spamandham

In the birth narrative in Matthew, we are told about how Herod (Matthew doesn't specify *which* Herod, but it is generally presumed to be Herod the Great) attempted to have baby Jesus killed. Matthew tells us Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but doens't tell us why.

Luke adds Caesar Augustus and Quirinius to the historical record. These are a bit less vague than Matthew's "Herod".

So we have 3 real men of history playing roles in the birth story of Jesus. Should we not then conclude that...other than the magic star...the rest of the story is reasonably accurate?

Also, isn't it embarrassing to have Jesus' family chased out of Galilee and off to Egypt? Doesn't the principle of embarrassment thus suggest it must really have happened like that?

ApostateAbe

The birth story in Bethlehem seems designed to fulfill prophecy of the messiah being descended from Bethlehem. It doesn't mesh with Jesus' title (Jesus of Nazareth). It doesn't make the least bit of sense that anyone would be required to travel back to their hometown for a census. The story isn't found in Mark or Q, presumably the earliest sources. Therefore, the whole story is likely to have been primarily a Christian invention.
I don't think so, at least no more embarrassing than Robin Hood being required to hide in the woods. The story of the escape to Egypt seems intended to fulfill more prophecy, as made fully explicit in the text:

¹³When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. "Get up," he said, "take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him." ¹⁴So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, ¹⁵where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."

¹⁶When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. ¹⁷Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:

¹⁸"A voice is heard in Ramah,
weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because they are no more."

When the authors fully expose their motivations like that, I don't think it should be too difficult to deconstruct their intentions. The first inclination of many skeptics is to look at faint parallels in Egyptian myths or whatever, which I find a little puzzling. But, one way or the other, it is very unlikely to be significantly historical.

spamandham

Hold up. So you agree then that the inclusion of a verifiably real historical figure in no way implies that any aspect of the story is historical .... that it was not uncommon in that culture to include historical people (and thus presumably historical places and events) into stories of abject fantasy?

Could it not also be argued that this parallel is a confabulated exegesis quote mined to prove that the real events of Jesus' birth had been predicted?

aa5874

Was it not embarrassing for the author of gMatthew to claim Peter nearly drowned when he attempted to walk on the sea to Jesus who was supposedly already walking on the sea during the storm?

The criterion of embarrassment is worthless. It gives bogus results since obvious fiction seems true.

Now, In gMatthew and gLuke Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost and it was rather embarrassing for the author of gLuke to have given details of the conception of Jesus when the author claimed the Holy Ghost would OVERSHADOW Mary.

Based on the criterion of embarrassment, Jesus was indeed the offspring of the Holy Ghost and was born without a human father sometime around the start of the 1st century..

ApostateAbe

Right. It wouldn't at all be unexpected to incorporate real and well-known people into tall tales.
Anything can be argued, but I think parsimony and all the other evidence should be considered before a conclusion is reached. A slaughter of children by Herod to hunt down the Jewish messiah is a point that is very likely to have been noted by the historians who mentioned Herod, such as Philo and Josephus, but they didn't. Nor do the other gospels mention it, though it would be a compelling biographical point to make of the life of Jesus.

spamandham

Well, obviously the slaughter of the innocents didn't happen. That's the reasonable conclusion. But it is not the conclusion one would come up with if the standards applied to the death story were also applied to the birth story...and if there were *not* conflicting evidence. Herod was a real dick. He *could* have done something like that, if not for the fact that he didn't.

What did Luke know that you and I don't? Why did he (and the readers of the story and the compilers of the canon) think it was ok to add such ...ehm, bullshit... to his story, and does that tell us something about not only Luke, but also the other 3 canonical Gospel writers and the milieu in which they wrote?

mountainman

After the birth story, the author of Acts in Codex Bezae mentions the historical Apollonius (of Tyana).

andrewcriddle

Given the reference in Matthew 2:22 it is certain that by Herod Matthew means Herod the Great.

Andrew Criddle

avi

Matthew 15:22
kai idou gunh cananaia apo twn oriwn ekeinwn exelqousa ekrazen legousa elehson me kurie uioV dauid h qugathr mou kakwV daimonizetai

Matthew 15:22
And behold a woman of Canaan who came out of those coasts, crying out, said to him: Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David: my daughter is grieviously troubled by the devil.

Not "seed" of David. Son of David. Why not? A little one night recreation for the re-created David. If God can raise up Amos and Andy, and all the rest, why not David?

Omnipotence for a god does not translate into regulations restricting his/her power, imposed by mere mortals.

avi

DCHindley

S&H,

I don't think that would be embarassing. "Princes" are often forced into exile once the regent decides they are a threat (or even a potential threat). Look at Herod the great and his sons. This part could originate from family claims, who might even regard it as a badge of legitimacy.

Check into what Julius Africanus said the family of Jesus were claiming about the legitimacy of Herod's rule. They claimed Herod was a bastard child, as his mother was a hostage for a period of time during the wars between the Hasmonean princes Hyrcanus and Alexander, and this "of course" meant she was raped.

After WW2, Chaing Kai Sheck (forgive my poor spelling) drove Mao and the communists across the country into exile. This became legendary and many Chinese thought that this legitimatized the communist claim to rule.

DCH