http://www.welt.de/geschichte/article15 ... nd-wo.html
I don't know if this article reflects Klinghardt's view and to which extent.It is said that Jesus was born in Bethlehem during a census taken when Quirinius was governor of Syria, in the 6-7 EC, but it is also said that King Herod the Great, who died in 4 ECB, tried to kill the newborn Jesus. Between these two dates there are ten years apart. The Bible said so. Then how do you explain?
Generations of theologians have been working on this problem, but "the oldest Gospel" recently rebuilt by the theologian Matthias Klinghardt says nothing about this.
According Klinghardt this gospel, which raised great hostility against the Christian theologian heretic Marcionwas used in the middle of the second century, as a model for the four canonical Gospels. However, in Marcion there is not a word on the birthplace of Jesus, nor on the year of birth.
The Gospel of Mark, which provides the oldest tradition in the life of Jesus, knows nothing of the census and the birth in Bethlehem.
To solve this problem arose a particular theological discipline, the search for the historical Jesus, dedicated to one purpose for which the early Christians did not give any importance, because they were not interested on how the man lived or to where Jesus was born.
Only when they realized they no longer had to expect the return of their Lord in the near future, they began to sketch out a picture of his life.
This occurred, according to the conventional acceptance, as soon as in the 70s of the first century.
From then on, each generation added other stories in this framework.
Yet researchers of the historical Jesus, with a few puzzle contradictory elements, composed a story fairly consistent.
The key to this is a tradition in which Matthew and Luke agree. Both report that Jesus grew up in Nazareth by the Sea of Galilee, before he became a famous itinerant preacher. But because they were both embarrassed by his birth in Bethlehem?
Because in the Old Testament King David he was born there, as they say in the first book of Samuel, and the Messiah was to be his descendant, as the prophet Micah had prophesied.
This imposed the two evangelists the right of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem.
For them, the probative value theology was more important than historical truth.
This also includes the erroneous idea of a census, because the Romans were not so strange as to compel persons subject to them to return to the land of their ancestors to be counted.
The conflict within the story of the birth in the Gospel of Luke, is explained once again with theology. Luke linked the life of Jesus with the great changes of the time.
From the works of Josephus, he knew about the importance of the census of Quirinius for the inhabitants of Judea. With the census, they were subjected to Rome and the Imperial Treasury. In this act of submission to imperial power, Luke can see the future master of the world as a theological symbol and authentic witness at the same time.
Which then connects to Luke, Matthew, Herod called the murderess to witness to his story of the birth of Jesus, this has theological reasons. For Matthew as of primary importance to a Jewish audience it was plausible that Jesus was the Son of God. And for this collected evidence from the Old Testament. The reference to infanticide by Herod found him in Jeremiah, and was both a reason for the flight into Egypt (Hosea out of Egypt I called my son).
The characterization of Herod as a murderess of children was plausible for the Jews, and the fact that this tyrant was threatening the life of Jesus also called to mind Moses, who was persecuted by the pharaoh.
And then there was the story of the star and the Magi. Again there is a theological reason. In the 4th Book of Moses (Numbers) it is reported as saying by the prophet Balaam : "It will come a Star out of Jacob, and a scepter will rise out of Israel."
In original Greek, the star is precisely identified by the "Three Wise Men", another reminder that Matthew addresses his Jewish audience.
The Magi in Mesopotamia were not only called astronomers, but also in Iran priests of fire. In any case, these Magi were from Parthian Empire, the great adversary of Rome, who went to pay tribute and bowed to the future Messiah: Another theological point, another clear message.
But it's interesting to see a new hypothesis on the contradictions about dating of the birth, etc, as effects of the more general reaction against Marcion.
But I see a contradiction:
if the silence about historical Jesus in Paul is explained as implicit knowledge of a historical Jesus (see Bart Ehrman), then why that effect:
It seems strange (=unexpected, = unlikely) that the fathers did not need to hear about a historical Jesus because they already knew implicitly him (alluded to in Paul's epistles), but their children suddenly find themselves ignorant of a historical Jesus of the Gospels and in dramatic need of one.Only when they realized they no longer had to expect the return of their Lord in the near future, they began to sketch out a picture of his life.