until two years later that Herod realized the Magi had ditched him. It was then that Herod “…gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi.” (Matthew 2:16) Why, otherwise, would the edict include the detail of two years? In other words, I’m contending that the three could’ve slipped in for purification right under Herod’s nose, while he was waiting for the Magi to return.
So, at the time Jesus was being presented at the temple, 40 days after his birth, Herod was still waiting for the Magi to return and tell him where Jesus was. Herod may or may not have been engaging in an active search for the baby Jesus, his edict had not been decreed. Mangasarian forms an irrational conclusion from a faulty premise. The faulty premise is that ‘it is impossible to reconcile the flight to Egypt with the presentation in the temple.’ This, as just demonstrated, is not true. At the time Jesus was presented in the temple, Herod was waiting for the Magi to return. It was not until two years after Jesus had been born that Herod gave his murderous orders.
So, the likely scenario is that Jesus was born and presented in the temple forty days later, and shortly thereafter, Mary and Joseph escaped to Egypt. Mangasarian’s faulty conclusion is that ‘this inconsistency is certainly insurmountable and makes it look as if the narrative had no value whatever as history.’
Mangasarian has made better arguments against the New Testament. The only inconsistency in this case Mangasarian’s inaccurate interpretation of scripture.
If any of the people, places and events mentioned in the biblical record actually occurred, there should be archaeological findings and history to support them, and surely we might expect some mention of biblical events from extrabiblical sources. Many critics contend this is not what we find. This claim simply does not hold water. While of course not every person, place or event from any ancient manuscript could ever be recovered, legitimate discoveries affirm key players in the Hebrew scriptures.
Until about the middle of the twentieth century there was a general consensus that many of the events, places and people mentioned in the Bible didn’t ever exist. This attitude prompted claims of embellishment and other times outright fraud by biblical writers to justify their personal moral or theological inference from such events. It is difficult for some people to accept the stories of King David or Herod the Tetrarch without some sort of extra-biblical validation of their existence, just as the story of creation in Genesis loses credibility if it can be found in bona fide conflict with a bona fide fact of modern science.
Regarding the possibility to prove the historicity of certain people or places mentioned only in the Bible, scientific evidence, again, is a wonderful servant but a horrible master. Extreme refusal to believe something purely on a lack of scientific evidence can cause bias. It must also be noted that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. Although archaeology of today has never unearthed ‘city x,’ that does not negate the possibility that ‘city x’ once existed, and archaeologists may in fact discover remnants of ‘city x’ at any future point.
In 1993 Israeli archaeologists unearthed fragments of a stele, or ancient monument, bearing the inscriptions in Aramic ‘King of Israel’ and ‘House of David.’ The find was a blow to scholars who previously discredited the historical existence of King David based on a lack of extra-biblical evidence. At Tel Miqne-Ekron, an excavation team found a stone tablet with a Phoenician inscription bearing the name of the city ‘Ekron,’ the legendary deposit city of the Ark of the Covenant, captured by the Philistines according to the first book of Samuel. In the summer of 1996, archaeologists sifting through a 2,000 year-old garbage site at Masada in Southern Israel found the first extra-biblical mention of King Herod. It was a wine jug bearing an inscription of the great Judean King mentioned in the gospels.
References of Israel are found in Egyptian epigraphy, for example the Stela of Merneptah, discovered at Thebes by Sir Flinders Petrie. Written in hieroglyphics, the writing records the boasting of an early thirteenth-century b.c. Egyptian ruler, Merneptah, that he had ‘humbled Israel.’ The omission of the customary determinative sign of ‘land,’ supports the idea of a nomadic tribe without a homeland, corroborating the account found in the book of Exodus.
Opposite Aswan is an island in the Nile known as Elephantine in Greek or Yeb in Aramic. It was there that a series of ancient Jewish manuscripts were discovered in 1903, which came to be known as the Elephantine Papyri. These letters revealed the presence of Jewish colonists and their families in the fifth century b.c. Among them were requests to Johanan and Sanballat to build a temple; the names of these priests also appear in Nehemiah 12:22 and 2:19.
Archaeologist Amnon Ben-Tor unearthed evidence that seems to confirm the biblical accounts of Joshua plundering the Canaanite city of Hazor and destroying it by fire. Citing fire-blackened stones, Ben-Tor confirms the biblical account of Hazor being destroyed by a terrible fire and having its Canaanite and Egyptian statues destroyed. Discoveries at Hazor also show the city was occupied again by the tenth century b.c., supporting biblical mention of King Solomon’s reign in the area.
A Lutheran minister named Klein discovered the Moabite Stone at Dibon in present day Jordan. The stone is extra-biblical confirmation of the defeat of King Omri of Israel (885-874b.c.) by Mesha. It was also the only extra-biblical mentioning of the name Yahweh until the Lachish Letters of 1932.
As supported by this quick handful of discoveries, the Bible contains a sound historical core. Note this is not equivalent to the emotionally-based, rhetorical blanket statement, “Archaeology and history proves the Bible!”
Also note the absurdity in the claim of opposite polarity, that archaeology and history fail to properly support scripture or locate events of the Bible in history or time.
Questions of absolute historicity cast temporarily aside, Luke was probably somewhat of a thinking man, an analytical person who operated on known and demonstrable fact rather than whimsical allegory.
The opening of his gospel, which was written to a man named Theophilus and quite possibly never intended for general reading, records, “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us…Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” (Luke 1:1-4)
There is much to infer from these verses. Generally, Luke speaks as an articulate, educated person. He is very calculating and precise. There is much less heated emotion in his recording of things than, say, John’s. In matters of factual reporting, Luke’s writing is strong. I get the impression from Luke’s writing that he was somewhat reserved or skeptical and that he weighed and measured everything that transpired during those years with the utmost consideration. William Mitchell Ramsay, (1851-1939) noted archaeologist of Asia Minor, wrote that, “Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness,” and Luke himself said he had, “carefully investigated everything from the beginning.” Of course that doesn’t make Luke’s claims about Jesus automatically true or absolutely historically accurate, but it certainly inspires one to wonder why such a calculated account would reference something as intellectually contradictory as resurrection, unless it either actually happened or there was some motive in the pretense of it actually happening.
Also of interest was the personal nature of his presentation. It was apparently intended for a man named Theophilus, and the prefix, “most excellent” implies this person was either a close friend of Luke’s or somebody Luke held in high regards for whatever reason. I infer that Luke did not write his account of things for a general audience. This is just my inference; in no way do I present it as historically valid. Whether Luke intended to write for a mass audience or not, this particular piece was intended for a friend or superior of his. A third observation is the closing statement, which is seemingly revelatory of Luke’s intent. He says, “…so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” This implies a desire for the preservation of historical fact and overall truth. There is concern for truth in that statement. Again, if Luke or later copyists were lying, then this statement was born of a complex, calculated desire to deceive.
Who would he want to deceive about Christ? And why? It got him and his friends ridiculed and killed. What if Christianity was one big lie? First of all, socially and culturally speaking, lies are usually constructed to advance an agenda. What type of agenda could the early Christians be charged with having? There were definitely zero benefits to being a Christian in Roman-ruled Judea during the first century.
One common but flawed argument against a literal interpretation of Genesis states that the chronology violates biology by listing the creation of seed-bearing plants and vegetation before the creation of the sun. Now if we are taking Genesis literally, this is in fact what Genesis incontrovertibly appears to say; however, the argument proposed to refute this is typically based on a singular claim, namely that seed-bearing plants and vegetation need light and photosynthesis to have arisen. From everything we know from the Enlightenment until now, this also is in fact what science incontrovertibly appears to say; however, what the argument fails to account for is that light is recorded as being present in the creation process much earlier in Genesis 1:3 and concurrent with the creation of seed-bearing plants and vegetation. Thus the rebuttal to this argument is at least twofold: 1) Yes, it is true that seed-bearing plants and vegetation would need light to grow on Earth, however 2) Genesis records that light was in fact present prior to the creation of seed-bearing plants and vegetation.
Note this is not the same as implying the sun was created before the other stars. Scripture simply states that light was present, and we know life needs light to exist, evolve and flourish. Of the many arguments against creationism, this is one of the demonstrably weaker claims.
The Bible claims for itself to be a recording of the creator’s interaction with the creation, specifically the ancient Hebrews or Israelites, the predecessors of our modern day Jews. The word ‘bible’ comes from ta biblia, the Greek neuter-plural form of to biblion, which translates, ‘book,’ or ‘scroll.’ Hence, 'the Bible,' or ta biblia means ‘the books,’ and the plural form suggests that the Bible is not a single work but a small library of books written by many authors. Indeed that is the case with 66 different books in the canon, written by roughly 40 different authors of different backgrounds at different times occurring over a period of almost 2,000 years. The first book ever printed was in fact the Gutenberg Bible in the mid-fifteenth century, so named after the man who invented the printing press, John Gutenberg.
Genesis 1:1 reads, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." At the most basic level, the first three words of the Bible are currently upheld by Hubble’s Law. Recorded seemingly by the Hebrews alone, the notion that the universe had a beginning is mentioned again in Psalm 102:25-26. Here is another example where scripture is in reasonable accord with the findings of modern science.
Compiled long before scientific knowledge was available, this proclamation from David in the context of speaking to God both describes and agrees perfectly not only with Hubble’s Law and the findings of the greatest cosmologists, but also with Carnot’s Principle and the findings of Lord Kelvin and the greatest physicists. Based on observations of redshifts from distant galaxies, Hubble’s Law led to a concept described as the Big Bang that conforms perfectly to this verse from the Psalms and the first three words of Genesis as well. As defined by a universe in decay, Carnot’s Principle of entropy, also known as the second law of thermodynamics, states that in any exchange there is always a loss of energy in the form of irrecoverable heat. Left of its own accord, our entire universe would eventually wear out and reach a state in which zero molecular activity would be occurring anywhere.
The relevant verse reads, "In the beginning you laid the foundations of the Earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment."