In nice timing with my earlier post on one problem that arises when we try to harmonize Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts of Jesus’ arrival on planet Earth, Deane Galbraith has posted a clear explanation of why the two accounts don’t harmonize anyway:
The Two Stories of Jesus’ Birth in Bethlehem
And since Christmas is a time for reminiscing, here are some older posts addressing the differences from yet another perspective:
- How and Why Luke Changed Matthew’s Nativity of Jesus Story
- A reason Luke might have rejected Matthew’s nativity story
The following two tabs change content below.
Neil Godfrey
Neil is the author of this post. To read more about Neil, see our About page.
Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)
- Jesus Mythicism and Historical Knowledge, Part 2: Certainty and Uncertainty in History - 2024-11-18 01:15:24 GMT+0000
- Jesus Mythicism and Historical Knowledge, Part 1: Historical Facts and Probability - 2024-11-16 01:05:37 GMT+0000
- Palestinians, written out of their rights to the land – compared with a new history - 2024-10-15 20:05:41 GMT+0000
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!
Another reason for the rejection of the Magi by Luke would be that the expensive gifts would not fit his poverty theme. Matthew doesn’t seem to have thought through that detail….or maybe Joseph just blew all the money at the camel races in Egypt!
Good morning sirs.
Good morning Mr. Neil Godfrey.
Yesterday I commented in
https://vridar.org/2017/12/21/how-john-used-the-synoptics-the-first-temptation-vs-the-first-sign/
And again here I repeat that we MUST READ with the heart and not with the reason.
When Mr. Grant writes about expensive gifts (see above comment), again we are falling in material aspects. And we must avoid them!
Then, knowing a lot of ancient history and mythology and philosophy, you will see that:
MAGI -> I prefer to use “wise men”.
LIGHT -> WISDOM
THREE STRUCTURES:
MYRRH -> PHYSICAL BODY -> «SOMA»
INCENSE -> PSYCHIC -> «PSIQUE»
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psyche_(psychology)
GOLD -> SPIRITUAL -> «NOUS»
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nous
To understand this , please refer to the following video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0tP3_IKDrQ
It is in portuguese, but very important.
*
Remember that we are at the gates of a CLASH between this new religion and stoicism.
*
Regards.
Remember also that in aramaic only the consonants are written. Not the vowels.
So when today (21st century) we see the word NAZARETH,
– what do we understand?
– what were we taught?
https://remnantofgiants.wordpress.com/2017/12/24/the-two-stories-of-jesus-birth-in-bethlehem/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(title)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(sect)
*
Merry Christmas.
Merry winter solstice.
Well sure, as long as you are willing to retcon and redefine everything then Batman’s origin can also be harmonized into the gospels.
Sorry if i offended you, mr. Bob Jase.
Anyway, Batman is the Bible.
Proverbs 21:15
When justice is done, it is a joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.
And reading carefully, we can find something similar in the Gospels.
How would you retcon the Batman origin story into the gospels? I am thinking that one of the magi looked closely at a star near the star they were following, and saw Batman’s parents on the way to the movies… What would your harmony look like?
Clearly Herod sent Joe Chill to kill Bruce Wayne as part of the slaughter of the innocents, the mission was botched and Bruce’s parents were killed. Alfred then put Bruce under deep cover as Jesus, a common name, with poor parents, to cover the connection to the Wayne fortune. The Batman became the leader of the Judean Manbat’s Front beginning with his conflict with the Falcone family aka the Romans. His beloved disciple, Robin, assisted him against Judas Two-Face and other villains.
“we MUST READ with the heart and not with the reason.”
Why? Because you say so? Can you offer another reason for my consideration?
It is not surprising that two writers recounting events from 70-90 years previously would disagree on details. Unlike the story of the execution, there are no conceivable first hand witnesses who could have provided this info. Both accounts seem highly implausible because of the travel involved, which for poor people like them, would have almost certainly been on foot. Of all events recounted in the gospels, the murder of all children under two in a village close to Jerusalem, is one of the most likely to have been noted by other sources. The timing of the two accounts is off. The story of the magi following a star from Persia is absurd.
Still, because there are clearly fictional elements added to round out the story, doesn’t necessarily mean the whole story is myth. The gospel writers do agree on many things. We may say that is because they copied one another, which they clearly did. But it’s possible they copied because Mark’s account agreed with their own information.
To me, the biggest hole in the tales of the living Jesus is that Paul seems to know nothing of his life prior to the events leading up to the execution. No virgin birth, no Mary, no John Baptist, no message of social justice. Even Ignatius, writing 50 or so years later seems unaware of the events of Jesus’ life or the message of his ministry, though he does know of Mary and the virgin birth.
If one takes into account that the writers where writing form different perspectives, then it could be understood. The Jews have 4 levels of interpretation, if one writer is telling the story form a Pshat level of understanding and the other is speaking form the Remez level, then they are not as different as one might imagine that does not understand the starting point of the one telling the story. Something to ponder!
Harmonization requires movement between probability recognition when helpful and possibility thinking when it is not. I wonder how many such thinkers even recognize the dance they dance? Further, is there really any difference between this process and conspiracy theory promotion?
If one considers difference in sources a problem rather than an opportunity, then I don’t think one is really engaged in historical analysis.