Which Christmas Story: Matthew or Luke?

[doubtingmerle]

I find that the books of Matthew and Luke are telling two different stories of Christmas. Matthew has Jesus born in Bethlehem but Jesus' family must flee to Egypt and Nazareth to escape Herod. Luke, on the other hand, has Joseph and Mary travel from their home in Nazareth on a special trip in which Jesus was born. Luke has Joseph and Mary then travel home after the baby goes through the purification ritual, with no place in the account for them to flee to Egypt. There are other differences, such as entirely different genealogies.

What's going on here? It looks to me like both are simply adding their own birth narrative to Mark, with no concern about integrating with the other story.

How do you make sense of this?

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you make sense of this?

By reading this.

 

[ChetSinger]

There are other differences, such as entirely different genealogies.

Hello! Regarding the genealogies, it's a common belief that Matthew is recording Joseph's and Luke is recording Mary's. There are reasons for thinking this, which I'm happy to share if you have any specific questions.

P.S. I can second AV1611VET's link.

 

[Alla27]

I find that the books of Matthew and Luke are telling two different stories of Christmas. Matthew has Jesus born in Bethlehem but Jesus' family must flee to Egypt and Nazareth to escape Herod. Luke, on the other hand, has Joseph and Mary travel from their home in Nazareth on a special trip in which Jesus was born. Luke has Joseph and Mary then travel home after the baby goes through the purification ritual, with no place in the account for them to flee to Egypt. There are other differences, such as entirely different genealogies.

What's going on here? It looks to me like both are simply adding their own birth narrative to Mark, with no concern about integrating with the other story.

How do you make sense of this?

There are errors in the translations. But in both Mathew and Luke accounts there is the most important truth of the Gospel and no errors - Son of God was born on earth. Details are not so important.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are errors in the translations.

What translations?

 

[doubtingmerle]

By reading this.

OK, it might be a good idea to keep those things that were committed to your trust. My question is which of these books, if any, should be committed to our trust? Was the writer of I Timothy including the book of Matthew as a book in your trust? Was he including Luke?

I don't see that the writer of I Timothy commits to any of these books. And how could he commit to both being true when they say something different?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Hello! Regarding the genealogies, it's a common belief that Matthew is recording Joseph's and Luke is recording Mary's. There are reasons for thinking this, which I'm happy to share if you have any specific questions.

P.S. I can second AV1611VET's link.

ChetSinger, OK, so you accept the genealogy of Matthew as being correctly the genealogy of Joseph as it claims. Let's look at your hypothesis that Luke is giving the genealogy of Mary. Here is what Luke 3:23 says:

23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,​

It seems obvious to me that this is intended to be the genealogy of Joseph. Can you explain why you think this is of Mary?

 

[doubtingmerle]

There are errors in the translations. But in both Mathew and Luke accounts there is the most important truth of the Gospel and no errors - Son of God was born on earth. Details are not so important.

Ah, so Matthew and Luke have errors in translation that get a few details wrong. So do we know if the genealogy of Matthew or Luke is correct? Do we know if Joseph and Mary were from Bethlehem as Matthew implies, of from Nazareth as Luke states? Do we know if Jesus went home to Nazareth right after his ritual purification as Luke states, or first went to Egypt until Herod died, and then relocated to Nazareth as Matthew states?

If at least one book is wrong on these points, could it be that both are wrong?

And if they are both wrong on these points, how many other points are they wrong on?

 

[doubtingmerle]

What translations?

Do you know of any translation that has no error?

 

[AV1611VET]

OK, it might be a good idea to keep those things that were committed to your trust.

Might? good idea?

I'd say that's putting it mildly.

Here's a passage we like to use:

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Notice how that verse ends?

My question is which of these books, if any, should be committed to our trust?

All sixty-six.

Was the writer of I Timothy including the book of Matthew as a book in your trust?

Probably.

According to the notes in the Rainbow Study Bible, 1 Timothy was written AD 62-64, and Matthew was written AD 50-70.

But I take this a step further.

I say it also includes the book of Revelation, written between AD 90 and 96.

How can I say that?

Because the ultimate Author is God, Who can declare the end from the beginning.

That means that Adam could have written that back in Genesis 1, and it would pertain to all sixty-six books.

Was he including Luke?

See previous answer.

I don't see that the writer of I Timothy commits to any of these books.

What's this then?

2 Timothy 4:13 The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.

And how could he commit to both being true when they say something different?

You wouldn't expect them to say the same thing, would you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you know of any translation that has no error?

I give the 1611 KJB, fifth edition, for being without error on principle.

But I take it a step further.

If I go into a bookstore to buy One, the first thing I do is turn to Numbers 11:4 and read it.

Numbers 11:4 And the mixt multitude that was among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat?

If it says, "mixed multitude," I put it back on the shelf.

 

[ChetSinger]

ChetSinger, OK, so you accept the genealogy of Matthew as being correctly the genealogy of Joseph as it claims. Let's look at your hypothesis that Luke is giving the genealogy of Mary. Here is what Luke 3:23 says:

23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,​

It seems obvious to me that this is intended to be the genealogy of Joseph. Can you explain why you think this is of Mary?

Sure. First, it's a different genealogy. Second, it's consistent with Jewish inheritance traditions.

There was a Jewish custom whereby a man who had no sons would adopt his sons-in-law to continue his name and property. We're told that Mary had a sister, but we're not told of any brothers. So if Heli were her father, and had no sons, Joseph would have been brought into the family to carry on Heli's name. Such unions were required to remain within the clan of the tribe, so it explains why Joseph had to be a descendant of David: Heli was, and his inheritance needed to remain within the clan. The precedents for this are in Numbers 27:1-11 and Numbers 36:1-12.

Does this help?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Sure. First, it's a different genealogy. Second, it's consistent with Jewish inheritance traditions.

There was a Jewish custom whereby a man who had no sons would adopt his sons-in-law to continue his name and property. We're told that Mary had a sister, but we're not told of any brothers. So if Heli were her father, and had no sons, Joseph would have been brought into the family to carry on Heli's name. Such unions were required to remain within the clan of the tribe, so it explains why Joseph had to be a descendant of David: Heli was, and his inheritance needed to remain within the clan.

OK, you accept that Joseph was the son of Jacob as Matthew suggests.

But what do you do with Luke 3:23 that states Joseph was the son of Heli? You propose the hypothesis that Luke actually meant "the son in law" of Heli when he says, "Joseph, the son of Heli".

Nobody can say for sure what Luke thought, but we can propose two hypothesis: he thought Joseph was the actual son of Heli, or he thought Joseph was the son in law of Heli. Which is the most likely view as to which Luke thought as he was writing "Joseph, the son of Heli"? I think he meant Joseph was the son of Heli (and thus differed with Matthew).

The precedents for this are in Numbers 27:1-11 and Numbers 36:1-12.

Interesting, there we see daughters of Zelophehad claiming the inheritance since Zelophehad had no sons. (My opinion is that they should have had some of the inheritance even if Zelophehad had a son, but that is a different issue.) Nowhere in either of these passages does it state that the men these women married were then called the sons of Zelophehad.

To support the assertion that the sons in law of Heli or Zelophehad were formally called the sons of those men because their fathers in law had no natural born sons, I would want at least one example of this, or a clear statement in the Jewish customs that say this is so.

 

[ChetSinger]

OK, you accept that Joseph was the son of Jacob as Matthew suggests.

Yes.

But what do you do with Luke 3:23 that states Joseph was the son of Heli? You propose the hypothesis that Luke actually meant "the son in law" of Heli when he says, "Joseph, the son of Heli".

Nobody can say for sure what Luke thought, but we can propose two hypothesis: he thought Joseph was the actual son of Heli, or he thought Joseph was the son in law of Heli. Which is the most likely view as to which Luke thought as he was writing "Joseph, the son of Heli"? I think he meant Joseph was the son of Heli (and thus differed with Matthew).

I propose a third one: I think Luke knew that Joseph wasn't Heli's biological son (because Mary, or someone close to her, was evidently one of his sources). But because Joseph was carrying on Heli's family name upon marriage, Luke was using accepted Jewish terminology when describing their relationship.

Interesting, there we see daughters of Zelophehad claiming the inheritance since Zelophehad had no sons. (My opinion is that they should have had some of the inheritance even if Zelophehad had a son, but that is a different issue.) Nowhere in either of these passages does it state that the men these women married were then called the sons of Zelophehad.

To support the assertion that the sons in law of Heli or Zelophehad were formally called the sons of those men because their fathers in law had no natural born sons, I would want at least one example of this, or a clear statement in the Jewish customs that say this is so.

The key to this understanding is found in Numbers 27:4, which says:

Why should the name of our father be taken away from his clan because he had no son?

Jewish genealogies of the time were patriarchal. So for Heli's name to continue in his clan he must have a son (who himself has sons, etc.). Thus, in this proposal his branch's genealogy would be "Heli > Joseph > Jesus". The alternative, "Heli > Mary > Jesus", would've been unacceptable.

I'm not saying that Joseph wouldn't have been identified as a son-in-law in everyday life. But when recording a genealogy it would be his name that appears, not Mary's.

Is this helpful?

 

[doubtingmerle]

All sixty-six.

How do you know it is not all sixty-four? How do you know it isn't all seventy-two or all forty-seven?

I find no reason to believe that God has given us exactly 66 books to follow. But we digress.

According to the notes in the Rainbow Study Bible, 1 Timothy was written AD 62-64, and Matthew was written AD 50-70.

Many think first Timothy was written long after 100 AD by somebody other than Paul. It's language differs markedly from the language of Paul, and its topics fit better into the second century.

And most critical scholars think the four gospels were written after 70 AD.

But regardless, the epistles attributed to Paul make no mention of the gospels. So it is hard to appeal to them as evidence that Matthew and Luke are reliable. If Paul thought they were reliable, why didn't he refer to them specifically?

What's this then?

2 Timothy 4:13 The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.

Good. He wanted his books. I identify with him. I like my books.

But I see no evidence that "the books" include Matthew or Luke.

You wouldn't expect them to say the same thing, would you?

Right. If they are independently telling the same story, we would expect them to present different angles. The problem we have with Matthew and Luke is that they copy Mark, often word for word. When Mark, for instance inserts the explanation "Let him that readeth understand" in the middle of a speech by Jesus, Matthew decides to insert the same explanation at the same point. As you would say it, "You wouldn't expect them to say the same thing, would you?". But they do. It obvious what is happening here. Do you agree that Matthew simply copied Mark here with a few edits?

It is believed that Mark wrote first. If Matthew and Luke write about something Mark wrote about, their wording betrays that they copied Mark. But when they speak about things that Mark does not mention--such as the Christmas story--their storys are inconsistant.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Jewish genealogies of the time were patriarchal. So for Heli's name to continue in his clan he must have a son (who himself has sons, etc.). Thus, in this proposal his branch's genealogy would be "Heli > Joseph > Jesus". The alternative, "Heli > Mary > Jesus", would've been unacceptable.

If Joseph was the son of Heli, I would expect Luke to say what he wrote, "Joseph, son of Heli". If Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, I would expect Luke to word it differently.

 

[ChetSinger]

If Joseph was the son of Heli, I would expect Luke to say what he wrote, "Joseph, son of Heli". If Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, I would expect Luke to word it differently.

How would you expect him to word it, and what ancient Jewish precedents would you employ to defend your expectation?

Please ask yourself if you're applying a 21st-century expectation to a 1st-century culture. That is, shouldn't we try to interpret Luke's writings as his own culture would have? After all, our culture hadn't yet been invented.

There is Jewish precedent for Joseph being called by his wife's father's family, here in Ezra 2:61:

Also, of the sons of the priests: the sons of Habaiah, the sons of Hakkoz, and the sons of Barzillai (who had taken a wife from the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called by their name).

That is, these men were registered as the sons of Barzillai even though they were actually sons-in-law.

Based on these Hebrew traditions I think there are two obvious possibilities to these two different family histories.

1. One of them is wrong.
2. Luke's is Mary's, based on Jewish tradition.

I'll choose the latter. What's your choice? Or do you choose yet another possibility?

 

[doubtingmerle]

How would you expect him to word it, and what ancient Jewish precedents would you employ to defend your expectation?

If Heli was Mary's father, then it would have been much clearer wording to say, "Jesus the son of Mary the daughter of Heli," especially when you consider that Joseph was being represented as the stepfather of Jesus. Or Luke could have said, "Jesus (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son in law of Heli". Either way would be much clearer.

There is Jewish precedent for Joseph being called by his wife's father's family, here in Ezra 2:61:

That is, these men were registered as the sons of Barzillai even though they were actually sons-in-law.

Interesting.

I guess it is possible that Luke meant that, but it seems much more likely that "Joseph, the son of Heli" meant Joseph was the son of Heli.

 

[ChetSinger]

If Heli was Mary's father, then it would have been much clearer wording to say, "Jesus the son of Mary the daughter of Heli," especially when you consider that Joseph was being represented as the stepfather of Jesus. Or Luke could have said, "Jesus (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son in law of Heli". Either way would be much clearer.

Yes, I agree. But I can accept it because I don't think his culture demanded it.

Interesting.

I guess it is possible that Luke meant that, but it seems much more likely that "Joseph, the son of Heli" meant Joseph was the son of Heli.

Sure. Otoh I gravitate toward the son-in-law idea because I like how it dovetails with the culture of the time and because I like its explanatory power.

 

[peepnklown]

How do you make sense of this?

First, you have to understand the writer/s of ‘Matthew’ and ‘Luke’ desperately tried to support Jesus through the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh).
Second, each of the writer/s drew from unique sources to his own community and each of the writer/s had different knowledge levels of the Torah and the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) and Second Temple Judaism.
Third, each of the writer/s drew from different versions of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh).
These are the main problems.

Oo, and ‘Matthew’ and ‘Luke’ used ‘Mark’ as a source.
The genealogies were used to prove that Jesus was the promised Jewish Messiah of the Tanakh.
The birth place, the flee to Eqypt, etc were all used to prove Jesus’ claim to the Tanakh.