Bismika Alllahuma

Die Missionare hatten uns pathetisch von „darunter leiden beschuldigt [SIC!] eine ernste Form des `Aufmerksamkeit Defizits'“, unter anderen fiesen Behauptungen und fährt dann fort, zu behaupten, daß wir nicht „gestört“ haben, auf ihre Argumente zu reagieren. Das folgende Material ergänzt weiter unseren Kasten für die irreconciliable Störung betreffend ist die Geburt Darstellung von Jesus (P). Es bleibt, gesehen zu werden hinsichtlich, wieviel „Mißbrauch“ die Missionare sind, die willen zu nehmen, bevor sie zugestehen, daß wir nicht unter „Aufmerksamkeit Defizit“ und sind wirklich „erfüllt“ mit unseren Aufladungen leiden.

Probleme u. Fehler in der Harmonisierung

Wir möchten können, der Autor von Matthew die Geschichten hinsichtlich sind der Geburt von Jesus (P) formte. Matthew verwendete bestimmte Schlüsselfälle in der jüdischen Bibel, um die Geschichte von seinem Jesus (P) zu beziehen. Entsprechend Matthew flieht die Familie von seinem Jesus nach Ägypten, um dem Zorn von Herod zu entgehen „, um zu erfüllen, was vom Lord durch den Prophet, Saying, `aus Ägypten heraus gesprochen wurde, das ich meinen Sohn'“ angerufen habe (2: 15). Die Preisangabe kommt vom Buch von Hosea 11:1 und bezieht sich den auf Exodus der Kinder von Israel von ihrer Knechtschaft in Ägypten. Der Autor von Matthew läßt seinen Jesus nach Ägypten gehen, zu zeigen, daß er diesen Fall mit Bedeutung „füllt“. Ähnlich läßt Matthew seinen Jesus gebären in Bethlehem, weil dieses ist, was vom Prophet Micah „vorausgesagt“ wurde (2: 6).

Ein männliches Kind wird zu den jüdischen Eltern getragen, erlernt eine tyrant Lehre (Herod) von diesem und legte dar, um ihn zu zerstören. Das Kind wird supernaturally vor Schaden geschützt und wird nach Ägypten genommen. Er dann überläßt Ägypten Durchlauf durch das Wasser (der Taufe) und steigt in die für eine lange Zeit ein geprüft zu werden Wildnis. Später geht er oben auf einen Berg und liefert Gesetz des Gottes an die, die ihm gefolgt haben.

So merken wir, daß Matthew die Geschichten Betreffend Jesus (P) „zum Erscheinen formte,“, das dieses Jesus' (P) Leben eine Erfüllung der Geschichten von Mosese (P) war (sehen Sie Exodus 1-20). Zielmarkt Matthews war die jüdischen Leser. Herod is made into a Pharoah like ruler, Jesus’s baptism is like Moses(P) crossing the Red Sea, the forty days of temptation are like the forty years the children of Israel wandered in the wilderness, and the sermon on the mount is similar to the law of Moses delievered on Mount Sinai. Jesus(P) is therefore portrayed by Matthew as the “new” Moses, come to set his people free from their bondage and give them new law and teachings. In order to present this picture of Jesus(P), Matthew had to colour the traditions accordingly. Therefore not everything within his gospel is historical.

Another point to bear in mind is that if Herod and all within Jerusalem knew of the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:3), so much so that Herod would send his army to kill the children a town ti hunt for Jesus (2:16), then why is it that later in his ministry no one seems to know of his marvelous origin (13:54-55), and Herod’s son recalls nothing about him (14:1-2)? The body of the gospels shows that the people among whom Jesus had been raised knew nothing about an extraordinary infancy. Furthermore, why is there no mention of these amazing events in the other gospels? These also indications of the ficticious nature of the story.

The statement that all Jerusalem was startled over the birth of the King of the Jews and that there was widespread awareness of the King’s birth at Bethlehem (Herod, chief priests, scribes, and, to their regret, the people of Bethlehem) conflicts with the Gospel accounts of the public ministry where the people in Nazareth do not know this and are amazed that Jesus has special pretensions (Mark 6:1-6 and par.) and where people in Jerusalem do not know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (John 7:40-42). According to the Synoptic Gospels (Mark 6:14-16 and par.), Herod Antipas, the son of Herod the Great, despite the measures his father is supposed to have taken against Jesus, is perplexed by Jesus and seems to have no previous knowledge of him. A possible explanation may be found for one or the other of these difficulties, but the overall thrust is clearly against historicity.[1]

It is problems like these which are overlooked by the missionaries which is why there are serious implications to be considered if we were to accept their “harmonization” of the birth narratives.

But What About The Basic Similarities?

Earlier, we have stated that the missionaries have complained about our having overlooked basic similarities in the two narratives. It should be noted that we do not deny a broad similarity between the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke. However, the differences between the two accounts are striking, and as Brown comments elsewhere, both cannot be factual. Hence one is fictional. To begin with, none of the specific stories of Luke occur in Matthew and vice versa. In one narrative we find the shepherds whereas in the other we find the Magi, one has the journey to Bethlehem whereas the other to Egypt. One records an angel’s words to Mary whereas the other narrative records the angel’s word to Joseph.

Most Christian scholars, who have studied and analysed the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke have concluded that a vast amount of imagination would be required to reconcile these narratives.

Commentators of times past have harmonized these different details into a consecutive narrative, so that the ordinary Christian is often not even aware of a difficulty when Lucan shepherds and Matthean magi fraternize in the Christmas crib scene. But if originally there was one narrative, how did it ever become fragmented into the two different accounts we have now? As I hinted above, the suggestion that Matthew is giving Joseph’s remembrance of the events, while Luke is giving Mary’s , is just a pious deduction from the fact that Joseph dominates Matthew’s account, and Mary dominates Luke’s. In point of fact, how could Joseph ever have told the story in Matthew and not have reported the annunciation to Mary? And how could Mary have been responsible for the story in Luke and never have mentioned the coming of the magi and the flight into Egypt?[2]

Relating the same event, Matthew presents no indication that would suggest that Joseph and Mary went from Galilee to register for a census. Matthew simply suggests that the family originally came from Bethlehem. In the story of the wise men, which is only found in Matthew, the men arrive to worship Jesus, making a long journey in by following a star that appeared in the heavens. These men find Jesus(P) in Bethlehem, in a house - not a stable or a cave (Matthew 2:11). So it seems that the house is where Joseph and Mary normally live according to Matthew.

Next we read that Herod sends forth his troops to slaughter every boy in Bethlehem who is 2 years and under (2:16). According to Matthew’s account, Joseph and Mary are still in Bethlehem at this time because this is simply where they live.

To continue with the story, Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt to escape Herod. Some time after their escape, Joseph learns in a dream that it is safe to return home. Hence he intends to return to the place where he and Mary came from - Bethlehem. However, he learns that the ruler of Judea is now Archelaus, a man much worse than his father Herod. So he realizes he cannot return home and therefore decides to move his family in the town of Nazareth in Galilee (2:22-23). Hence, the impression given is that Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem, but had to relocate to Nazareth and this is where he, Jesus, was raised.

“Reconciliation”: Its Difficulties and the Realities

It is possible that these narratives be “reconciled”, albeit with the thorough use of some highly imaginative arguments, stretching all limits of reason and imagination and requiring quite a lot of hard work and effort. However, the fact remains that the two narratives are quite different from one another.

It is indicated that Jesus (P) was born in Bethlehem but raised in Nazareth, but this happens in a very different manner in their two narratives. The whole of Matthew 2:2-22 has no parallel in Luke, just as most of Luke 1 (outside 1:26-35) and most of Luke 2 have no parallel in Matthew. Only Luke makes mention of the following stories: the census bringing Joseph to Bethlehem, the acclamation of Jesus by the shepherds etc. Matthew, on the other hand, focuses upon a different series of happenings of which Luke makes no mention: the star, the magi, Herod’s plot against Jesus, the massacre of the children at Bethlehem and the flight to Egypt. Christian scholars Lee Martin Mc Donald and S. E. Porter suggest that

…it is probable that the construction of each of these accounts was based on a different theological agenda.[3]

Meaning they do not represent historical realities. Evangelical Christians, for understandable reasons, see no difficulties in the two narratives, however serious Christian scholars of the Bible have long realised the difficulties and have accepted them as such.

Matthew?s way of using prophecy is not what a modern scholar could call historically accurate, but it is in accord with a type of interpretation customary in New Testament times, and for that matter still practiced now. According to this way of thinking, it is assumed that the text refers to events and persons in the present or the immediate past or future.

Sometimes, indeed, one can hardly avoid a suspicion that prophecy, understood in this way, led to imagining events that never occurred. Did Joseph and Mary really take their child to Egypt for a while, or did some early Christian infer that they must have done so because God says in the book of Hosea (11:1), “Out of Egypt I called my son”? Was Jesus really born in Bethlehem, or was it assumed that he must have been because the prophet Micah (5:2) had predicted that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem? More probably, the known fact of Jesus? birth at Bethlehem was felt by his followers to confirm their conviction that he was the Messiah.

How should we understand and judge these familiar narratives? The whole Christmas story, mingled as it is now with Santa Claus and other more or less pagan additions, seems much like a fairy tale for children. Even so, to raise questions about the truth of the record is painful. A good deal of the story, however, is undoubtedly legendary.[4]

Baptist Minister William Hamilton, also the Associate Professor of Theology at Colgate Rochester Divinity School, writes that

Luke, like Matthew, mentions Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem, but otherwise the two accounts differ somewhat In Matthew, Jesus is apparently born in Joseph?s house (verse 11); in Luke he is born in a stable. Here, we read nothing about the visit of the shepherds or about the census that brought Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem. Here, we read of the flight to Egypt; in Luke, the family returned to Nazareth (2:39).

This conflicting evidence has led some to question the historical basis of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem, and to point out that it would be natural for primitive Jewish Christians to use the enigmatic saying of Micah 5:2 as a prediction. Throughout his life, Jesus is always referred to as a Nazarene.[5]

Conclusions

To escape the burden of admitting to an error in the birth narratives of Jesus(P) as related by Luke and Matthew, the Christian missionaries and apologists have always attempted to harmonise these two drastically different accounts. This is because

Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the city of David. Matthew, however, says nothing of coming to Bethlehem from anywhere else, and he seems to imply that Joseph would have gone back to Bethlehem from Egypt if he had not been warned in a dream not to return to Judea (2:22-23).[6]

As we have demonstrated above, there are simply too many flaws and implications to be considered if we were to accept the general “harmonization” offered by the missionaries. Christian scholars who have studied and analysed the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke have concluded that a vast amount of imagination would be required to reconcile these narratives.

Hence our final conclusion in the matter remains starkly similar to that of Brown’s opinion, namely that

…Luke’s infancy narrative is not only massively different from Matt’s, but also in details is virtually irreconcilable with it, e.g., about Joseph and Mary’s home (in Bethlehem in Matt 2:11 [house]; in Narareth in Luke 2:4-7, with no home in Bethlehem) and about their travels after the birth of Jesus (to Egypt in Matt 2:14; to Jerusalem and Nazareth in Luke 2:2239).[7]

And only God knows best!

References

[1] Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, p. 189

[2] ibid., p. 35

[3] Lee Martin Mc Donald & Stanley E. Porter, Early Christianity and Its Sacred Literature (Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 2000), p. 122

[4] Millar Burrows, Jesus in the First Three Gospels [Online Document]

[5] William Hamilton, Part One: Matthew and Luke in The Modern Reader’s Guide to the Gospels [Online Document]

[6] Millar Burrows, op. cit.

[7] Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, p. 114