Diogenes the Cynic

The text clearly and unambiguously says that Herod sent the magi to Bethlehem. There is no doubt at all that the family is meant to be understood as living in Bethlehem. Trying to argue for any kind ambiguity or loophole is tendentious to the point of dishonest.

mountainman

But the text itself clearly and unambiguously may be fictional (and/or dishonest).

Diogenes the Cynic

No maybe about it, the material in both books is fictional, but that's really beside the point as it it pertains to literary dependency. The contradictions remain regardless.

Adam

Here in your #37 and again in your #48, you ask for a source for the similarities between the Synoptics on one hand and gJohn on the other. Already in my OP in my 628-post thread Gospel Eyewitnesses I showed that the scholarly-established Passion Narrative constitutes almost all the shared material. I merely extend the Passion Narrative to be the source under gJohn as well as the Synoptics. I even claim that the source version in gJohn is closest to the original version.

jdl

If, as I believe, and as many have argued, the nativity stories and genealogies either predate or postdate the gospels to which they are attached, then the issue of their disagreement has no bearing on the Farrer hypothesis.

sotto voce

The important issue is whether biblical belief is credible, not whether it's true or not. When clever Greeks and Jews went to Constantine, having been charged with finding objection to it (though needing no such urging), they had nothing positive to report. The gospels were in accord with what was known, and what had been known, about censuses, and about politics, since their lovely old chum Trajan had ruled, two hundred years earlier. The accounts of Matthew and Luke had been compared and contrasted in detail, and the conclusion had long been drawn that the magi had found Jesus in Nazareth, despite being born in Bethlehem. All the boxes were ticked, dammit. So the wise old Greeks and the equally wise old Jews picked up their courage, and told Constantine, "It's time you had a vision, your godness. Don't worry, we'll give you every support. We have even drafted legislation to take account of your conversion." And so, it was arranged. Everyone was paid off, or bumped off; and now Ratzinger is pontiff, for those who see visions and stuff.

Diogenes the Cynic

Not a sentence of this is true.

James Brown

Sounds like alternative universe fanfic.

Adam

Duvduv,
Did you like my answer in #74 to your question in your #37 and #48? That gJohn is the source of the Passion Narrative?

Gundulf

(I'd always assumed that Mary and Joseph wouldn't live in a barn indefinitely...)

MRS. Incredible: I thought you said you'd be back by 11:00.
MR. Incredible: I said I'd be back "later."
MRS. Incredible: I assumed you'd be back later. If you came back at all you'd be back "later."

(from The Incredibles)

He doesn't specify a number of days, he simply mentions that it was "after" all the legalities were completed (which, yes, by definition would take no less than 8). But he simply says their return was "after.". two years, ten years. Etc. Would be "after.". there are tons of things like this in the NT narratives, especially considering the authors were arranging material often to make theological points, not simply to record histories.

Um, the "kings that matter"? That would be, um, David? Luke lists the son of David Jesus descended from as being Nathan... That pretty much ends any royal lineage right there, no? Are you referring to something else I'm missing?

OF COURSE it is a completely different story. One happened without question when Jesus was older, probably a minimum of 1 year old, the other happened (as you pointed out) between the time Jesus was between 0 and 8 DAYS old.

If someone recorded something that happened in my family's life on the day I was born, and someone else recorded some event that happened on my first birthday, I would assume they would be two totally different stories. If they WEREN'T totally different, THEN I would conclude that (at least) one of those historians was an idiot.

Seriously, I'm willing to entertain various problems between Matthew and Luke, but this isn't one of them.... An incident about Jesus life when he was 1 day old is different than this incident when he was 365 days old.... And this is supposed to be a problem? Seriously, why not point out that Luke's account of Jesus' early life is totally different than Matthew's, since Luke's account (the incident of Jesus in the temple when Jesus was 12) is totally different than Matthews account of the same event since there are no wise men.....