r/theology • u/lucie_d_reams • 4d ago
Scholars - how do you reconcile the different narratives in the new testament accounts of what happened immediately after Jesus birth? Question
Creative explanations only - I'm not looking for generic justifications for this.
For those who aren't aware - some of the accounts of what happened right after Jesus' birth conflict with each other (from the first 4 books of the NT).
***Update - I will rate your arguement based on how many bowls of pottage I award you (scale from 1-5 bowls)
4
u/dreadfoil AA Religious Studies 4d ago
What do you mean by contradiction? Have you considered that these are different narrative accounts written by different authors, so they’d have different details?
It’s the same with the crucifixion.
Here’s a non-biblical example:
“Jim Jones killed his followers with cyanide, then shot himself.”
“Jim Jones killed John, Mary, and Keith, then shot hismelf.”
Is it a contradiction, or choosing different details?
-4
u/lucie_d_reams 4d ago
Arguementative reasoning - very unoriginal so I give you one bowl of pottage
2
u/dreadfoil AA Religious Studies 4d ago
Unoriginal but it makes the most sense. I have yet to see you provide any actual counter.
0
u/lucie_d_reams 4d ago
I am not looking for conflicting discussion, I merely asked how something was justified. Only weak men need to leave a conversation feeling as thought they are right.
1
u/dreadfoil AA Religious Studies 3d ago
You need to seriously consider your position other than “how original it sounds”. Name a better way to do that other than discussion.
3
u/david4040404 4d ago
Each of the gospels were written for a different audience and a different purpose. Most of the details are literature license in order to have the story “fulfill a different verse (or rather the writers take on that verse) and so are not to be taken literally or factually.
1
5
u/BruceAKillian 4d ago
There are only perceived problems. If one assumes conflicts one finds them, if one assumes the details can be reconciled they are. Jesus was born, circumcised on the 8th day. Presented in the Temple on day 40 (all day counts are inclusive). Then then magi came, I believe on day 92 so at 3 months. That same night Jesus and family fled to Egypt. The magi also fled that night by way of Petra/ In the morning Herod had the boys of Bethlehem slain and searched for Jesus. Jesus and famly fled to the coast and took a ship to Egypt. I believe they only remained in Egypt at most 6 months. The holy family then returned to Jerusalem where there was much revolutionary activity, so for safety they returned to Nazareth. For details of this process see my article on the Chronology of Jesus http://www.scripturescholar.com/ChronologyJesus.pdf
-2
u/lucie_d_reams 4d ago
BruceAKillian what say you to this? https://ehrmanblog.org/a-key-contradiction-in-the-birth-narratives/
Also, percieved problems is a wild claim not creative or orginial. To that, I give you two bowls of pottage
3
u/BruceAKillian 4d ago
I rarely read/watch Bart Ehrman because he is a source of continual misinformation, lies, and error. There are many "christian scholars" like Bart who do not believe, the "elite" schools they attend do their best to convince their students that the Bible is a compilation of myths. Bart was one of their successes. There is no discrepancy between Matthew and Luke. I won't subscribe to Bart's blog to find out the full extent of his errors to be able to answer you. The errors he "find" in the accounts are in his own imagination.
1
u/lucie_d_reams 4d ago
Weak men feel the needs to end a conversation being right about things while putting other people down. I merely asked a question and gave my rating to your response.
3
u/PopePae MDIV 4d ago
You’re mainly going to find armchair “scholars” here, honestly.
Realistically the answer lies in the fact that the gospels must be taken in the context of their literary, theological, and historical context - especially the Synoptics. There is clear literary interdependence among them, including the fact that they aren’t trying to be (nor can they be) modern historical chronicles. The moment you begin reading them this way or imposing those modern conventions upon them you’re already off to a bad start. I recommend reading about the synoptic problem and the context of gospel literature in order to understand why different gospels have various levels of detail, literary devices, and authorial emphasis among other things.
Here’s what I say to my students: if you’re imposing a simplistic reason or modern standard upon ancient work - you’re going to have a bad time. Looks like other commenters and even yourself, OP, are doing just that.
1
u/lucie_d_reams 4d ago
This is very insightful - may I ask how you interpret my question? If taking in context of all those above, how do you factor in those accounts when asking yourself about context?
-1
u/EightBellsAtSea 4d ago
You have a M. Div or are currently in a M. Div program. I wouldn't be calling others "armchair scholars" in your position, especially if your contribution to the discussion is going to be the obvious platitudes of "pay attention to context" and "adjust for modern bias." Even more so if you don't actually provide any concrete or substantial examples that help answer the OP's question.
1
u/PopePae MDIV 4d ago
Well, first, because you decided to attack me over an innocuous comment, I do have an MDiv with honours. Also, I’m currently in a PhD program. I have published two articles and I’ve been hired as a sessional faculty member the school I graduated my MDiv from.
My comment about armchair scholars was our reflection on this sub As a whole, which mainly consists of people with interest in theology rather than training in theology.
Secondly, I did provide specific examples such as my suggestion to read into the synoptic problem and also noting that the literary context of the gospels cannot be taken in the same way as conventions of “doing history.” I don’t think it’s anybody’s job to sit here and write 500 words on what the synoptic problem is to OP - he asked how we “reconcile” his perceived issues with the text, and I gave him something tangible to look into.
Yes, telling somebody to take context into account may be obvious to you but it’s certainly not obvious to everybody otherwise OP’s question wouldn’t be worded this way. You have to build a semblance of a foundation in these conversations, which is the approach I take with undergraduate students I’ve been teaching theology to, you know, since you decided to get fussy.
0
u/EightBellsAtSea 4d ago
Oh, a doctorate student. Makes a lot more sense now.
Don't whine to me because I pointed out how unsubstantial your comment was in actually answering the OP's question. You gave general guidelines that can apply to any number of questions relating to the biblical text. If you transitioned into some specifics that demonstrated how they can be used to critically engage with the text, then you'd have helped OP begin to answer his own question. The best part is that it doesn't take 500 words to do so, just one paragraph to elucidate the point.
1
u/Icanfallupstairs 4d ago
Can you expand on your question?
You talk about the differences in events 'immediately' after the birth narrative in the four gospels, but two of those books don't feature a birth scene at all. Are you asking about the nativity specifically, of something else?
1
u/lucie_d_reams 4d ago
Correct, I'm sorry it is luke and matthew who account for the birth narrative. For expansion purposes, it would be the timeline of events that occured after the birth narrarative
1
u/Icanfallupstairs 4d ago
Then it really comes down to the fact each is writing for different audiences. Matthew is writing to convince Jews that Jesus is the Messiah, as well as take some digs at Rome.
Luke is writing to convince gentiles that Jesus is the Messiahs well as give a voice to the lower casts of society, hence the focus on the shepherds, who were some of the lowest people in social standing.
The early Jews that believed in Jesus, and Roman Christians both really took to the Magi, and they appeared in a ton of early artwork, far more than you'd expect. It's worth doing some reading as it is pretty fascinating.
There isn't really too much conflict in the timelines, as the timelines aren't particularly focused on in the texts. Just from reading how Herod reacts, it's pretty clear that the Magi don't show up for the actual birth, but a decent while afterwards.
1
u/adieue MA in Catholic Theology 4d ago
It is estimated that the Gospel of Mark was written around the year 60, those of Luke and Matthew around 70–80, and that of John around 90.
Regarding the texts of Mark, Luke, and Matthew (called the Synoptic Gospels), the most commonly accepted explanation is that Luke and Matthew had access to the Gospel of Mark. They also shared another collection of texts—referred to as the Q source—which likely contained sayings of Jesus. Additionally, they had texts unique to each of them, as well as potentially other shared documents.
They used the structure of Mark's text, modifying it as needed and adding texts from the Q source and other material.
At first glance (I’m guessing here to earn my soup), it seems most likely that Luke and Matthew had a shared nativity text, which they incorporated into Mark’s narrative. However, they added to, removed from, modified, or even invented material in this shared text according to their needs, inspiration, and the texts available to them.
I believe this is the most logical explanation for the differences observed between the two texts, based on what we know about the creation of the Gospels.
2
u/lucie_d_reams 4d ago
How do we reconcile this as a divine, perfect text if it's not firsthand accounts? Why do we stop where we stop in the bible and not include even more religious texts that claim legitimacy by proxy of other's accounts of divine interaction?
Accessibility is a great point - I give this 3/5 bowls of pottage
1
u/adieue MA in Catholic Theology 3d ago
Gospels are not firsthand accounts. According to the criteria applied to ancient texts, this is certain. From there, for these to be divine and perfect texts, some mental gymnastics are required. Everyone has their own technique.
I’d say in one extreme, the simplest approach is to reject the criteria of historical research applied to ancient texts. A middle ground might be the conviction that the evangelists were “supervised” in their writing by a divine force. At the other extreme, we have the rational view who force to acknowledge that these accounts are human constructions, and therefore may include errors, historical biases, and human limitations. So what we have, divine or not, its only human interpretation. A pretty inacceptable view for many.
This is one of the reasons why, before Vatican II Council, Catholic tradition prohibited applying modern literary study tools to sacred texts.
As for the chosen texts, different Churches proceeded differently with different texts. Regarding the Latin Church, the “inspired” or official texts were finalized at the Council of Trent (1545–1563). Other texts from the same period that were rejected are called apocryphal and are considered simply stories written by early Christians.
I’ll take chicken and vegetable, thank you :D
1
u/kuroki731 4d ago edited 4d ago
It's an interesting question. I always hold the opinion that there are many inconsistencies between the synoptic gospels, which are impossible to reconcile reasonably. However, to show my support to your challenging question, I'll try to reconcile not so creatively for the sake of your request as follows:
Lk 2:39 states that when Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.
This is Luke's version of Jesus's trip. Obviously, Luke doesn't know he only knows a part of the whole story, there're more to it before "they returned to Galilee." This is where the whole story in Matthew 2 creeps in, where Jesus's family flee to Egypt and later return to Nazareth. So, I would say Matthew 2 happens in Luke 2:39, between "by the Law of the lord" and "they returned to Galilee."
1
u/lucie_d_reams 3d ago
So I struggle with all of the verses in the bible about how god's word is sufficient for salvation and then Paul often admonishes those who challenge it. It seems as if the arguement that you need to be ok with what is provided (with what we have now) and not challenge it - seems like a very cop out approach to explaining some very important topics. Such as why Luke only knows parts and why there is room for such questioning to begin with.
I understand believers intent of believing the words of god to be completely perfect; however, that's not enough for me. It was enough for me for many many years when I lived in ignorance, but not now.
And I don't say this from a place of personal pride. Actually it's extremely difficult to go against everything I have been taught about the bible in its entirety. I think it would be so much easier to go back to that way of thinking but I cannot.
1
u/kuroki731 3d ago
I'm sorry that my words lead you to misunderstanding. It's probably my fault, my English is quite poor. My reply to your post is written in utmost serious manner, not satirical, I really take it as an interesting exercise to see if I can reconcile. I am not in any position to discourage anyone to challenge the Christian faith and the Bible. On the contrary, I treat your question very seriously, not less than the others. Never mind, communication is never transparent.
1
1
1
u/OutsideSubject3261 4d ago edited 4d ago
Firstly, one must understand that many things that happened to Jesus were not recorded in the gospels.
John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
Second, the gospel writers did not follow a uniform chronological account of the events which they record. Thus Luke records the occurence in the Temple between Simeon and Anna then jumps forward to the residence of the family in Nazareth; completely over looking their stay in Eygpt. This does not contradict Matthew's account of the family's departure for Eygpt and their later return to Israel and settlement in Nazareth.
Thirdly, the gospel writers wrote what they felt was important as they were inspired by the Holy Ghost. They emphasized what was important in the message they were moved to convey to the audience to whom they wrote. How can we fault them for that.
It would have been gloriously convenient if everything happened so that all the facts dove-tailed into a seamless story; but these seeming differences in point of views is precisely the indicia that the stories were not contrived and the product of a conspiracy of bad faith and fraud.
1
u/lucie_d_reams 4d ago
This is very interesting perspective to my question
I award you 4/5 bowls of pottage!
1
u/Crimson3312 4d ago
If you think that's confusing, wait until you read the infancy gospels
0
u/lucie_d_reams 4d ago
This is ongoing project of mine 😊😊😊 I don't find it confusing actually, I don't believe it to be "divinely inspired" or written by god. Therefore, it's all just inaccurate accounts (really, opinions if we are getting technical) of divinity. Luke didn't even witness many of the things he wrote about.
0
u/Crimson3312 4d ago
The Gospels not being written by the people they're ascribed to, and not being first hand accounts is not exactly news.
1
u/Crimson3312 4d ago edited 4d ago
To those down voting, sorry to ruin your Sunday but the Gospels as we know them weren't written until about 40 years after Christ's death, and they were anonymous. The attribution to Matt, Mark, Luke, and John didn't happen until the 2nd century.
0
u/david4040404 4d ago
Suggest you consult with a professional Hebrew scholar and study under them to understand the old testament. Then you will need a Greek scholar , well versed in Hebrew to understand the new testament. Probably not here
1
u/lucie_d_reams 4d ago
Do you not believe that is a bit excessive to answer a clarifying question? 1 corinthians 13:33 - god isn't the author of confusion.
Also, pretty good and decent answer - 4/5 bowls of pottage for you
10
u/cbrooks97 4d ago
Step 1: Don't read things into the text. Matthew never says anything in his account happened "immediately" after the birth of Jesus. Don't let popular mythology (eg, the "wise men" at the manger) confuse you about what the text actually says.