My point was simply in response to Dan who presumed my use of the word “authoritative” was a reference to the Bible’s spiritual authority for believers, as a matter of faith. I meant it more broadly than that. Precious few written histories of that time period are available to us now. Even if one does not accept on faith the spiritual authority of the Bible, it is still a priceless historical document, written by people relatively close in time to the events reported. We don’t have any eyewitness histories from that time period written with the kind of rigor, sourcing, and attention to detail we would have with a 21st century, western history. Matthew is as good as it gets. As such, it should be accorded at least as much credibility by secular historians as other surviving documents from the period.

That’s what I meant to convey by the notion of “burden of proof”. Matthew’s testimony is evidence. Even secular historians of today shouldn’t discount Matthew’s account based on nothing more than modern skepticism. They would need actual evidence that Matthew’s account is incorrect. As far as I know, no such evidence exists.

Amy – Thanks for your confidence. It was a very positive experience. I like your distinction and relationship between delivery and communication effectiveness as well as content and theology. Also, I think appreciate the description of the scripture as not fragile – I had not thought about it in those terms before. What would be a positive word in that description of the scriptures? – flexible? resilient? Interesting thoughts…

Clif – Do you think that there is a difference between being authoritative in matters of faith and authoritative in matters of history? I think that these are tied together, but am not sure what I think about the distinction or lack thereof.

Now, if we had another equally authoritative source that said the magi didn’t come, then a historian would have to sort that out. But we don’t.

As to the magi, I don’t find it so plausible myself. But I don’t think I have near the need for factual evidence as some. Stories are vehicles to convey truth, that can happen with or without solid facts. I guess that comment shows you that I find the Bible “authoritative” for reasons other than it being historically verifiable.

Chuck, I don’t think the Bible near so fragile as you assume. One crack does not sink the whole ship.

Then again, I think they are closely related at the same time. Certainly if a message convicts me as I prepare to deliver it, that will impact the delivery. Plus, we can’t discount the role of the Holy Spirit, for there have been plenty of sermons where I felt like apologizing to the people, yet after almost every one of those someone came up sharing how genuinely touched they were. Believe me, those were all God. Conversely, almost every time I felt like I hit it out of the park, almost everyone left church saying, “See you next week pastor.” Therefore, my silent prayer each week before I preach is ‘Lord, speak through me, and in spite of me.” That really does help me place my focus where it should be, on God’s glory, not mine.

On another note, I really admire you and Nicole. It must take some degree of patience and humility to play second fiddle almost year round in a setting like yours, at least in regard to preaching and leading worship. It’s something I’d have a hard time getting used to, for sure.

Again I tend to disagree – The historicity of the scriptures are essential to maintaining any semblance of authenticity.

I am comfortable with the hypothetical – It might not have happened, but if i actually came to that conclusion it would likely lead me to step away from the faith. From my perspective I would have to commit intellectual malpractice to do any different.

Clearly the Magi are not nearly as central as, say, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, etc. But the issue is the veracity of the Cannon as a Whole. I am with Augustine – Who suggested, if the scriptures are shown to be false in any one instance, then they are fatally flawed from beginning to end.

I think what is crucial is to understand the Authors Intent. If the author was writing history (Genealogy, The historical books, etc) then the historicity of the text is absolutely crucial. If the author is writing poetry (Job perhaps, proverbs, parables, etc) then historicity is not important. Its not as hard as you might think to tell the difference. Clearly Matthew was writing history in the section on the Magi, as was Luke speaking of the Virgin Birth. Thus historicity is crucial, and If I came to doubt it in either instance I would be considering the foundation of my faith. If I became convinced that either was a-historical – Id likely Leave the Faith altogether.

Clif, the burden of proof is what I was trying to say above. However, I might use some caution on the word authoritative. You’re absolutely right, for those of us who believe scripture to be true, the burden of proof is on those arguing that it’s not. But I think it’s important to remember, especially in our increasingly post-Christendom age, that what is authoritative and even normative for us is not the same for everyone. Thus to start from an authoritative view of scripture (while not necessarily wrong) might just close the door on possible fruitful discussion. I think it has a huge implication in relational evangelism today. Remember, for the average unchurched/dechurched person coming to us, the burden of proof is turned around and is most often on us. Why not be vulnerable and say, “this might not have actually happened, but here’s why I believe it did and why it matters to me, and why it might matter to you.”

The bigger point of it all is many of us get too wrapped up in did it happen or not to the point of distracting from greater matters of faith. Whether all biblical events are historical or not, believers throughout the centuries have had faith in them as demonstration of God accomplishing his purposes throughout human history. So why shouldn’t we continue in that same faith that his purposes will continue to be accomplished through us and into the future?

deviantmonk – I appreciate the reminder of the intent of Matthew in Gentile worship and fulfillment of prophecy. I did not know about the suggestion was originally written in Hebrew – although Nicole seemed to think that this is common knowledge, so I think I must have missed that day in seminary. In any case, thanks for your gift of historical perspective, it really adds to the conversation.

All – It would have been great if some of you had been able to respond to this member of the congregation in person. I think that he would have received a much more articulate answer than I was able to give. Thanks!

deviantmonk – I appreciate the reminder of the intent of Matthew in Gentile worship and fulfillment of prophecy. I did not know about the suggestion was originally written in Hebrew – although Nicole seemed to think that this is common knowledge, so I think I must have missed that day in seminary. In any case, thanks for your gift of historical perspective, it really adds to the conversation.

All – It would have been great if some of you had been able to respond to this member of the congregation in person. I think that he would have received a much more articulate answer than I was able to give. Thanks!