rhutchin

I agree. You make THE important observation - According to Luke, Jesus was the son of God. I am amazed at the number of people who do not understand this (or do not seem to understand). You get a gold star.

Now, go back and analyze the genealogy provided by Luke and tell us how you think Luke may have intended the Qualifier -- as was supposed -- to be understood in context with Luke's contention that Jesus was the son of God. See if you can discover what other people miss.

rhutchin

Sure, the meaning of the phrases that Luke uses, as you note, are key to what he means. I agree that Luke was likely an eyewitness to much of what you wrote (let’s say that he was in his 20s when Jesus was crucified and was one of His disciples). Later, in Acts 1, when the apostles choose a person to replace Judas, Luke is not among the choices suggesting that his association with Christ came after the event of John’s baptism. However, Luke then describes events to which he could not have been an eyewitness. He could, however, have known people who were eyewitnesses. His claim of “perfect understanding" suggests that he talked with these people directly and not through secondary sources. I don’t see that much disagreement between us on this point.

Whether a person believes the historical account is a matter of faith. I do not buy into the basis for believing that Luke is not a true account. While there may have been a Q document, we do not have it and cannot examine it. We may simply have had each of the apostles repeating their experiences with Christ through sermons that were given many times to many people and nothing was actually written down (or not in a formal manner). I think Luke had the Mark account and like Matthew built on that account proving additional information not included in the Mark account.

We have the evidence provided in the accounts themselves. Luke, Matthew and Mark were (if we believe the accounts) real people who lived in the first century and were connected with the early church. I don’t see where church “tradition” is all that suspect or is automatically suspect.

From what I have read, Herod’s action would have involved a relatively few children (20 or less) in a small, insignificant town, and would have been inconsequential compared to the other events in the life of Herod. The event may not have made the 6 o’clock news and may have been overlooked by other historians. However, I do think Matthew is tying Jesus to Moses since Moses was, according to some, a type of the Messiah.

My impression is that Luke did not try to repeat that which Matthew and Mark had written except where he intended to emphasize common themes.

It seems clear to me that Matthew started with Mark and expanded the account. Luke then copied parts from those documents. I have no problem with the similarities. The alleged contradictions are debatable.

My suspicion is that Luke wrote of those things of which he was able to gain precise information. The early accounts seem to have Mary as their source. Mary would not have been an eyewitness of the tragedy at Bethlehem and would not have been a good source of information. I think Luke did not have any additional information to add the account in Matthew so he left it alone. Your analogy is not exactly true to the point you seek to make.

Dean Anderson

When we look at this qualifier in the Greek, it is obvious that your interpretation doesn't fit and is only based on the KJV English translation.

The Greek says...

[...] ετων τριακοντα ων υιος ως ενομιζετο ιωσηφ τον ηλι τον μαθθατ τον λευι [...]

...which we can transliterate as...

[...] eton triakonta on vios os enomizeto Ioseph ton Eli ton Matthat ton Levi [...]

The translation of this into English is:

[...] age thirty son as thought Joseph of Heli of Matthat of Levi [...]

It can be plainly seen here, that "Ioseph ton Eli" is the standard genealogical construction used when naming people ("Joseph of Heli"). It fits exactly with the continuing of this genealogical list, which is tracing anscestors back - as we can see, we get "Joseph of Heli of Matthat of Levi" and so-on, in a formulaic genealogical list.

However, the relationship between Jesus and Joseph is explained using non-standard terminology. We don't get "Iesus ton Ioseph" ("Jesus of Joseph"). Instead we get "Iesus on vios Ioseph" - literally, "Jesus, Joseph's son").

rhutchin would have us believe that we should ignore the plain meaning of this Greek, which is "Jesus, son (as thought) of Joseph-of-Heli-of-Matthat-of..." in favour of a reading where the "ton Eli" is inexplicably not part of the standard genealogical formula that it sits in the middle of, but is actually referring to Jesus's relationshp to Heli through Mary.

He wants us to chop the standard genealogical construct in two, and assume that although the rest of it ("Eli ton Matthat ton Levi ton...") is a normal recitiation of pedigree, the first part ("Ioseph ton Eli") which is grammatically identical and physically forms part of it has a totally different meaning, where the "ton Eli" does not link the preceding person to the following person in a father-son relationship, but instead refers to someone spoken about in an earlier statement.

This is, of course, totally ridiculous. rhutchin may be able to argue that the ambiguous English translation can be read in the way he needs it to be to support inerrancy, but not the unambiguous formulaic Greek.

Ironic, really, because most inerrantists claim that it is the original Greek/Hebrew that is inerrant and not the faulty English translations!

Julian

There are differences in the Greek between TR and NA26/27. TR (using Stephanus 1550) says:

και αυτος ην ο ιησους ωσει ετων τριακοντα αρχομενος ων ως ενομιζετο υιος ιωσηφ του ηλι

which word for word translates to:

And he was the Jesus as if of years thirty beginning being as supposed son of Joseph of Heli...

and in real English

And Jesus himself was beginning to be around thirty years of age being, as supposed, the son of Joseph of Heli...

and the better Greek version says

και αυτος ην Ιησους αρχομενος ωσει ετων τριακοντα ων υιος ως ενομιζετο Ιωσηφ του Ηλι...

which translates as

And he was Jesus beginning as if of years thirty being son as supposed of Joseph of Heli...

and in real English

And Jesus himself was beginning to be around thirty years of age being the son, as supposed, of Joseph of Heli

Του is the genitive form of the definite article ὁ or just ο if no τονοι are used. The definite article is not used in Greek as it is in English. It is frequently used in front of names, and it can be used by itself. This would be translated into English as 'The one.' In the case above του is clearly a genitive form meaning 'of the Heli' or The Heli's which is just another method of showing possession. Clearly the word του indicates a genealogy, I doubt anyone would dispute that. The τον format indicated by Pervy does not occur and is probably just an oversight on his part. Τον is a masculine accusative form only and would indicate that something is being done to Heli which would not occur without a predicate, not present here.

The presence of ως ενομιζετο, meaning supposedly or as supposed, is present in all major exemplars (notably absent in 579 and W) and its originality cannot be reasonably disputed. The author clearly mean to to cast doubt, in the reader's mind, on the genealogy of Jesus, i.e. people in the story supposed that Jesus was the son of Joseph of Heli and so on, but the reader knows better.

Just a quick analysis.

Julian

Dean Anderson

Thanks for the clarification, Julian.

I did indeed misread "του" as "τον" (I blame the font on the text that I was reading - the letters look very similar in it). Doh!

As you say, unfortunately for rhutchin the formulaic geneaology with repetition of the genitive "του" form is just as damning to his interpretation. It unambiguously places Joseph as the person who's geneaology is being recited, not Jesus.

The Evil One

I am actually fairly sure now that I have misread that passage. When i commented before, I had only read the KJV passage you cited. Now I have read four or five different translations (which, since unlike Pervy I don't know Greek, is the closest I can get to the original). I will break down the passage as I now read it.

"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us"

Lots of people have written books about what we believe (who is we? presumably "we Christians")

"Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word"

This confused me at first, because I thought that "us" was the antecedent of the relative pronoun. I see now that the antecedent of the relative pronoun must be "they" or else "they" is underspecified. So this means

These people have written about our beliefs in exactly the same terms as we got the said beliefs from the people who were eye witnesses and disciples/apostles

"It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee "

So the ALuke is saying that because he understands the material so well, he's at least as good a person to write a gospel as those who have already written gospels.

I don't think this supports your interpretation. Firstly, the notion that "many" have written accounts of Christian beliefs suggests (if true) that GLuke is a late text, making it less not more likely that he was / spoke to eyewitnesses. Secondly, he makes no claim whatsoever to have "talked to the people involved and got his information directly from those who witnessed the events of which he wrote", which is what you originally claimed. Instead, he says that "we" originally got the beliefs from people who were eyewitnesses. Who is "we"? Well, maybe it means ALuke and some other person who just hasn't been mentioned. Or maybe it means ALuke's church community. Or maybe it means "We Christians". In the latter two cases, this entire passage just collapses back down to the claim of the church to apostolic tradition, because if all ALuke is saying is that "we here at my church" or "we Christians" originally got their beliefs from eyewitnesses, then there is absolutely no implication that he himself spoke to these eyewitnesses. It could equally have been the founders of his church fifty or seventy years ago who spoke to the eyewitnesses.

Note that ALuke's claim to be a suitable person to write about all of this is not linked to the eyewitnesses. The eyewitnesses are linked to the general Christian beliefs. His claims of suitability are instead founded on him understanding all this stuff very well. I'll comment below on "perfect understanding".


You could say that. But you would have absolutely no reason at all for saying so other than that it supports your claim that Luke had spoken to eyewitnesses. It is an entirely unmotivated assumption.

That is one thing that the words might conceivably have meant. Another thing that the words "perfect understanding" might conceivably mean is that ALuke is claiming to have a comprehensive familiarity with the oral tradition of his church. There is a very great variation in the translation of that clause in the different translations I have read in any case, e.g.

YLT - "having followed from the first after all things exactly"
ASV - "having traced the course of all things accurately from the first"
KJV - "having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first"
NIV - "since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning"

(and those are the most similar!) so I will refrain from further comment unless one of the Greek scholars wants to chip in.

I won't address this unless you give a precise definition of what you mean by faith, since my experience is that Christians don't have any consistent usage of this term and I don't want to argue against something that you don't actually believe. But I will note briefly, however, that by calling it a "historical account" you are presuming the very point that is in question.

If Q didn't exist, then the phenomenon whereby GMatthew and GLuke quote the same sayings of Jesus, but embed them in radically different situations, is seriously in need of explanation - particularly if you're going to keep claiming that both are based on eyewitness accounts.

Note, incidentally, that ALuke's use of Q does not mean that his account is not true. What it means is that any claim he makes to have been an eyewitness/ gotten his info from eyewitnesses is false. But as I say above, I consider it unlikely that he actually does make any such claim.

But why on earth would he need to, if as you claim he had access to Mary, Peter, Andrew, and whoever else? Why on earth would AMatthew need to lift text from Mark, if he was as you claim actually there on the spot himself?

Well it's pretty obvious that they were connected with the early church, or they wouldn't have been concerned with Jesus. The question is, how early? Anyway, let's say I grant that the internal evidence of the gospels prove that each of these authors was a real C1 individual. That is a long way from demonstrating that ALuke had interacted with Paul or the apostles, or that AMatt was the same as the character of Matthew. And the gospels are still anonymous (I'm glad you didn't attempt to argue that).

It's automatically suspect because (1) it's late in comparison to the texts themselves - time enough for a legendary origin to be attributed to the texts and (2) because it dates from a time when competing factions of the church founded claims for the truth of their doctrine on the basis of its apostolic origin. Which is an excellent motive to make a claim that something originates from an apostle even if it didn't.

Please cite some of the massacres of randomly-selected children that were apparently so frequent in the life of Herod that this one would not attract notice. I'm being sarcastic, of course, but your claim is absurd. Given how frequently women gave birth in ancient times, I’d guess that pretty much every household in the Bethlehem area would have had a child or two in the right age range. Was Bethlehem, the City of David, really so tiny that there were only 20 households in the entire town and surrounding area? Let me give you an example of an action of Herod that Josephus complained about:

So, according to you, Josephus will finger a law imposing a non-Mosaic punishment on house-breakers as an example of "insolence" and "tyranny" but will "overlook" the slaughter of every infant in the city of David and surrounding region all in one go?


You should, because according to you AMatthew was an eyewitness. Why would an eyewitness need to copy the words of someone else who wasn't an eyewitness? Why would the ALuke you believe in, the investigative-journalist-type who has interrogated all the eyewitnesses he can find, have bothered to do so if he was just going to copy (and alter) the words of Matthew?

Indeed, we are debating them, but you have yet to demonstrate any harmonisation that does not encounter serious problems, such as the fact that it is not possible for there to have been a Roman census in Judaea prior to the death of Herod.

You've said before that you consider Mary to be the source. I agree that if you assume that the conversations in chapter 1 are actual historical events that really happened then the account could only have been written by Mary or someone who had talked to her. The problem is that there is no particular reason to assume that the conversations in chapter 1 really happened.

There are also problems with assuming that Luke is relating only what Mary saw with her own two eyes, namely that he doesn't only omit the slaughter, but also the flight into Egypt, which Mary could not have avoided witnessing, if it really happened, which it almost certainly didn't.

Well, we've flogged the slaughter of the children to death, so let's move on. Where did Jospeh, Mary & baby Jesus go when they left Bethlehem?

Luke: " 21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb. 22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord"

There follows an extended scene in Jerusalem.

"39 And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth."

Not much wriggle room here. Circumcision: ritual purification: Jerusalem: Nazareth.

How about Matthew:

" 7 Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. 8 And he sent them to Bethlehem"

They follow the star,

"11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him:"

"13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. 14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: 15 And was there until the death of Herod:"

No room for wriggle here either: the Magi worship Jesus in Bethlehem, then Joseph has a dream, then straight to Egypt. A direct contradiction between GMatthew and GLuke.

The only potential harmonisation I can think of would be if it were claimed that the visit of the Magi came after the business at the temple. But then the Magi would have been going to Nazareth, not Bethlehem, so that doesn't work, because Matthew hasn't mentioned Nazareth at all yet, and when he does he strongly implies that it was NOT where Joseph had fled from (see below).

Had Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth prior to the birth of Jesus? Luke is pretty clear that the answer is yes: "they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth". What does Matthew say?

"19 But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, 20 Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life. 21 And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel. 22 But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: 23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth:"

Absolutely clear: Joseph WOULD have returned to Judaea, but he was afraid of / warned about Archelaus. He would not have gone to Galilee otherwise. He was clearly not a native of Nazareth, which is being introduced here as if for the first time. Another direct, irreconcilable contradiction. That makes four in the Nativity account. Isn't this fun?

JoeWallack

Faith



JW:
Hello.

To give you some idea of the Scope of this Bible "Difficulty" the majority of your fellow Christians here such as Smith, Criddle and Don (but not Carlson) would Confess to us that there Probably is a Contradiction error between "Matthew" and "Luke" as to the Date of Jesus' supposed Birth.

All Significant Apologetic attempts accept that Herod the Great died around 4 BCE and that Josephus reported a census of Judea by Quirinius, governor of Syria, around 6 CE. All of these Apologies try to argue that when "Luke" writes:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Luke_2

2:1 "Now it came to pass in those days, there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be enrolled.

2:2 This was the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria."

"Luke" is referring to a Different census than Josephus was.

Here is an Inventory of the best freely available Defenses I've found on the Internet:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Luke_2:2#Neutral

which will help bring you up to speed. Even as an Unbeliever I can testify as to the power of Scripture as I myself saw it transform Ramsey from a Historian into an Apologist. Hallelulah!

After your review would you be so kind as to pick out a Defense as currently you argue that there is no Birth Dating error between "Luke" and "Matthew" but you don't have any argument so it makes it awfully difficult to point out problems with your argument. Now you do have the option of just staying with your argument by Assertion which I suppose I would have to rank above most of the defenses I've seen as it doesn't Explicitly break any grammatical rules or guidelines or refer to an impossible census.

I request that you respond in the:

Carrier's Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth Now Up At ErrancyWiki

Thread which is Devotional to the Subject so we don't get distracted by other Topics. There's not much of significance happening there right now anyway.



Joseph

FAITH, n.
Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Jack the Bodiless

If Luke's Jesus was "about thirty years of age" when he started preaching, and was born in 6 AD, and preached for... what, 2 years?

Then he must have been crucified in 38 AD or thereabouts: rather later than Christian tradition (indeed, 2 years after Pilate's prefecture). Though "about" gives a little leeway.

Of course, the Herod/Quirinius contradiction remains unresolved. And, as Jesus supposedly died young, this makes if even more surprising that his followers couldn't agree on his age at the time, to within a decade.

Though the reference to Elizabeth indicates that Luke was himself pretty confused.

An argument for Jesus-mythicism, perhaps?

aa5874

The context clearly does not allow for Mary to be of Heli in Luke.

jeremyp

Could it be that the Herod referred to by Luke is actually Herod Archelaus? That would make the chronology fit with Quirinius's taking over straight after.

Or, writing from the perspective of a hundred years later, he got the Herods confused?