Mitch, I came across your post and I'd like to comment. I hope you don't mind.
You use as an example of editing, the supposedly irreconcilable birth narratives. However, Matthew’s and Luke’s narratives span approximately two years.
Joseph originally lived in Nazareth, where he was betrothed to Mary. He left there to register in Bethlehem where Jesus is born in some animal shelter. At this time, His star is seen in (presumably) Old Iraq or Iran by the wise men. They arrive in Jerusalem approximately two years later. We learn this from the text, for when they arrive, Herod asks as to exact time the star appeared. This interrogation gives us the time span from their seeing the star to their arrival in Jerusalem and it gives the reason for Herod ordering the death of children up to two years old. See Matthew 2:16.
As to the census: Why does it have to be the third census? Are the Roman records we have actually complete enough to eliminate any other registrations, especially given Augustus' penchant for them? Are you implying that Luke sets out to tell the exact truth (as he states in chapter 1:3,4), and immediately generates a fictitious census?
As to Isaiah 53: What Jewish person would make the claim that the nation of Israel is the subject of the chapter? I see two major problems with it even if they do claim this: The term “his” is used throughout the chapter. If any gender was typical for a nation in OT Scripture, it was the feminine gender (e.g. see Isaiah 37:22; Jeremiah 3;6-10; Ezekiel 16; Hosea). However, there is a reference to the nation in chapter 53. It is in verse 6: "All we like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him." The text becomes unintelligible if “We” and “us” is the nation and “He” is also the nation. ‘Not opening his mouth’ is a figure of speech to signify his lack of intent to escape the sentence of death that He knew was surely coming. He simply does not offer a vigorous defense, as anyone who is being railroaded into certain death might have done.
What exactly is the problem with assigning Him a grave with the wicked? It seems to me that it would be normal procedure by a government to do so with any of its executed criminals. However, Joseph of Arimathea made a request of Pilate, and he agreed. Is this far-fetched? Is Joseph of Arimathea a fictional creation; and by all four gospel writers? They each agree to his existence and actions; you, however, summarily dismiss him. Wow.
Stan |
