Re: [asa] Grains among the chaff (skimming the 'God Delusion')

From: <>
Date: Mon Mar 31 2008 - 16:55:15 EDT

I've faced most of the litany of discrepancies (genealogies, empty tomb
scenarios, chronology problems, etc.) & become settled about literary devices or
other accommodations even if I haven't settled where interpretive lines should
fall in all cases. Thanks. (It's the old 'jumbled eyewitness testimonies so
it must be genuine' argument like Lewis used. I think it particularly realistic
even though the Dawkins crowd detests that line of reasoning and loves to say
so. But that isn't the heart of our faith anyway.)


Quoting Michael Roberts <>:

> Merv and Charles
> That is why I yawned. I will yawn again as I consider that Dawk went to
> Oxford where the college structure enables or even makes it unavoidable for
> students to mix extensively with students studying other subjects. Hence any
> Oxford undergrad, unless a total recluse or hopelessly tied up with chicks*,
> would be part of a group and partake of intellectual discussion across the
> subjects, and learn what others were doing. It was a simple way of giving Gen
> Ed courses. That meant for me that I learnt from those studying French and
> German literature, philosophy, classics, theology, history, economics,
> psychology, metallurgy, chemistry, music etc. Despite my then lack of belief
> I picked up much basic theology from 3 theology undergrads, - 2 American one
> an atheist ex RC monk, and the other a budding Episcopalian priest. That in
> combination with chapel groups gave me wide knowledge. Dawk not only went
> through that but for 40 years has been a don at New College, and could hardly
> have avoided discussions in the Senior Common Room with theologians. Hence I
> have little tolerance for his attitudes and studied ignorance of
> Christianity.
> Dawk doesn't even seem to have read the Gospels. and his description of Matt
> and Luke is poor.
> I am aware many flounder on these questions and a major part of the problem
> is the popular literalism, which I have often found in the Anglican church
> among members. The Bible has been presented as uniform either all literally
> true or all myth, but the "official view" being the former. Hence problems
> rise over birth narratives, revelation, the prophets and Genesis. Teaching at
> all levels helps but sadly many don't see this as relevant and prefer a
> simple faith. This may seem patronising but I have found this among all
> levels of ability and in Britain it comes out every Christmas when
> journalists suddenly discover that there weren't 3 wise men etc.
> Undoubtedly Peter Enns would help and much basic biblical interpretation of
> the past
> Michael
> * Dawk's D Phil thesis was on the pecking order of chicks.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Charles Carrigan
> To: ;
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 5:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Grains among the chaff (skimming the 'God Delusion')
> Merv-
> It's no mystery that the stories in the various gospel accounts, even the
> three synoptic gospels, cannot be combined into a single coherent historical
> account without some very difficult problems. If Dawkins thinks this is a
> problem that's just silly. Try "combining" the 4 resurrection stories
> sometime. To think that the Church fathers were unaware of this seems kind
> of ridiculous. It is surprising the poor understanding of scripture that
> people can develop by not reading it. Rather than being a problem, I think
> it instead gives the gospels even more historical credibility.
> Best,
> Charles
> >>> Merv <> 3/31/2008 12:16 AM >>>
> At our public library, finding its two A. McGrath's holdings ("D.Delusion &
> Twilight of Atheism), I also saw Dawkins' "God Delusion" (three shiny
> copies!) right next to them and couldn't resist.
> Now, after having skimmed it (Dawkins' book) at home looking for anything
> that might be interesting or genuinely insightful, I did find one question
> that provoked me to look into something in Scriptures. He finds in the
> Matthew and Luke accounts of Jesus' childhood obviously contradictory
> accounts regarding childhood travels. Here, any such interest as Dawkins may
> have purported to have stops, since to him this is only one more
> 'incoherence' of scripture. But my interest is piqued. Here is what
> Dawkins' said that caught my attention (p. 93) I'll just summarize it.
> Dawkins writes to this effect:
> ...that Luke has Mary & Joseph living in Nazareth, traveling to Bethlehem,
> fleeing to Egypt, and then returning to Nazareth after Herod dies. Whereas
> Matthew has the family living in Bethlehem all along. (I guess D. gets this
> from Matt 2:19-23 which seem to suggest that Nazareth was an unplanned
> arrival point rather than a home returned to.)
> Dawkins also states that Luke's claim about the Roman census, which can be
> independently verified, shows the whole Luke account to be a fabrication
> since the only census that occurred was a local one, and was too late for
> Luke's purposes, being in AD 6 after Herod's death.
> All this made me wonder how theologians have answered (or not answered)
> some of this, or if Dawkins' facts are just plain wrong (His other assertions
> about Scripture that I ran across were light weight --- he can pontificate on
> how, even in the N.T., Jewish morality and decency towards 'neighbors' meant
> only 'fellow Jews' with nary a mention of Jesus' teaching of the good
> Samaritan so far as I could find.)
> But sorting out the childhood travels of the holy family I find more
> interesting:
> Matthew states that immediately after the magi visit (to the house in
> Bethlehem), the holy family fled to Egypt. So why does Luke never mention
> the flight to Egypt, but makes it sound like they return forthwith to
> Nazareth after the circumcision (eighth day) and purification rites in
> Jerusalem? What are the developed answers theologians have given to these
> over the ages?
> I don't raise these questions in the same spirit as Dawkins does (indeed,
> to him they are not questions at all) Unlike him, I am actually interested
> in the truth. So are his challenges actually real ones here? I should
> probably go and review the astronomical Star of Bethlehem project again, if I
> could find it. It seemed he had quite a bit to say about some timelines
> that may have answered this.
> (I pasted in Dawkin's actual paragraphs on this below for the curious.)
> --Merv
> p.s. Dave Opderbec, thanks for the A.McGrath suggestion; he looks like an
> excellent author, and I'll be reading his work now too.
> p.p.s. (from a 'Pontius Puddle' religious cartoon):
> Said parishioner to Pontius: "How was Sunday school this morning?"
> Replied Pontius: "Great! I scuttled two shallow convictions, exposed
> three misconceptions, and crushed one individual's entire belief system!"
> Parting remark of parishioner: "I had no idea religion could be such a
> contact sport!"
> Actual paragraphs from Dawkins' (er - excuse me) "God Delusion" p. 93
> Matthew and Luke handle the problem differently, by deciding that Jesus
> must have been born in Bethlehem after all. But they get him there by
> different routes. Matthew has Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem all along, moving
> to Nazareth only long after the birth of Jesus, on their return from Egypt
> where they fled from King Herod and the massacre of the innocents. Luke, by
> contrast, acknowledges that Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth before Jesus
> was born. So how to get them to Bethlehem at the crucial moment, in order to
> fulfill the prophecy? Luke says that, in the time when Cyrenius (Quirinius)
> was governor of Syria, Caesar Augustus decreed a census for taxation
> purposes, and everybody had to go 'to his own city'. Joseph was 'of the
> house and lineage of David' and therefore he had to go to the city of David,
> which is called Bethlehem'. That must have seemed like a good solution.
> Except that historically it is complete nonsense, as A.N. Wilson in [...&
> others ...] have pointed out. David ... lived nearly a thousand years before
> Mary and Joseph. Why on earth would the Romans have required Joseph to go to
> the city where a remote ancestor had lived a millennium earlier? It is as
> though I were required to specify [...yada yada yada..]
> Dawkins continues in the next paragraph:
> Moreover, Luke screws up his dating by tactlessly mentioning events that
> historians are capable of independently checking. There was indeed a census
> under governor Quirinius - a local census, not one decreed by Caesar Augustus
> for the Empire as a whole -- but it happened too late: in AD 6, long after
> Herod's death.
> --end of quote from Dawkins' book.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Mar 31 16:56:13 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Mar 31 2008 - 16:56:13 EDT