→Matthew and Luke's Nativity Accounts: A New Hope :) |
VirtualSteve (talk | contribs) →3RR Warning: new section |
||
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
OK, I see that we will not get any further. We will not have agreement about if according to Matthew the conception of Jesus was in the same place were birth. Maybe the last think that I will write is that the three statement (according to Mt Joseph lives in Bethleheml; takes Mary into his home; The writer's presentation doesn't allow the reader to think that there was any change of venue) are only opinions, not facts. I don't agree with them and I think that will be all what I must say. Thanks for your comments on this subject. [[User:Alorkezas|Alorkezas]] ([[User talk:Alorkezas|talk]]) 02:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
OK, I see that we will not get any further. We will not have agreement about if according to Matthew the conception of Jesus was in the same place were birth. Maybe the last think that I will write is that the three statement (according to Mt Joseph lives in Bethleheml; takes Mary into his home; The writer's presentation doesn't allow the reader to think that there was any change of venue) are only opinions, not facts. I don't agree with them and I think that will be all what I must say. Thanks for your comments on this subject. [[User:Alorkezas|Alorkezas]] ([[User talk:Alorkezas|talk]]) 02:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
== 3RR Warning == |
|||
I note that you have recently engaged in several reverts at [[Nativity of Jesus]] and I also disclose that another editor has come to my page to ask for my advice (as an uninvolved administrator) on this matter. Whilst I appreciate you have an opposing view on the correct dating etc at this article - I must as a matter of course caution you about our [[WP:3RR|three revert rule]] - which will lead to your blocking on further occasions of this type of reversion anywhere on wikipedia. I do note that you were given some prompt about the 3RR situation by Johnbod at 2.06 January 5th in the edit summary of that same article. I would ask you to refrain from returning to this article with such edits please.--[[User:VirtualSteve|<strong>VS</strong>]] <sup>[[User_talk:VirtualSteve|talk]]</sup> 21:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:47, 5 January 2009
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Confusing faith with knowledge
No, thank you for the patience to keep going back and wading through all of that mess. It's easy for a third person to say "This is what should be done." The real accomplishment is for someone to follow through and do it. Especially if the third person makes it harder by getting exasperated and addressing the core issue directly, instead of having the patience to keep running a gauntlet of faux issues.
It's up to you wrt those Wildwinds cites - but personally I'd really recommend replacing them if you can't count on the links to be good. Otherwise you run the risk of someone being able to remove a nonworking or nonspecific link, then remove text as uncited. Just my opinion. Best regards, arimareiji (talk) 06:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Matthew and Luke's Nativity Accounts
I decided to write on your talk page about question why Luke has that the family going back to Nazareth while Matthew indicates that they went and made their home in Nazareth to fulfill a prophecy. I will also try to present that it is not true that the two Gospel accounts present two conflicting narratives. Of course, it is only my opinion and others can disagree with me.
The events are in the following order:
- First we have Luke's narrative (1.5-79) – Zechariah, Elizabeth, angel Gabriel appears to Mary in Nazareth before pregnancy, birth of John.
- Matthew (1.18-25) – during Mary pregnancy angel of the Lord appears to Joseph in a dream
- Luke (2, 1-21) – census; Joseph with Mary go to Bethlehem to register. Mary gave birth there. She wrapped Jesus in cloths and placed him in a manger. The same day is Adoration of the shepherds. Circumcised is after eight days.
- Mt (2, 1-12) – Magi visited Herod in Jerusalem and then, they have visited Jesus in Bethlehem. Matthew says that in a house. Then the Magi returned to their country.
- Luke (2, 22-39) – Forty days after birth, Jesus presented in Temple in Jerusalem. Simeon the Righteous and Anna the Prophetess. When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law, they returned to Nazareth.
- Mt (2, 13-23) – Angel tells family to flee to Egypt because of coming massacre of innocents by Herod. They immediately flee. Return from Egypt & can't go to Judea due to Archelaus, so move to Nazareth.
- Luke (2, 40-50) – child Jesus grew, became strong and was filled with wisdom. At the age of twelve Jesus at the Temple.
Now I must clear up something. It will be of course my opinion.
- When Mary was engaged to Joseph, before they lived together she was discovered to be pregnant by the Holy Spirit (Mt 2:18). And before she was pregnant, she lived in Nazareth (Luke 1:26). So it means that Joseph was not the ownership of the house in Nazareth, it belonged to Mary family. And because in Bethlehem they were looking a room for them in the inn and they placed a newborn son in a manger, I believe that Joseph had no land neither in Bethlehem and lived only by his handicraft. And that's way Joseph travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem for census – I think only the people who are not resident anywhere and have no land on which they can be taxed have to present themselves at their birthplace. And this manger was in a cave (Gospel of James 19.1-3; Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew 13.2; Arabic Infancy Gospel 1.6) just outside Bethlehem. Now why Matthew say “in a house”? Because contemporary houses were often a adapted appropriately caves in which part of space were for animals, and part for humans. Justin Martyr is saying that Christ was born in a cave and that the Adoration of the Magi was in that cave. About your question- Luke say they came from Nazareth to Bethlehem and return = it was for census, and Matthew say that made their home in Nazareth to fulfill a prophecy = yeas, in his opinion it was fulfilling a prophecy, and after returning from Egypt due to Archelaus thay made their home in a house in Nazareth, which belonged to Mary family.
- Quirinius was governor of Syria from 6 AD to 12 AD and absolutely not in the time of Herod the Great. But because Luke 1:5 to 2:52 was based on a hebrew text (see her) I believe that during the translation to Greek they made similar mistake like translating "rope through the eye of a needle" to "camel through the eye of a needle" (for Luke-18.25). In Aramaic, the word for "camel" (גמלא) is spelled identically to the word for "rope" (גמלא). For more information about that I can direct you only to italian ([1]) and polish sources now. Sorry. But if so, than which governor of Syria was it? Gaius Sentius Saturninus (Tertullian, Against Marcion, book IV, 19).
Excuse me if I too much write at length on this topic, but I couldn't briefly. What is your opinion about this? Alorkezas (talk) 01:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Narratives in which are the same accounts as in Luke (going to Bethlehem for a census) and simultaneously as in Matthew (Magi, Massacre of the Innocents or Flight into Egypt) we have in Apocrypha (Gospel of James, Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, Arabic Infancy Gospel, History of Joseph the Carpenter, Latin Infancy Gospel). Even in writings of the Church Fathers we can find both accounts (for exemple Tertullian and Justin Martyr). So in my opinion, combining the events isn't unfounded. Of course, I absolutely agree that the stories are different, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the two accounts present two conflicting narratives. I just think Matthew and Luke's Nativity Accounts are complementary to each other.
Household? This for me is interpretation. But I say that you have right, Matthew leaves with no possibility to think that Mary was in Nazareth. This information we have from Luke. Why Matthew remain silent on this? For Mark and John suitable start of narative was baptism of Jesus. For Matthew it was his birth and that's way we have no particular information from him about what was before Christ birth (Mary in Nazareth, Joseph came to Bethlehem for a census etc.). But we shouldn't hold something against Matthew for that - he might just as well start the narrative from the baptism! It's Luke who decide to start narative about 15 month earlier (from Zechariah and the conception of John). You have also right that Nazareth doesn't come until 2:22-23. I think it is because Matthew wants underline that it was fulfilling a prophecy, so he mention the village not till it could be related to “He will be called a Nazarene" - because from now on Jesus will lived there until he will start preaching.
“Why must you force them together?” I really must say that at the beginning I believed that Matthew was fantasizing about almost everything writing the Nativity and that Luke maybe (maybe!) was true about his account. Over time reading other sources I change my mind, concessive that they accounts can be possible without conflict. Peace out.
P.S. Please see too my comment in Talk:Nativity of Jesus about “after 66 days”. Alorkezas (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I think that better reference to Leviticus would be 12:4 than 12:5
That according to Matthew they lived in Bethlehem and that they been in Nazareth only after returning from Egypt is a assumption based on that that the events described by him were directly alter and that they are the only events that have occurred in The Nativity of Jesus. But it is only a assumption. On the other hand we can assume that he didn't described the events directly alter and that he didn't wrote everything what has happened on the Nativity. Why we should assume the first supposition? Also, you wrote in footnote: The writer's presentation doesn't allow the reader to think that there was any change of venue – I think Matthew's presentation does allow the reader to think so. It doesn't indicate, suggest or imply, but why doesn't allow?
About that reading Matthew's narrative in the light of Luke's creates a new narrative – it must not mean that the “new” narrative will be anywhere conflicted with the “old” narrative and it must not mean that it would not tell the truth. I will give a example when a comparison of sources can be useful: if we will only based on Suetonius (Tiberius 49.1) about Aemilia Lepida, we will find out that in the twentieth year after, Quirinius accused Lepida of trying to poison him. We must ask, “After what?” It's seems logic that “the twentieth year after the divorce”. But now if we will comparison this with Tacitus (Annals III, 22-23) we will find that Lepida (who was accused in AD 20) had originally been betrothed to Lucius Caesar, who died in AD 2. Quirinius could only after Lucius death married Lepida, not to mention divorced her, and so we have that 20 years. So it shows that based on Tacitus we should read Suetonius as “the twentieth year after the marriage”. Not to mention that we often read Suetonius in the light of Tacitus or Cassius Dio (or in other combination) about Tiberius, Claudius, Nero or the Year of the Four Emperors. Alorkezas (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Unverifiability? What about Apocrypha or that none of the Church Fathers denies them, eg that there was no massacre or flight to Egypt or a census?
We have Matthew's birth account (1.18-2.23) and telling only a one world more than him, ie that they could be a change of venue or that according to him Joseph lives in Bethlehem (Matthew nowhere says that), is a new narrative. The natural reading is that from Matthew we don't know in which place was the conception of Jesus or Joseph dream. Don't you agree that this could happened anywhere, not necessarily in Bethlehem? He speaks about married, thought of divorce, etc and then that After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea... . So reading the text it indicates that he isin't in conflict with Luke. Matthew's presentation of Galilee is of a new location, and the writer feels the need to justify the change of location - absolutely right. It is a new location in his Gospel but it mustn't mean that the Holy Family was for the first time there. I wrote above why I think Nazareth doesn't come at his book until 2:22-23
Maybe there isn't as much as 10% similar material, but it not prejudge about falsehood of one or both. Simply the Evangelists flash on different events that accord then. About Quirinius and manger I have sad above and in Talk:Nativity of Jesus. My “force to harmony” is only to show that accounts can be with no conflict. You know too that you can say that they conflict, but that would be after assuming they do and finding excuses where they don't. Alorkezas (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, I see that we will not get any further. We will not have agreement about if according to Matthew the conception of Jesus was in the same place were birth. Maybe the last think that I will write is that the three statement (according to Mt Joseph lives in Bethleheml; takes Mary into his home; The writer's presentation doesn't allow the reader to think that there was any change of venue) are only opinions, not facts. I don't agree with them and I think that will be all what I must say. Thanks for your comments on this subject. Alorkezas (talk) 02:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
3RR Warning
I note that you have recently engaged in several reverts at Nativity of Jesus and I also disclose that another editor has come to my page to ask for my advice (as an uninvolved administrator) on this matter. Whilst I appreciate you have an opposing view on the correct dating etc at this article - I must as a matter of course caution you about our three revert rule - which will lead to your blocking on further occasions of this type of reversion anywhere on wikipedia. I do note that you were given some prompt about the 3RR situation by Johnbod at 2.06 January 5th in the edit summary of that same article. I would ask you to refrain from returning to this article with such edits please.--VS talk 21:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)