Which Christmas Story: Matthew or Luke?

[AV1611VET]

Why Jesus and not Mithras?

Why gold and not fool's gold?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

All currency produced by the Federal Reserve Bank is legal tender.

Suppose tomorrow they start producing the three-dollar bill?

Guess what?

It will be considered legal tender.

And if the last dollar produced was considered to be the last legal tender and its completion?

Guess what?

That three dollar bill would be considered a forgery.

 

[AV1611VET]

And if the last dollar produced was considered to be the last legal tender and its completion?

Considered by whom?

Didn't God use Amos to tell them that there would be a [unique] famine in the land?

Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:

That famine occurred during the 400 years of what is called the Intertestament Period.

That famine ended with John the Baptist.

Luke 3:2 Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.

 

[doubtingmerle]

That two different writers to two different audiences omitted some information is what you consider a contradiction?

I pointed out much earlier that it does not constitute a contradiction unless your presupposition is each gospel must conform to your preconceived notion of validity.

They don't have to. Maybe in your mind they do. But that would be your subjective standard.

I thought we had discussed this multiple times. Again, if one author includes something that another does not, that is not a contradiction. Should I repeat that a few more times for your benefit?

Again the problem is that Luke, apparently knowing about the story of Matthew, does not harmonize well with Matthew. This includes apparent contradictions (4 BC vs 6 AD, Jacob as Joseph's father vs. Heli, the return in a few weeks to Nazareth vs. a long stay in Egypt, etc.)

I say "apparent contradictions" because most contradictions depend on interpretation. When Dickens wrote, "It was the best of times; it was the worst of times" this was not a contradiction. Understanding the writing in context resolves the issue. So there is always the question of whether a proper understanding would resolve the apparent contradiction in the Bible.

If you defend the side that there are no contradictions, then you must accept that all apparent contradictions have an explanation. If you accept there could be some contradictions, then each claim needs to be reviewed on its merits. For instance, in this thread, we reviewed the claim that the two different genealogies of Jesus differ on who is the father of Joseph. You make a valid point that one can be referring to Mary's father by virtue of inheritance. One could also make the claim that it is extremely unlikely that Luke, knowing the other genealogy existed, wrote this other genealogy without explanation of where he got the strange definition of Joseph's father. I think it is more likely that Luke saw Matthew and did not care. He didn't expect his reader to read both, and he liked his story better, so he ignored Matthew. He made no attempt to harmonize.

The fact that Luke ignored the slaughter of babies in Bethlehem, and ignored the flight to Egypt is not a contradiction, but it strains credibility that Luke believed it and didn't think it was important. But Luke does conflict with the story of Matthew where he says they returned home to Nazareth straight from Bethlehem after a few weeks, whereas Matthew says they were in Egypt for an extended period of time and from there relocated to Nazareth.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Why gold and not fool's gold?

If the accounts of Jesus contradict, how is that gold?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Redleghunter, as we discussed earlier, I think Matthew and Luke copied from Mark, as do most critical scholars. Many scholars think Matthew and Luke also used a sayings document Q as a source. Instead, I tend to go with the Farrer hypothesis, that Matthew used Mark, and Luke used Mark and Matthew.

Let's look at your quotes from John MacArthur.

1) The nearly unanimous testimony of the church until the nineteenth century was that Matthew was the first gospel written. Such an impressive body of evidence cannot be ignored.

And most people in the first century thought the earth was flat. That does not make them right. I think the evidence points that Mark was first.

2) Why would Matthew, an apostle and eyewitness to the events of Christ’s life, depend on Mark (who was not an eyewitness)—even for the account of his own conversion?

Exactly. Whoever wrote Matthew does not identify himself, and nowhere claims to be a witness. Instead he appears to copy from Mark. He probably was not an apostle.

3) A significant statistical analysis of the synoptic gospels has revealed that the parallels between them are far less extensive and the differences more significant than is commonly acknowledged. The differences, in particular, argue against literary dependence between the gospel writers.
4) Since the gospels record actual historical events, it would be surprising if they did not follow the same general historical sequence. For example, the fact that 3 books on American history all had the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World War I, World War II, the Vietnam War, and the Gulf War in the same chronological order would not prove that the authors had read each others’ books. General agreement in content does not prove literary dependency.

Sure there are differences. Matthew and Luke edited freely. But the exact copying of certain phrases, and deciding to use the same parenthetical at the same time, betrays that one copied the other.

5) The passages in which Matthew and Luke agree against Mark (see argument 3 in favor of the “Two-Source” theory) amount to about one-sixth of Matthew and one-sixth of Luke. If they used Mark’s gospel as a source, there is no satisfactory explanation for why Matthew and Luke would so often both change Mark’s wording in the same way.

Correct. That is one reason for the Farrer hypothesis, that Luke used Matthew as a source.

 

[AV1611VET]

If the accounts of Jesus contradict, how is that gold?

Good question.

The accounts of Jesus must not contradict then, eh?

They might contradict by the letter, but not in truth.

For example, I say, "The sun rose at 6:30 a.m."

Later, I say, "Sunrise was at 6:30 a.m."

My second quote contradicts my first quote in letter, not in truth.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Good question.

The accounts of Jesus must not contradict then, eh?

They might contradict by the letter, but not in truth.

For example, I say, "The sun rose at 6:30 a.m."

Later, I say, "Sunrise was at 6:30 a.m."

My second quote contradicts my first quote in letter, not in truth.

"The sun rose at 6:30 a.m." does not contradict "Sunrise was at 6:30 a.m."

"Joseph was the son of Jacob" could well contradict "Joseph was the son of Heli".

 

[AV1611VET]

"Joseph was the son of Jacob" could well contradict "Joseph was the son of Heli".

Yes ... alphabetically.

But if truth can reconcile those two statements, go with truth.

My mother-in-law calls me her son.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Yes ... alphabetically.

But if truth can reconcile those two statements, go with truth.

My mother-in-law calls me her son.

Does our birth certificate call you her son?

In genealogies, can you call anybody your son that you have affection for? I thought the word "son" in a genealogy had a specific meaning.

 

[AV1611VET]

Does our birth certificate call you her son?

In genealogies, can you call anybody your son that you have affection for? I thought the word "son" in a genealogy had a specific meaning.

Can you show me "son-in-law" in the Bible?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Considered by whom?

Didn't God use Amos to tell them that there would be a [unique] famine in the land?

Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:

That famine occurred during the 400 years of what is called the Intertestament Period.

That famine ended with John the Baptist.

Luke 3:2 Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.

And Amos is old testament - your point being? You simply confirm what I said - Jesus was the end of the fulfillment of prophesy and of the law.

And John the Baptist unto whom the word of God came - wrote no scripture.

 

[redleghunter]

Just remember - when Jesus affirmed all scripture was inspired by God - the New Testament had not been written. Jesus was the fulfillment of prophecy and the law. Anything after him is purely man's attempts at recording what occurred - subject to all the flaws of man.

Kind of off topic. But would respond to your proposition if you created another thread in the appropriate place.

This thread has already exhausted permutations.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

"The sun rose at 6:30 a.m." does not contradict "Sunrise was at 6:30 a.m."

"Joseph was the son of Jacob" could well contradict "Joseph was the son of Heli".

Luke paused from his narrative to give Christ’s genealogy. While Matthew traced Christ’s lineage through Joseph, his legal father (see Matt. 1:1–17), Luke traced it through Mary, beginning with Mary’s father, Heli. (Men in ancient times often regarded their sons-in-law as their own sons). The lineages of Mary and Joseph converge at King David (compare 3:31 with Matt. 1:6).

One gave it through his legal father - the Jewish legal line, without which inheritance could not be considered in Jewish tradition - one gave it through his mother - the blood line. Both traced their lineages back to King David.

 

[redleghunter]

Redleghunter, as we discussed earlier, I think Matthew and Luke copied from Mark, as do most critical scholars. Many scholars think Matthew and Luke also used a sayings document Q as a source. Instead, I tend to go with the Farrer hypothesis, that Matthew used Mark, and Luke used Mark and Matthew.

Let's look at your quotes from John MacArthur.


And most people in the first century thought the earth was flat. That does not make them right. I think the evidence points that Mark was first.

Exactly. Whoever wrote Matthew does not identify himself, and nowhere claims to be a witness. Instead he appears to copy from Mark. He probably was not an apostle.

Sure there are differences. Matthew and Luke edited freely. But the exact copying of certain phrases, and deciding to use the same parenthetical at the same time, betrays that one copied the other.

Correct. That is one reason for the Farrer hypothesis, that Luke used Matthew as a source.

I believe you have a good introduction to a new thread.

Other than the flat earth deal. Such was a dark age machination.

Yet the early bishops and church had the best knowledge on authorship.

Have not looked at Farrer for two years. Will look at and come back.

If you decide to start a new thread let me know.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Can you show me "son-in-law" in the Bible?

Yes.

Gen 19:12

And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son inlaw, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hastin the city, bring them out of this place:
Jdg 15:6

Then the Philistines said, Who hath done this? And they answered, Samson, the son in law of the Timnite, because he had taken his wife, and given her to his companion. And the Philistines came up, and burnt her and her father with fire.
Jdg 19:5

And it came to pass on the fourth day, when they arose early inthe morning, that he rose up to depart: and the damsel's father said unto his son in law, Comfort thine heart with a morsel of bread, and afterward go your way.
1Sa 18:18

And David said unto Saul, Who am I? and what is my life, or my father's family in Israel, that I should be son in law to the king?
1Sa 18:21

And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son inlaw in the one of the twain.
1Sa 18:22

And Saul commanded his servants, saying, Commune with David secretly, and say, Behold, the king hath delight in thee, and all his servants love thee: now therefore be the king's son in law.
1Sa 18:23

And Saul's servants spake those words in the ears of David. And David said, Seemeth it to you a light thing to be a king's son inlaw, seeing that I am a poor man, and lightly esteemed?
1Sa 18:26

And when his servants told David these words, it pleased David well to be the king's son in law: and the days were not expired.
1Sa 18:27

Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife.
1Sa 22:14

Then Ahimelech answered the king, and said, And who is sofaithful among all thy servants as David, which is the king's sonin law, and goeth at thy bidding, and is honourable in thine house?
2Ki 8:27

And he walked in the way of the house of Ahab, and did evil inthe sight of the LORD, as did the house of Ahab: for he was theson in law of the house of Ahab.
Neh 6:18

For there were many in Judah sworn unto him, because he wasthe son in law of Shechaniah the son of Arah; and his sonJohanan had taken the daughter of Meshullam the son of Berechiah.
Neh 13:28

And one of the sons of Joiada, the son of Eliashib the high priest, was son in law to Sanballat the Horonite: therefore I chased him from me.

 

[doubtingmerle]

If you decide to start a new thread let me know.

Done -- http://www.christianforums.com/threads/where-did-the-4-gospels-and-acts-come-from.7925788/

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Kind of off topic. But would respond to your proposition if you created another thread in the appropriate place.

This thread has already exhausted permutations.

No need to. None of the new testament writers wrote saying God inspired them to write. We have "letters" they wrote to individual churches concerning individual problems. They were not writing knowing what they were writing was to become scripture. WE chose to make it scripture. Do not misunderstand that it is good that they were included as it gives us a view of those times and testifies to Jesus. But even when Timothy wrote all scripture is God-breathed and beneficial for teaching, etc.... he was referring to the Old Testament, not to his own writings to the churches.

"15and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." 2 Timothy 3:15-16

You may of course start a thread if it concerns you.

 

[Erik Nelson]

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?

The two accounts mesh perfectly.

Luke describes Jesus' birth & infancy in detail, showing how his pious parents satisfied all Temple ritual requirements. Then, Luke skips completely over the "unpleasantness" which Matthew highlights, to show the corruptness of Herod and the prophetic fulfillments thereby brought about.

Luke-Acts was written circa 62 AD as part of Paul's defense before Caesar. No surprise he omits portraying a Roman client king in any negative light. Instead, the account "fast forwards" about two years to the Holy Family's safe return to Nazareth.

1. Read Luke for Jesus' first few months
2. Read Matthew for the next couple of years
3. Return to Luke for Jesus' childhood in Nazareth

No conflict. Just judicious choices of emphasis. To write of his entire earthly life in first century Judea they all have to skip around a lot, each other skips over different episodes to focus in on one single coherent plot thread they can maintain for their gospel perspective

Also, if Luke was written circa 62 AD... and if Luke used Matthew & Mark ("insofar as numerous others have endeavored to write accounts") then they were already written even earlier

Luke & Paul were supplied them & utilized them in constructing their Christian Luke-Acts epic for their Roman lawyers while Paul was imprisoned from 60-62 AD

Paul being released in 62 AD seems to have so infuriated the Sadducees back in the Jerusalem temple that they martyred Saint James the Just, brother of the Lord, Bishop of Jerusalem in their rage

 

[Erik Nelson]

both are mutually self consistent. Luke focuses on Jesus is first. Few weeks and months. And then he fast forwards over the unpleasantness involving her it. a roman and client King. Not surprising since Luke and acts were written in Roman prison to help with Paul's defense.

But right where Luke fast forwards Matthew picks up in detail describing the events. Of Jesus is first and or second year of life.

So you read Luke. And then read Matthew and then return to Luke when Jesus winds back up in Nazareth. And waxed strong in the spirit.

All the Gospel Writers had to compress an entire human life span into just a few pages so they obviously skip around and skip over a lot. The gaps in one. Are filled by the? Perikopes in another.