First of all I want to state that I do appreciate you, cybershark, for actually addressing my major points, even if I disagree. It's clear that you've actually read (for the most part I think) and considered my posts. 8-)
cybershark5886 said:
Luke covers the the first 40 days of Jesus' life on earth explicitly, and then in Luke 2:39-40 he wrote, "So when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth. And the Child grew and became strong in spirit, filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon him". The green portion is a blanket generalization which spans several years, as can be seen also by the next mention of Jesus (vs 42) is when he is twelve. Matthew covers more of the events past that time.
First of all, I know Luke mentions the first 40 days of Jesus and then skips ahead to his twelve years. Had I not known this somehow, I would not have mentioned these facts in the OP and in subsequent responses to challenges to the OP. Secondly, I'm a bit confused by this statement: 'Matthew covers more of the events
past that time.'
Past what time?
I was saying that Mary and Joseph probably stayed with their relatives (based on a theory however), and if I'm wrong they must have stayed outdoors in a stable for the whole 40 days (hard to imagine - but aside from the point), and during that time only the sheperds came to see baby (take note he is a baby at this point) Jesus.
Yes, in Luke it may have been the author's intention that they stayed with some kind of relatives, but I don't see cogent evidence for that, nor does this theory explain why their relatives wouldn't make some kind of room for them if Mary was pregnant (they'd have to be pretty heartless to relegate them to a stable). And if they had a house in Bethlehem according to Matthew (you argue against this but see points below) they wouldn't need relatives. The context of Matthew is that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and that the family stayed in a their own house (OIKIA) from the time Jesus was born (also see arguments above against handy's appeal to ignorance on this point).
Now in Matthew which goes beyond the 40 days covered in Luke tell us that the Wise Men came seeking a child who Herod according to his calculation from the time they said they saw the star determined the child was in the range of two years or younger. I say he was about 2 years old.
I have acknowledged this two-year period in the OP. It is part of my argument. But Matthew does not start beyond the 40 days. He mentions the birth in Bethlehem in Matthew ii.1. The aorist tense here and the casual mention of events following his 'having been born' in Bethlehem indicates Bethlehem is the only city in view here, and that the family stayed there and had been staying there up until the point they went to Egypt. From the birth of Jesus to the flight to Egypt, Luke's first 40 days fall in between, thus the accounts overlap (contrary to handy's erroneous assertions above).
By the time the Wise Men get there Mary and Joseph are situated in a house (Matthew 2:11) which is apparently in Nazereth (not in Bethlehem), because Luke said they returned home after that 40 day period.
The 'house' is not in Nazareth in Matthew. The magi are sent to Bethlehem by Herod to search for the child (Matthew ii.8). Matthew then narrates that they came to the 'house', which must therefore be in Bethlehem. Herod sent assassins to Bethlehem after the magi left (v.16). An angel tells Mary and Joseph to leave because of this. Had they been in Nazareth, they would not have had to worry about assassins in Bethlehem (I'll explain more below since you touch more on this).
That Luke said they returned home after 40 days only shows that Matthew contradicts Luke, since in Matthew Bethlehem is the scene.
At this point also it says in verse 11 that Jesus was a young Child (a toddler - not merely a baby any more) thus notes the time passage again.
I know this. It constitutes part of my OP...
Just because Herod sent the wise men to Bethlehem doesn't mean that Jesus was still in bethlehem, because he was born according to the prophecy in Bethlehem (thus why Herod's scribes pointed them there) but the text explicitly says that they looked to the star, which "went before them" (vs. 10) meaning that they followed the star, which could have easily taken them to Nazareth. It also explains how they were to take another route out of Palestine to avoid Herod sucessfully, because otherwise since Bethlehem is only 1 mile from Jerusalem, and Jerusalem being the major cross-through for the Highway there, they would have had to travel south to skirt around Palestine, which would be elaborate.
I think that is a stretch that clearly turns Matthew's narrative into ambiguous, discursive nonsense.
1) The text says Herod sent the magi to Bethlehem and that the star went before them (naturally on their way to Bethlehem). A star arriving in Nazareth cannot go before men going to Bethlehem.
2) Assassins sent to Bethlehem would not be a reason to leave Nazareth (more on this below).
3) Nazareth is to the north in Galilee. If they were in Nazareth and were told to leave Nazareth to protect Jesus (although he's not in danger there since no assassins were sent there), why would God bring them all the way south
past Herod to get to Egypt? That's just a silly move. They could have went north.
4) Joseph wanted to go back to Judea, but Herod's son reigned there. There's no point in going back to Judea if your home was in Nazareth. That's a random, nonsensical move.
5) As I have continually mentioned throughout this thread, Matthew ii.23 taken at face value plainly contradicts the notion that they had already lived in Nazareth. I repeat: The way Matthew ii.23 plainly reads shows they hadn't lived there before. For one, you don't come and dwell in a place where you already stay. The Greek word here, KATOIKEW, never means to go back to a place you already stay in, especially not with the verb 'came'. (more on this below). Secondly, had they already been going back and forth between Bethlehem and Nazareth, 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 among other points). More on this since you touch on some of these points below.
6) Luke was written after Matthew. Those reading Matthew before the gospel of Luke existed could hardly have read the events of Luke into Matthew. You have to beg their inerrancy and agreement to 'prove' your case (contrary to the evidence and to their literary independence and to the flow of their narratives). The reading of Matthew is clear. The reading of Luke is clear. I think you're grasping at straws.
I haven't completely worked out in my mind how the threat to Jesus was extended to Nazereth, but it could be in the fact that Herod could have traced Jesus down regardless of where he was for God said to Joseph, "Herod will seek the young Child to destroy him" (2:13). Also the range of the Herod families influence is once again seen when Joseph when returning from Egypt he avoided Judea all together when he heard "Archelaus was reigning over Judea" (vs. 22) so he "turned aside into the region of Galilee". The reason it sounds as if Joseph is just now coming to Nazareth in Matthew is simply because Matthew has not mentioned Nazareth before this point. Not to mention joseph would no longer have had his old house which he fled in haste.
1) Matthew tells us how Herod sought the child...by sending assassins to Bethlehem. This Palestinean campaign you're looking for doesn't exist and lacks evidence in any way shape or form. Herod would have no reason to search up north in Galilee once he had been explicitly told that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem (Matthew's indication that he was still there having been born there as he states in verse 1). He would not have to scour Palestine for the child. He assumes Jesus is in Bethlehem and sends assassins who do their job. Since Herod doesn't know Jesus escaped to Egypt, he would have assumed that he killed him off, thus no reason for further searching in Galilee.
2) If the family had left Nazareth in fear of a Herodian campaign to search all throughout Palestine, Joseph would not have just been afraid to return to Judea. He'd be afraid to return to Nazareth in Galilee too (where he originally fled from in fear). And there would be no reason for him to want to go to Judea in the first place after they returned from Egypt unless we understand Matthew's clear indication that they had lived there. Joseph wanting to return to Judea would be just random nonsense and irrelevant to the story. To suggest Herod would search in Galilee for no reason and with no impetus (having focused on Bethlehem) is just more grasping at straws...taking huge leaps and making assumptions without any proof other than the begged question that Matthew and Luke just cannot disagree contrary to the evidence that they do.
3) Matthew states that Joseph came to Nazareth because a prophecy is being fulfilled. Taken at face value without reading into the text, this proves he had not lived there before as this 'prophecy' Matthew wants to fulfill at that time would have been unnecessary and already completed. You're reading disrupts the flow of Matthew's context and makes it incomprehensible without 'supplemental' material from Luke, which is an independent account. If Matthew is an independent account, and it most certainly is, then it does not rely on Luke to fill in details that disprupt Matthew's reading and vice versa. These are not sound methods of exegesis or textual criticism.
4) Based on the many assumptions being made without evidence and violating Occam's razor, and based on the most unnatural (yet still contradictory) readings that you require for the accounts to mesh, I think it's safe to say that the OP has not been reconciled.
, not enough is stated explicitly). Anyway, please give me some time on this.
: