Christmas stories fulfilling prophecies in their own ways

[John 1720]

Thanks for your reply attempting to combine the two stories.

Yes verses 39 and 40 summarise a roughly 12 year period.

But let's look at verse 39:
"When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth."

I suppose one could, in the strictly sense interpolate it that way. But generally speaking they did in fact return to Nazareth, just by way of Bethlehem and Eqypt and Luke's reasons for glossing over that can be deemed similar to why the Synoptics by and large focus on Jesus' last year of ministry, while John's Gospel also includes the 2 years prior.
So the verse certainly does imply Luke was summarizing but beyond that I don't believe we should read too much into it; and interpret it like some rigid mathematical formula. After all Luke does skip past 12 years pretty quickly and then skips another 18 after he documents Jesus' probable bar mitzvah and coming of age.

Why did Luke leave out the flight to Egypt? Well for one we should understand that Matthew documents it as well as the slaughter of the innocents as prophesy. While one might speculate that Luke was unaware of Matthew, it is equally likely to speculate Luke thought Matthew's mention of it was enough, or perhaps he did not feel this particular prophecy was important or germane to his main narrative.

All that of course is speculation but so is thinking the two accounts are contradictory when they are merely summarizing early events. Notice the wise men come to a house in Bethlehem not the manger. This gives the appearance of them settling or staying with someone in the town.

• 11 And when they had come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him. And when they had opened their treasures, they presented gifts to Him: gold, frankincense, and myrrh.Then, being divinely warned in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed for their own country another way.Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him.” When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and departed for Egypt, and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt I called My Son.” ​

Notice Matthew also has a preference for Joseph returning to Judea, possibly even Bethlehem, after the death of Herod the Great but thinks better of it after finding that Archelaus is now reigning there; this also a detail Luke glosses over - just as Matthew glosses over Jesus' appearance in the temple at age 12.

• But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea instead of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And being warned by God in a dream, he turned aside into the region of Galilee. And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth. Matthew 2:22-23

Keep in mind also that it was only after some reasonable time had expired that Herod actually sought to kill the babes whom he saw as his prophesied competition. Herod’s infanticide atrocity is also attested to by the Roman historian Macrobius Saturnus;

• “When Augustus had heard that, along with the children within two years of age which Herod king of the Jews commanded to be slain in Syria, that he had his own son murdered also, he said, ‘It is better to be Herod’s pig than his son.” Macrobius, Saturnalia 2.F.11.
  • This appears to be a comment made just prior to Herod's death, which the historian Josephus accounts for; and an infererence of how Herod, as a Jew, would not kill a pig, but had no trouble taking out 3 his son, as well as many other innocents he murdered.

 

[Theo102]

However, all this debate over word usage may be superfluous, as earlier Biblical texts than Isaiah appear to use the term quite interchangeably.

Of course this simply mirrors reality, in than a young maiden is typically a virgin. The distinction between almah and bethewlah is more apparent when you consider verses in which virginity is the central issue. The point here is that Isaiah 7:14 is only part of a larger prophecy, when seen in that context the distinction between almah and bethuwlah is incidental to the meaning of the scripture rather than central to it, which would harldy be the case if a virgin birth were being announced IMO.

 

[JohnClay]

I suppose one could, in the strictly sense interpolate it that way. But generally speaking they did in fact return to Nazareth, just by way of Bethlehem and Eqypt and Luke's reasons for glossing over that can be deemed similar to why the Synoptics by and large focus on Jesus' last year of ministry, while John's Gospel also includes the 2 years prior.

I don't think it is reasonable to assume that Luke knew about the house in Bethlehem, the wise men, and the flight to Egypt which Radagast in post 38 says involved "several years".

So the verse certainly does imply Luke was summarizing but beyond that I don't believe we should read too much into it; and interpret it like some rigid mathematical formula. After all Luke does skip past 12 years pretty quickly and then skips another 18 after he documents Jesus' probable bar mitzvah and coming of age.

The story of the wise men, King Herod, the massacre and the flight to Egypt is highly significant. It doesn't make sense that this would be left out at the start of verse 39 and just say that they returned to Nazareth. It could have at least have said that they took years to return to Nazareth - it implies they returned after a short amount of time.

Why did Luke leave out the flight to Egypt? Well for one we should understand that Matthew documents it as well as the slaughter of the innocents as prophesy. While one might speculate that Luke was unaware of Matthew, it is equally likely to speculate Luke thought Matthew's mention of it was enough, or perhaps he did not feel this particular prophecy was important or germane to his main narrative.

If you look at the main idea of my book, you'll see that the two stories have hardly anything in common. Just about the only things in common are prophecies - and almost always they fulfil these prophecies in their own ways (the title of this thread).

All that of course is speculation but so is thinking the two accounts are contradictory when they are merely summarizing early events. Notice the wise men come to a house in Bethlehem not the manger. This gives the appearance of them settling or staying with someone in the town.

In Matthew they seem to begin in Bethlehem - it is their home. In Luke they go to Bethlehem for the census, but also go to nearly Jerusalem for things required by the law. Why on earth would they be living in a house in Bethlehem when they were from Nazareth? If you don't assume Matthew is true, it looks like they go back to their home in Nazareth after a few weeks rather than living in Bethlehem for years for some unknown reason.

Notice Matthew also has a preference for Joseph returning to Judea, possibly even Bethlehem, after the death of Herod the Great but thinks better of it after finding that Archelaus is now reigning there; this also a detail Luke glosses over - just as Matthew glosses over Jesus' appearance in the temple at age 12.

The reason they wanted to return to Bethlehem after Egypt was because they had a house there. And they go to Nazareth because of Archelaus, not because they originally lived in Nazareth (unlike Luke).

See my original post for a summary of the differences and similarities in the stories.

Also there are more problems with the journeys than just verse 39. See also info about the journeys

 

[JohnClay]

John 1720:
About Herod:
In post 15, Quid est Veritas? says:
"You made an assumption that Luke and Matthew both have Jesus born under Herod the Great. Luke mentions the census of Quirinius, so his King Herod might be Herod Antipas, not his father."

I talk about it in my book here:
When was Jesus born

The census is first, and apparently happened in 6 AD. Then after that the wise men see Herod the Great, who dies in 4 BC! Quid est Veritas? doesn't seem to believe the stories are completely factual/historical.

 

[John 1720]

I don't think it is reasonable to assume that Luke knew about the house in Bethlehem, the wise men, and the flight to Egypt which Radagast in post 38 says involved "several years".

Hi John,
Thanks for writing back. I did look at post 38 tand am not sure how relevant that is to our discussion. I do, however, still think it's quite reasonable to assume multiple possibilities, which I highlighted. So I will disagree with you here based on the following points:

• All the Gospel writers, especially John, leave out details that the others report. While it is true that in many areas they do indeed overlap and give their own perspective on an event, many times they simply pass over events. So I believe it is quite reasonable to assume Luke was aware of Matthew's Gospel as well as aware of his person. After all didn't he meet the brethren in Jerusalem before completing his written works as he reports in the Book of Acts?
• Acts 21:17 And when we had come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.

It addition Luke also seems to be keenly aware of what others had reported.

• Luke 1:1-3 Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus

The story of the wise men, King Herod, the massacre and the flight to Egypt is highly significant. It doesn't make sense that this would be left out at the start of verse 39 and just say that they returned to Nazareth. It could have at least have said that they took years to return to Nazareth - it implies they returned after a short amount of time.

While I'm somewhat sympathetic on that regard I think you might be projecting your own sense of modern scholarship and writing standards upon ancient authors. I certainly have not seen any convincing proof, in the ancient material I have been able to examine, that ancient historical authors of that era, had a robust standard for reporting their chronology in line with their contemporaries or predecessors. In fact, with some degree of regularity, they often skip chronological details which often mystify me in my search for multiple perspectives.

However, that said, I think it's perfectly reasonable for Luke not to have left the door ajar, even with a connecting sentence, for his audience to read about the flight to Egypt and the killing of babies and toddlers by briefly summarizing Matthew' account. Now, of course, this is speculation on my part but so is theorizing anything about why Luke chose not to mention it at all. We can speak about whose speculation is more likely but for all we know both of us may be off. We're all about 10k meters up in the air here and sailing through the clouds without being able to see any relevant landmarks. I will bullet a hint from the early 2nd century Clement, however, with respect to the authors purposely leaving things out of their Gospels that others had reported to at least give you a sense for my logic.

• Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, (this is lost to us since we only have Greek copies) and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence. And when Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels, they say that John, who had employed all his time in proclaiming the Gospel orally, finally proceeded to write for the following reason. The three Gospels already mentioned having come into the hands of all and into his own too, they say that he accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness; but that there was lacking in them an account of the deeds done by Christ at the beginning of his ministry. And this indeed is true. For it is evident that the three evangelists recorded only the deeds done by the Savior for one year after the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and indicated this in the beginning of their account.

So we see that John did not seek to report so much on what had been reported, although he certainly gave us much more information on Christ's Passion.

​

If you look at the main idea of my book, you'll see that the two stories have hardly anything in common. Just about the only things in common are prophecies - and almost always they fulfil these prophecies in their own ways (the title of this thread).


In Matthew they seem to begin in Bethlehem - it is their home. In Luke they go to Bethlehem for the census, but also go to nearly Jerusalem for things required by the law. Why on earth would they be living in a house in Bethlehem when they were from Nazareth? If you don't assume Matthew is true, it looks like they go back to their home in Nazareth after a few weeks rather than living in Bethlehem for years for some unknown reason.


The reason they wanted to return to Bethlehem after Egypt was because they had a house there. And they go to Nazareth because of Archelaus, not because they originally lived in Nazareth (unlike Luke).

See my original post for a summary of the differences and similarities in the stories.

Also there are more problems with the journeys than just verse 39. See also info about the journeys

I confess I have not read your book yet s I just sort of jumped into this thread but I promise I will as time allows me to. While I understand the point you are trying to make, as I do agree Matthew also leaves out some chronology that Luke details, I also think you may be assuming too much. Please don't misunderstand me, as I'm not saying anything is outside the realm of possibility here. One argument against your assumption is that the Early Church Fathers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries all seem to infer the authors were quite aware of each others Gospels. While we can speculate on why we think that may not necessarily be true I think evidence is required in order to impeach our earliest witnesses. Anyway that is my opinion.
Cheers and
Thank You, Patrick

 

[JohnClay]

John 1720:
What do you think about post 44? Do you think the dates are mistaken?

Also:
"Why on earth would they be living in a house in Bethlehem when they were from Nazareth? If you don't assume Matthew is true, it looks like they go back to their home in Nazareth after a few weeks rather than living in Bethlehem for years for some unknown reason."

Could you give at least one theory why they would have stayed in Bethlehem for years when they came from Nazareth and their initial reason was for a census?

All the Gospel writers, especially John, leave out details that the others report

The only time John mentioned Bethlehem or King David (John 7:41-42) was when he was mentioning that people didn't think he was from there or was a descendent of King David. That is more than leaving out details. He is implying that those people were right.

...I believe it is quite reasonable to assume Luke was aware of Matthew's Gospel as well as aware of his person. After all didn't he meet the brethren in Jerusalem before completing his written works as he reports in the Book of Acts?

But about the only things Luke has in common with Matthew in the nativity stories is basically some prophecies and they disagree in almost all of the details including the genealogies and the journeys

From the journeys section:

Journeys in Matthew

• Bethlehem
• Egypt
• Nazareth

Journeys in Luke

• Nazareth, Galilee
• Hill country, Judea
• Nazareth, Galilee
• Census in Bethlehem, Judea
• Jerusalem, Judea
• Nazareth, Galilee

Luke 2:39 not mentioning staying in Bethlehem and the flight to Egypt over a few years isn't the only difference - Luke does mention journeys to the hill country and Jerusalem (that Matthew doesn't mention). I thought the things that happened in Jerusalem (e.g. Simeon seeing the Messiah) would be relevant to Matthew. In Matthew 2:3 it says that the concept of their being a king of the Jews disturbed Herod "and all Jerusalem with him".

I'm skeptical about Matthew originally being written in Hebrew. I was under the impression that a lot of Matthew is very similar to Mark with some modifications. That would make more sense if both were originally written in Greek. But if it is true that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew it doesn't really affect my arguments.

 

[JohnClay]

In Genesis 17, God told Abraham that he would have a son and to call him Isaac. In Luke 1, an angel told Zechariah he would have a son and to call him John. An angel told Mary that she would have a son and to call him Jesus. An angel in a dream told Joseph he would have a son and to call him Jesus.

Are there any other examples of this in the Bible? I haven't read all of it. It seems inconsistent - sometimes God is telling them - or sometimes it is in a dream...

 

[John 1720]

John 1720:

What do you think about post 44? Do you think the dates are mistaken?

Hi John,
Sorry for the late response as I haven't been on the site for a while.

I think those dates are scholarly opinion that rely rather heavily upon Josephus being correct and dismissing the earlier historical perceptions of Luke as being wrong. While I understand the dynamics behind how they believe it impeaches Luke’s witness that doesn’t change the fact that Josephus, as well as later historians, have been wrong before. Historically, other long held scholarly opinions in the past have been proven wrong with respect to dismissing Luke’s accounts. In many ways modern archeology has later proven him right. So my opinion is that when it comes to correctly dating events from 2 millennia ago we should NOT cast them in stone but remain open to differing opinions until further evidences may indeed correct the record. I will say the longer an opinion is held the more it seems to quicken into concrete belief, which seems to be the case for Herod’s death in 4BC which I believe is based on the wrong eclipse. A stated, the key to overturning long held theories usually is the facts in evidence and modern astronomy I believe has given us a more reliable date of 1 BC.

This is true for other ancient witnesses we have relied heavily upon, as well. For instance, history recorded by Tacitus and believed right up until our time had the date of the Vesuvius eruption that destroyed Pompeii as August 24th of AD 79. However, archeology at Pompeii itself has shown us evidence that the fall fruit harvest had already occurred at the time of the eruption. More recently an inscription found at the site is moving the date of the eruption to October 17th. We can go on to talk about the dating of the New Testament and how Biblical scholars have had to move the dates many decades forward as scientific scrutiny and papyrus evidences, such as P52, have forced them to shift earlier opinion. We could also speak of the Dead Sea Scrolls with respect to impeaching former opinions and theories about the Bible.


My opinion therefore is Luke has shown himself to be accurate in many of his accounts that archeology only in the last century or so has affirmed, and so I am inclined to believe he was right about the reason for Joseph’s travel to Bethlehem as well.

John 1720:

"Why on earth would they be living in a house in Bethlehem when they were from Nazareth? If you don't assume Matthew is true, it looks like they go back to their home in Nazareth after a few weeks rather than living in Bethlehem for years for some unknown reason."

Could you give at least one theory why they would have stayed in Bethlehem for years when they came from Nazareth and their initial reason was for a census?

Hi Sir,
That would mostly be an exercise in speculation but there are many reasons listed that made him stay at the beginning. Jesus’ dedication at the temple would be one documented reason to stick around. God blessing Joseph’s time in Bethlehem would be another; just as he was divinely guided to keep Mary for His wife and flee to Egypt until Herod’s death in 1 BC upon which the family then returned to Galilee. I see no reason to read too much into the fact that Matthew records this episode while Luke does not. Believing Matthew and Luke are in opposition is conjecture at best and conspiracy theory at the worst.

May God Bless us,
John 1720