Response to Jerry McDonald (First Part)
Jim Faubel (jef@europa.com)
Tue, 01 Apr 1997 23:10:53 -0800
This is the first part of my response to Jerry McDonald's response to my
original posting re: Luke
Dear Rev. McDonald:
First of all, I want to thank you for responding
to my post. I know you're a busy man, what with two
ng discussion groups, your own web site, and your
pastorate.
Now, I can accept your explanation of why both
Annas and Caiaphas could be considered to be High
Priest at the same time, although the situation must
have been a bit unusual [rather like having two popes
at the same time, but I seem to recall from my
medieval history that such a situation did happen for
a relatively brief period of time].
I can also accept that one could be a priest for
life, but not a High Priest [your references to Num.
20:28 & 35:25 do not give a legal requirement for a
lifetime term. We know that this was not the
practice. Many High Priests were removed from office
so that another "party" or king could have his own
High Priest, especially during the Hasmonian period.
While a Jewish audience might understand the unusual
circumstance, Luke was clearly written to and for
Gentiles.
As to the problem with the time of Jesus' birth
in Luke, Steve Carr has already addressed this, so
I'll keep my comments brief. I have a problem with
the "explanation" of TWO census. Mostly because this
is such a common "explanation" for the contradictions
found in the Bible. You use the same argument to say
there were TWO Theudas, although the second never
makes the light of history because, you say, he "may
not have been well enough to write about". You
yourself refer to the "two Ahaziahs as kings over the
Israelites". You certainly wouldn't use such a flimsy
argument to explain the two traditions recorded about
the ark (Genesis 6:19-20 and Genesis 7:2-3) or the
two creation stories (Genesis chapter 1 and chapter
2), would you?
Besides, Luke's version of the circumstances of
Jesus' birth differs from Matthew in more than just
timing. Here I'm not referring to the two different
genealogies (which is too well known to require
comment), but rather to the fact that Luke has no
Magi, no slaughter of the innocents in Bethlehem, and
no flight to Egypt. In fact, Luke clearly states
that the holy family hung around for 8 days to
circumcise Jesus and then for another 33 days (the
period of purification) and then took Jesus to the
temple in Jerusalem to be dedicated and then
immediately returned to Nazareth from where they
returned to Jerusalem each year for the Passover
(Luke 2:21-41). I challenge you to reconcile Luke
and Matthew on these matters.
As to the insurrection of Theudas. I see no reason to assume a second
Theudas not mentioned by Josephus. Unlike the names Simon, Joshua (Jesus),
Jacob (James), and variations on Judah (such as Jude and Judas), Theudas
was not a common name among first century Jews.
As to Paul being of Tarsus. The only place where he supposedly says this
is in Acts (21:39 & 22:3), but nowhere in his letters does he tell us where
he is from. Again, just because Luke says Paul was from Tarsus is
insufficient, given what I see as the unreliableness of Luke. I, rather,
surmised that he may have come from Damascus (but I admit it is a
supposition). Speaking of Damascus, however, brings up another problem I
have with Luke. Luke has Paul, supposedly a Pharisee, seeking arrest
warrants from the High Priest, a Sadducee, so he can arrest Christians in
Damascus (Acts 9:2). Now what's wrong with this picture? Well, first of
all, the Sadducees were collaborators with the Romans and the Pharisees and
the common people hated them. Second, the High Priest had no jurisdiction
outside of Jerusalem. Third, Damascus was an independent Arab state at
this time. Arrest warrants from the High Priest in Jerusalem would
certainly have no legal standing in Damascus, nor would the authorities
there allow its citizens (even if they were Jews) to be carted off in
chains to Jerusalem. The whole story makes no sense.
Paul indeed says he was unknown BY FACE to the churches of JUDEA (Gal.
1:22) But had Paul actually gone about "making havoc of the church,
entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to
prison" (Acts 8:3), I would think all the churches of Judea would have a
pretty good idea of what he looked like so they could avoid him (unless, of
course, he was wearing a hood and white sheet).
Now, you say there were "two parts to the meeting" in Jerusalem., but I
think the confusion stems from the fact that Paul went to Jerusalem twice
(First time, Gal. 1:17-20 and then 14 years later, Gal. 2:1-10). Here I
agree that Paul's details are so few that it is difficult to make much out
of them (especially when you consider the confusing phrase: "And I went up
by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among
the Gentiles" (Gal. 2:2). Pray tell, what does he mean he went up "by
revelation"? Was it another "vision" like the one he had on the way to
Damascus?
Well, this is getting a bit long so I guess I'd better save the rest for
later. So far I am willing to grant you that there MIGHT have been TWO
high priests at the time when John the Baptist began preaching...depending,
of course, on who is doing the counting. I am also willing to grant that
the meeting Paul speaks of in Chapter 2 of Galatians MAY have been the one
Luke describes in Chapter 15 of Acts (instead of the meeting mentioned in
Chapter 1), but the details are too meager to make a just comparison. But
we still have a problem with the timing of the insurrection of Theudas.
While it is POSSIBLE there was a SECOND Theudas whom Josephus didn't
mention, I find it unlikely. We also have the problem of Luke's different
version of the circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth [although, frankly, I
find Luke's version (except for the pagan virgin birth nonsense and the
excuse of a census to get Joseph and Mary out of Nazareth into Bethlehem)
more PROBABLE (i.e., consistent with what we otherwise know of first
century history) than Matthew's version.
END OF PART ONE OF RESPONSE