Discrepancies In the Nativity Story

[Dravin]

In the NT there are even prophetesses*

Huldah, Noadiah, Isaiah's wife, Deborah and Miriam get the appellation of prophetess. The Book of Mormon is devoid of the term save for the quote of Isaiah. Also, the phraseology may be different but a search of prophetess in the NT only shows up one, Anna.

Not really trying to make a point, you post made me curious so I did a search.

[Hemidakota]

Nicely put Dravin....

[Traveler]

Just because Egyptians had the mathimatical knowledge to discover the earth was spherical doesn't mean they discovered it. The technology existed for all kinds of inventions before they were actually invented. There is nothing in Egyptian literature or mythology that denotes that the Egyptians believed in a spherical earth and the Egyptian creation story and history of the Egyptian pantheon specifically state otherwise.

People in the Ancient Near East didn't need to know the earth was round in order to find India. Trade with India had begun in the 3rd millenium with the Sumerians and Akkadians. All they had to do was sail through the Persian Gulf and hug the coast until they ran into India. It's right there. India was never a major trading partner with Egypt until the domestication of camels around 1000 BC and the creation of extensive caravan land routes. It was also at that time that Indian goods began to flood into Greek and Roman markets.

Egypt didn't need to know the earth was round in order to sail around Africa either (why you think they would want to do this is beyond me). All they had to do is follow the coast and it would take them around the entire continent. I'm not aware of them ever doing this, but it's not impossible.

......

.

Your ignorance of the seas is now showing. You are making assumptions that just are not true. Neither the Greeks nor the Romans were ever able to reach India by sea because they would not venture far enough from sight of land to be able to make the journey. The Europeans were not able to reach India by sea until after Columbus. It may interest you to know that the great “heresy” of Galileo was a book on tides and how to calculate tides at any location as an aid to navigation of the seas. Just because someone understands the truth of something and just because they are able to do things does not mean that everybody in the society happily follows. But some things cannot be accomplished without mastering specific knowledge. Thus we can be certain that if a civilization had mastered navigation of the seas we know that in order to do so they would have to have the ability to know where on earth they were, especially if they were driven off course. This could only be accomplished with the knowledge that the earth was round and an accurate understanding of the size of the earth.

There is little in Hollywood to convince some future generation that adultery was considered wrong by anyone in the current generation. As I have stated; to be able to navigate the seas in both the northern and southern hemisphere requires knowledge that the earth is round and an accurate knowledge of the size or curvature of the earth. Do you know what a Mercator projection is?

In the ancient world knowledge was often kept secret within a trade guild. Your assumption that all the knowledge of a civilization is manifested in preserved literature is flawed.

The Traveler

[lilered]

Different deal - no one would be claiming that the various Hinckley accounts were the inspired word of God or inerrant.

Snow: I respectfully disagree. The point is that those that wrote about the Birth of the Savior (Diciples), gave their account. Your point is that those Biblicial accounts differ. My point is that these accounts were written from memory, many years after the occurances. Human beings view things and remember things differently. Understanding this phenomana gives understanding as to how their can be differences between the versions surrounding Christs birth.

[Enlil-An]

Your ignorance of the seas is now showing. You are making assumptions that just are not true. Neither the Greeks nor the Romans were ever able to reach India by sea because they would not venture far enough from sight of land to be able to make the journey. The Europeans were not able to reach India by sea until after Columbus.

If you would have read my post more carefully, you would know that I never said that the classical Greeks or Romans sailed to India. They traded with India via caravan trading-routes (land routes) after the domestication of camels circa 1000 B.C. The Egyptians didn't trade much with India until after this time as well.

Nevertheless, the Egyptians would have easily known about India through their contact with the civilizations of Mesopotamia who had long established trade with the Indians by sailing south along the coast of Asia through the Persian Gulf. A quick look at the map shows you that India is directly south-east of Mesopotamia along the coast. They didn't need to sail out of sight of land to find it.

As I have stated; to be able to navigate the seas in both the northern and southern hemisphere requires knowledge that the earth is round and an accurate knowledge of the size or curvature of the earth. Do you know what a Mercator projection is?

No I don't but as I've stated above, sailing on the open ocean wasn't necessary or understanding the circumferance of the earth wasn't necessary for Egypt, Greece, or Rome to receive goods from India. All of this was accomplished through the extensive trading network of the Ancient Near East.

In the ancient world knowledge was often kept secret within a trade guild. Your assumption that all the knowledge of a civilization is manifested in preserved literature is flawed.

Well, if the trading guilds kept this knowledge so secret (something for which there is no historical evidence of) then everybody else in society, including the scribes, would have believed the earth was flat and would have recorded these veiws in there writings like the Bible which were then transmitted into the Pearl of Great Price which is the entire point of this discussion.

[Traveler]

If you would have read my post more carefully, you would know that I never said that the classical Greeks or Romans sailed to India. They traded with India via caravan trading-routes (land routes) after the domestication of camels circa 1000 B.C. The Egyptians didn't trade much with India until after this time as well.

Nevertheless, the Egyptians would have easily known about India through their contact with the civilizations of Mesopotamia who had long established trade with the Indians by sailing south along the coast of Asia through the Persian Gulf. A quick look at the map shows you that India is directly south-east of Mesopotamia along the coast. They didn't need to sail out of sight of land to find it.

No I don't but as I've stated above, sailing on the open ocean wasn't necessary or understanding the circumferance of the earth wasn't necessary for Egypt, Greece, or Rome to receive goods from India. All of this was accomplished through the extensive trading network of the Ancient Near East.

Well, if the trading guilds kept this knowledge so secret (something for which there is no historical evidence of) then everybody else in society, including the scribes, would have believed the earth was flat and would have recorded these veiws in there writings like the Bible which were then transmitted into the Pearl of Great Price which is the entire point of this discussion.

If you saw the movie or read the book “The Da Vinci Code” there was a big deal made over a thing called a rose line. This is because most people do not understand why a time line needs to be drawn but it makes for great fiction. The Greeks and Romans did not understand but the Phoenicians (who were contemporary to the Greeks) did and so did the Egyptians. It is created as a means to navigate. Anyone that understands navigation can explain Zulu time and the Prime Meridian. We also know that the Chinese and ancient Arabic societies (remember Sinbad) also possessed such knowledge as well as the ancient Mayan – BTW the ancient Mayan even built a temple with a northern face to match the curvature of the earth – something that was not discovered until someone measured it with a lazar.

The ancient mathematical guild (note this is not a trading guild) of Egypt was sometimes referred to as the Pythagoreans. You may have heard about a Greek slave that stole some of their secrets and sold them by taking the name of the cult as his personal name. This is also the source of the ancient harmonic triad, natural logs, pi and the golden mean to name a few. The point I have tried to make is that there are foot prints in the sands of time that indicate that knowledge of round earth and it’s exact size was known anciently including indications in the Bible. The concept of a flat earth comes from efforts to symbolically represent other notions – in particular things to reference an “after” life.

I am just trying to help you identify the “tracks” left by those that know the earth is round. If you are not interested and insist on believing what-ever your read – I am sorry to bother you and your theories. But for the future, please understand just because you can quote something that someone like myself may not find your “proof” very convincing.

The Traveler

[Snow]

Snow: I respectfully disagree. The point is that those that wrote about the Birth of the Savior (Diciples), gave their account. Your point is that those Biblicial accounts differ. My point is that these accounts were written from memory, many years after the occurances. Human beings view things and remember things differently. Understanding this phenomana gives understanding as to how their can be differences between the versions surrounding Christs birth.

I am not disagreeing with your explanation but I simply spoke to the difference between Gospel accounts that are deemed the inspired word of God, canonized scripture and inerrant to some, and some simple accounts written by people that are none of those things.

As for whether or not the NT authors wrote from memory - none of the Gospel authors were even eyewitnesses to the events they describe - they weren't writing from their own memory but rather from the word of mouth, passed down accounts of others.

[Snow]

I would be interested in reading about that. Where can I find that?

It [brigham Young's and other LDS views on the Bbile] is in Mormons and the Bible - The Place of Latter-day Saints in American Religion, Phillip L. Barlow, Oxford

[Enlil-An]

The point I have tried to make is that there are foot prints in the sands of time that indicate that knowledge of round earth and it’s exact size was known anciently including indications in the Bible. The concept of a flat earth comes from efforts to symbolically represent other notions – in particular things to reference an “after” life.

What are you talking about? Chapter and verse, please?

I am just trying to help you identify the “tracks” left by those that know the earth is round. If you are not interested and insist on believing what-ever your read – I am sorry to bother you and your theories. But for the future, please understand just because you can quote something that someone like myself may not find your “proof” very convincing.

Historians rely on all kinds of specialists to help them with things like the mathematical knowledge of the ancients. Can you please provide a link or the name of a book that supports what you're saying?

The ancient mathematical guild (note this is not a trading guild) of Egypt was sometimes referred to as the Pythagoreans. You may have heard about a Greek slave that stole some of their secrets and sold them by taking the name of the cult as his personal name. This is also the source of the ancient harmonic triad, natural logs, pi and the golden mean to name a few.

This sounds much like Da Vinci Code sensationalism. Where are you getting this stuff? What are your sources?

[Maureen]

Enlil-An - I've only skimmed this thread but thought this might be helpful.

Bible.org: Are There Contradictions in the Gospels?

M.

[Casslan]

It recently came to my attention that the birth narratives of Jesus in the gospels of Matthew and Luke are irreconcilably contradictary. According to Matthew, the Savior and his parents are from Bethlehem, stay there for two years after Jesus' birth, fly to Egypt to escape King Herod, and arrive at Nazareth for the first time once Herod is dead. In Luke, Mary and Joseph are from Nazareth, travel to Bethlehem for the census, stay there only a month during her purification according to Levitical law, and then return back home to Nazareth. There is no flight to Egypt, no wise men following a star, no death decree by Herod.

After reading these narratives closely, it becomes obvious that Matthew and Luke are telling two totally different, contradicting stories. Both of them can't be true. The prophet, Nephi, prophesied that Jesus' mother would be from Nazareth but only says that Jesus would be born in "the land of Jerusalem". There are no other places in the standard works that specify where Jesus was born or how he got there.

My question is, has anyone else here noticed this and how do we reconcile it with the Church's position that the Bible is the word of God (originally written by inspired men) and that the only errors in it are mistranlations and interpolations here and there?

Since Luke was a Greek gentile and he was writing for gentile followers of Jesus, then perhaps Luke's account is an abridged version of the Nativity events.

[rameumptom]

Since Luke was a Greek gentile and he was writing for gentile followers of Jesus, then perhaps Luke's account is an abridged version of the Nativity events.

There are still problems. Matthew has Mary, Joseph and Jesus fleeing to Egypt for a few years. Luke has them going directly to Nazareth, with no danger from Herod.

Luke mentions a huge tax, there were none accomplished in that timeframe by Rome.

Luke mentions the manger, while Matthew does not. Luke mentions shepherds, while Matthew mentions wise men.

There are no abridged events, as they are two completely different stories, with the exception that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

[FunkyTown]

Hi Enlil,

These questions you have can be answered if you're willing to let them be answered. This very thing was discussed in the past on here. Do a search and you'll find the arguments for and against.

Once you have heard those, you will have to decide which voice you believe.

[Snow]

Since Luke was a Greek gentile and he was writing for gentile followers of Jesus, then perhaps Luke's account is an abridged version of the Nativity events.

And perhaps Luke was writing in code and no one today actually understands the real meaning of the words he used.

If one is creative one can invent all sorts of scenarios. On the other hand, one can stick to the facts.

[volgadon]

I think I am the only native-born Israeli member of the church on this board.

My back window overlooks Capernaum, and I'm in Nazareth quite frequently. I've been reading biblical history and archeology from my childhood. In the museum at the archaeological park of Sepphoris is a picture of the dig. The little kid with the bucket is me.

Had you read Josephus you would have understood why Joseph decided to avoid Archelaus's kingdom.

He was unstable, cruel and murderous. His brother, Herod Antipas, was far more reasonable.

Let us look at the text again. The angel says to go to the land of Israel, not Judaea. The Galilee is in Israel and Matt 2:22 clarifies what is meant by Israel. In order to get to the Galilee one has to go through Judaea. Joseph thought it dangerous, but recalled the angel's instructions and went despite his fears.

Something else worth keeping in mind is the geneology. Contemporaries would have known where Matthan resided, at least those in ancient Palestine. Can't speak for the diaspora, but the details wouldn't be as important to them.

Matthew emphasises that they dwell in Nazareth (and not Sepphoris, Cana or Yifat) because he is interpreting scripture that prophesied that. There are a few possibilities, scriptures which we have lost is one of them. It is entirely possible that it was not considered scripture by the Pharisees. Try reading the Mishna and Talmud to see what I mean. Another possibility is that Matthew is interpreting a scripture such as the rod of Jesse. Study up on Jewish exegesis of the time.

I think why they didn't go straight back to Nazareth is because the area was very unstable. In the latter years of Herod's reign the Nazareth region was very unstable. Judas of Galilee led a sizeable band against the Romans and Roman sympathisers. Around that time he took over Sepphoris, right next to Nazareth. Varus destroyed the city in retaliation.

Luke has made some errors, but nothing fundamental. Most are conflations of events, some stem from him not having been familiar with the locations personally. It might even be because his account was copied incorrectly.

As pointed out, Matthew does not state that Mary and Joseph were in Bethlehem at the time of their betrothement.

[volgadon]

Also, re the lack of faith in the OT, perhaps the word isn't used as often as in other scriptures, but some of the most powerful examples of faith in action are in the OT. Elijah and the widow of Sarepta is one.

[Enlil-An]

Originally posted by volgadon

Had you read Josephus you would have understood why Joseph decided to avoid Archelaus's kingdom.

He was unstable, cruel and murderous. His brother, Herod Antipas, was far more reasonable.

Yes, that's easily possible. The passage is too vague to know if Joseph was planning on moving back to Judea or if he was simply planning to travel through Judea on his way to Galilee but the next verse makes it clear by Matthew's choice of words ("And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth")that Joseph and his family are arriving at Nazareth for the very first time and didn't live there previously as in Luke's gospel.

Matthew emphasises that they dwell in Nazareth (and not Sepphoris, Cana or Yifat) because he is interpreting scripture that prophesied that. There are a few possibilities, scriptures which we have lost is one of them. It is entirely possible that it was not considered scripture by the Pharisees. Try reading the Mishna and Talmud to see what I mean. Another possibility is that Matthew is interpreting a scripture such as the rod of Jesse. Study up on Jewish exegesis of the time.

The problem with Matthew's prophesy of the messiah being a Nazarene is that it is the only prophecy that Matthew doesn't quote simply saying it was "spoken by the prophets" implying that he didn't really know of any such prophecy. Also, it isn't just the Pharisees that have never heard of that prophecy in John's gospel. It's all the Jewish people Jesus comes across including one of his own disciples.

The 3rd problem with it is that none of Matthew's prophecies actually validate his birth narrative because all of the prophecies he quotes are taken out of context. So even if there is some obscure scripture Matthew is referring to about the messiah being a Nazarene, chances are he's misinterpreting that one too.

Luke has made some errors, but nothing fundamental. Most are conflations of events, some stem from him not having been familiar with the locations personally. It might even be because his account was copied incorrectly.

Luke's narrative is historically dubious in every way and even if it weren't, it is completely at odds with Matthew's account. If we are to insist that both of these birth stories are true somehow, then we have to presume that both of them got several things incorrect. The stories just don't match up.

As pointed out, Matthew does not state that Mary and Joseph were in Bethlehem at the time of their betrothement.

No but he doesn't mention any other place. Remember that Matthew was not writing in collaboration with Luke. If you were a 1st century Christian and Matthew was the only gospel that you had, you would naturally assume that Bethlehem is where Joseph and Mary were from. Other parts of the story provide further evidence for this. Joseph and Mary stay in Bethlehem with Jesus for about a year (in a house) with no apparent intentions of leaving until the Savior's life is threatened whereas in Luke's gopel they don't stay for even two months. And the fact that Matthew makes it sound as if they're arriving at Nazareth for the first time at the end of chapter 2, demonstrates pretty clearly that Matthew doesn't think that Joseph and Mary originally come from Nazareth.

[Justice]

It might even be because his account was copied incorrectly.

This is an important part of the equation that all students of the Bible should understand. We know things like this happened, and we also know parts of the Bible were even removed. This makes using just the Bible a very difficult way to resolve facts.

JS-H 1: 12

12 Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.

This doesn't mean we can't feel the Spirit when we read the Bible. It doesn't mean we can't gain truth from reading the Bible. And, it doesn't mean the Bible doesn't contain the fullness of the Gospel. This is one of the primary reasons why God preserved and revealed the Book of Mormon to us.

Exercises like this are good for understanding, and can even lead to an increased testimony. But, they can also lead to losing faith if we don't remember the bigger picture. Jesus was born the Son of God, regardless of the discrepencies. The other lesser details are just curious facts and bits of knowledge.

[volgadon]

Yes, that's easily possible. The passage is too vague to know if Joseph was planning on moving back to Judea or if he was simply planning to travel through Judea on his way to Galilee but the next verse makes it clear by Matthew's choice of words ("And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth")that Joseph and his family are arriving at Nazareth for the very first time and didn't live there previously as in Luke's gospel.

For reasons I have mentioned above, the passage isn't really vague and the north is indicated. I fail to see how he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth shows that he never dwelt there prior. All we can understand from that is that his audience wouldn't all be expected to know about Nazareth.

Here are some other possiblites. In Luke, it only states that Mary is from Nazareth. Joseph could have been from Sepphoris, Yifat, Cana, or even originally from Judah.

The problem with Matthew's prophesy of the messiah being a Nazarene is that it is the only prophecy that Matthew doesn't quote simply saying it was "spoken by the prophets" implying that he didn't really know of any such prophecy. Also, it isn't just the Pharisees that have never heard of that prophecy in John's gospel. It's all the Jewish people Jesus comes across including one of his own disciples.

That wording in other Jewish sources often indicates a prophecy or saying which wasn't written down. Before you suggest it implies an absence, read other close-contemporary sources. All the Jewish people he came across? Where do we find that?

As for Nathaniel, he was am haaretz, one of the unlearned, who would not necesarily know all the traditions rigoruosly. That saying of his, what good comes out of Nazareth was the kind of lightly contemptuous thing said by inhabitants of one area about another. That sort of thing is still very common among Palestinian Arabs (and older, Eastern Jews), and Christ's response is a typical jocular one.

In other words: Nazareth is a dinky little village in the boondocks in an area inferior to my own valley. What has it ever had to offer.

The 3rd problem with it is that none of Matthew's prophecies actually validate his birth narrative because all of the prophecies he quotes are taken out of context. So even if there is some obscure scripture Matthew is referring to about the messiah being a Nazarene, chances are he's misinterpreting that one too.

Says you. I don't have the time now to go into an explanation of the Hebrew word alma and the context of Isaiah's prophecy.

Luke's narrative is historically dubious in every way and even if it weren't, it is completely at odds with Matthew's account. If we are to insist that both of these birth stories are true somehow, then we have to presume that both of them got several things incorrect. The stories just don't match up.

Not completely at odds, unless you mean traditional interpretations. And why can't we suppose that they, or the scribes circulating the accounts, got some details wrong?

No but he doesn't mention any other place. Remember that Matthew was not writing in collaboration with Luke. If you were a 1st century Christian and Matthew was the only gospel that you had, you would naturally assume that Bethlehem is where Joseph and Mary were from. Other parts of the story provide further evidence for this. Joseph and Mary stay in Bethlehem with Jesus for about a year (in a house) with no apparent intentions of leaving until the Savior's life is threatened whereas in Luke's gopel they don't stay for even two months. And the fact that Matthew makes it sound as if they're arriving at Nazareth for the first time at the end of chapter 2, demonstrates pretty clearly that Matthew doesn't think that Joseph and Mary originally come from Nazareth.

Perhaps Matthew didn't want to share the backstory. Had you held that belief, and met someone who knew better, you would be corrected. If some biographies of an historical figure skip events mentioned by others, are they contradictory?

Mary at least had relatives in Judaea, there is no reason to assume that Joseph wouldn't in the town where he had strong family ties (assuming he isn't from there originally), so why couldn't they stay in a house.

In a while I'll go into all the reasons why your assumption that according to Luke they stayed for a mere couple of months is rash.

[JohnnyRudick]

For reasons I have mentioned above, the passage isn't really vague and the north is indicated. I fail to see how he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth shows that he never dwelt there prior. All we can understand from that is that his audience wouldn't all be expected to know about Nazareth.

Here are some other possiblites. In Luke, it only states that Mary is from Nazareth. Joseph could have been from Sepphoris, Yifat, Cana, or even originally from Judah.

That wording in other Jewish sources often indicates a prophecy or saying which wasn't written down. Before you suggest it implies an absence, read other close-contemporary sources. All the Jewish people he came across? Where do we find that?

As for Nathaniel, he was am haaretz, one of the unlearned, who would not necesarily know all the traditions rigoruosly. That saying of his, what good comes out of Nazareth was the kind of lightly contemptuous thing said by inhabitants of one area about another. That sort of thing is still very common among Palestinian Arabs (and older, Eastern Jews), and Christ's response is a typical jocular one.

In other words: Nazareth is a dinky little village in the boondocks in an area inferior to my own valley. What has it ever had to offer.

Says you. I don't have the time now to go into an explanation of the Hebrew word alma and the context of Isaiah's prophecy.

Not completely at odds, unless you mean traditional interpretations. And why can't we suppose that they, or the scribes circulating the accounts, got some details wrong?

Perhaps Matthew didn't want to share the backstory. Had you held that belief, and met someone who knew better, you would be corrected. If some biographies of an historical figure skip events mentioned by others, are they contradictory?

Mary at least had relatives in Judaea, there is no reason to assume that Joseph wouldn't in the town where he had strong family ties (assuming he isn't from there originally), so why couldn't they stay in a house.

In a while I'll go into all the reasons why your assumption that according to Luke they stayed for a mere couple of months is rash.

All great points:)

I wish I had time to start from the beginning and go through verse by verse as I did back about 25 years ago and show how each so called contradiction between Matthew and Luke are not so much so necessarily.

Wish I could find my notebooks;(

All I can find is an old torn up Bible with notes so faded I can hardly read them.

O, well.

Keep up the good work brother.

Bro. Rudick

[Enlil-An]

Originally posted voldagon

For reasons I have mentioned above, the passage isn't really vague and the north is indicated.

I believe the scripture versus are using the phrase "land of Israel" in the broad sense which includes the land of Judea. The reason I believe this is because of verses 21 and 22 which say, "And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither..." Since Galilee is north of Judea, we must assume that when Joseph "turned aside" into Galilee because he was coming from the south. Afterall, he wouldn't need to avoid Judea if he had entered Palestine from the north.

So I think the phrase "land of Israel" doesn't really prove that he wasn't going to Judea and it wouldn't explain why he had to "turn aside" into Galilee since if he was heading that way anyway.

I fail to see how he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth shows that he never dwelt there prior. All we can understand from that is that his audience wouldn't all be expected to know about Nazareth.

Well, this is just my opinion, but I think if Matthew believed Joseph or Mary were originally from there he would have worded it differently. He would have said something like, "and they dwelt at Nazareth which was Mary's original home," or "and they returned to Nazareth, their home" or words to that effect. "...they came and dwelt in a little town called Nazareth" denotes that they had never lived their before.

In Luke, it only states that Mary is from Nazareth. Joseph could have been from Sepphoris, Yifat, Cana, or even originally from Judah.

It's definately possible, but not likely. Either way, Matthew makes no mention of her being from there and doesn't mention any census either.

That wording in other Jewish sources often indicates a prophecy or saying which wasn't written down. Before you suggest it implies an absence, read other close-contemporary sources. All the Jewish people he came across? Where do we find that?

If it was some kind of oral tradition that the prophets prophecied that the messiah would be a Nazarene, then why don't any Jews in John's gospel know about it?

As for Nathaniel, he was am haaretz, one of the unlearned, who would not necesarily know all the traditions rigoruosly.

All the Jewish skeptics in John challenged Jesus' messiahship on the bases that he came from Nazareth instead of Bethlehem, including the Pharisees. Don't you think they were aware of all Jewish prophecies written and oral?

Says you. I don't have the time now to go into an explanation of the Hebrew word alma and the context of Isaiah's prophecy.

Professional historians agree with me on this. I'm not just referring to one of Matthew's prophecies. I'm talking about all of them. All of them are bogus.

Not completely at odds, unless you mean traditional interpretations. And why can't we suppose that they, or the scribes circulating the accounts, got some details wrong?

We can assume the sky but the likelyhood that Luke's and Matthew's account contradict eachother because of mistranslations or copying errors is extremely remote. The thing to take note of is that there are are no events in the birth stories of Jesus that both Matthew and Luke cover. Both stories cover completely different events. Matthew has the wisemen, king Herod's decree, the new star, and the flight to egypt. None of these events appear in Luke. Luke has the census, the journey to Bethlehem, the manger, the shepards, and the prophecies at the temple. None of these incidents appear in Matthew. If both gospels are trying to recount the same story, I think they would cover at least a few of the same events but they don't. The only thing they agree on is the virgin birth and that it took place at Bethlehem.

Perhaps Matthew didn't want to share the backstory. Had you held that belief, and met someone who knew better, you would be corrected. If some biographies of an historical figure skip events mentioned by others, are they contradictory?

They are if they skip every single one of them. Anyway, the two stories can't be reconciled because Matthew says Jesus was at least 1 years old when they left Bethlehem and Luke says they left 40 days after he was born. And do you really think Luke would forget that Herod tried to kill baby Jesus if it really happened?

Mary at least had relatives in Judaea, there is no reason to assume that Joseph wouldn't in the town where he had strong family ties (assuming he isn't from there originally), so why couldn't they stay in a house.

Why would you assume that Mary or Joseph has relatives in Judea? If Matthew and Luke are wrong about the birth narratives, what makes you think they are right about the Savior's geneology?

In a while I'll go into all the reasons why your assumption that according to Luke they stayed for a mere couple of months is rash.

That parts not an assumption. That's what Luke says. But go ahead when you're ready.

[JohnnyRudick]

I believe the scripture versus are using the phrase "land of Israel" in the broad sense which includes the land of Judea. The reason I believe this is because of verses 21 and 22 which say, "And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither..." Since Galilee is north of Judea, we must assume that when Joseph "turned aside" into Galilee because he was coming from the south. Afterall, he wouldn't need to avoid Judea if he had entered Palestine from the north.

So I think the phrase "land of Israel" doesn't really prove that he wasn't going to Judea and it wouldn't explain why he had to "turn aside" into Galilee since if he was heading that way anyway.

Well, this is just my opinion, but I think if Matthew believed Joseph or Mary were originally from there he would have worded it differently. He would have said something like, "and they dwelt at Nazareth which was Mary's original home," or "and they returned to Nazareth, their home" or words to that effect. "...they came and dwelt in a little town called Nazareth" denotes that they had never lived their before.

It's definately possible, but not likely. Either way, Matthew makes no mention of her being from there and doesn't mention any census either.

If it was some kind of oral tradition that the prophets prophecied that the messiah would be a Nazarene, then why don't any Jews in John's gospel know about it?

All the Jewish skeptics in John challenged Jesus' messiahship on the bases that he came from Nazareth instead of Bethlehem, including the Pharisees. Don't you think they were aware of all Jewish prophecies written and oral?

Professional historians agree with me on this. I'm not just referring to one of Matthew's prophecies. I'm talking about all of them. All of them are bogus.

We can assume the sky but the likelyhood that Luke's and Matthew's account contradict eachother because of mistranslations or copying errors is extremely remote. The thing to take note of is that there are are no events in the birth stories of Jesus that both Matthew and Luke cover. Both stories cover completely different events. Matthew has the wisemen, king Herod's decree, the new star, and the flight to egypt. None of these events appear in Luke. Luke has the census, the journey to Bethlehem, the manger, the shepards, and the prophecies at the temple. None of these incidents appear in Matthew. If both gospels are trying to recount the same story, I think they would cover at least a few of the same events but they don't. The only thing they agree on is the virgin birth and that it took place at Bethlehem.

They are if they skip every single one of them. Anyway, the two stories can't be reconciled because Matthew says Jesus was at least 1 years old when they left Bethlehem and Luke says they left 40 days after he was born. And do you really think Luke would forget that Herod tried to kill baby Jesus if it really happened?

Why would you assume that Mary or Joseph has relatives in Judea? If Matthew and Luke are wrong about the birth narratives, what makes you think they are right about the Savior's geneology?

That parts not an assumption. That's what Luke says. But go ahead when you're ready.

Could it be that the scribes, translators and we are confusing Nazarene with Nazirite?

Jesus was a Nazirite?

Just a thought:cool:

Bro. Rudick

[Hemidakota]

Rudick, now that was interesting statement. It has my own curiosity in seeking who else made this vow...looking at several books or articles, here is a quick snapshot of what I found -

Masada and Life in First-Century Judea

in BYU Studies, vol. 36 (1996-97)

... 10:8-9 ; Ezek. 44:21 ). Nazirites (those who took on a special personal vow) were..., John the Baptist may have been a Nazirite ( Luke 1:15 ), and Acts 18:18 suggests that Paul was completing a Nazirite vow. The Rechabites also proclaimed total abstinence...

THE GIFTS OF THE PRINCES

in Louis Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, vol. 3

...tribe allude chiefly to the history of this Danite judge. Samson was a Nazirite, and to this alluded the silver charger for storing bread, ...of gold recalled the ten laws that are imposed upon Nazirites, and that Samson had to obey. The three burnt offerings...

Samuel: Prophet, Priest, Judge, and Anointer of Kings (1 Samuel)

in Robert L. Millet, Kent P. Jackson, Studies in Scripture, Vol. 3: Genesis to 2 Samuel

... head" ( 1 Sam. 1:11 ) is very similar to the language of the Nazirite vow specified in Numbers 6 and taken by Samson in ... previous chapter) that she had in mind for Samuel a lifelong Nazirite vow. The Lord heard the prayer of Hannah and blessed her with ...

Chapter 10: Paul's Second Missionary Journey (Concluded)

in Sidney B. Sperry, Paul's Life and Letters

... Paul make that would require him to shear off the hair of his head? It has been supposed that he had at some time made a Nazirite vow (see Num. 6:13-21 ), which had only now reached its fulfillment, in token of which he cut off his hair. Others believe ...

Chapter 16: Paul's Fifth Visit to Jerusalem

in Sidney B. Sperry, Paul's Life and Letters

... the Jewish and Gentile groups of the Church together, readily agreed to assume the role of peacemaker. Paul had previously assumed a Nazirite vow (p. 107), had even now come up to Pentecost, and probably felt that he would not compromise his principles in...

An Introduction to 1 and 2 Samuel

in Robert L. Millet, Kent P. Jackson, Studies in Scripture, Vol. 3: Genesis to 2 Samuel

... these additions were supposed to have been additions by a translator or editor to further confirm the interpretation of this vow as a Nazirite vow, as is specified in a similar passage of the dedication of Samson in Judg. 13:3-5 . The Hebrew of 4QSama ...

I Would Carry with Me the Manner of the Jews

in Eugene England, Converted to Christ through the Book of Mormon

...of the two sons broad allusions to the two houses of Israel, Judah and Joseph. I recognized in Paul's early years as a Christian the Nazirite vow. I, too, took the vow. While still in New Zealand, I had determined, simply by studying a map of Israel, to ... more...

Mothers, Daughters, and Wives in Israel

in Alfred Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish Social Life

... sprinkling the blood are performed by men but not by women, excepting in the Meal-offerings of the Suspected Adulteress and of the female Nazirite, for which they themselves perform the act of waving (Mishnah , Qiddusin i. 8) . It is on similar grounds ...

[volgadon]

I believe the scripture versus are using the phrase "land of Israel" in the broad sense which includes the land of Judea. The reason I believe this is because of verses 21 and 22 which say, "And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither..." Since Galilee is north of Judea, we must assume that when Joseph "turned aside" into Galilee because he was coming from the south. Afterall, he wouldn't need to avoid Judea if he had entered Palestine from the north.

The wording indicates that Joseph is still moving towards his destination, hence hasn't reached it yet. If any Greek experts would care to correct me, I will take their word over my understand of Delitscher's Hebrew translation. Until then, however...

So I think the phrase "land of Israel" doesn't really prove that he wasn't going to Judea and it wouldn't explain why he had to "turn aside" into Galilee since if he was heading that way anyway.

I checked my Hebrew translation, as well as my Slavonic one, which is a very literal rendering from the Greek. I can't find the phrase turned aside, all I see is went to.

Well, this is just my opinion, but I think if Matthew believed Joseph or Mary were originally from there he would have worded it differently. He would have said something like, "and they dwelt at Nazareth which was Mary's original home," or "and they returned to Nazareth, their home" or words to that effect. "...they came and dwelt in a little town called Nazareth" denotes that they had never lived their before.

I read it again in both the aforementioned translations. It simply says he resided in a city called Nazareth. There is utterly nothing that precludes it from having been a former home. Ancient texts very often don't include that kind of information. Study the problems of historiography of the late classical era. Those problems do not warrant the kind of conclusions you make.

It's definately possible, but not likely. Either way, Matthew makes no mention of her being from there and doesn't mention any census either.

Why is it not likely? Anyway, considering his former profession, that may not have been the kind of thing he wished to write about.

If it was some kind of oral tradition that the prophets prophecied that the messiah would be a Nazarene, then why don't any Jews in John's gospel know about it?[?QUOTE]

Please be more specific. I think you mean some Jews in John's gospel appear not to have known about it. A classic rhetorical device of the tannaim and amoraim was to feign ignorance over any matter they disdained. Basically this is ridiculous I never ever even heard of it. That device is used to put down most traditions they disproved of, or stories circulating among the amei haaretz (local yokels).

All the Jewish skeptics in John challenged Jesus' messiahship on the bases that he came from Nazareth instead of Bethlehem, including the Pharisees. Don't you think they were aware of all Jewish prophecies written and oral?

Being aware of something does not mean accepting it or crediting it. There are instances of them ignoring other traditions attributed to the prophets, or suppressing them. Then, there is also the material unique to non-rabbinical sources or targumim, which are never mentioned in the Mishna and Talmud.

Professional historians agree with me on this. I'm not just referring to one of Matthew's prophecies. I'm talking about all of them. All of them are bogus.

All of them? Says who, you? Pretty strong words.

Anyway, I'm ammending your statement to some professional historians.

Again, study then-contemporary Jewish exegesis.

We can assume the sky but the likelyhood that Luke's and Matthew's account contradict eachother because of mistranslations or copying errors is extremely remote. The thing to take note of is that there are are no events in the birth stories of Jesus that both Matthew and Luke cover. Both stories cover completely different events. Matthew has the wisemen, king Herod's decree, the new star, and the flight to egypt. None of these events appear in Luke. Luke has the census, the journey to Bethlehem, the manger, the shepards, and the prophecies at the temple. None of these incidents appear in Matthew. If both gospels are trying to recount the same story, I think they would cover at least a few of the same events but they don't. The only thing they agree on is the virgin birth and that it took place at Bethlehem.

That is why they are complementary.

They are if they skip every single one of them. Anyway, the two stories can't be reconciled because Matthew says Jesus was at least 1 years old when they left Bethlehem and Luke says they left 40 days after he was born. And do you really think Luke would forget that Herod tried to kill baby Jesus if it really happened?

The older generation of Yemenite, Eastern and North African Jews, as well as Arabs, reffer to any kid under a year old as being a year old. Don't project your modern understanding.

Perhaps the massacre of the innocents was not widely known. The gospels do not record every single period of Christ's life, or shall we assume that Christ wasn't born because John doesn't mention it?

Why would you assume that Mary or Joseph has relatives in Judea? If Matthew and Luke are wrong about the birth narratives, what makes you think they are right about the Savior's geneology?

Because Mary had them, or is Elisabeth chopped liver (that good old Jewish saying)?

As to why I would assume that Joseph had them, it is his ancestral home.

That parts not an assumption. That's what Luke says. But go ahead when you're ready.

I will and it is what you assume Luke said.

[Enlil-An]

I checked my Hebrew translation, as well as my Slavonic one, which is a very literal rendering from the Greek. I can't find the phrase turned aside, all I see is went to.

Even without the phrase, "turned aside", it's still obvious that Joseph was planning on returning to Judea.

Answer these questions the best you can.

1. Why was Joseph afraid when he found out Herod's son ruled in Judea?

2. How was going to Galilee a solution to this problem?

It simply says he resided in a city called Nazareth. There is utterly nothing that precludes it from having been a former home.

It precludes it from being a return journey which is what it is in Luke.

Why is it not likely? Anyway, considering his former profession, that may not have been the kind of thing he wished to write about.

What does it really matter whether Luke thought they both came from Nazareth or just one of them came from there? The point is that Luke has them make a journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem and then back to Nazareth. This Journey does not occur in Matthew.

Please be more specific. I think you mean some Jews in John's gospel appear not to have known about it.

No, none of them knew about any prophecy of the Messiah coming out of Nazareth...

John 1:45-46 - "Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?"

John 7:41-42 - "Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?"

John 7:50-52 - "Nicodemus saith unto them, (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,) Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth? They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet."

A classic rhetorical device of the tannaim and amoraim was to feign ignorance over any matter they disdained. Basically this is ridiculous I never ever even heard of it. That device is used to put down most traditions they disproved of, or stories circulating among the amei haaretz (local yokels).

I don't believe that applies to John in this situation.

Being aware of something does not mean accepting it or crediting it. There are instances of them ignoring other traditions attributed to the prophets, or suppressing them.

Do you have sources of these?

All of them? Says who, you? Pretty strong words.

All of the prophecies Matthew quotes in reference to Jesus' birth are taken completely out of context. All of them.

Anyway, I'm ammending your statement to some professional historians.

Again, study then-contemporary Jewish exegesis.

The only ones who don't believe Matthew's prophecies are bogus are those who refuse to accept the premise that Matthew could be lying.

That is why they are complementary.

They don't compliment each other. They contradict each other. In Luke, they stay about a month and return straight back to Nazareth. In Matthew they stay in Bethlehem long enough to find a house (the Bible says Jesus was 2 years old which means he was about 1 year old) and escape to Egypt before moving to a little town called Nazareth.

The problem is that how can Matthew and Luke claim that Jesus is the Messiah when everyone knows that the Messiah is supposed to come from Bethlehem and Jesus comes from Nazareth. Both authors tackle the same problem from different angles. Matthew's story starts out at Bethlehem and ends up in Nazareth in an attempt to save the young baby's life. Luke's story starts at Nazareth and has the divine family travel to Bethlehem for the census which just happened to coincide with the Savior's birth and then travel back to Nazareth after it's over. There is no dangerous escape from Judean authorities or anything of the sort.

To my mind, neither authors deglected parts of the original story. The simplist thing to me is to see them as two different stories altogether.

The older generation of Yemenite, Eastern and North African Jews, as well as Arabs, reffer to any kid under a year old as being a year old. Don't project your modern understanding.

The scripture says Jesus was two years old. Either way, it's of little matter because the Savior never comes to the attention of any Judean authorities in the gospel of Luke. His parents present him at the temple after which they peacefully return back to Nazareth no one pursuing them at all.

Perhaps the massacre of the innocents was not widely known. The gospels do not record every single period of Christ's life, or shall we assume that Christ wasn't born because John doesn't mention it?

It definately wasn't known to Luke. I personally think John believed Jesus really was born at Nazareth and just doesn't care. In John's gospel, worrying about where the Savior is born is nothing more than a stumbling block for those who are outside God's favor.

Because Mary had them, or is Elisabeth chopped liver (that good old Jewish saying)?

As to why I would assume that Joseph had them, it is his ancestral home.

That's assuming of course that Luke is correct about that part of history when he was wrong about other parts. No other gospel mentions any relatives in Judea.

I will and it is what you assume Luke said.

Luke 2:22, 39 - "And when the days of [Mary's] purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished [33 days according to Leviticus], they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord...And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth."

Also notice the difference in wording between the two gospels here:

Luke "They returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth."

Matthew "He turned aside into the parts of Galilee: and he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth."