Well, it’s that time of year again. Regular church attendees are going to have to share their pews with people who have finally decided to make it out for their second service of the year. Their belief that Jesus bled and died so they can gain eternal salvation might be unshakable, but it apparently isn’t all that motivating, considering how little these believers seem to do in response. Nevertheless, they can at least be counted on to show up for a retelling of Jesus’s miraculous birth.
But what version will they hear? More than likely, they’ll hear a “Hollywood” version of the tale that incorporates the most exciting elements of the two versions that we read about in Matthew and Luke. A quick Google search turned up this one, which illustrates my point perfectly. But what if someone tried to tell the full version? A version that included every detail that both Matthew and Luke provide?
Honestly, it just can’t be done. I had wanted to attempt it here, but there’s just no practical way to do it. For example, the version I linked to above goes like this:
The Standard Tale
- Mary’s visited by an angel who tells her about the pregnancy (Luke)
- She and Joseph live in Nazareth of Galilee, but are forced to travel to Bethlehem in Judea for a census commanded by the Roman authorities (Luke)
- They’re unable to find normal accommodations and are forced to room in an area intended for livestock. Mary gives birth there and is visited by local shepherds (Luke)
- Wise men far to the east see a star that somehow signifies the birth of the Jewish Messiah (Matthew)
- They travel for an unspecified period until they reach Jerusalem, where they inquire about the child (Matthew)
- These inquiries reach Herod, the ruler of the region, and he asks the wise men to send back word to him once they find the child, so Herod himself can also pay his respects (Matthew)
- The wise men make their way to Bethlehem, find the family, bestow their gifts, and return home via a different route (Matthew)
- An angel tells Joseph to hightail it out of Bethlehem, because Herod’s sending a posse to wipe out all the children 2 years old and under in an effort to stamp out Jesus (Matthew)
- Joseph and his family flee to Egypt and remain there until an angel tells him it’s safe to return, because Herod has died (Matthew)
- Joseph intends to go back toward Bethlehem, but after finding out that Herod’s son is in charge, he takes the family to Nazareth in Galilee (Matthew)
So what’s wrong with this story? I mean, it’s very cohesive, and it makes for a compelling tale. What’s not to like? Its only real problem is that the very books of the Bible that provide its details, contradict its overall narrative.
Two Very Different Stories
Let’s go back to Luke’s version. After Jesus’s birth and the visit from the shepherds, we don’t read about wise men or Herod’s animosity. Instead, Luke 2:22 says that after the days of Mary’s purification were over, the family went to Jerusalem. The “days of purification” are referring to Leviticus 12:1-4, where the Law of Moses stated that a woman was to be considered “unclean” for 40 days after giving birth to a male child. So when Jesus was about 40 days old, Luke claims that they all traveled to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices as thanks for his birth. While there, two elderly people see Jesus and begin proclaiming praise and prophecies concerning Jesus. And there’s no indication that an effort was made to keep any of this quiet, which is very different in tone to what we read in Matthew. Finally, in Luke 2:39, we read “And when they had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.” We’ll come back to this point in a moment.
The synopsis we looked at earlier incorporated most of Matthew’s version of the story. As we just read, his story ends very differently from Luke’s. However, it’s also significant to note that Matthew gives no indication that Joseph and Mary are from Nazareth. Matt 1:18 through the end of the chapter talks about Mary’s pregnancy, even though she and Joseph had never slept together, but it never specifies where they’re living. Chapter 2 begins with the sentence “Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, ‘Where is he who has been born king of the Jews?'” Of course, it’s possible that Matthew still knew they were originally from Nazareth and just doesn’t bother to tell us that or divulge how they got to Bethlehem in the first place. But there are three context clues that point against such a possibility. First of all, regardless of how far the wise men had to journey, it likely took them quite a while to make the trip. When Matthew says “the east” he certainly doesn’t mean “east Jersualem,” and travel being what it was back then, any journey would have taken considerable time. The second clue is that Herod supposedly kills all the male children of Bethlehem who are 2 and under. So it’s unlikely that we’re supposed to still be thinking of Jesus as a newborn. Finally, Matthew says that when the family was able to leave Egypt, Joseph wanted to go back to Judea (where Bethlehem is). But after finding out Herod’s son was ruling, he became afraid and “went and lived in a city called Nazareth” (Matt 2:23). This is a very strange way to refer to Nazareth, if it’s where Joseph and Mary were already living.
So Matthew gives no indication that Joseph and Mary were just visiting Bethlehem. He never mentions a manger; instead, he references a house that they were staying in. He never talks about the shepherds from the fields, but has wise men who visit the child. He includes a story about Herod slaughtering a town’s children, though no other historical or biblical source ever mentions this. He claims that the family flees to Egypt until Herod’s death, that they want to return to Bethlehem, but finally settle in “a city called Nazareth.”
Luke, on the other hand, says that Nazareth is their home town, and they’re only visiting Bethlehem. He has no story about wise men, but does talk about shepherds from the fields that visit the newborn Jesus. Instead of Herod attempting to hunt them down and a subsequent flight to Egypt, the family travels straight to Jerusalem, where Herod lives. And there’s no effort to keep Jesus’s identity secret while they’re there, as two elderly prophets begin proclaiming who he is. And after making their sacrifices, the family simply goes back home to Nazareth, far from Herod’s reach (not that Luke indicates Herod’s even interested).
Can These Stories Be Put Together?
The main sticking points between the stories are the flight to Egypt and the trip to Jerusalem. On the one hand, Luke is very clear about his timeline: Jesus was only about 40 days old when they went to Jerusalem and then went home to Nazareth. Matthew doesn’t give specifics on how old Jesus was when the family was forced to flee to Egypt, except that it must have occurred before he was 2 years old.
Could the trip to Egypt have happened before the trip to Jerusalem?
No. First of all, considering all the details Luke provides, why would he have left out such an important event? Secondly, this means Herod would have needed to die within the 40 day purification period, but Matthew tells us that this still wouldn’t have been good enough, because Joseph was determined to avoid all of Judea while Herod’s son was reigning. There’s simply no way he would have felt safe enough to travel directly into Jerusalem. That just makes no sense.
Could the trip to Egypt have happened after the trip to Jerusalem?
No. Luke 2:39 is clear that the family went straight back to Nazareth after their trip to Jerusalem. And considering Luke claimed that Nazareth was already their home, why would they have needed to go back to Bethlehem anyway?
In fact, Luke’s claim that the family was from Nazareth creates a lot of problems for Matthew’s account. Nazareth was far outside of Herod’s reach. So if Herod really had hunted Jesus in Bethlehem, the family could have simply gone back to Nazareth rather than flee to Egypt. But this isn’t a consideration in Matthew’s account, because for him, the family has never been to Nazareth until they simply can’t go back to Bethlehem anymore, even after Herod’s death (Matt 2:23).
Additional Problems
I don’t want to spend too much time here, but for completeness sake, I need to mention a couple of historical issues. Both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus is born during the reign of Herod the Great. Historians usually place his death in 4 BCE, which means Jesus would have been born sometime before that. However, Luke says that Mary and Joseph had traveled to Bethlehem, because Quirinius, the governor of Syria, had commanded a census. However, Quirinius didn’t become governor of Syria until 6 CE — 10 years after Herod’s death. You can find additional resources about these two issues here.
Finally, Luke’s claim is that this census required Joseph to travel back to his ancestral home of Bethlehem, since he was of King David’s lineage. But David would have lived some 1000 years before Joseph. It’s ludicrous to think that the Romans would have cared about such a thing, or that they would have wanted their empire to be so disrupted by having people move around like that for a census. It would have been an impossible feat and would have made for a highly inaccurate, and therefore useless, census.
What Do We Make of All This?
The easiest way to understand why these accounts have such major differences in detail is to understand why either writer bothered with a story about Jesus’s birth at all. You have to remember that the writers of Matthew and Luke didn’t know one another and didn’t know that they were both working on the same material. They certainly didn’t know that their books would one day show up in the same collection. Both of them were working with two basic facts: Micah 5:2 seemed to prophesy that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem; Jesus came from Nazareth (John 1:45-46).
Since those two facts were at odds with one another, it’s easy to see how both writers would have been compelled to explain how Jesus could be from Nazareth but still be from Bethlehem. Unfortunately for them, close comparison shows that both versions simply can’t be true.
How would people react if they showed up for church this weekend and were presented with the full details from both of these stories? I like to think it would spur many of them into deeper study. That it would possibly make them question some of the things they’ve been taking for granted. But 2016 has been pretty demoralizing when it comes to the number of people who seem concerned about what’s true, and I’m not sure how many of them would see this information as a call to action. I know there are people who can be changed by facts. Perhaps there aren’t as many of them as I once thought, but I know they’re out there. And with the way information spreads these days, I’m sure they’ll eventually find the facts they’re looking for.
Finding Truth 
UnkleE… not to put too fine a point on it. But how can the words used and the words meanings change if that is the word of a an all powerful , all knowing, everything in your life deity? That simply doesn’t make sense. Be well Hugs
LikeLike
Thanks for all the comments, guys!
UnkleE — I know the conversation has sort of moved past this, but I wanted to add one thing about your statement concerning Nazareth being Mary’s home and Bethlehem being Joseph’s. Luke says that they went to Bethlehem because of the census — and not because it was Joseph’s home, but because it was David’s, his ancestor. I also think re-translating the line “their own town” into “a city of their own” is not significant enough to alter the meaning. Basically, I think Luke’s account could have been written much more clearly if he meant what Stephen Carlson suggests.
Gary, thanks for the compliment! And I also appreciate your offering the explanation that you used to accept regarding these 2 accounts. Out of curiosity, how do you view it now? I would say that this seems to fall into what William often talks about — any contradiction can be explained away by these sorts of inventions. But also, it seems odd (and a little convenient) to me that Mary and Joseph just happen to move back to Bethlehem. If they hadn’t, the wise men never would have found them at all, even though they obviously assumed that the Messiah was there. The other issue I see with it is that there’s still not much reason for them to have gone to Egypt. If they were already so familiar with Nazareth, it seems much more likely that they would have just gone back there instead.
I’m sure this is something you’ve thought about since leaving Christianity — have you discovered any other flaws with it?
LikeLike
Hi Scottie,
I think you are having difficulties because you are still assuming I think things that I don’t think, and aren’t noticing what I have said. It doesn’t really matter if you understand what I think, or not, but it does matter if you are going to discuss with me. So let me correct a few places where you misunderstand me. I don’t expect you to agree with me, but at least you may be able to not argue against things I don’t think. OK?
“how can the words used and the words meanings change if that is the word of a an all powerful , all knowing, everything in your life deity?”
The Bible was NOT written by God. Christians generally don’t believe God dictated the words (like I think Muslims believe) or even gave people the words already written down (like I understand Mormons believe). We believe people wrote the words but God inspired them – sometimes directly with words, but mostly not. So it all comes down to the meaning of “inspiration”. I believe it means what we generally understand it to mean today – giving thoughts and impetus to, but not dictating.
“it was not written by an all knowing god, but instead by very limited men who knew little about the sciences we take for granted today.”
Yes. It was written in the language and scientific understanding of the day. It was written down after centuries of being told and re-told. That doesn’t make it mistaken – only mistaken if we take it for more than it was. If we understand it to be a foundational myth, just like other Ancient Near East foundational myths, then we will not be mistaken. Note: a myth isn’t necessary fiction – generally myths are stories based on facts but much developed and embellished to teach deeper truths that simple factual history. In the case of Genesis, it appears that the writers adapted existing myths to tell the truth (as they saw it, and I believe) that there was only one true God, not many, and that he was the ultimate creator.
“The fact that these humans that we all link back to were not alive at the same time together”
This is NOT a fact. The likely dates for mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosome Adam keep changing, as scientists get a better understanding of genetics and the rate of genetic change and mutation. It is MOST LIKELY that these two people didn’t live at the same time, but no-one knows exactly. We must make our statements fair to the evidence, don’t you think? I really think you need to read some of the experts on this – and from different viewpoints – the people you quote are generally from only one side of the question, and often they are not the best experts.
“Sorry I don’t get your defence of the bible with the saying wrong is a different word than untrue.”
I think we can see the distinction I am making here by asking questions like: Are the Harry Potter stories, or Shakespeare’s plays “wrong”? If we regard them as fiction, then “wrongness” doesn’t come into it. So if Genesis 1-11 is foundational myth, then it isn’t attempting to be history, and it isn’t “right” or “wrong as history. Rather it tells a story with a message, about God and the world. Now at a deeper level, you may regard its stories about God as “untrue”, but that is just your opinion, just as my opinion is different. So if a christian says the stories are historically true, you can legitimately argue that you think they are not. But such an argument is irrelevant to what I believe and am saying.
““Afterall if it was so important to an omnipotent, all powerful, all knowing deity to have everyone in the world know about it and its plan, it would simply make it known.”
What makes you think the “if” part of that statement is true? Because such a deity did not do so, therefore if it could it did not care enough to do so, and if it couldn’t it is not the omnipotent all powerful all knowing deity. Sorry but I think you are nit picking here. The sentence is self explanatory.”
But Scottie, you haven’t noticed you’ve made a big assumption here. Your argument implicitly assumes two things: (1) that people have to explicitly know God’s plan to respond to him and receive his grace, and (2) that the only way for them to do that is through knowing the facts in the Bible. Please read this carefully: I think both of those assumptions are at least partially incorrect. So before you draw your conclusion, I think you need to justify those assumptions.
“What is more I do not feel the need to take yours from you. I welcome you to your faith and wish you the best. I just don’t want any part of it.”
Thanks. That’s your choice Scottie, and I’m not interested in trying to argue you or anyone else into faith. But I said I felt sad because you are rejecting a belief very different from the one I hold. I can understand how you’ve come to the view you have, but I hope you can at least see that there is another way to understand the christian faith that is very different to what you are rejecting.
Thanks again for the pleasant conversation, and for your intention to avoid offence. I hope I have similarly been inoffensive to you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Nate, I guess neither of us want to keep going back and forth, but here is the text of Luke 2:3-4:
“And everyone went to their own town to register. So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. “
Now we can argue semantics (and since neither of us a fluent in NT Greek, we will both be arguing from ignorance!), but in English the “so” connects Joseph travelling from Nazareth to Bethlehem because everyone had to go to their home town. Yes, Luke does add the explanation that he was of the line of David, but that comes later, and isn’t explaining why he travelled, but why he lived in Bethlehem – that’s the noun the clause is closest to. I think if we were doing a high school English comprehension, that is how we’d understand it, though I accept it isn’t as clear as we would like it.
But the killer is that “my” explanation accords with how the Romans did censuses and taxation, and “yours” does not. So granted there is some ambiguity, surely the facts about Roman practices should determine our interpretation?
You and others here criticise christians for sticking to unlikely explanations for dogmatic reasons. I think sceptics are just as likely to do that, and this is one such case. If this was anything else but the gospels, Carlson’s explanation would be accepted as best fitting all the facts.
LikeLike
@unkleE .. I have heard that the whole censuses thing in the bible does not line up with historical fact. So that is another big problem with the accuracy of the bible. That is why I keep saying having a faith or a deity is great, but not one connected to the Christian bible. I love Matt Dillahunty’s saying that if you want to know what is wrong with one version of Christianity, simply ask another Christian version and they will tell you what all is wrong with the other. . Be well. Hugs
LikeLike
Hi unkleE, thanks for pointing that out. I must admit I didn’t glance back at verse 3 when I was writing my response to you, and that was a mistake brought on by laziness and imperfect memory — a dangerous combination.
I agree with you that verse 3 gives more credence to Carlson’s explanation, though yes, the ambiguity still bothers me. I’m not sure why Luke thought it was necessary to add the bit about Joseph’s lineage if it had nothing to do with his traveling back to Nazareth, since there were probably plenty of other people who could claim descent from David and didn’t live in Bethlehem. It also calls into question why he didn’t have his own house in the town and why the whole family moved back to Nazareth after visiting Jerusalem, when you’d think it would have been Mary who would relocate to join his household. But I’ve downloaded Carlson’s paper and plan to read it when I have some time in the next couple of days.
For me, the bigger issue is that Matthew’s account still seems irreconcilable with this one, but I know that’s not an issue you have much of a beef with, so I’ll just leave it there. 🙂
And thanks for setting me straight on verse 3!
LikeLike
@unkleE, “My points was (“But I fear you have overstated the problems.”) that some of the anomalies Nate mentioned are in fact quite understandable once we get the best translation of some of the words and have an understanding of first century Jewish customs.
Merry Christmas unkleE. I have always said that the Bible was never meant for present day readers. When you have to search for the best translation of the words, and have an understanding of first century Jewish customs , this alone is proof to me and others that this could not have been written with any connection attributed to a God.
LikeLike
Hi Nate, thanks for that. Yes we are agreed, Matthew’s account is much more historically problematic than Luke’s.
My guess on the reference to house of David is that it was important for theological reasons to have Jesus born, even nominally, from the kingly line. And so Luke points out that fact by explaining that his home town was “David’s town”.
LikeLike
Merry Christmas to you too, kc. But no-one has to search for the best translation. For centuries people read the text, accepted it (generally) and it didn’t do them any harm. But in modern times people have become more critical, and so that criticism has to be addressed via scholarship. My problem arises (too often) when sceptics want to do the criticism without the scholarship.
LikeLike
“For centuries people read the text, accepted it (generally) and it didn’t do them any harm.”
Inquisitions ? Salem Witch Trial ? Crusades ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
What in the text we are discussing led to those things, do you think???
LikeLike
@unkleE… I am not sure why but your comment did not show up in my commet list.. I just found this one because I was looking at a comment by someone else. Ok this time we are going to try to keep it short before Nate gets upset with us on his blog.
I take issue right off with your first statement that I am having difficulties. I have no such things as this subject goes. If you think I do please show me. If you think I do you have totally mistaken my point of view. In fact let me be clear, I feel people who cling to the christian faith to be limited and to denying reality. I thought I made that clear in my other responses.
That you do not believe the bible was written or dictated by “GOD” makes you a minority. Everyone else I have met including the Pastors I grew up with claimed it was the “word of god”. But to this idea, if this is not the word of your god, but only of man, that means the whole dang religion is a man made thing having no authority. That means the whole thing the christian faith is based on is a man made fable, myth, or power play…which ever you choose.
Dang you say myths are not necessarily fiction.. are your serious.. OK do you worship Odin, do you worship Zeus? There are far more forgotten gods in history than there are gods in favor now.
I have to say after reading this I think you are jerking me around as I am trying to be nice.
Ok let’s start with this. If you are a christian as you claim, then the bible is the basis of that claim, that religion. Yet we have both agreed that the bible is not written by the god, and is full of errors.
So how can you base your diety on factual errors and proven mistakes?
If man wrote the book describing the god, if they wrote the book creating it then it is not a deity, it is a man made fiction, no more than marvel’s superheroes or the X-men or even Harry Potter novels.
As for adam and eve that whole thing is a miss direction and silly. You already said you did not believe it, then accept the science. Ok, two created humans, who have only sons.. and then we have a bunch of incest to get the whole ball of wax going. You and I both know that if it is the first and only people, it is not moral and not realistic. In fact while we are on the subject what was with all the incest in the bible? It sickens me personally. Any deity who claims that is OK, I have no interest in following it!
I can’t believe you are equating your own holy book with a Harry Potter novel. The answer to that is so simple as to be stupidly silly. Look no one made a religion out of Harry Potter ( other than some really young boys and girls going through puberty. ) Are you jerking me around here, I had a temperature earlier of 101.6 and I am taking my time to answer you. I would not be happy to think you are just having a laugh at my expense.
No my regarding stories about the Christian god as untrue are not my opinion, sorry they are based in fact. History is what it is, it doesn’t change based on what you want to believe. I had a similar argument with Godsmanfoever when he said the laws of nature don’t exists and that his god could overrule any known scientifically proven theory. I asked him if he was willing to go to the top of the highest building he knew and jump off believing his god would simply negate gravity. Guess what he wouldn’t. Again history is what it is, it has nothing to do with your faith or my disregarding of it. The fact is history has proven that most historical things mentioned in the bible simply did not happen. The bible is a geopolitical feel good work for those people living there.
As far as it is just my opinion that your god does not exist, that is not on me to prove. It is up to you to prove it does. You are making the positive claim, therefore the burden is on you. I won’t let you shift it onto me because you can’t do it. I already told you if your god was all it is claimed to be it could simply communicate with all of us right now . No question, no doubt. But instead it requires fallible humans to do its biddings, and it has not manifested itself in 2000 years. Rather suspicious don’t you think?
OK as to the “if” thing. Either your god wants everyone possible to be with him or he doesn’t. I say again either the god of the bible can or can not. As it has not, it can’t. It is that simple really.
Ok the last thing. About believing in your god or not, I don’t think you can understand. See I have the freedom to do either one, I can believe or reject your god. You seem not able to. I thank you for being able to see the right of my views in our country and its government just I served in two different branches of the US military to give you the right to have your religion. I think you fail to see how many of the most vocal of your fellow believers in your god feel about pushing their beliefs on everyone else. I am not against your belief as you are a consenting adult, it is the cascading of it some want to force it into laws, schools, and the military.
You have not been offensive to me in your tone or what you want to say. This morning I felt you were being needlessly nitpicking over words.. such as a former president answered “that depends on the meaning of is…is” . It is clear to me we are not going to agree. I also have no wish to continue to argue the points of the bible, others have done that far better than I. I have my view of the bible as I have stated. You have your view of your God. You have your view of your life, and I also have my own view of life. I simply have no interest in arguing those things out with you, because that would be me trying to take your religion from you, that I won’t do. I simply don’t want you to think your way is the best or the greatest, as it is only one way. As you cautioned me to be careful of such things. My life is full, grand, and far more complicated than we have ever discussed, but it has no need of a god for any reason.
Be well and be happy. If you have new things we should talk about OK. But I have to say I am not really interested in arguing for just to argue. I am not interested in changing your mind nor will you change mind with the arguments you have provided, that is clear now. So unless there is something I missed I think we can give the people on this blog a break from us. Up to you. Hugs, be well. Hugs
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh I said I wouldn’t do this… but I have to.. @unkleE…https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-witchcraft.html . God takes witchcraft very seriously. The penalty for practicing witchcraft under the Mosaic Law was death. I had a few other web sites to use , but why beat a horse to death. The fact is as a pagan I really don’t agree with the biblical passage at all. Hugs
LikeLike
@unkleE, “What in the text we are discussing led to those things, do you think???”
I didn’t refer to the text we are discussing. I stated , “The Bible”
“St. Bernard of Clairvaux is perhaps the most well known promoter of the Crusades. He is credited for sparking the 2nd Crusade by writing very convincing letters to the Kings of Christendom.” His scripture references are listed here. http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/18954/what-passages-of-scripture-were-used-by-the-popes-and-crusaders-to-justify-the-c
Lots of scripture listed here for the Inquisitions
http://www.ironmaidencommentary.com/?url=album10_xfactor/inquisition&lang=eng&link=albums
I believe Scotty provided references for the Witch Trials
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well unkleE I have to give you credit for the Carlson argument, it is one I had not heard before and among the more ingenious ways of seeking to reconcile the disparate texts. However it is making a lot of assumptions and in my opinion make implications that go against the natural reading of the text. Perhaps Carlson could is correct, but it seems odd to me that the implication in Luke is that the family was already based in Nazareth whereas the implication in Matthew is that they were not.
So full marks for ingenuity, but as I said in my earlier comment, if there is a god, then that God could have helped us all by removing these difficulties. after all the implication is that ‘God’ wants people to be ‘saved’ so it seems odd that same ‘God’ would allow unnecessary difficulties to remain.
I realise you have a different view of what divine inspiration should be to me. I have heard others, such as Scholar Pete Enns, articulate a similar view of divine inspiration to that which you espouse. But I really struggle with that view. My faith crumbled once I reached the conclusion that the Bible contained errors.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Scottie, yes I think now would be a good time to finish up. I’m sorry if I have said anything amiss. You asked me a question originally, and I tried to answer it honestly. Based on your latest comments, I think you still misunderstand what I believe, but since that doesn’t matter, I won’t try to explain again. Thanks for your time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“among the more ingenious ways of seeking to reconcile the disparate texts”
Hi Peter, I think you have missed the point of Carlson’s paper. He wasn’t in any way that I can recall trying to “reconcile the disparate texts”. I did a quick word search of the paper and the word “Matthew” is only mentioned twice, both in footnotes, likewise the word “Matthean”, which confirmed my memory that this wasn’t the purpose of the paper.
He was doing a historical and linguistic analysis of Luke, on the basis that Luke is generally recognised as a fine historian (e.g. Maurice Casey describes Luke as “an outstanding historian by ancient standards”). He was trying to ascertain the likely facts, which I think he has done.
I have said it before – I’m sorry your faith crumbled when you realised that the Bible contained errors. It didn’t have to be that way. There is virtually nothing of substance written in the entire history of the world that doesn’t contain errors, yet we manage to know and believe many things. If it is your considered conclusion that christianity isn’t true, then of course you shouldn’t believe it. But lack of an inerrant source of knowledge doesn’t seem to me to be a good reason to disbelieve anything. I suppose you won’t appreciate my writing this, but I think it is worth thinking about. Best wishes to you.
LikeLike
Hilarious! What a crock of rose fertilizer.
He got the description of Nazareth wrong didn’t he?
I dare you to show me a single, non-biblical piece of evidence for this;
“all the world should be enrolled” (Lk. 2:1).
Your arguments are generally self-serving at best, disingenuous at times and on occasion, idiotic.
In the years I have read your blog and comments, you have carefully cherry picked almost every argument you have used to present your case for the veracity of your god.
You have chiseled and whittled , sanded and polished and discarded anything that might force you to directly confront the obvious.
And here you are, arguing for the writing of the unknown author of the gospel of Luke, and make claims he was an outstanding historian by ”ancient standards” with a tacit implication he might well have been the actual writer of this nonsense.
Outstanding historian by ancient standards? Really?
What this actually means is, that by modern standards he was a perfectly lousy historian and, in effect, his version of history should be judged as such.
Yet you seem to somehow want to celebrate his awfulness as if it is something quaint; something to be cherished and then try to plead a case of veracity on the nativity on this inaccurate and sloppy writer?
Why? Because it has Gospel attached to the name?
Because the fate of your soul rests on you accepting at least some version of this nonsense?
It is not the things you can squeeze out of this story- and it is a story, make no mistake – that for you might just have a smidgen of a ring of plausibility to still your tremulous heart, but the gaping holes, the utterly inaccurate and falsity of it,the sheer preposterous garbage, the historical and archaeological crap that you simply hand wave away and then have the temerity, the audacity to venture out and stridently
claim it is, in some fashion truth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Unk, the issue for me is not Luke’s relative standing as a historian but his absolute standing as being inspired by the creator of the universe. To compare Luke to other historians makes the Bible seem a book on a human level. The issue for me is that if the Bible is inspired by ‘God’ as claimed then it should rise above a human level.
Raymond Brown in his Introduction to the New Testament notes the Census in Luke and the the rebellions referred to in Acts 5 as almost certain historical errors by Luke. As a human I am prepared to accept he can make errors, but a God who allows such errors seems to either lack power or has questionable methods.
Other scholars, such as William Barclay observed that all of the moral teaching of Jesus is reworking of earlier Jewish or buddhist tradition, nothing original.
Raymond Brown also notes that Mark made geographical errors in his Gospel that Luke and Matthew corrected. This just is not how I see a God operating. Perhaps ‘God’ is testing me, well if he is I failed the test. It was not through want of trying.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Peter, I am sympathetic with your journey and your predicament, if that’s any comfort! All I am saying is that the logical starting point for any consideration of the Bible is how the historians assess it as a normal historical document. As such, the historians generally agree it tells us certain things about Jesus. I think they are enough for us to make an assessment of him and his teachings. The question of the exact mode and outcome of God’s inspiration need not arise at that point. If treating the NT as historical texts like any others leads you to think Jesus isn’t true, then that is your conclusion regardless of whether and how it is inspired. Likewise if it leads you or me to believe Jesus is true, again inspiration doesn’t arise. That means that your assessment of how God “ought” to operate doesn’t come into it, which is fortunate, because none of us really know that. It isn’t too late to re-assess. Thanks.
PS I think it does rise above the merely human, but not in the way and to the degree that you seem to require.
LikeLike
Actually Peter’s point re: Inspired by Yahweh is crucial, as it is disingenuous people such as you, Unklee, that promote it as containing enough positive evidence to consider it truthful and worthy of trust. And this is even without once demonstrating the veracity that Yahweh is in fact anything but an ancient man-made deity.
We are fortunate to be living in an age where such ignorance can be quickly exposed and the basis for this ignorance, and in this case your claims for any sort of veracity, revealed as the nonsense it is; as Gary also so recently demonstrated in his comprehensive dismantling of a book written by a former Pastor in his old denomination.
Furthermore, attempting to make a case for ‘Luke’s’ version of the nativity story, merely diminishes even further the one in Matthew.
Maybe it is about time you actually stepped forward and admitted that your belief is based solely on faith, and you simply harbour this fervent desire to find some grain of evidence of truth in the bible to strengthen the foundation of your , castle made of sand, even though, in your heart of hearts you recognise it is simply historical fiction.
LikeLiked by 1 person
UnkleE,
I’m glad you stick around and offer a different view. Like Peter, I struggle to really identify with your perspective on errors within a text that is supposed to be delivered to us by a perfect God, but I do value the opposing position and you often provide things to consider and certainly do your part to help us avoid falling into a strict echo chamber.
Your point about Luke possibly showing that Joseph lived in Bethlehem while Mary lived in Nazareth is worth considering, but in order to accept it out right, we’d have to ignore other things that do not seem to add up to that in both Luke or Matthew.
Like Peter, I also have to wonder why a perfect and all knowing God would compose a message that way. I feel like there’s two possibilities:
1) since a perfect and all knowing God would know that these would present problems and doubts for people, he purposely allowed it to happen,
or 2) the bible isn’t actually from a prefect and all knowing God, but just another composition of men.
Since all other book we have aren’t inspired by God either, it seems reasonable to think the bible isn’t, based on percentages of probability, and observation – as well as other things I won’t bother addressing now.
You said,
“There is virtually nothing of substance written in the entire history of the world that doesn’t contain errors, yet we manage to know and believe many things…. But lack of an inerrant source of knowledge doesn’t seem to me to be a good reason to disbelieve anything.”
I see what you’re trying to say, but I think that all the works in the history of world support my view point more than it does yours. Many of these other works, especially the old ones, make miraculous, divine and supernatural claims, yet we do not believe the supernatural claims and instead seek a natural interpretation – I suggest that if we review the bible in the same way, it actually makes more sense.
And really, since all observation and experimentation has only pinpointed and proven physical natural events, while proving not a single supernatural event, then it would seem a natural explanation is automatically more likely than a supernatural one.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The primary source for the traditional authorship of the Gospels comes from Papias who said that John Mark wrote a Gospel in which he recorded the memoirs of Peter, not adding or leaving out a single detail. Are we to really imagine that Peter never told John Mark about the virgin birth of Jesus or that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the city of David?
If one reads the Gospels in the chronological order in which they were written, it is obvious that the story grows (embellishments) with each new telling. They are NOT trustworthy sources of historical information.
LikeLiked by 5 people
I think if people truly looked at it this way, they wouldn’t be Christians. Historical analysis simply can not provide enough evidence for a person to reasonably conclude that Jesus was actually a god in man-form and that he carried the stamp of approval of the creator of the Universe. I mean, come on… How much sense would it make for God to have all of this stuff happen, but then rely on random individuals to tell the rest of us about it?
The “historical accuracy” argument has always seemed like a textual version of “God of the gaps” to me. As more and more problems with the Bible have been uncovered, believers are forced to walk back the minimum requirements of belief.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Nate said, “Out of curiosity, how do you view it now?”
I believe that both Luke and Matthew invented their stories for theological purposes. It is entirely possible that their initial audiences knew that their birth narratives were not historical but theological allegories to support the belief that Jesus had been born the Son of God. Only later generations of Christians understood them to be historical and tried to harmonize them.
The harmonization for the family fleeing to Egypt instead of Nazareth: Herod and his troops stood in the way of the route north to Nazareth. Egypt was in the opposite direction and therefore the safest escape route. Besides, a prophecy needed to be fulfilled and that could only be done in Egypt!
LikeLike