Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-07-2012, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

Wonder if I could make an observation - numerous posts on this topic have mentioned the radically different nativity narratives. Am I just being silly to point out that, technically speaking, Matthew has NO nativity narrative? Matthew describes 1) an event that happened (presumably) early in Mary's pregnancy (Joseph & his dream).

2) The very passing mention that Jesus was born, saying only "[Joseph] had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus." That is it.

Then 3) The narrative about the Wise men, etc., happened presumably a year or more later, judging by the point that Herod's proclamation to kill the infants was calculated according to the time the Wise men had seen the star appear.

So, I'm not following the difficulty that some folks seem to see between these two narratives - they describe events that are probably a year if not more apart, no? It strikes me as being as significant as pointing out that Luke's account of Jesus in the temple when he was 12 years old "conflicts" with Matthew's account of Jesus' early life with the wise men...? Or what am I missing?

Well, the biggest, most glaring problem with that is that Luke sets his nativity ten years after Matthew's, so you don't have a solution there, no.

There are also other contradictions, like whether they were originally from Bethlehem or Nazareth. Luke also says they went right back to Nazareth after the birth, so why would Matthew still have them in Bethlehem a year or two later?

There is no harmonizing these stories. Neither author shows any awareness of the other.

Gundulf · 03-07-2012, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

Wonder if I could make an observation - numerous posts on this topic have mentioned the radically different nativity narratives. Am I just being silly to point out that, technically speaking, Matthew has NO nativity narrative? Matthew describes 1) an event that happened (presumably) early in Mary's pregnancy (Joseph & his dream).

2) The very passing mention that Jesus was born, saying only "[Joseph] had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus." That is it.

Then 3) The narrative about the Wise men, etc., happened presumably a year or more later, judging by the point that Herod's proclamation to kill the infants was calculated according to the time the Wise men had seen the star appear.

So, I'm not following the difficulty that some folks seem to see between these two narratives - they describe events that are probably a year if not more apart, no? It strikes me as being as significant as pointing out that Luke's account of Jesus in the temple when he was 12 years old "conflicts" with Matthew's account of Jesus' early life with the wise men...? Or what am I missing?

Well, the biggest, most glaring problem with that is that Luke sets his nativity ten years after Matthew's, so you don't have a solution there, no.

There are also other contradictions, like whether they were originally from Bethlehem or Nazareth. Luke also says they went right back to Nazareth after the birth, so why would Matthew still have them in Bethlehem a year or two later?

There is no harmonizing these stories. Neither author shows any awareness of the other.

I'm familiar with the potential difficulty of the timing of the census, etc., but I fear I don't see the other problems you note - I can't find Matthew making any claims as to where the family was originally from, and there are plenty of examples throughout the NT narratives where "after" doesn't mean "immediately after", so I don't see the difficulties there, and the fact that everyone has numerous geneologies has never bothered me - Luke always seems to deemphasize the more regal issues that Matthew seems infatuated with, so choosing to follow a different lineage that doesn't go through all the kings of Israel is quite unsurprising. He could have chosen to copy Matthew's geneology exactly, but if he had another point to make (which I assume he did, otherwise he wouldn't have bothered to write a book). Still looks to me quite plausible that luke copied the parts of Matthew that fit with his purpose, ignored things that didn't fit his intent, and got plenty of material from elsewhere. Open to more thoughts, but I am finding the idea of Luke copying from Matt to be rather plausible.

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-07-2012, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

I'm familiar with the potential difficulty of the timing of the census, etc., but I fear I don't see the other problems you note - I can't find Matthew making any claims as to where the family was originally from, and there are plenty of examples throughout the NT

Matthew says that Mary and Joseph were living in a "house" in Bethlehem when the magi arrived, implies they had been living there for a couple of years (Herod kills all infants 2 years old or younger) and explicitly says that they only decided to relocate to Nazareth after returning from Egypt.

Quote:

narratives where "after" doesn't mean "immediately after", so I don't see the difficulties there, and the fact that everyone has numerous geneologies has never bothered me

Luke specifies the number of days before they went back to Nazareth(8). There is also still the issue of Luke syaing Nazareth was their hometown and Matthew saying it wasn't.

Quote:

- Luke always seems to deemphasize the more regal issues that Matthew seems infatuated with, so choosing to follow a different lineage that doesn't go through all the kings of Israel is quite unsurprising.

This make no sense. Luke goes through the kings that matter.

Quote:

He could have chosen to copy Matthew's geneology exactly, but if he had another point to make (which I assume he did, otherwise he wouldn't have bothered to write a book).

Wouldn't Occam say it's far more likely that Luke simply had no awareness of Matthew's nativity? Luke knows NOTHING about Matthew's genealogy and doesn't reference a single thing in it. It's not a different version of the same story, it's a completely different story.

Quote:

Still looks to me quite plausible that luke copied the parts of Matthew that fit with his purpose, ignored things that didn't fit his intent, and got plenty of material from elsewhere.

This is extremely ad hoc, fuzzy and is not suggested by anything in the text.

James Brown · 03-07-2012, 12:52 PM

From Matthew 2:

Quote:

22 But when he [Joseph] heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, 23 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.

If you read this and only this, would you conclude that when Joseph "went and lived in a town called Nazareth" that what that really means is that he returned to his lifelong home in Nazareth, returning to the house that Joe and Mary left vacant years before to travel to another town to have their noses counted in some absurd census? If Bethlehem was just a vacation destination, why even consider returning there when coming back from Egypt?

For that matter, if going from Bethlehem to Nazareth was all you need to do to get away from the jurisdiction of whomever is in charge in Judea, then why go all the way to Egypt to begin with?

sotto voce · 03-07-2012, 02:22 PM

Yes, and no. If the magi visited them in Nazareth, they thereafter went from there to Egypt, returned, when it was safe, to Nazareth, though not necessarily to the same house; and only ever went back to Bethlehem to visit Aunt Lucy.

James Brown · 03-07-2012, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Brown

From Matthew 2:

Quote:

22 But when he [Joseph] heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, 23 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.

If you read this and only this, would you conclude that when Joseph "went and lived in a town called Nazareth" that what that really means is that he returned to his lifelong home in Nazareth, returning to the house that Joe and Mary left vacant years before to travel to another town to have their noses counted in some absurd census?

Yes, and no. If the magi visited them in Nazareth,

No, the magi visited them in Bethlehem. See Matthew 2:1-9.

sotto voce · 03-07-2012, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Brown

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Brown

From Matthew 2:

Quote:

22 But when he [Joseph] heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, 23 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.

If you read this and only this, would you conclude that when Joseph "went and lived in a town called Nazareth" that what that really means is that he returned to his lifelong home in Nazareth, returning to the house that Joe and Mary left vacant years before to travel to another town to have their noses counted in some absurd census?

Yes, and no. If the magi visited them in Nazareth,

No, the magi visited them in Bethlehem.

That's unknown.

Quote:

See Matthew 2:1-9.

Look again.

James Brown · 03-07-2012, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Brown

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Brown

From Matthew 2:

Quote:

22 But when he [Joseph] heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, 23 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.

If you read this and only this, would you conclude that when Joseph "went and lived in a town called Nazareth" that what that really means is that he returned to his lifelong home in Nazareth, returning to the house that Joe and Mary left vacant years before to travel to another town to have their noses counted in some absurd census?

Yes, and no. If the magi visited them in Nazareth,

No, the magi visited them in Bethlehem.

That's unknown.

Quote:

See Matthew 2:1-9.

Look again.

Quote:

1 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi[a] from the east came to Jerusalem 2 and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”

3 When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him.

4 When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. 5 “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written:

6 “‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for out of you will come a ruler
who will shepherd my people Israel.’[b]”

7 Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. 8 He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.”

9 After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. 10 When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. 11 On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. 12 And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route.

Yeah, if you want to argue that the magi wanted to know where someone was born so that they can then visit him in another town where he was not born, be my guest.

sotto voce · 03-07-2012, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Brown

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Brown

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Brown

From Matthew 2:

Quote:

22 But when he [Joseph] heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, 23 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.

If you read this and only this, would you conclude that when Joseph "went and lived in a town called Nazareth" that what that really means is that he returned to his lifelong home in Nazareth, returning to the house that Joe and Mary left vacant years before to travel to another town to have their noses counted in some absurd census?

Yes, and no. If the magi visited them in Nazareth,

No, the magi visited them in Bethlehem.

That's unknown.

Quote:

See Matthew 2:1-9.

Look again.

Quote:

After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi[a] from the east came to Jerusalem 2 and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”

They didn't ask Herod.

Quote:

When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him.

"Aha," said the wise men.

Quote:

Then Herod called the Magi secretly

"Aha," said the wise men, not being called wise men for nothing.

Quote:

and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared.

"Aha," said the wise men. "Were we born yesterday, or what?"

Net2004 · 03-07-2012, 02:55 PM

Quote:

they thereafter went from there to Egypt, returned, when it was safe, to Nazareth,

3 questions

where is there an indication in matthew that herods danger reached all the way to nazareth? does "killed children in and around jerusalem" imply that he killed children all the way in location such as nazareth?

where in luke is there any indication that there was danger in nazareth/jerusalem?
if there was, why was the child making yearly trips to jerusalem ?

john

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-07-2012, 02:22 PM	#65
sotto voce Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: UK Posts: 3,057	Yes, and no. If the magi visited them in Nazareth, they thereafter went from there to Egypt, returned, when it was safe, to Nazareth, though not necessarily to the same house; and only ever went back to Bethlehem to visit Aunt Lucy.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.