spin

While not being too cunning with the Greek tongue, I'll hazard to comment.

Mt uses paidion eg 2:8 which is a diminuitive of pais, so we are definitely dealing with a little child. But I think Luke goes one step further using the term brefos which could even be used for a child in the womb, 1:41 as well as for the new-born child, 2:16. I'd say Luke's brefos is definitely younger than Matt's paidion.

Now I'll put that tongue back in my mouth.


spin

CX

Your analysis looks spot on to me.

spin

Evil's got it.

There is almost nothing that is similar about the two accounts except for the names of the participants and the place of birth. Evil is right about Matt having the family living in Bethlehem. In fact, when Matt moves them back from Egypt, they were heading back to Judea, presumably back to Bethlehem, but Archelaus scared them out of that idea so they went to live in Nazareth in order to fulfill a prophecy. They had clearly never lived in Nazareth before this.

Now Matt's Egyptian excursion is impossible given Luke's chronology. Jesus gets circumcised at eight days, then presented in the temple in Jerusalem after the mother's 33 days of purification, so Luke has Jesus in the temple at 33 days, yet Matt whizzes them off to Egypt a.s.a.p.

It is really interesting how we so easily conflate the two stories, but then we've had them conflated for us all our lives.


spin

spin

Thanks.

It could be though that Matthean writer's command of Greek wasn't as good as the writer of Luke!


spin

CX

Hmmm...that seems unlikely given AMt's proficient use of Greek syntax and idiom. Additionally, AMt knows the word NEPIOS and uses it twice. One would presume he would use this word if he really meant to describe a baby Jesus versus a young child. Thus despite the fact that he does not use the more obscure BREFOS, he certainly has the vocabulary to distinguish between a baby and a young child.

Amaleq13

spin,


IYO, does Matthew's birth story qualify as a midrash of the birth story of Moses?

spin

I don't see how one might think it was, but I haven't thought about it very much. The stories seem so different. There are a number of HB sources for the birth story, including the birth of Samson and of Samuel.


spin

spin

You could be right. It just may be that the writer didn't feel the need. You can imagine a modern mother talking of her little boy, when the child is less than a year old. There's nothing strange there. Perhaps, instead of "lack of command" I could have said "lack of need for the specificity". And my only interest is to say that one may not read too much into Matt's choice of words to ascertain anything about the age of the child.


spin

rlogan

Hey - could there be a HB source for the magi? And the star?

Numbers 24:17 Tells us a Star shall arise out of jacob.

Psalm 72:10 Says 'kings" will give him gifts. From Sheba.

Isaiah 60:3 And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.

Isaiah 60:6 Says those from Sheba bring him gold and incense

Daniel 9:25 says he's a prince. Hence the gold. Also see 1 Kings 10:2

Daniel 9:27 says he'll be whacked. Hence the Frankincense (the sacrificial fumigant) and the myrrh (embalming agent)

See also Psalm 141:2 on Frankincense



These gospel perps are shameless. Prophesy dumpster divers.

Steven Carr

On the cross, Jesus refuses the drugged wine, showing that at the end of his life, he didn't have the scents he was born with.