Scholars - how do you reconcile the different narratives in the new testament accounts of what happened immediately after Jesus birth?

[u/lucie_d_reams]

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)

[u/adieue]

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.

[u/lucie_d_reams → u/adieue]

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

[u/adieue → u/lucie_d_reams]

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