Latest date the nativity could have been added?

[cloudyday2]

Assuming the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke were added, what is the latest date this could have occurred?

For example:
(1) Is there a manuscript fragment that includes a portion of one of the nativity stories that has been dated?
(2) Is there a quotation or apparent knowledge of the nativity stories in the writings of some Christian living around a particular date?
(3) Is there a fresco or an inscription in a tomb or something that references the nativity?

There is the Nicene Creed from 381 CE that mentions the Virgin Mary, so I assume the nativity stories were present in some manuscripts before that time.

Hope my question is clear.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

.

 

[JackRT]

That is a very interesting question. Neither Mark nor John have a Nativity story but scholars are in general agreement that both Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source along with some of their own material hence the contradictions between the two accounts. John Dominic Crossan dates early sources generally a bit later than other scholars. He dates Matthew to AD 90 and Luke just a few years later.I am not aware of any scholar who suggests that the Nativity stories were a later addition to either Gospel. As far as I am aware the earliest Gospel fragment is a few verses of John dated to AD 125 but that doesn't speak to your question.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

you might find a search of the Papyrus manuscripts helpful. Some are just fragments, but some have a lot of the bible.

Manuscript P45 - CSNTM

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Assuming the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke were added, what is the latest date this could have occurred?

For example:
(1) Is there a manuscript fragment that includes a portion of one of the nativity stories that has been dated?
(2) Is there a quotation or apparent knowledge of the nativity stories in the writings of some Christian living around a particular date?
(3) Is there a fresco or an inscription in a tomb or something that references the nativity?

There is the Nicene Creed from 381 CE that mentions the Virgin Mary, so I assume the nativity stories were present in some manuscripts before that time.

Hope my question is clear.

Manuscripts - CSNTM you can search by bible verse here.

And it will tell you which verses were available in which manuscript from which century.

I found the earliest fragment of (part of) the nativity on Papyrus was from the third century, after that the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus for manuscripts in the 4th century.

When a modern bible refers to the "earliest witnesses" usually it's those two.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Assuming the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke were added, what is the latest date this could have occurred?

For example:
(1) Is there a manuscript fragment that includes a portion of one of the nativity stories that has been dated?
(2) Is there a quotation or apparent knowledge of the nativity stories in the writings of some Christian living around a particular date?
(3) Is there a fresco or an inscription in a tomb or something that references the nativity?

There is the Nicene Creed from 381 CE that mentions the Virgin Mary, so I assume the nativity stories were present in some manuscripts before that time.

Hope my question is clear.

I'm pretty sure there are earlier sources to be citing among the Apostolic Fathers, I can think of even one apocryphal account that is much earlier than the Nicene creed......


Check this out! AD 150

CHURCH FATHERS: Protoevangelium of James


Found an article about Clement of Alexandria writing on the subject of the date o the Nativity.

Loosing the Riddle of Clement Alexandria's Date for the Nativity, Baptism, Passion, and Epiphany of Christ

"Clement Alexandria (AD 153-217), Theophilus of Caesarea (A.D. 115-181), and Hippolytus of Rome (A.D. 170-240) represent the three earliest traditions we have about the date of Christ's birth...."

 

[cloudyday2]

I'm pretty sure there are earlier sources to be citing among the Apostolic Fathers, I can think of even one apocryphal account that is much earlier than the Nicene creed......


Check this out! AD 150

CHURCH FATHERS: Protoevangelium of James


Found an article about Clement of Alexandria writing on the subject of the date o the Nativity.

Loosing the Riddle of Clement Alexandria's Date for the Nativity, Baptism, Passion, and Epiphany of Christ

"Clement Alexandria (AD 153-217), Theophilus of Caesarea (A.D. 115-181), and Hippolytus of Rome (A.D. 170-240) represent the three earliest traditions we have about the date of Christ's birth...."

The Protoevangelium of James shows the existence of a form of the nativity story in Christian tradition at the time it was composed. It doesn't necessarily show that the nativity story was present in Matthew or Luke at that time.

The link about Clement seems to focus on the dating of the birth of Jesus, but that doesn't necessarily indicate that the nativity stories were present in a gospel yet or even that the nativity stories existed in the Christian tradition yet. (Unless there are some specific references in their writings?)

I wonder if Origen (184 to 253 CE) wrote anything showing that he knew of the nativity stories and had an opinion. The Infancy Gospel of James existed, but maybe Origin didn't consider it to be credible? Or maybe he did consider it credible.

 

[cloudyday2]

I found these links regarding a possible fresco of a nativity scene from 2nd or 3rd century in the Catacomb of Priscilla. It is interesting that the prophet Balaam was an important figure in early nativity scenes.

The Nativity in Art: Historical Overview

Catacomb of Priscilla - Wikipedia

 

[Pavel Mosko]

The Protoevangelium of James shows the existence of a form of the nativity story in Christian tradition at the time it was composed. It doesn't necessarily show that the nativity story was present in Matthew or Luke at that time.

The link about Clement seems to focus on the dating of the birth of Jesus, but that doesn't necessarily indicate that the nativity stories were present in a gospel yet or even that the nativity stories existed in the Christian tradition yet. (Unless there are some specific references in their writings?)

I wonder if Origen wrote anything showing that he knew of the nativity stories and had an opinion. The Infancy Gospel of James existed, but maybe Origin didn't consider it to be credible? Or maybe he did consider it credible.

Well I think the way to go is to look at Tatian's Diatessaron, AD 150-172 or so.. That work is basically taking the narrative of all 4 Canonical Gospels into one narrative in Syriac so the Church in Syria and Mesopotamia would have a basic account.

CHURCH FATHERS: The Diatessaron, Section 1 (Tatian)

CHURCH FATHERS: The Diatessaron, Section 2 (Tatian)

CHURCH FATHERS: The Diatessaron, Section 3 (Tatian)

 

[hedrick]

I’m not aware of any reason to doubt that these accounts were in the original. The commentary on Matthew I checked says the language and themes suggest that Matthew strongly shaped the material. But you’ve got 80 to 90 years between the birth and Matthew. Something similar seems to be true of Luke.

 

[cloudyday2]

I’m not aware of any reason to doubt that these accounts were in the original. The commentary on Matthew I checked says the language and themes suggest that Matthew strongly shaped the material. But you’ve got 80 to 90 years between the birth and Matthew. Something similar seems to be true of Luke.

One method I have wondered about is the chiasms that sometimes are used in the gospel compositions. A later addition to a gospel might be revealed by a disruption of a chiasm. There do seem to be chiasms connecting the nativity stories with the rest of Matthew if I skimmed this link and understood it correctly.
http://structureofmatthew.com/The Structure of Matthew.pdf

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I’m not aware of any reason to doubt that these accounts were in the original. The commentary on Matthew I checked says the language and themes suggest that Matthew strongly shaped the material. But you’ve got 80 to 90 years between the birth and Matthew. Something similar seems to be true of Luke.

I tend to get the sense Matthew was written as a corrective/balancer to Luke.

 

[hedrick]

I tend to get the sense Matthew was written as a corrective/balancer to Luke.

I'm not aware of any clear evidence for that. They have some differences in perspective, but that needn't imply that one was trying to correct the other. The biggest difference that tends to be relevant in CF is that Matthew is a lot more focused on judgement. Without Matthew, references are fewer, and the variety of images are large enough that you'd be reluctant to take any literally.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I'm not aware of any clear evidence for that. They have some differences in perspective, but that needn't imply that one was trying to correct the other. The biggest difference that tends to be relevant in CF is that Matthew is a lot more focused on judgement. Without Matthew, references are fewer, and the variety of images are large enough that you'd be reluctant to take any literally.

The main part that comes to mind is where Jesus says in Luke you need to hate everyone to be his disciple, and in Matthew you need to love God more than everyone to be worthy of him. One focuses on exclusionary hate, and the other focuses on love that puts God first.

 

[hedrick]

The main part that comes to mind is where Jesus says in Luke you need to hate everyone to be his disciple, and in Matthew you need to love God more than everyone to be worthy of him. One focuses on exclusionary hate, and the other focuses on love that puts God first.

I doubt this is a difference in meaning. Luke probably gives a more literal translation of what Jesus said, while Matthew interprets it for people who didn't understand the idiom involved. It's very unlikely that Jesus actually intended us to hate our families.

Jesus had a tendency to use hyperbole. This is just one of many examples. One reason that "literal" interpretation can be dangerous.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I doubt this is a difference in meaning. Luke probably gives a more literal translation of what Jesus said, while Matthew interprets it for people who didn't understand the idiom involved. It's very unlikely that Jesus actually intended us to hate our families.

Jesus had a tendency to use hyperbole. This is just one of many examples. One reason that "literal" interpretation can be dangerous.

However, if we only had the gospel according to a guy who liked to use a scalpel, we wouldn't have a balanced way of looking at what was said.

 

[JackRT]

I doubt this is a difference in meaning. Luke probably gives a more literal translation of what Jesus said, while Matthew interprets it for people who didn't understand the idiom involved. It's very unlikely that Jesus actually intended us to hate our families.

Jesus had a tendency to use hyperbole. This is just one of many examples. One reason that "literal" interpretation can be dangerous.

As in "If thy eye offend thee pluck it out."

 

[ChetSinger]

Assuming the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke were added, what is the latest date this could have occurred?

For example:
(1) Is there a manuscript fragment that includes a portion of one of the nativity stories that has been dated?
(2) Is there a quotation or apparent knowledge of the nativity stories in the writings of some Christian living around a particular date?
(3) Is there a fresco or an inscription in a tomb or something that references the nativity?

There is the Nicene Creed from 381 CE that mentions the Virgin Mary, so I assume the nativity stories were present in some manuscripts before that time.

Hope my question is clear.

To believe that the nativity accounts weren't original I'd need to see some evidence such as early manuscripts that didn't include them.

 

[JackRT]

To believe that the nativity accounts weren't original I'd need to see some evidence such as early manuscripts that didn't include them.

How about Paul. Mark and Luke?

 

[hedrick]

How about Paul. Mark and Luke?

That’s not what the OP asked. He was concerned about a fairly specific apologetic challenge. The question was about later additions to Mathew. The fact that Mark, Paul, and arguably Luke don’t mention it doesn’t show that it was added to Matthew later.