blt to go

I have been puzzled by this, and I am looking for any direction or resources. Why did Matthew and Luke feel constrained to include certain elements in the story of Jesus’ birth, yet complete freedom to expound upon those elements in vastly differing ways? In other words, why the similarities in light of all the contradictions?

The elements to which I am referring are:

1. A birth Narrative at all.
2. Mother is virgin named Mary.
3. Father is Joseph who is engaged to Mary at time of conception
4. Born in Bethlehem.
5. Lived predominately in Nazareth
6. Birth proclaimed by angels.
7. Genealogies (?)

Obviously, outside those parameters, they both create completely different stories, including to whom the angels spoke, and why they were in Bethlehem or Nazareth. But where do the similarities come from?

1. Birth Narrative. Assuming each Gospel was derivative from Mark (and possible a secondary written source) they each had license to fill in the gaps for Jesus’ life for anytime prior to age 30. They could have written his birth, ignored his birth, written anecdotes about his teenage years, early adulthood, working history, travels, etc. In fact, we see that in the later Gospels like The Infancy Gospel of Thomas.

Yet both of them chose to write on the birth and then immediately skip to the start of his ministry. There is a vast gap of nothingness in-between. It is as if they felt a birth narrative was mandatory, but no more. (And yes, Luke does add one apocryphallic tale of Jesus in the temple at age 12. But this is just a brief paragraph, in an otherwise long, drawn out tale. In fact, it would be expected to have more of such tales in both Luke and Matthew.)

In the big picture, I wonder why both felt compelled to waste both time, money and space in consuming the story on a scroll, in having a birth narrative and JUST a birth narrative.

I see three possibilities:

A. Luke relied upon Matthew.
B. Both relied upon oral tradition.
C. Both relied upon a brief written source.

The problem with Luke relying upon Matthew, is why would the author change the story so dramatically, yet keep these very basic elements as a necessity? Frankly, this is one of the biggest areas of concern (to me) as to the claim that Luke relied upon Matthew and Mark in writing the Gospel.

The genealogy is convenient enough in Matthew, there would be no reason to deviate from its course, although possible adding back to Adam. Odd to have the angels stop speaking to Joseph and start speaking to Mary. (Imagine the author thinking, “Oh, I like that bit about the angels speaking, but not to Joseph. No, no, no, that would be all wrong. Let’s have them speak to Mary.�)

Or to change the reason for being in Bethlehem. Or ignoring the Slaughter of the Innocents, the Magi or the Flight to Egypt.

Can anyone that holds to Luke relying upon Matthew explain why the birth narratives are so contradictory? Why Luke would vary so much from Matthew? Thanks.

The second possibility is that it was from oral tradition. The question I have here, is: “Was it bare-bones tradition (i.e. just these elements?) or was it two differing traditions that had changed over time/geography?� If it was bare-bones, it seems odd that both authors felt such license to add differing fill-in. Again, each seems compelled to “flesh out� the birth narrative, but no more. And I really don’t see differing oral traditions. Why would they have different traditions on the birth narrative and no more? We see that authors, later, fill in the gaps from birth to ministry, and in the same way, it seems odd that these two traditions would have developed in quite explicit and detailed ways, yet nothing else develops past the birth.

It is like watching two differing groups develop an automobile and each decides not to leave well-enough alone, but makes the radio fancier and fancier. However, neither focuses on the engine, or wheels, or body, or interior. Why would the oral tradition become more detailed and richer on this one aspect, yet never develop at all on anything in between?

Finally, a third possibility is a written source. I can’t help wondering if “Q� started off with a line like, “These are the sayings of Jesus, son of Joseph from Nazareth, born of the virgin Mary in Bethlehem as foretold by angels:….� If so, did Matthew and Luke both find a ripe opportunity to fill in these tempting gaps? Matthew has the chance to use prophecy, and Luke the chance to recount historical figures, both to bolster the story. But since the focus then shifts, both in Mark and Q to the ministry of Jesus, both then feel the matter can be dropped, and the attention re-focused in the correct aspect. (Again, Luke may have included a tidbit he picked up, and liked the “I am about my father’s business� to include it.)

Is there another possibility (and I am sure there is) that can be considered?

2. Mother is virgin named Mary.
3. Father is Joseph who is engaged to Mary at time of conception. I know we are all driven to point out Matthew’s use of the mis-translated text in order to use the word, “virgin� yet Luke also claims she was a virgin. Clearly both felt this was an important element. While I understand that the idea of gods being born to virgins was more common, is this mere coincidence? That both authors decided to add a birth narrative to Mark. Both have Mary as the Mother. (Mark 6:3 mandates it.) But both also decided in a moment of revelation to have her be a virgin? Matthew out of a sense of smashing prophecies into the story as quickly as possible, and Luke attempting to use the lens of a Roman historian? It is hard for me to swallow THAT much coincidence—that they both “fall� on the virgin birth through different means.

And poor Joseph gets the axe in all the gospels. Mark doesn’t mention him. Matthew and Luke ignore him post-birth. It is often posited that he died during Jesus’ childhood. (Again, what a rich opportunity for a tale, yet we have nothing.) And both Matthew and Luke are quite clear as to the name of Jesus’ father, being Joseph. It is hard for me to swallow that as coincidence, but it is also a higher likelihood of oral tradition. They had heard the name “Joseph� as being the father, as commonly known, so incorporated it.

4. Born in Bethlehem.
5. Lived predominately in Nazareth Both use contradictory tales as to how Jesus arrives in Bethlehem and in Nazareth. One adds a trip to Egypt, and the other numerous trips to Jerusalem. I am not interested in arguing the contradictory nature of the stories. They look contradictory to me. Yet while both use different means, they force the birth in Bethlehem, and the childhood in Nazareth.

It could be that Jesus was an actual person, and this is where he was actually born and raised. Or an actual person, and these were myths. Or a mythical persons and these were myths. Yet whatever the truth behind the scenario, both Matthew and Luke felt it necessary to have Jesus born in Bethlehem (even going to extraordinary lengths for Luke) and raised in Nazareth (going to extraordinary lengths for Matthew.) Why did both authors fell it necessary to use these two places? Where did this information come from?

6. Birth proclaimed by angels. Isaac’s birth was proclaimed by Angels. But Samuel’s was by a priest. Maher-shaler-hash-baz was by God. Arguably the better revealer would have been YHWH Himself. Through a burning firepit, perhaps. Yet, again, both authors felt that in some way Angels reveal the situation. Oddly, Matthew focuses all angelic attention on Joseph, who gets the birth announcement, the warning on the Slaughter, and the “all clear� signal to return. Mary doesn’t get a peep. Luke, on the other hand, has the Angel speaking to Mary.

I have heard it argued that Luke’s sources were from Mary’s family, and Matthew’s from Joseph’s and that is why the difference. It seems odd that Mary’s family would not have noticed the Magi, Slaughter or Flight, and that Joseph’s family missed the temple and Joseph being mystified. It seems much more likely that both Matthew and Luke knew (in some way) that angels (not priests, not God, not kings) proclaimed Jesus’ birth, and both guessed a different parent.

7. Genealogies (?) I put genealogies in a question mark, because this is one area that I see the possibility of coincidence. (Although a strong argument could be made that is was one of the elements. Perhaps a line, “from the lineage of David….�?) Mark has Jesus from the line of David, and it would be natural to bolster this statement with a genealogy. Anyone reading the Tanakh would come across this phenomenon fairly quickly. Since there seemed to be a reason for a birth narrative, that would be as good of a place as any to provide this lineage.

Bottom line, I am looking for some direction or resources to explain the basic similarities in light of the varying portrayals of the Birth narratives of Matthew and Luke. I am especially interested in any claims that Luke was based on Matthew, as to why the stories varied. Thanks.

beaubolique

Given the topic and timing of your post, it looks like you may have been listening to the Diane Rehm show on NPR today. If not: http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/
I have not yet ordered or read the book, so I do not know if the author directly discusses the differences you mention. A new, yet very interesting topic for me.

FatherMithras

What I'd like to know is why Matthew says Herod the Great massacre babies when Jesus was supposed to be born, even when none of the historians of the client kingdom Judea wrote it down when writing about the social upheavels.


Heheh, writing a paper on this even as we speak.

gregor

I've read somewhere a possible explanation.

Matt wanted to reinforce the Jewishness of Jesus, and yet had to explain how he got to Nazareth, so he borrowed the Bethlehem "prophesy", misread the LXX for a virgin, and invented the slaughter and flight as a recapitulation of Moses' tale.

Luke wanted to focus on other items, but he still had to mythically get Jesus to Bethlehem and also misread the LXX, so he mis-dated a historical census and had a 9 months pregnant woman travel for her husband's registration.

As to why - Crossan argues well that 2nd century readers didn't expect accuracy in the stories - that is a 19th century construct.

Diogenes the Cynic

I don't have answers to all of these, but generally, I agree with you that it's the similarities between Matthew and Luke which require the most explanation rather than the contradictions. I'll try to take these one by one.

1. Birth narratives are pretty standard mythological themes. It's also not surprising that the more Jesus was historicized, the more interested people would become in a birth story. There's nothing remarkable about the development of multiple nativity stories. That, in itself, is not an extraordinary similarity.

2. Why both Matthew and Luke have virgin births is an interesting question. It doesn't seem likely that they would both invent this detail independently of each other so that means that either Luke was aware of Matthew (which raises its own questions), they were both aware of some preexisting oral or written tradition (The problem with that is that there is no evidence of such a tradition in any Christian literature before Matthew. It's not in Mark, Thomas, Q or the Pauline corpus) or one or the other (probably Luke) was interpolated.

3. Both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus' parents were named Mary and Joseph. Mary's name comes from GMark but Joseph's name makes it's firts appearance in Matthew. The possible explanations for this commonality between Matt and Luke are the same as for the virgin birth. In this case, I might give slightly more credence to the possibility of a shared oral tradition but I don't really know.

4. The common birth in bethlehem is easy to explain. Bethlehem was the birthplace of David and the expected birthplace of the Messiah. Jesus had to be born there to have credibility as a Messiah.

5. The whole Nazareth question is a thread unto itself. If such a place existed in the 1st century, no one knows where it was. The name might have been a misunderstanding of some variation of "Nazarene" being misunderstood as applying to a place name when it actually referred to a sect. In any case, Matt and Luke both got it from mark and each devised his own way to get the birth moved to Bethlehem.

6. Angels or other divine messengers are standard mythological boilerplate. The Hebrew Bible is full of them.

7. The genealogies were necessitated in order to prove Messiahship (i.e. direct descendency from David).

FatherMithras

The genealogies are not consistent. They contradict one another and even if one interprets the two genealogies as having been from each parent they STILL have glaring errors.

Orthodox_Freethinker

Why would two journalists utilize mostly the same sources but write in entirely different perspectives?

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

For a child to be born of God, he couldn't be born from a human seed.

I believe that they will look contradictory to one who expects contradictions.
Jesus was born in Bethlehem, temporarily lived in Egypt in order to escape the wrath of Herod and then was raised in Nazareth.

"There is no discrepancy because one genealogy is for Mary and the other is for Joseph. It was customary to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary..."
http://www.carm.org/diff/2geneologies.htm

FatherMithras

look through the other threads where this was adressed. They are STILL contradictory even if taken through each of them.

Have you read anything other then the OP?

Diogenes the Cynic

They write entirely different and hopelessly contradictory narratives. It's not two different "perspectives" it's two completely different stories.
This passage doesn't say anything about anyone being "born of God." There was no such expectation for the Messiah. In fact, the Messiah was REQUIRED to be of the seed of David.
They are contradictory to anyone who bothers to read them.
Matthew says Mary and Joseph already lived in Bethlehem before the birth. Luke says they went there for a census. Matthew says Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great, Luke says it was ten years later after Judea was handed over to Quirinius. Luke has Jesus being born at an inn, Matthew puts in in Joseph's own house. Matthew has the flight to Egypt after the completely fictional slaughter of innocents. Luke has Jesus' family return to Nazareth immediately after the birth and shows no awareness whatever of a slaughter or a sojourn in Egypt. These contradictions are not reconcilable with any intellectual honesty at all.
This is complete BS. Both clearly trace the genealogy through Joseph, neithere so much as hints at a bloodline through Mary and - most importantly- Mary's bloodline was legally irrelevant anyway. In order to be an heir to the throne of David, you had to be a direct blood descendant through the father. The mother's bloodline didn't count and wasn't even traced. Adoption doesn't count either, by the way. Seed of David means seed of David. This canard that one of the genealogies was supposed to apply to Mary is one of the most egregious examples of utterly dishonest, disingenuous apologetics. If you're completely stuck for an answer just make something up. Well, in this case, even your made up answer doesn't get you out of your box. If Jesus was not a direct blood descendant of David, he wasn't the Jewish Messiah. Period.

Julian

It is interesting to note that if Luke 1:34 is removed it is no longer a virgin birth. It wouldn't have been too hard for a scribe to insert that one line early on in the interest of harmonization.

Julian