Mitch, thank you for your response. It wasn't too long. It is actually interesting.
The story from your youth certainly doesn't prove that that's what Matthew and Luke are doing, it merely proves that you did a naughty thing. Seriously though, you’re projecting something similar onto Matthew and Luke. You think they did a naughty thing, whether it is deceptiveness or ineptness. Your story is a deliberate attempt to poison the well about the notion that elements of a narrative can be told in separate pieces by two writers. Sorry, you can't make me drink.
In Matthew, we have no shepherd’s, no manger, no census.
They can’t be there because it's two years after the birth of Jesus.
In Luke, we have no magi (wise men), no gold, frankencense, and myrr, no slaughter of the innocents, no fleeing to Egypt.
They can’t be there because it is two years earlier, right at the birth.
In fact, the only commonality between the two stories seems to be a virgin birth foretold by angels, born in Bethlehem, ended up in Nazareth.
Why does there have to be commonality on every story element to make it genuine?
In Luke, everybody but Mary was astonished at the shepherd's news that Jesus was to be a savior (2:18). But in Matthew an Angel had already debriefed Joseph on the situation (1:21). Two things now: All were astonished –the Greek word for “astonish” here means to marvel at or to hold in admiration. It does not need to imply that a brand new revelation is made to the hearers, except obviously, to the local townspeople to whom the whole thing was news. Next, I see no problem with even the parents expressing astonishment at the arrival of heavenly beings in glorious array and majestic voices announcing what they already knew privately about Jesus.
But Matthew has him starting out in Bethlehem, fleeing to Egypt to escape Herod, then returning to the land of Israel.
He is starting out two years after the birth.
Next, let's look at what we can find in secular documents to corroborate these stories: “My ancient records can beat up your ancient records,” is about what you’re saying. Your claim is that available secular records should resolve all declarations made about the Roman/Jewish world of the era. Not only that, but you wish to dismiss the gospel writings based on this. With all due respect, I cannot accede. My question in my previous post still stands.
However, not to seem unwilling to discuss any of this: A critical point is currently under serious question from your vaunted historical records: Quirinius may have been a legate of Syria not once but twice.
My forte is not ancient Roman history, but I cite this as an example of ongoing investigation into that era. You know what that is like, even with modern studies about modern things. One thing displaces another as things are discovered.
I hold to the gospels and all other Scripture for a very real fact: my own full conviction about the reality of its subject -- the risen Lord, Jesus. My conviction is based upon both a powerful and undeniable encounter with Him as well as the common testimony of His followers throughout many centuries. This was not always the case with me. Scripture gives me ongoing peace and life as well as supports and strengthens that encounter. . . but I'm getting beyond the confines of your area of discussion.
Stan |
