Birth Stories = contradictions??

[QuagDabPeg]

I posted this in the Fundamentalists forum but no one has responded. This forum seems to be quite a bit more active, and you probably know about this just as much. Maybe you can offer some insight?


I'm in a class on Jesus in my university. It's a pretty cool class, but I have a question. We studied the birth stories in Matthew and Luke, and they are just soooo different. In fact my teacher said they differ more than any other two stories in the bible (that are told in more than one gospel). The only similarities are that they are both miraculous, they both have Joseph and Mary as the parents and in both Jesus is born in Bethelham. Other than that they are totally different. In fact, in one of the strories Joseph and Mary live in Nazareth and the other says they live in Bethleham. :scratch: How can these differences be reconciled?

[aReformedPatriot]

I posted this in the Fundamentalists forum but no one has responded. This forum seems to be quite a bit more active, and you probably know about this just as much. Maybe you can offer some insight?


I'm in a class on Jesus in my university. It's a pretty cool class, but I have a question. We studied the birth stories in Matthew and Luke, and they are just soooo different. In fact my teacher said they differ more than any other two stories in the bible (that are told in more than one gospel). The only similarities are that they are both miraculous, they both have Joseph and Mary as the parents and in both Jesus is born in Bethelham. Other than that they are totally different. In fact, in one of the strories Joseph and Mary live in Nazareth and the other says they live in Bethleham. :scratch: How can these differences be reconciled?
Well first off, Matthew and Luke only state that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, not that he/they lived there. Likewise, in Luke, Ceaser is said to have issued a census to be taken so Joseph and Mary headed back to the City of David, aka Bethlehem. That is the reason they went there in the first place which was to fulfill the prophecy of Micah. Im not seeing where your eyeballing a contradiction. Perhaps you can post the verses in conflict next to each other and we can study from there.

Also its important to note that Luke says because of the Census Mary and Joseph leave Nazareth and head to Bethlehem where Jesus is born. The wise men come and go, Herod goes nuts and an angel tells Joseph to take his wife into Egypt. After Herod dies an angel reappears to Joseph and tells them to go back and Jesus is raised in Nazareth which fulfills another prophecy.

Hope this helps, Im open to hearing other thoughts.

[ZiSunka]

Matthew 1:18 The birth of Jesus Christ came about this way: After His mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. 19 So Joseph, her husband, being a righteous man, and not wanting to disgrace her publicly, decided to divorce her secretly. 20 But after he had considered these things, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, don't be afraid to take Mary as your wife, because what has been conceived in her is by the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to name Him Jesus, because He will save His people from their sins." 22 Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: 23 See, the virgin will be with child and give birth to a son, and they will name Him Immanuel , which is translated "God is with us." 24 When Joseph woke up from his sleep, he did as the Lord's angel had commanded him. He took his wife home, 25 but he did not know her intimately until she gave birth to a son. And he named Him Jesus. 2:1 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of King Herod, wise men from the east arrived unexpectedly in Jerusalem, 2 saying, "Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him."


Luke 1
26 In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, 27 to a virgin engaged to a man named Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary. 28 And he came to her and said, "Rejoice, favored woman! The Lord is with you." 29 But she was deeply troubled by this statement and was wondering what kind of greeting this could be. 30 Then the angel told her: Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 Now listen: You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you will call His name JESUS. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. 33 He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end. 34 Mary asked the angel, "How can this be, since I have not been intimate with a man?" 35 The angel replied to her: The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the holy child to be born will be called the Son of God. 36 And consider Elizabeth your relative--even she has conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month for her who was called barren. 37 For nothing will be impossible with God." 38 "Consider me the Lord's slave," said Mary. "May it be done to me according to your word." Then the angel left her.

39 In those days Mary set out and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judah, 40 where she entered Zachariah's house and greeted Elizabeth. 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped inside her, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 Then she exclaimed with a loud cry: Blessed are you among women, and blessed is your offspring! 43 How could this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For you see, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped for joy inside me! 45 Blessed is she who has believed that what was spoken to her by the Lord will be fulfilled!" 46 And Mary said: My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord, 47 and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior, 48 because He has looked with favor on the humble condition of His slave. Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed, 49 because the Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is His name. 50 His mercy is from generation to generation on those who fear Him. 51 He has done a mighty deed with His arm; He has scattered the proud because of the thoughts of their hearts; 52 He has toppled the mighty from their thrones and exalted the lowly. 53 He has satisfied the hungry with good things and sent the rich away empty. 54 He has helped His servant Israel, mindful of His mercy, 55 just as He spoke to our forefathers, to Abraham and his descendants forever. 56 And Mary stayed with her about three months; then she returned to her home.

1 In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that the whole empire should be registered. 2 This first registration took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. 3 So everyone went to be registered, each to his own town. 4 And Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family line of David, 5 to be registered along with Mary, who was engaged to him and was pregnant. 6 While they were there, it happened that the days were completed for her to give birth. 7 Then she gave birth to her firstborn Son, and she wrapped Him snugly in cloth and laid Him in a manger--because there was no room for them at the inn. 8 In the same region, shepherds were living out in the fields and keeping watch at night over their flock. 9 Then an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. 10 But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid, for you see, I announce to you good news of great joy that will be for all the people: 11 because today in the city of David was born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. 12 This will be the sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped snugly in cloth and lying in a manger." 13 Suddenly there was a multitude of the heavenly host with the angel, praising God and saying: 14 Glory to God in the highest heaven, and peace on earth to people He favors! 15 When the angels had left them and returned to heaven, the shepherds said to one another, "Let's go straight to Bethlehem and see this thing that has taken place, which the Lord has made known to us." 16 And they hurried off and found both Mary and Joseph, and the baby who was lying in the manger. 17 After seeing them, they reported the message they were told about this child, 18 and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them. 19 But Mary was treasuring up all these things in her heart and meditating on them. 20 The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all they had seen and heard, just as they had been told.

Luke's story is a fuller account of the birth, but the facts are fundamentally the same.

[Crazy Liz]

The facts in the narratives are quite different, but not irreconcilable. Both narratives appear to come from different traditions. The one in Matthew is told from the perspective of Joseph, while the one in Luke is told from the perspective of Mary. This may tell us something about the communities each of the evangelists (Matthew and Luke) wrote from.

Matthew seems to write from a (Palestinian?) Jewish-Christian perspective. A lot of connections can be seen between the theology of Matthew and James. Since the thread was started by a Catholic, I'm going to go out on a limb a little here, and hope this thread doesn't get hijacked on a Mary topic, but actually, this connection is consistent with the view (held more strongly by the Orthodox than by Catholics) that James was Joseph's son by a previous marriage, thus he was older than Jesus, perhaps not appearing in Matthew because he was already grown when the events occurred, but still close enough to Joseph to pass Joseph's stories on to the Christian community he later became part of.

Luke, OTOH, is a Gentile and associate of Paul. He seems to have been well-acquainted with the Christian community at Ephesus, more so than the one at Jerusalem. This is where tradition says that John settled with Mary sometime well after Pentecost. This community would have been the one more likely to have preserved Mary's stories. In fact, Luke 2:19 may imply that Luke actually interviewed Mary herself as one of the sources for his gospel.

So, as far as the narratives are concerned, they can be reconciled, if you have a mind to. :cool: The genealogies are another matter altogether. :scratch:

[SumTinWong]

:cool: The genealogies are another matter altogether. :scratch: That gets me everytime. One person will say one is Mary's and the others is Joe's (we are close Joe and I. I can call him Joe ;) ). Which one I am unclear at this point. What bothers me about that theory is that neither of them mention the "Traditional" father of Mary Joachim. Kid of odd if you ask me.

[Crazy Liz]

That gets me everytime. One person will say one is Mary's and the others is Joe's (we are close Joe and I. I can call him Joe ;) ). Which one I am unclear at this point. What bothers me about that theory is that neither of them mention the "Traditional" father of Mary Joachim. Kid of odd if you ask me.

Yup. That's very confusing. I've read somewhere that Joachim is possibly an alternate Greek translation of the same Aramaic name that might stand behind one of the grandfathers in one of the genealogies, but I forget which. In any case, it is very hard to fit these genealogies into a strict inerrrantist view unless one assumes a change in all existing manuscripts from the original autographs. If such a change occurred, the rules of textual criticism give absolutely no help in discerning the change.

[SumTinWong]

No I agree. I think that is why many have left behind the stories of Anne and Joachim (sp) as just legend. Someday when we get to the pearlies remind me to look it up in the files up there :)

[ZiSunka]

Yup. That's very confusing. I've read somewhere that Joachim is possibly an alternate Greek translation of the same Aramaic name that might stand behind one of the grandfathers in one of the genealogies, but I forget which. In any case, it is very hard to fit these genealogies into a strict inerrrantist view unless one assumes a change in all existing manuscripts from the original autographs. If such a change occurred, the rules of textual criticism give absolutely no help in discerning the change.
I can't find Joachim in the Bible. Where is that name referenced?

[SumTinWong]

It is mostly from tradition. The tradition says that Anne and Joachim were older and barren and God blessed them with Mary.

[ZiSunka]

It is mostly from tradition. The tradition says that Anne and Joachim were older and barren and God blessed them with Mary.
Well, if a tradition contradicts the Bible or speaks where the Bible is silent, then it isn't worth anything. ;)

[SumTinWong]

Yeah but, the Bible does not mention a few things that we adhere to today, one of them being sola scriptura. I agree with you by the way that the story is bubkiss, but just figured I would add the other in for thought.

[Crazy Liz]

Yeah but, the Bible does not mention a few things that we adhere to today, one of them being sola scriptura. I agree with you by the way that the story is bubkiss, but just figured I would add the other in for thought.

The story is quite old, dating back to the second century, when it could have been debunked, but was not. This gives me pause sufficiently to keep me from saying with any conviction that it's "bubkiss." It might be fiction, but if so, I find it fascinating that it developed so early.

[ZiSunka]

The story is quite old, dating back to the second century, when it could have been debunked, but was not. This gives me pause sufficiently to keep me from saying with any conviction that it's "bubkiss." It might be fiction, but if so, I find it fascinating that it developed so early.
There are already legends about Elvis, who died what, 20 years ago? Those legends have become part of American culture already. Elvis works at a 7-11 in Kalamazoo, MI. Elvis is alive and lives in Atlanta under an assumed name. Elvis had plastic surgery and lives among us without us knowing because he wanted to escape his crazy fans. Elvis had twenty illigitimate children. Elvis was the second coming of Christ. All legends that people believe even though people who knew him are still alive and could debunk them all.

Why would it surprise you that 200 years later legends would pop up and be held to about Jesus?

Look at some of the rumors that have advanced to legend just in the last 10 years. Do you really think Princess Di was pregnant? People that did the autopsy have said no, but people cling to the belief that she was. Folks believe that Rich Mullins was on the verge of converting to Catholic, yet his mother has told me that it is pure fiction. He kept detailed diaries for many years and never mentioned this desire to any of this family members, friends or in his diary, yet there are many people who cling to this rumor as if it were fact.

I think the catholic church wanted to make Mary's mother and father Saints, and saints can't be nameless, so they assigned names to them to make them St Anne and St Joachim.

[Crazy Liz]

I think the catholic church wanted to make Mary's mother and father Saints, and saints can't be nameless, so they assigned names to them to make them St Anne and St Joachim.

Does that mean you think the catholic church was already corrupt in the second century?

[ZiSunka]

Does that mean you think the catholic church was already corrupt in the second century?
Well, that's another subject.

But if you want to honor someone with Sainthood, they have to have a name, don't they? There are no nameless Saints, are there. It was probably harmless, they wanted to honor the parents of the "Mother of God" who raised such a godly, pure, devoted young woman as Mary was undoubtably, and Sainthood is the highest honor, but Saints have to have a name so those were given to them.

It's as plausible as those being their real names, contradictory to the Bible.

[Crazy Liz]

It's as plausible as those being their real names, contradictory to the Bible.

Where does the Bible tell us their real names?

[SumTinWong]

The story is quite old, dating back to the second century, when it could have been debunked, but was not. This gives me pause sufficiently to keep me from saying with any conviction that it's "bubkiss." It might be fiction, but if so, I find it fascinating that it developed so early. I ahve researched the protovangelion of James and I can say without doubt that it is bubkiss:) It is supposed to have been written by a man that died 100 or more years before it was written Not to mention it turns from narative of the writer to first person Joeseph to writer again.

Anyway it is clearly, to me anyway, a fake but obviously many people believed it then otherwise it would not still be talked about it today.

[QuagDabPeg]

No I agree. I think that is why many have left behind the stories of Anne and Joachim (sp) as just legend. Someday when we get to the pearlies remind me to look it up in the files up there :)

The names of Mary's parents comes from a "Gospel" written at around 140 BC called the "Infancy Gospel of James." It tells the story of Mary's upbringing as well as the birth of Jesus. Some scholars belive this is where the emphasis on Mary as perfect and ever-virgin comes from, because it is the first place we see an intisive writing on Mary and the suggestion that she was raised w/o sin. Although this Gospel was rejected (it has Jesus' first miracle as an infant when John says His first miracle was at Canna and Luke tells us that there were no midwives present and this story has midwives at the birth), the story remained popular in early Christianity and you can see it reflected in a lot of Renassiance art.

[SumTinWong]

That was the protovangelion that I was speaking of. thank you for that excellent post.

[Glorianna]

I posted this in the Fundamentalists forum but no one has responded. This forum seems to be quite a bit more active, and you probably know about this just as much. Maybe you can offer some insight?


I'm in a class on Jesus in my university. It's a pretty cool class, but I have a question. We studied the birth stories in Matthew and Luke, and they are just soooo different. In fact my teacher said they differ more than any other two stories in the bible (that are told in more than one gospel). The only similarities are that they are both miraculous, they both have Joseph and Mary as the parents and in both Jesus is born in Bethelham. Other than that they are totally different. In fact, in one of the strories Joseph and Mary live in Nazareth and the other says they live in Bethleham. :scratch: How can these differences be reconciled?

Interesting. My New Testament class has to compare and contrast the Gospels' narratives of different events for a paper we're writing. If only I had chosen this topic, I would be able to help you more. All I can say is that they were writing to different audiences for different purposes at different times. That would make them different from each other. They also had unique perspectives on things. If you don't get enough information here, I'm sure I can ask my professor if you want.

[Monica02]

I can't find Joachim in the Bible. Where is that name referenced?
Protoevangelium of James-an apochryphal book.