semyaza

1)
(Matthew) Jesus descends from David through his son Solomon (1:7)
(Luke) Jesus descends from David through his son Nathan (3:31)

2)
(Matthew) Jesus was born when Herod was alive, no later than 4 BCE (2:1)
(Luke) Jesus was born during the governorship of Quirinius, no earlier than 6 CE (2:1)

3)
(Luke) An angel appears to Mary's cousin with an announcement of the birth (1:5ff)
(Matthew) Elizabeth never mentioned

4)
(Matthew) Angel appears to Joseph after Jesus is conceived (1:20)
(Luke) Angel does not appear to Joseph

5)
(Luke) Angel appears to Mary before Jesus is conceived (1:28ff)
(Matthew) Angel does not appear to Mary

6)
(Matthew) Mary and Joseph live in a house in Bethlehem (2:11)
(Luke) Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth (1:26)

7)
(Matthew) Jesus was born in a house (2:11)
(Luke) Jesus was born in a manger, because there was no room at the inn (2:7)

8)
(Matthew) The infant Jesus was visited by three astrologers from the East, who followed the star (2:9)
(Luke) No astrologers, no star

9)
(Luke) The infant Jesus is visited by shepherds (2:8ff)
(Matthew) No shepherds

10)
(Matthew) Joseph takes Jesus from Bethlehem to Egypt after a warning from the angel (2:13)
(Luke) Mary and Joseph return to Nazareth after visiting the temple (2:22, 2:39)

11)
(Matthew) Herod kills all the new-born males in Bethlehem (2:16)
(Luke) Massacre not mentioned

12)
(Matthew) Joseph intends to return to Bethlehem from Egypt, but instead takes up residence in Nazareth (2:23)
(Luke) Jospeh and Mary already had a home in Nazareth (2:39)

[ December 25, 2002: Message edited by: semyaza ]</p>

Amos

You forgot that in Luke the Jewish shepherds looked in and admired but did not enter. They saw Joseph, Mary and the child. The magi saw the star and entered after seeing only Mary and the child. The ommision of Joseph here indicates that the shepherds did not know what was going to verify that this birth was the blind fruition of religion as a means to the end.

The differences are very consistent with the perspectives presented. Matthew was Judaism and Luke was omniscient. Mythical yes, and not a representation of a historic event other than in the myth.

damn_wookie

8)
(Matthew) The infant Jesus was visited by three astrologers from the East, who followed the star (2:9)
(Luke) No astrologers, no star

Just to nitpick but all we can really say is there were 2 or more "wise men"

Bill

All of this more-or-less ignores the fact that the Christians didn't have a clue as to what the actual birthdate of Jesus really was (if the Bible is true, and shepards really were out with their sheep, it was Spring "lambing season", which is the only time of the year that the shepards really feel that they have to sleep out in their fields with their sheep).

Anyway, the choice of December 25th was made as part of the ploy to win over the conversion of the Emperor Constintine, whose legions of soldiers all believed in the previous mythical saviour who was raised from the dead: Mithras (and I wonder just how much the word "myth" itself is descended from the name of that alleged God). The birthday of Mithras was celebrated on December 25 (surprise, surprise), so the Christians decided that the birth of Jesus ought to be celebrated that very day too. So, the Emperor and all of his legions decided that, since Jesus was just an updated Mithras, they would "go with the flow" and convert to Christianity.

Of course, the Christians don't tell that story with quite the same emphasis.....

== Bill

Amos

Lambing would be done inside so I don't think that has anything to do with it. Morover, the stable is the conscious mind that must be empty because it is in this same place that conversion must take place but only if the shepherds are out because we must be beyond theology (Allen Watts) for this to happen. Since the shepherds were eidetic images soon to be called as apostels they had to be out or could not be called. Further, they looked in and admired, but never entered. Zhivago's "A Christmas Star" deals with this but must be read within the prose to actually get this message clear.

The midnight, midwinter is when the days are shortest and the nights are longest and this resembles the darkest day in a persons life. The midlife would make the third 6 to designate this as the "mark of man" which is not the same as the mark of "that certain man." Yes, 666 is the mark of man and not of the "the beast."

spurly

Hey semyaza, thanks for opening up this can of worms. I will try to answer some of your statements.
There is the possibility that the Genealogy in Matthew was the geneaology of Joseph, and the one in Luke is the record of the geneology of Mary. That's why Luke says that Jesus was, "as supposed, the son of Joseph". He really wasn't, in a physical sense, and that's why Luke would trace his roots back through Mary.

It is possible that Quirinius was also govenor while Herod was alive, and this was his second term. As a matter of fact, a Latin inscription found in 1764 is believed to show two separate reigns of Quirinius as governor of Syria. Thus he may have been governor at the time of Christ's birth while also taking the governorship in 6 A.D.

Though Matthew and Luke are both telling the story of the life of Christ, they chose to highlight different events. Covering the whole life in an exhaustive manner would be impossible. Biographers today do the same thing. Some highlight some aspects of the person's birth, life and death, and some highlight others. This is not very worrisome.

See the explanation for number 3 above.

See the explanation for number 3 above.

They were from Nazareth, they had to travel to Bethlehem for the census. Child was born there. They ended up staying in Bethlehem for a little while after the birth.

Matthew does not say Jesus was born in a house. That's where the wise men (astrologers) found him. But they would not have begun their travels until the star appeared - the night of his birth. Thus, they didn't arrive on the scene until later. This is backed up by the story of Herod killing babies 2 years and under. By the time the wise men got there, it had been a while since the star appeared. Maybe a year or a year and a half. In that time Joseph and Mary had moved into a place of their own, before going to Egypt. Herod realizes he's been tricked and wants to make sure he kills Jesus - so he orders that all boys under 2 be killed. Wouldn't he have made it all baby boys under 1 month if the star had just appeared?

Oh, and by the way, the word translated as "inn" is probably translated wrong. It probably means "guest room". But that is just a pet peeve of mine.

See the explanation for number 3 above.

See the explanation for number 3 above.

Like I have been saying, neither the account in Luke or the account in Matthew is exhaustive. Yes, Luke does not mention the couple traveling to Egypt, but that was not important to him in his story. Matthew mentions both the family traveling to Egypt, and their subsequent return to Nazareth. Luke just skips ahead from the birth and the dedication at the temple to the older childhood of Jesus and does not mention Egypt.

Here is very likely what happened:
1)Journey of Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem;
2)birth of the child in Bethlehem
3) Jesus is presented at the temple.
4) The couple then returns to Bethlehem where they live in a house and are visited by the Magi.
5) Magi trick Herod, he decides to kill babies, so the family takes flight into Egypt
6) Herod dies and the family returns to settle in Nazareth.

This matches both Matthew and Luke.

Again, see the explanation for number 3 above.

Again, see the answers to number 3 and number 10

semyaza

No, it's not possible. Both writers explicitly state that they are giving the geneaology of Joseph. There is no wriggle-room on this one.

This a fairly common dodge, but one completely lacking in proof. The inscription that you mentioned is ambiguous, and few scholars believe that it points to an earlier official post of Quirinius. Luke explicitly states that the census took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria. According to secular history, Quirinius was appointed by the Emperor to clean up the mess left by Archelaus, who was in office for ten years following the death of Herod. Josephus also mentions the census instituted under Quirinius. He does not mention an earlier census, nor an earlier governorship.

It would be worrisome if two biographers failed to mention any common points at all. If you read the two stories, you will find that, aside from Jesus being born in Bethlehem of Mary and Joseph, there are no other similarities whatsoever.

Nope. Matthew says nothing about the couple living in Nazareth before the birth. His story starts with Mary and Joseph living in Bethlehem. Read it again.

...which entirely contradicts Luke's account. He states that Jesus was born in a manger, circumcised the eighth day and then presented at the temple (which, according to the Law would have been forty days after his birth - see Luke 2:22 and Leviticus 12). After that, the family returned to their home in Nazareth.

Doesn't work. The timelines run thusly:

Matthew: Jesus born in Bethlehem. Family apparently still resident in a house up to two years later. Family flees to Egypt for an unspecified amount of time. Herod dies. Joseph intends to return to Bethlehem, but learns that Archelaus is now governor. He goes to Galilee instead, and takes up residence in Nazareth.

Luke: Jospeh called to Bethlehem from his home in Nazareth. Mary accompanies him. Jesus born in a manger. Jesus circumcised according to the Law at 8 days, presented at the temple according to the Law at 40 days. Family immediately returns to their home in Nazareth.

Not mentioned by Matthew.

Constradicted by Matthew, who has the family still in Bethlehem several years after the birth.

Contradicted by Luke, who states that the family returned to Nazareth after presenting Jesus at the temple.

Contradicted by Luke - according to him, Herod had been dead for ten years before Jesus was even born.

It matches neither.

spurly

Sorry, but I don't agree with this logic at all. By reading both Matthew and Luke you can see that they are telling the story of the same man by highlighting different aspects of his life.

What would be the point of two gospels telling the identical story. It would be redundant for sure.

Kevin

lpetrich

Except that the Gospels have plenty of repetition in them. So why can't the story of Jesus Christ's birth also get repeated?

And I've NEVER seen any other biography work the way that spurly describes the Gospel writers writing. It's as if Matthew and Luke got together and announced "We don't want to make our Gospels any more repetitious than they already are. So we'll divide the story of his birth between us. Matthew will take the parts about the wise men and Herod and his baby killing, and Luke will take the parts about the inn and the shepherds and their flocks."

And omitting Herod's alleged baby killing is really odd -- it's like discussing September 11, 2001 in an overall history without mentioning that some kamikaze hijackings had happened that day. Adding to the oddity is that none of the rest of the New Testament mentions it. There is also no outside mention of it; Josephus depicts Herod as being paranoid and murderous, but he does not mention that alleged atrocity.

However, such would-be baby-killing monarchs are a common part of hero myths.

A Pharaoh tries to kill Moses
King Kamsa tries to kill Krishna
King Amulius tries to kill Romulus and Remus
King Acrisius tries to kill Perseus
King Laertes tries to kill Oedipus
The goddess Hera tries to kill Hercules

(The last one has some interesting differences: the baby-killer's gender is different and the baby Hercules takes care of himself, strangling Hera's snakes)

semyaza

They already do. There is a very large amount of overlap material between Matthew and Luke. Why should the situation suddenly be so radically different when it comes to the birth narratives?