mens_sana

There is a little problem there, isn't there? I suppose someone will try to harmonize the accounts, but the only way that can be done is to ignore timing and Luke's assertion that the family went back to Nazareth right away. Considering that Matthew repeatedly hints that Jesus is not only the new Moses, but better than Moses, the trip down to Egypt and back along with Herod's slaughter of the kiddies suggests the Mosaic literary theme — not historical events.

A rather nice irony here also — we wouldn't be having any of these problems if the Church hadn't banned Tatian's Diatessaron. (Chuckle)

Chili

It is not that difficult to do that, really, if you consider that Moses had no bussiness parting the waters to get into the promised land where they remained lost until they died nonetheless. Had they returned to Nazareth where Mary came to from upon high they would have been in the fullness of truth in the beauty of Mary that surrounds this truth.

You might even find that in Matthew it was Joseph who led them to Egypt while in Luke it was Mary who led them to Nazareth.

BTW, this kind of shreds the synoptic idea but that is not really a problem for me.

ksen

I tried looking but couldn't find anything.

Do you have a link handy or a thread title I can search on?

Thanks.

gstafleu

He says "The wind [=spirit, same word in Greek] blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit." The wind/spirit seems to come from "above" to me, so yes, Jesus is disabusing Nicodemus of his erroneous "again" assumption.

Gerard Stafleu

Amaleq13

I thought we had a thread specifically on that subject. My apologies. It is probably mixed in as part of some other discussion.

Luke 2:21-39 is inconsistent with the notion of the family moving to and living in Egypt before living (returning there according to Luke but for the first time according to Matthew) in Nazareth.

Chili

It had nothing to do with the wind Gerard but with the fact that in Aramaic the distinction between above and below is not known and therefore 'again' is sufficient. "Again" includes both from above and below or above would be non-sensical and to Nicodemus "again" was already non-sensical.

Chili

Let me just add here that Galileans themselves did not know the difference between above and below or they would not be the wolf nursing the lamb . . . nor does somebody who claims to be born again, period.

Coleslaw

There's this thread:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...y+Luke+Matthew

One of the early posts has a table showing discrepancies between the two nativity accounts.

Coleslaw

There's also this one:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...y+Matthew+Luke

JoeWallack

JW:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/John_3

1 "Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

2 the same came unto him by night, and said to him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that thou doest, except God be with him.

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother`s womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God!

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born anew.

8 The wind bloweth where it will, and thou hearest the voice thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."

"http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=John&chapter=3&verse=3"

"ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ"

"ἄνωθεν (34) ἄνωθεν (35) Adverb from above, from the beginning
Context in John 3:3 ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ... οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν τὴν
Strongs # 509 from above; by analogy, from the first; by implication, anew"

JW:
Nicodemus' response makes clear that he understood the offending word ἄνωθεν as "anew" (again):

"4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother`s womb, and be born?"

Jesus' response makes clear that Nicodemus has misunderstood the meaning of the offending word as referring to a physical birth:

"5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God!

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

"John" subsequently explains that the "from above" means Heaven:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/John_3:31

"He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is of the earth, and of the earth he speaketh: he that cometh from heaven is above all"

Brownie writes in The Gospel According to John (or via: amazon.co.uk), possibly still the best Critical Commentary, page 134:

"Such a misunderstanding is possible only in Greek; we know of no Hebrew or Aramaic word of similar meaning which would have this spatial and temporal ambiguity."

Brown points out several other problems with historicity on 135:

1) Implication of miracles in Jerusalem but none indicated by previous narrative.

2) Verse 11 in the plural.

3) Verse 13 seems post ascension.

Regarding the possible defense that the historical conversation was in Greek the consensus of Authority is that Jesus and his audiences spoke Aramaic. So the Jew is on the other foot here from the HJ/MJ debate as a Skeptic still needs to demonstrate that the historical Jesus/Nicodemus exchange was likely Aramaic (presumably Jesus/Pilate would have needed an Interpeter, which could potentially explain a lot).

The setting strongly Implies an Aramaic conversation:

1) Location = Jerusalem.

2) Time = Early 1st century

3) Jesus = Native Israelite and Teacher of 1) & 2).

4) Nicodemus = Native Israelite and Teacher of 1) & 2).

Plus there is nothing else in "John" that Explicitly or even strongly Implies any Greek conversation of Jesus although one of the supposed signs over "John's" Jesus was in Greek.



Joseph

INTERPRETER, n.
One who enables two persons of different languages to understand each other by repeating to each what it would have been to the interpreter's advantage for the other to have said.

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