The Contradictory Nativities of Matthew/Luke

[wavy]

There are two major discrepancies I want to point out between Matthew and Luke in their Nativities which are as follows:

1) Matthew's story has Joseph and Mary living in Bethlehem when Jesus was born while Luke places their home in Nazareth and attempts to place them in the traditional Bethlehem by an unhistorical census (see Luke ii.1-5).

2) Matthew mentions a flight to Egypt to make a scriptural connection with Hosea xi.1 (see Matthew ii.13-15), while Luke completely omits this tale and doesn't allow time in his chronology for a flight to Egypt.


Exposing the Errancy


The starting setting:

Matthew narrates that Jesus is born in Bethlehem and magi arrive to worship him since they 'saw his star' (Matthew ii.1-12). Jesus is anywhere around 2 years old at this time as indicated by Matthew ii.16. There is no mention of Luke's shepherds who visited when Jesus was newborn at the stable (see Luke ii.7-20). When the magi in Matthew arrive in Bethlehem to worship Jesus, Matthew states they came to 'the house' (Matthew ii.11), indicating Mary and Joseph's home was in Bethlehem (they're still there two years after his birth)--much unlike Luke's story where they're there temporarily for a census and Jesus was born on a farm because there wasn't room anywhere else during the bustle and hustle of the census. In fact, Luke directly states that Mary and Joseph were living in Nazareth (Luke i.26-27; ii.4).


Flight to Egypt:

Matthew narrates that after Herod decides to kill Jesus shortly after the Magi's arrival (this entire event is omitted by Luke and Herod is never mentioned at all), Joseph is warned in a dream by an angel to go to Egypt immediately, where the holy family stays until the death of Herod (Matthew ii.13-18). Remember Jesus is anywhere around two years old when they leave for Egypt.


Out of Egypt:

Matthew narrates that after Herod died an angel came to Joseph again and tells him to go back to Israel (Matthew ii.19-21). Joseph had a mind to go back to Judea (presumably back to Bethlehem), but was afraid to do so because Herod's son now reigned there, so instead he goes to Nazareth in Galilee. This is how the account reads:


But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Then after being warned by God in a dream, he left for the regions of Galilee,

and came and lived in a city called Nazareth This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: "He shall be called a Nazarene." (Matthew ii.22-23)


These verses further highlight that Joseph's home was in Bethlehem in Judea (or else why would he want to go back there?) and that he came to live in Nazareth in Galilee to fulfill some non-existent prophecy about Jesus being called a Nazarene. Jesus was about two years old when they left for Egypt and upon the return and the subsequent move to Nazareth, he must have been even older. In any case, he and his family made their home in Nazareth when he was a young boy according to Matthew. This directly contradicts Luke who tells us that Mary and Joseph were already living in Nazareth even before Jesus was born (see above) and were only in Bethlehem for a census. After Jesus was born in Bethlehem, named and circumcised the 8th day after his birth (Luke ii.21) Luke writes:


And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord

(as it is written in the Law of the Lord, "EVERY firstborn MALE THAT OPENS THE WOMB SHALL BE CALLED HOLY TO THE LORD"),

and to offer a sacrifice according to what was said in the Law of the Lord, "A PAIR OF TURTLEDOVES OR TWO YOUNG PIGEONS." (Luke ii.22-24)


These laws concerning circumcision and purification can be found in Leviticus which reads:


"Speak to the sons of Israel, saying: 'When a woman gives birth and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean for seven days, as in the days of her menstruation she shall be unclean.

'On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

'Then she shall remain in the blood of her purification for thirty-three days; she shall not touch any consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary until the days of her purification are completed. (Leviticus xii.1-4)


It goes on to prescribe what to bring as a sacrifice to the Temple/sanctuary, as Luke states, but mark the seven days and the thirty-three days. If you add them you get forty days. So after Mary's uncleanliness of forty days, she then enters the Temple (in Jerusalem, which is in Judea if you don't know, close to Bethlehem) and offers her sacrifice, just as Luke states. So Jesus is only forty days old. But mark what Luke states after this process was finished:


When they had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own city of Nazareth. (Luke ii.39)


Luke says they returned to Nazareth, where they were already staying. There's no mention of a flight to Egypt, and Joseph and Mary return to Nazareth with Jesus who's a baby not much more than a month old--not a young boy as in Matthew's Nativity. They go there because they stay there, not to fulfill any prophecy as in Matthew (who's trying hard to make Jesus fulfill as many 'prophecies' as he can to appeal to the Jews to whom he's obviously writing so that they can believe he is the Messiah and the Son of God).

 

[Devekut]

It's true that both accounts can not be historical in full detail. The biblical authors have clearly, and in more cases than this, modified their historical accounts to make certain theological points.

The bible is not a solely historical document, but in many cases relies on narratives and stories to point to higher theological truths.

However, we can be assured by the God-breathed nature of Scripture that, where a theological truth is contingent on a historical detail, that this event is indeed historical. (ie. the Crucifixion of Christ, his physical resurrection, the Lord's Supper, the Virgin Birth, ect.)

I don't think the faithful are compelled to accept such stories as Jesus journeying to Egypt as historically factual. Denying that story as historically factual does not call any theological truths into doubt.

 

[Imagican]

Nice reply Devecut.

Also remember that Luke was NOT even one of the apostles. He came on board AFTER Christ's physical ministry. However, Matthew WAS. So Lukes account could ONLY have come from 'second hand' information, while Matthew would have had a much more INTIMATE relationship with the story.

Many people DON'T realize that Mark and Luke wrote their gospels well after Christ's ministry and did NOT personally witness ALL of the events contained in the gospels that they penned. Yet it IS truth that ONLY Matthew and John, (so far as we KNOW), actually walked and talked with Christ. There is MUCH speculation as to when and if ANY other writers of the NT ever even MET Christ until AFTER the ressurection, but most of the known records show that they DID NOT.

MEC

 

[wavy]

Nice reply Devecut.

His response was just a dodge (no offense to him). Matthew and Luke do not have to fabricate historical events to make theological points. No one does. Matthew's history is supposed to be taken as is. So is Luke's. They contradict each other, therefore the scriptures contain error.

That Luke and Mark were not apostles (I don't believe, along with majority biblical historical and critical scholarship, that the authors of Matthew and John were apostles either) makes no difference and is irrelevant. It's in the bible. If the bible is supposed to be the inerrant word of God then Matthew vs. Luke as presented in the OP are a problem (one of many).

 

[Devekut]

Firstly, I did not indicate my views on the authorship of either gospel. However, it seems sufficiently clear that Luke was involved in gathering sources before he drew up his account.

We must avoid the kind of reductionism which takes scripture and reduces it to what the author himself may have intended (as if we could ever know that in full). The miracle of Scripture is that even though a human person shapes it and gives it form according to his intention, God Himself is behind that work and giving it a broader shape for all ages to come. This is why to debunk the historical credibility of a text does not automatically demolish its theological meaning (ie. the creation account).

Secondly, my understanding of the term "God-breathed" in regards to scripture is that the Bible is protected from error on matters concerning faith and morality. This is because correct faith and morality, being of course interdependent, are the the tools by which the salvation Christ won for us, is made present in us. Where a revealed theological truth has been found to be contingent on a proposed historical event, then we can be assured that this event has occured insofar as it upholds the revealed truth.

The living authority of the Christian Church, as it is lead by the Spirit, has increasingly brought to our attention [throughout all of Christian history] what is of neccessity to the Faith. It has always been drawing out the implications of what has been recieved from Christ. For example, we know now that it is not contrary to the faith to regard the creation story of Genesis in an allegorical sense. It is not contrary to accept much of the historical-critical views of the Exodus (ie. a small number of Israelite people broke free from Egypt and integrated the story into the existing Hebrew culture) It is not contrary to the faith to see a significant degree of allegory behind the Book of Joshua (when we consider what archaeology has revealed about Israel's military conquests).



Of course, we are not compelled by the Faith to discard more traditional understandings. Reason might compel us otherwise as we are ushered into new times.

However, we know certain accepted historical tenets of the Faith will never change. Not only has it been revealed in scripture, but it has been revealed and re-affirmed consistently through the ages (through various means) that the Virgin Birth of Christ was a historical event. Scripture and Traditions (those of which have their source in God) have made this clear.

Matthew and Luke do not have to fabricate historical events to make theological points

Its a Jewish technique called "midrash". The majority of people are confounded by elaborate theological works or bored by straightforward teaching. Emobdying a theological teaching in a story is a powerful and effective way to keep that theology alive among the masses.

 

[wavy]

Firstly, I did not indicate my views on the authorship of either gospel.

You didn't, but I was commenting on Imagican's post.

However, it seems sufficiently clear that Luke was involved in gathering sources before he drew up his account.

I don't disagree.

The miracle of Scripture is that even though a human person shapes it and gives it form according to his intention, God Himself is behind that work and giving it a broader shape for all ages to come.

I don't disagree. I believe this very thing.

Where a revealed theological truth has been found to be contingent on a proposed historical event, then we can be assured that this event has occured insofar as it upholds the revealed truth.

I'm not understanding you here. What theological truth is being revealed in Matthew and/or Luke that is contingent upon a historical event, but does not preclude Matthew/Luke from contradicting one another historically and factually? What is 'historical' and what is 'theological' here?

Not only has it been revealed in scripture, but it has been revealed and re-affirmed consistently through the ages (through various means) that the Virgin Birth of Christ was a historical event.

Is the Virgin Birth the historical event I'm looking for above? I do not believe the Virgin Birth is historical. The authors of Matthew and Luke each have their own agendas in using what I believe is an obvious myth (to explain his unique nature and affiliation with God as the 'Son of God'). But regardless, on what criteria are you judging that this is historical while the rest is allegory?

Its a Jewish technique called "midrash".

I know what midrash is. Matthew and Luke are not being midrashical (except for when Matthew quotes OT scriptures out of context to bolster his attempt to present Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God in expectation of the prophetic fulfillment to the Jews to whom he's writing).

Again, I'm asking you how you can objectively differentiate between what is intended history and what is intended allegory in both Matthew and Luke. The evidence says Matthew and Luke were being historical, not allegorical (the author of Luke, a Greek, wouldn't be employing allegory in his 'orderly account' anyway).

 

[Devekut]

My point is that, with God working behind scripture, we don't have to limit scripture to what the author intended. Matthew may have considered himself to be writing history, but God may have have guided him to write a theological allegory. Matthew and Luke may have recieved altered historical accounts, mixed with errors, that contained genuine historical elements. Paired together they conflict on some details, but on essentialy theological points they agree. There does seem to be a suspicion in certain texts as to who Jesus was fathered by.

How do I know the Virgin Birth is historical? In my case it ultimately comes down to the simple question of authority. It is a clear testament of the early Church, of the Church fathers that the Virgin Birth is of enormous theological importance. As a Catholic I know that God has guided the Magesterium to proclaim as a theological truth the fact of Christ's virgin birth. Additionally, I can rely on the private revelations declared legitimate by the Church that the Virgin Mary was indeed a Virgin when she gave birth to Christ. [ie. Lourdes and Fatima]

Lastly, does not logic compel us to acknowledge God's direct role in the formation of Christ? The two natures of Christ demand parents that are each of his nature. God the Divine Father, Mary the human mother, from which we derive Christ the God-Man, two natures united and on which our salvation is contingent. For how else could God take up human nature unless his divine nature became human? To deny the Virgin Birth is the first step towards eroding the Two Natures. It is the complete and total union of these natures on which Christianity depends.

This gives additional legitimacy to the Virgin Birth as a neccessary theological truth.

The author of John has no qualms in changing the time of Christ's death to make a theological point. Yet no one doubts that Christ was indeed crucified. The question is where do we draw the line? You draw the line at "Jesus' birth was meaningful". A completely arbitrary line, arrived at by your own conclusion that nevertheless has some prospect of being true, but we have no way of being certain. Though it is nevertheless inconsistent with the Christian faith as it was handed down to us for the past two-thousand years. And it additionally chips at the foundations of the essentials of the faith. I draw the line at the actual virginal conception of Jesus, which according to the consistent revelation and testimony of the Church, is an affirmation essential to the Faith.

Again, I'm asking you how you can objectively differentiate between what is intended history and what is intended allegory in both Matthew and Luke

Those who have the authority to interpret the Deposit of Faith teach clearly what is essential to that faith. Whatever is of theological neccesity to the Christian faith is true. Whatever of these theological truths are contingent on historical events, these events are factual. Anything else is the realm of personal opinon.

For this reason, I do not believe that the narratives are 100% historicaly factual, but that they express a combination of both theological and historical truths. Christians are compelled to believe that Christ was virginally conceived.

 

[wavy]

1) I am not subject to any religious authority. You choose to be as part of your Catholic faith and therefore choose to interpret Matthew and Luke the way that you do (I fancy myself an amateur liberal and historical critic). That's fine. That's a dead end for that part of the discussion so there's no point in taking that further.

2) As far as the Virgin Birth goes, I detect no such theology offered by the gospels that it had to occur for Jesus to be both divine and human. The Johannine gospel, borrowing from Hellenistic concepts, needs no Virgin Birth for its divine Logos to become flesh. Mark doesn't mention the virgin birth either and neither do the Pauline letters (the earliest NT documents).

3) It all comes down to a world view. We view how to interpret these contradictions a bit differently (you in light of faith-based tradition and me in light of critical/historical scholarship). There's no convinving the other, but at least you acknowledge that contradiction in the bible does exist (contrary to fundamentalist, inerrantist belief). I appreciate the exchange, but there isn't much more to say here.

 

[Devekut]

True, we are approaching this question from entierly different views its truly impossible for one to persuade the other without getting deeply into other questions.

However, we should note that just because John does not mention the Virgin Birth does not mean he denies it. As the latest of all the Gospels, I think it would not be too presumptious to state that he was well aware of this story and that he presupposes it and rather seeks to make known Christ's pre-existence. It is not an evidence for or against. John simply states "the Word became flesh". Thats a highly ambigious statement and we can assume he had certain ideas about how that Word became flesh. By this period in Christian history, I think it likely, and when considering this Gospel's Marian emphasis (Cana, the foot of the Cross, and the entrusting of the Virgin to St. John), that he agreed with the Virginal Conception.

One thing I think that should be clear is that the Virgin Birth is essential to a full and rich understanding of the orthodox Christian Faith. It is not quite the same as whether or not Christ rode into Jerusalem on two donkeys or whether his Beatitudes were delivered in the Lukan or Matthaen sense. We do not affirm it solely because it is present, but because it has been demonstrated to us that it is deeply connected with even the most sublime of Christian truths.

 

[Imagican]

Wavy,

I PERSONALLY believe that ANYONE that has actually 'studied' the Bible and it's history realizes that there HAVE been alterations to it's content. It WAS in fact CREATED by men. But that doesn't take away from the FACT that it was INSPIRED BY GOD.

I don't doubt a bit that there were stubling blocks ALLOWED in the book by GOD HIMSELF. For it was NOT MEANT to be something that is 'simply read' and 'understood'. Without the guidance of The Spirit it is NOTHING but a 'book' written by MEN. It is ONLY when we allow the Spirit to guide us through it's pages that we are able to 'discern THE TRUTH'.

As to the authorship of the gospels; Since we KNOW that the apostles WERE a group of UNEDUCATED Jews, there IS the 'indication' that they MAY INDEED have need for 'someone else' to pen their thoughts and statements'. But, don't forget that Matthew 'had been' a TAX COLLECTOR and there was CERTAINLY the need for at least a rudimentary education in reading and writting. I am not as versed in the history of John so for him I have no comment. But PAUL, as well, had CERTAINLY been taught to read and write. For we KNOW that he was a relatively EDUCATED man.

I have discovered NUMEROUS discrepencies in the gospels. But EACH time that I have THOUGHT that I had found an OUTRIGHT contradiction, given time and prayer the answer came and it became CLEAR that it was ME who had 'asssumed' something NOT OFFERED and had used THIS ASSUMPTION to read contradiction INTO what was written.

Wavy, if I didn't know any better I would 'think' that you were JEWISH. I say this NOT to be derogatory but the understanding you offer indicates more of a Jewish Faith than that of a 'traditional Christian'. Don't be dismayed for there is MUCH to be gained from the Jewish Faith if one is ABLE to allow it to ENHANCE one's understanding of God and Christ WITHOUT choosing to be 'stuck' in times past and the Law that we have been offered FREEDOM from. For as ANYONE who has read The Word KNOWS, The Jews were/ARE God's CHOSEN.

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Please forgive my haste in reply. For I skipped everything from your direct reply to me. But, after reading the rest of the posts, MOST of my reply had already been addressed by both you and Davecut. My appologies for not taking my time.

MEC

 

[ChristineES]

I wouldn't say they are exactly contradictory, but each from a different point of view. Even the news gets somewhat different information for current events. Although we know the Bible was inspired by God, it was still written by men.

 

[Vic C.]

The OP has some leading assumptions aimed at causing one to accept without question what was said. :-?

I see you're grasping at straws again, wavy. What's your agenda? The fact that both accounts aren't identical lends creditability. I would be suspect if they were cookie cutter stories. 8-) :-?

 

[wavy]

The OP has some leading assumptions aimed at causing one to accept without question what was said. :-?

Talk is cheap. Pray tell, what 'assumptions' would those be?

I see you're grasping at straws again, wavy.

'Again'? No disrespect, Vic, but when have you demonstrated this in the past?

The fact that both accounts aren't identical lends creditability. I would be suspect if they were cookie cutter stories. 8-) :-?

There are many examples of 'cookie cutter' narratives in the bible. Would you reject them too? And it's not just that Matthew and Luke 'aren't identical'. Their contradictory nature is demonstrable and has been demonstrated. Until you can provide an actual answer or prove otherwise, the OP stands.

 

[handy]

I don't see any contradictions between the Matthew account and the Luke account. Frankly, I don't think the two accounts are of the same story.

These events that Matthew and Luke describe are linked together on Christmas Cards and I think rose via the RCC tradition of Epiphany with placed the visit from the Magi 12 days after Christ's birth. However, there is no reason to think that the Magi visited Jesus so closely after His birth, and for the reasons you point out, there's every reason to believe that Jesus was two years old when the Magi visited Him.

So, there is no reason to compare the Luke account with the shepherds and all, to Matthew's account as they are clearly two separate events, separated by as much as two years.

However, we do see in Luke 2:41 that "His parents used to go to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover." I don't want to make a bunch of assumptions here, but we at least know that the Family traveled back and forth from Jerusalem to Nazareth a lot. As Bethlehem is so close to Jerusalem, around 5-6 miles only, it's no stretch to assume that they stayed in Bethlehem when they travel to Jerusalem, especially during a busy time like Passover. We do know that Joseph had some kind of family ties there, as this was why he went there for the census. For whatever reason, whether they have moved there from Nazareth sometime in the two years after His birth, or whether they were just staying there for a family event or Passover, we do know that the Family was in Bethlehem when the Magi arrived.

That the family may have moved there within the year or two after Jesus was born makes sense because, as you pointed out, Joseph seemed to want to return to the region when it was safe to leave Egypt. But, again, we have no details as to why Joseph wanted to go back to Judea in the first place. We can know from the account that the Family left in a great hurry, as Joseph had a dream, then arose and took the Family and left. Perhaps verse 22 is simply a reference to the understandable assumption that they would want to return to Bethlehem to gather personal belongings, settle any unsettled business, whatever. At any rate, it still wasn't safe for them to return to Judea at that point, so they went on to Nazareth, where they either lived (assuming they were visiting Bethlehem when the Magi came) or had lived up to after Jesus' birth (assuming they actually moved to the Jerusalem area.)

Regarding the prophecy, "He shall be called a Nazarene": You are correct that there is no specific prophecy that says these exact words. However, Matthew said, "This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets..." Matthew is not referring to a specific prophecy, but rather to a body of prophecies concerning the Messiah, namely the body of prophecies that spoke of the Messiah being a despised sprout or branch. This is a play on the name of Nazareth, with is derived from the word Nezer, the word for 'sprout' or 'branch' which also carried the connotation of something despised. There are a number of prophesies that refer to the Messiah as a branch, as despised and as a despised branch in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Zecariah.

I PERSONALLY believe that ANYONE that has actually 'studied' the Bible and it's history realizes that there HAVE been alterations to it's content.

I disagree. I have actually 'studied' the Bible. For a number of years now. I do think that there have been a few minor and insignificant details that have been miscopied. However, on the whole the Bible is amazingly accurate in the history that it gives us and we can rely upon its veracity. If anyone can conceive of a God who would inspire His Word to be written, one should also give that same God the credit of maintaining the purity of His Word.

Some folks though simply don't want the Word of God to be accurate. So, they go looking for spurious contradictions.

 

[wavy]

I don't see any contradictions between the Matthew account and the Luke account.

It's not my job to 'make' anyone open their eyes.

Frankly, I don't think the two accounts are of the same story.

They don't tell the same story, but each story falls within the same frame of time at some point...and it doesn't coincide.

So, there is no reason to compare the Luke account with the shepherds and all, to Matthew's account as they are clearly two separate events, separated by as much as two years.

That's only one aspect of the Nativities I mentioned, and I didn't say this aspect was a contradiction. All I said was that the shepherd and magi stories were omitted in either gospel. That in itself does not constitute a discrepancy...but that isn't what the bulk of my post was about.

However, we do see in Luke 2:41 that "His parents used to go to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover." I don't want to make a bunch of assumptions here, but we at least know that the Family traveled back and forth from Jerusalem to Nazareth a lot. As Bethlehem is so close to Jerusalem, around 5-6 miles only, it's no stretch to assume that they stayed in Bethlehem when they travel to Jerusalem, especially during a busy time like Passover.

Yes, you are making too many assumptions. Even if what you are saying was true, whether or not they stayed in Bethlehem during Passover as a custom is irrelevant. The birth and its setting in Bethlehem (where Matthew places their home) is not during Passover.

In Matthew Jesus is born in Bethlehem (no mention of Joseph and Mary having been staying in Nazareth), and he's there up until he's two years old (no mention of going back Nazareth). His family then departs to Egypt for a time. Then they come and live in Nazareth (not go back) to fulfill a 'prophecy'.

In Luke the family lives in Nazareth, goes to Bethlehem temporarily for a census, Jesus is born there, he goes to Jerusalem when he's 40 days old, then the family moves back to Nazareth. Then he narrates their going back and forth to and from Nazareth and Jerusalem up until Jesus is 12 years old. End of story. There's no going back to live in Bethlehem to coincide with Matthew and then moving to Nazareth for the first time to fulfill a prophecy (contradicting Matthew).

We do know that Joseph had some kind of family ties there, as this was why he went there for the census.

We don't know that. Luke contradicts the historical record in this regard.

For whatever reason, whether they have moved there from Nazareth sometime in the two years after His birth, or whether they were just staying there for a family event or Passover, we do know that the Family was in Bethlehem when the Magi arrived.

You're creating false alternatives (highlighted in bold-red above) because you're chronology is off and you're making unsupported assumptions, clearly violating Occam's razor. Passover has nothing to do with Matthew placing Joseph and Mary's home in Bethlehem. He states they came and lived in Nazareth...not moved back as in Luke who places there home there.

That the family may have moved there within the year or two after Jesus was born makes sense because, as you pointed out, Joseph seemed to want to return to the region when it was safe to leave Egypt.

Wrong. That Joseph wanted to go back to Judea according to Matthew only serves to prove that he lived there--that has nothing to do with Nazareth or whether he lived in Nazareth before. Matthew certainly introduces Nazareth as if they never lived there in Matthew ii.23, and he does this to fulfill a non-existent prophecy. Since Luke already places there home in Nazareth, then Joseph and Mary coming to live there as in Matthew to fulfill a prophecy doesn't make sense. The contradiction is self-explanatory.

At any rate, it still wasn't safe for them to return to Judea at that point, so they went on to Nazareth, where they either lived (assuming they were visiting Bethlehem when the Magi came) or had lived up to after Jesus' birth (assuming they actually moved to the Jerusalem area.)

Again, you're not reconciling the contradiction...only ignoring what I have stated in the OP and the narratives as a whole, making many unsupported assumptions, and grasping at straws. Matthew does not state that they had lived in Nazareth. That contradicts Matthew ii.23. After Luke states they returned to Nazareth, he says Jesus was growing (on the basis of his statement that he still lived in Nazareth), and then he goes on to narrate the family's trips to Jerusalem every year for the feast of Passover up until Jesus is twelve years old in the Temple. You're assuming that they had moved to the 'Jerusalem area'. But if that is so, why do they go back to Nazareth after the scene at the Temple when Jesus is twelve years old (Luke ii.43, 51)?

Your assumptons are inconsistent with and disprupts Matthew and Luke's narratives, violating Occam's razor.

Regarding the prophecy, "He shall be called a Nazarene": You are correct that there is no specific prophecy that says these exact words.

I know I'm correct.

However, Matthew said, "This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets..." Matthew is not referring to a specific prophecy, but rather to a body of prophecies concerning the Messiah, namely the body of prophecies that spoke of the Messiah being a despised sprout or branch.

That assumption remains unsupported. Matthew obviously is quoting something...or making something up.

This is a play on the name of Nazareth, with is derived from the word Nezer, the word for 'sprout' or 'branch' which also carried the connotation of something despised. There are a number of prophesies that refer to the Messiah as a branch, as despised and as a despised branch in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Zecariah.

Doesn't hold water. But even if it does it does little (nothing) to reconcile the contradictions in the OP. My case is not built upon what Matthew is or isn't quoting or paraphrasing or revealing.

You stated that you didn't want to make too many assumptions...which is exactly what you have done in your 'defense'.

 

[handy]

They don't tell the same story, but each story falls within the same frame of time at some point...and it doesn't coincide.

No each story does NOT fall within the same frame of time. They describe events that are as much as two years apart.

Luke account starts in Nazareth and ends with the family returning to Nazareth. Matthew's account relates events that happens around two years after Luke's account and begins with the family in Bethlehem. When and how they arrived in Bethlehem when Jesus was around two, isn't recorded for us. And, it isn't material to Matthew's story either. Nor does it have anything at all to do with Luke's story. Just because Luke didn't speak of the family returning to Bethlehem within two years, doens't mean that they didn't do so.

We don't know that. Luke contradicts the historical record in this regard.

What historical record are you referring to?

You're creating false alternatives (highlighted in bold-red above) because you're chronology is off and you're making unsupported assumptions, clearly violating Occam's razor. Passover has nothing to do with Matthew placing Joseph and Mary's home in Bethlehem. He states they came and lived in Nazareth...not moved back as in Luke who places there home there.

Not false alternatives, surely. Simply plausible alternatives to Matthew and Luke setting out to deceive the world with a bunch of bull-hooky just to make spurious claims of fulfilled prophesies.

Matthew certainly introduces Nazareth as if they never lived there in Matthew ii.23, and he does this to fulfill a non-existent prophecy.

Matthew does not state that they had lived in Nazareth. That contradicts Matthew ii.23.

Wow Wavy, I didn't realize that you had such powers of perception that you could actually read Matthew's mind and understand his unstated motives after 2000 years. So Matthew doesn't state that they had lived in Nazareth before. Big Whoops! Doesn't mean that they didn't, just that Matthew didn't mention it. Matthew simply is describing how they came from Egypt and went to Nazareth.

Wavy, you are acting as though these people must be frozen in one place, instead of moving back and forth and living full lives. Neither Matthew nor Luke, nor Mark and John for that matter give us entire blow-by-blow accounts of the lives of Jesus and His family. We only have certain events described for us.

You stated that you didn't want to make too many assumptions...which is exactly what you have done in your 'defense'.

At least try to be intellectually honest enough to admit that you're making some pretty big assumptions yourself here Wavy. You are assuming that Matthew and Luke accounts coinside with each other, that "each story falls within the same frame of time at some point", and I don't know why you are when the account of the birth of Christ and the account of the Magi fall at least two years apart. If you want to try to state the Matthew is describing events during the time of Jesus birth, I wish you would post the reference. I see no reference that Matthew is referring to Jesus birth, just event's that took place after his birth, and Matthew consistantly refers to Jesus as a child, not an infant. Luke on the other hand, does indeed refer to Christ as "the Baby" in 2:16.

You are also assuming that both Matthew and Luke are presenting full and complete details of the Family's lives. This is a huge assumption. Luke relates the account of Jesus' birth. Matthew relates an event that takes place two years later. Nowhere does Luke state outright that Mary and Joseph made their permanent home in Nazareth, nor does Matthew state the their permanent home was in Bethlehem. Folks do move around you know. They did back then and they do so now.

Even the topic itself is an erroneous assumption upon your part, because the account of the Magi and subsequent flight to Egypt is not a "Nativity".

My case is not built upon what Matthew is or isn't quoting or paraphrasing or revealing.

Your 'case' isn't built upon anything at all, except a desire upon your part to discredit the Gospel accounts for whatever reason. You've built a fairly big straw man to knock down, but it's only that, a straw man. You are trying to make out that Matthew and/or Luke are somehow lying to us. There is nothing in the Gospel accounts to base that claim on.

I would buy your claim to a legitmate contradiction if either Matthew or Luke made the claims that you are assuming they made. But, they didn't.

And although I don't necessarily care about Occam's razor, since you do, let's apply it to your own theory here. As stated in your link regarding Occam's razor:

Considering that the razor is often wielded as an argument against theism, it is somewhat ironic that Ockham himself was a theist. He considered some Christian sources to be valid sources of factual data, equal to both logic and sense perception. He wrote, "No plurality should be assumed unless it can be proved (a) by reason, or (b) by experience, or (c) by some infallible authority"; referring in the last clause "to the Bible, the Saints and certain pronouncements of the Church" (Hoffmann 1997). In Ockham's view, an explanation which does not harmonize with reason, experience or the aforementioned sources cannot be considered valid.

You explanation, that Matthew's lack of reference to the family's prior residence in Nazareth constitutes a contradiction with Luke and he does this just to make up a lie regarding prophesy, does not harmonize with the Bible, Saint Matthew or the Church and therefore should not be considered valid.

 

[wavy]

No each story does NOT fall within the same frame of time. They describe events that are as much as two years apart.

Wrong. Matthew has Jesus in Bethlehem after his birth for up to two years. According to Luke during that two year time period (after Jesus was 40 days old) they were in Nazareth up until he's twelve.

You're just ignoring the counter-evidence because you've made assumptions with no support which violate Occam's razor.

Luke account starts in Nazareth and ends with the family returning to Nazareth. Matthew's account relates events that happens around two years after Luke's account and begins with the family in Bethlehem.

Wrong. Matthew has the family in Bethlehem until they move to Nazareth several years afterwards following a trip to Egypt for a while. While they should be in Bethlehem for two years and in Egypt after his birth according to Matthew, Luke states they had already been in Nazareth and indicates they had been staying there since. According to Matthew they don't arrive in Nazareth until Jesus is probably well over two years old. Luke places them in Nazareth when Jesus was barely over a month.

You want to read a lot of unsupported movements back and forth between Nazareth and Bethlehem that contradict and disrupt the plain reading and flow of the narrative in violation of Occam's razor.

When and how they arrived in Bethlehem when Jesus was around two, isn't recorded for us.

They didn't arrive there when he was two. He was born there and they stayed in a 'house' (the natural word in Greek for a family dwelling). In Luke it's an inn they can't get into and a stable. 40 days transpire and they're back in Nazareth where Luke says they were already staying. Matthew says they came to live there (obviously from their home in Bethlehem). If they came to live there, they weren't already living there, clearly contradicting Luke.

Just because Luke didn't speak of the family returning to Bethlehem within two years, doens't mean that they didn't do so.

You're trying to argue from silence. You want the poor family to have two assumed, unnatural and implausible homes which they move back and forth to with no evidence, all the while ignoring the positive assertions of both Matthew and Luke. Matthew states they came to live in Nazareth well after Jesus was born (over two years) and Luke states they returned to Nazareth when Jesus was a little over a month.

The narratives must be looked at as a whole when compared. Arguing from silence and making unsupported assumptions that assume no less than four unnatural movements back and forth between Nazareth and Bethlehem violating Occam's razor and ignoring straighforward statements like in Matthew ii.23 is not an argument.

What historical record are you referring to?

Quirinius wasn't governer during the time Luke's records.

Not false alternatives, surely. Simply plausible alternatives to Matthew and Luke setting out to deceive the world with a bunch of bull-hooky just to make spurious claims of fulfilled prophesies.

1) Violations of Occam's razor that ignore the counter-evidence and disprupt the flow of straightforward narratives is hardly 'plausible'.

2) No one said Matthew and Luke were trying to deceive anyone. Being separate accounts, they clearly contradict one another, as the OP demonstrates. Your straw-grasping and assumptions aren't plausible or evidence or reconciliatory of the OP. You may bury your head in the sand about that if you wish.

So Matthew doesn't state that they had lived in Nazareth before. Big Whoops! Doesn't mean that they didn't, just that Matthew didn't mention it. Matthew simply is describing how they came from Egypt and went to Nazareth.

Wrong. It's about more than just silence. The way Matthew ii.23 plainly reads shows they hadn't lived there before. For one, you don't come and dwell (make your home/settle, as Thayer reads it is to be understood in the aorist tense) in a place where you already stay. The Greek word here, KATOIKEW, never means to go back to a place you already stay in. Not that I can find. Can you demonstrate otherwise? (good luck) Secondly, had they already been going back and forth between Bethlehem and Nazarath, the supposed 'prophecy' would have already been completed long ago, since Luke records Joseph and Mary were already living there. Third, the indefiniteness of city ('a city called Nazareth') further supports the notion that Matthew is introducing it for the first time because it was foreign to his story up until that point (which strongly indicates their home was in Bethlehem).

All this points to Matthew placing them there for the first time. There's evidence for my claims. Where's the evidence for your stacked assumptions? It does not exist. You have to beg the question that Matthew and Luke agree contrary to the evidence that they don't.

You are assuming that Matthew and Luke accounts coinside with each other, that "each story falls within the same frame of time at some point",

That is not an assumption. That's the plain reading of the text. And here you're contradicting yourself. If your unsupported assumptions are based on movements that occur between Matthew and Luke's narratives (especially during the first two years after Jesus' birth), then you must agree that the accounts do overlap.

I see no reference that Matthew is referring to Jesus birth, just event's that took place after his birth, and Matthew consistantly refers to Jesus as a child, not an infant. Luke on the other hand, does indeed refer to Christ as "the Baby" in 2:16.

Matthew does refer to his birth in Matthew ii.1. But I never said the visit of the magi came during the birth. You acknowledged that with your initial response to my post. Why are you confusing things?

You are also assuming that both Matthew and Luke are presenting full and complete details of the Family's lives. This is a huge assumption. Luke relates the account of Jesus' birth. Matthew relates an event that takes place two years later. Nowhere does Luke state outright that Mary and Joseph made their permanent home in Nazareth, nor does Matthew state the their permanent home was in Bethlehem. Folks do move around you know. They did back then and they do so now.

I have no desire to repeat myself. These things have been addressed above. I do not need to list your errors and refusal to acknowledge the evidence in my favor...evidence which you must ignore and then assume unsupported things in order to maintain your position.

Even the topic itself is an erroneous assumption upon your part, because the account of the Magi and subsequent flight to Egypt is not a "Nativity".

na·tiv·i·ty (nÉ™-tÄ­v'Ä­-tÄ“, nÄÂ-) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. na·tiv·i·ties

1. Birth, especially the place, conditions, or circumstances of being born. - American Heritage Dictionary

Matthew concerns the birth of Christ and the conditions and circumstances surrounding his birth and where he lived as his native home. 'Nativity' is not something I made up. This is a general designation frequently used for the events in the beginning of Matthew and Luke. I suggest you educate yourself on this matter before erroneously trying to point out fault in your opposition. This is a red herring that diverges from the issue.

Your 'case' isn't built upon anything at all, except a desire upon your part to discredit the Gospel accounts for whatever reason. You've built a fairly big straw man to knock down, but it's only that, a straw man. You are trying to make out that Matthew and/or Luke are somehow lying to us. There is nothing in the Gospel accounts to base that claim on.

I've built a case on nothing? Okay, my assuming, Occam's razor violating, counter-evidence ignoring, and question-begging friend. And you haven't in any way demonstrated how I've built any straw men. And I never said Matthew or Luke were 'lying'.

And although I don't necessarily care about Occam's razor, since you do, let's apply it to your own theory here. As stated in your link regarding Occam's razor:

Quoting my link doesn't prove anything. I've built my case on the unequivocal and plain reading of both Matthew and Luke as independent documents with sound methods of biblical and historical criticism (and I have the backing of modern scholars).

You explanation, that Matthew's lack of reference to the family's prior residence in Nazareth constitutes a contradiction with Luke and he does this just to make up a lie regarding prophesy, does not harmonize with the Bible, Saint Matthew or the Church and therefore should not be considered valid.

Oh please, all you've offered is one assumption after another without addressing the points I made. You made a few points about silence but the silence of the issue was already dealt with from the beginning. My case isn't built upon silence and omissions.

Anyway, I've no time to continue bantering back and forth with you. You are burying your head in the sand. I'm content to let the evidence speak for itself. 8-)

 

[handy]

They didn't arrive there when he was two. He was born there and they stayed in a 'house' (the natural word in Greek for a family dwelling).

Wavy, I asked before for you to provide the texts in Matthew that shows he is stating the Family stayed in Bethlehem for two years, from the time Jesus was born to the time of the flight to Egypt. Naturally you didn't, because there is no such text. Matthew doesn't mention any location of the family whatsoever in Matthew 1:18-25, and Matthew is not, repeat NOT, speaking of the night Jesus was born in Matthew 2. Not once does Matthew reference the specific night of the birth of Christ.

The narratives must be looked at as a whole when compared.

No they don't. Not when they are referring to two separate events, separated by as much as two years. Don't let Christmas Cards be the basis of your theology.

I also asked you to provide what historical reference you are referring to and you said,

Quirinius wasn't governer during the time Luke's records.

This wasn't the sort of "historical reference" I was speaking of. I would truly like to know what historical records you are referring to here so that I can read over them myself.

Anyway, I've no time to continue bantering back and forth with you. You are burying your head in the sand. I'm content to let the evidence speak for itself.

Yeah, I feel the same way here.

 

[cyberjosh]

Wrong. Matthew has Jesus in Bethlehem after his birth for up to two years. According to Luke during that two year time period (after Jesus was 40 days old) they were in Nazareth up until he's twelve.

So close, yet you make incorrect assumptions. Luke skips over the 2 year area of time for what ever reason (just as Chronicles skipped over large portions covered in Kings for its purposes, since it had a different focus) and the time of residence in Bethlehem is indeterminate. They would have had to find a residence to stay in for the ritual 40 days, most likely with their relatives who most certainly would have shown up in Bethlehem for the census as well, if they didn't in fact live in Bethlehem. Though I wont go into it much the word kataluma, translated inn, literally means just a place to "loosen down" (lit.) for the night, and was translated "upper room" for the Lord's supper in Luke, which implies (assuming that some of his Family did indeed live in Bethlehem) that the guest area or the upper room of the house was too crowded (large Family?) so Joseph and Mary probably had to place Jesus in the feeding trough (manger) on the first floor with the animals (animals were kept in the home on the base floor in 1st century Palestine), so they most likely did have a residence to stay in in Bethlehem. After an indeterminate amount of time they traveled back to Nazereth from whence they came.