Gospel Discrepancies: Why Matthew and Luke Tell Different Christmas Stories
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 фев 2025
- Visit www.bartehrman... to shop from Bart Ehrman’s online courses and get a special discount by using code: MJPODCAST on all courses.
When you picture the story of Jesus’ birth, you might think of Mary and Joseph traveling to Bethlehem, a stable, shepherds, and wise men. But have you ever wondered which details come from which Gospel-and why the accounts differ? Join Bart Ehrman and Megan Lewis as they explore questions like: Were Mary and Joseph from Nazareth or Bethlehem? Did they flee to Egypt after Jesus’ birth, or go straight home? And can these accounts be reconciled into one story?
This is just my favourite show, deserves youtube award. Can we do something about it if someone knows how to go about it? It is free academic lectures free for all and totally impartial. Love it, sorry, that's me. ❤ Bart and Megan question metholdology.
sure send donations 😊
When I read this for myself I found no drummer boy, no reindeer games, no holly, and not a figgy pudding in sight. What a rip-off.
@@MarkV-j5jin APRIL!
The lack of reindeer games is especially upsetting.
Does that mean that Olive was not mean after all?
There are many other things that strangely don't appear in the gospel nativity narratives. No Santa Claus, reindeer, elves, mince pies, Christmas Trees, Scrooge, Tiny Tim, Bob Crachitt, endless repeats of the Morecambe and Wise Christmas Special, 🎄Slade's "Merry Christmas Everybody", and Band Aid's "Do They Know It's Christmas". To name but a few. We all know how essential they are to a proper Christmas.
@@bunkerhill4854 Turns out, not so much. That's fake news, I'm afraid. She was a lazy reindeer, Olive. All she did was loaf.
In Sunday School they taught us that the inn in Bethlehem was next to a Texaco station, and that's how the magi were able to find it by following the star. The things you'll believe when you're twelve...
(F'ing "Barge-In Ads" have TWICE 'Vaporized' my Reply Comments.!!)
...sounds like your Sunday School teacher kept a radio on during classes for you to hear:
"You Can trust Your Car
to the Man Who Wears a Star...
A Big, Bright TEXACO STAR.!!"
I have ZERO Clue why I could So Easily retrieve this Auditory Memory despite not having heard this ad jingle for At LEAST 50 YEARS...
...yet the INSTANT I step through a doorway on a Pre-Planned Mission to obtain from- or Restore to that room some object -- my "WHAT T.H. did I Come in HERE for.?!"
And as we all know, the first person the magi went to was Brian.
"Is it AD, yet?" "Quarter past!"
"We were led by a star"
"Led by a bottle more like it"
@@MrDalisclock That movie has so many fantastic lines.
Ooo- you are naughty- but I like you.
Luke’s genealogy goes all the way back to Adam focusing on on the universality of the gospel massage. A message for Jews and gentiles alike. Matthew’s goes fromjesus to Abraham, Abraham being the father of the Jewishnation, emphasizing the Jewishness of Jesus.
What a couple of wonderful people. So bright and educated. Sharing intellectual truths while simultaneously helping people heal from religious oppression. Salt of the earth, irony intended haha.
Megan's GLASSES are off the charts, love it.
Come for the glasses, stay for the talk. lol
She's delightful
She has a nice collection.
She's got the best eyewear collection!
"Trouble Glasses." As they're well known...
I'm agnostic/atheist, but love the Christmas story. There are so many cultural discrepancies, like he wasn't born on Dec 25 (that's the church taking over Saturanlia), shepherds wouldn't have flocks out by night in winter, so the birth would have been in the spring or early summer. Some people think the star might have been an odd "dancing" of the planets in Aries (the astrological house of the Jews), and so much more. But nonetheless, I do the pagan thing with lights and eating too much and mince tarts and chocolate. I think the Christmas story is about love and hope.
I went to a worshop for ministers about reading the Bible. One of the exercises we did was to read the nativity stories from Matthew and Luke. Then we took a quiz. We had a list of elements to the story, and we had to label them A, B, C, and D. A meant the element was only in Matthew. B meant only in Luke. C meant in both, and D meant in neither. Elements were things like "Magi were present" and "Joseph and Mary lived in a house in Bethlehem before the birth." I was shocked how few items were C. I missed the one about the house. But at least I knew the Little Drummer Boy was in neither. Lots of people missed that one.
There is no list of 10 Commandments anywhere in the Bible and 13 Tribes of Israel... But that has never bothered any preacher
I really appreciate Bart's enthusiasm for reading critically in terms of determining the understanding that the author is furthering. I really never enjoyed the Old Testament in particular until I started reading it that way. When I was much younger in a fairly strict family/church, I actually had some of the same issues Bart had with not feeling safe to read the actual text and not trying to explain away the differences that seemed to be obvious! Even simple stories were impossible to understand that way...and left me feeling guilty and stupid at the same time, which I am pretty sure was not the "editorial intent":). Luckily, Classics (especially textual criticism) taught me a different approach, which is often a disturbingly dispassionate process but generally much more satisfying somehow.
Although this isn't mentioned in Luke or Matthew, I can bear witness that it's annoying to have one's birthday on December 25th.
I have known several people who were born on December 25th. Do you think you get short changed on birthday gifts due to the overriding Christmas gifts? That seems to be the consensus among my Christmas birthday friends.
>BunnyWatson-k1w : I can't quantify a shortchanging of gifts. What I had in mind is that one's friends spend that day with their families, celebrating a different event than one's birthday.
If your birthday collides with that of the Savior of the World , you're clearly at a disadvantage. That sucks.👿🤬😠!!
>jeanwalker5106 : A disadvantage, all else being equal. Fortunately for me, I've had some advantages too, so not all else has been equal.
Mines is December 24th!
I would love to see a discussion between Dr. Ehrman and Rabbi Tovia Singer.
The Rabbi doesn't like discussing historical biblical stuff, for instance hebraic henotheism. Other than dissing on Christianity I don't think they'd have a lot to each other.
Tovia actually did a very similar talk just recently on the differences in genealogies, etc., from the 2 books.
Seems like the author of Luke wanted to be the peace-maker. In his Gospel, he makes John The Baptists and Jesus appear to be on the same team. In Acts he makes Paul and Peter appear to be on the same team.
To me, it feels like he's misrepresenting the other's position to make it seem like they're actually agreeing with him. John is clearly made subordinate to Jesus. Paul's views in Acts are in contradiction with what he writes in the undisputed epistles. The author of Luke may have wanted to be the peace maker, but he doesn't seem to value the other side's theology much.
Blessed are the peacemakers.
They are all on the same team, the difference is they are on different sides of the cross where Christ died and rose again. Before is 'Law' and after it is 'Grace'. We have been redeemed by the precious blood of Christ. Before it was 'do', now it is 'done'.
Cool talk! And Megan's most powerful glasses yet!
They are fantastic!
@@bartdehrmanagree. 👍🏻
Hi Bart,
How do Christians reconcile that there were Magi and that they were psychic? From what I understand, the magi were Zoroastrian, a totally different religion. Is this an endorsement from the Bible that Zoroastrianism was a valid religion? 🤔
Thanks.
Strange... One contributor's brand is innovative and insightful Biblical analysis, the other contributor's brand is what kind of glasses to wear.
@@emmgeevideo I'm not sure I see your point! I think "cool talk" includes both participants in the dialogue. And Bart's glasses are iconic but unchanging.
Digital Hammurabi is a fabulous channel too, though!
@@aosidh My sarcastic point is that I find the emphasis on stylish glasses to be out of place. Bart sees no need to add aesthetics and style to the conversation, and as a consequence I find I listen to what he's saying and not what he's wearing. I can't prove it, but I'll bet you some frankincense that Bart writes out the questions ahead of time, both to guide the discussion but also to prevent "dead air" or tangential questions. I think the brand of the channel would be better suited with professional dress that is in the background and content in the foreground.
Somewhere, a ship is missing two portholes.
Just obnoxious
Just heard a remarkable statement about Jesse Owen’s tales of why his stories have resonated over the years, and why he told them.
Some women have shoe collections. Meghan has a glasses collection 😅
Oh, good episode too 😉
Another terrific podcast! Thank you to both of you!
Matthew and Luke argued about this for years, and they never got over their differences.
Bart, i started watching your GCP courses. Exceptional !!!
As an atheist myself, I find it helpful to think of the gospels as we think of "biopics" today. That is, they're deeply embellished for dramatic effect, include details and events that didn't occur, and leave out mundane events that did. They certainly aren't going to tell the same exact story in the same exact way. We humans are too creative to allow that to happen.
I see no fundamental difference between any of the gospels, and, say, the film "Oppenheimer." The film was a fictionalized, dramatic representation of the myth of J. Robert Oppenheimer's life. It's basically the same thing as the stories of Jesus.
Reading the Bible is a lot more fun as a non-believer. I use to be a Christian, then a Muslim, now an atheist. I have so much more fun studying both religions as a non-believer because I don’t have to convince myself to believe the dumb parts, accept the problematic parts, or reconcile the contradictions.
Great show. No matter how many times I hear the two versions, I confuse them. I’ll keep trying
min. 37, answering Megan’s first question from listeners, Bart says “yessum”, something I had only read in William Faulkner and never heard. 😄 (I’m from Italy, anyway.)
Lol, I'd never notice that. It's simply a southern contraction of yes ma'am. Faulkner was southern, writing what's now called southern Gothic, so of course he'd use it. There is also no'am, for no ma'am. We southerners used to be taught our manners.
@@spyder2383 Thanks, you’re right. I’ve just checked _Absalom, Absalom!_ and when Quentin replies “yessum” (that’s how Faulkner writes it), he’s answering to a woman, Rosa Coldfield.
The genealogy list and nativity story found in Matthew (chapter 1-2) are almost certainly later additions to the text.
Why is that? For Luke I think one can make a good argument that the first two chapters are among the later additions to that text. But the major author of Matthew could have created the nativity story as one of his initial inventions. Matthew is crafted with a particular slant (as are all the gospels) and the nativity story is a reflection of that.
The genealogy of Joseph is also completely irrelevant to the virgin birth narrative.
It's also telling Matthew and Luke can't agree on Joseph's dad's name.
Which implies nobody with knowledge was around to ask by the time Matthew and Luke were written aka late 1st century. Jesus is long gone, Mary probably died of old age and James apparently has also died or wasn't available to be interviewed who his paternal grandfather was.
@@MrDalisclock Well, James likely was in Jerusalem. And "Luke" wasn't. No cars, no trains, not enough people being able to read letters ... that's a problem.
@@TheDanEdwards Matthew would have almost certainly began in the same manner as the other _Jewish_ gospels, with Elijah (John the Baptist) in the Jordan River.
Even though Luke's nativity is zodiacal; he would have probably incorporated something from the genealogy/nativity of Matthew, if it were there when he was composing his gospel.
“presumably they didn’t get on a train”
Beam, me up Scotty🤣
Best glasses ever. Fascinating lecture as usual
Excellent, thanks to both of you. 🎉
All signed up. Thanks to Dr. E and Megan.
Wonderful show guys...I learn so much and I love it.
I think it’s always a good sign that the crazier the glasses Megan is wearing, the better the topic is on the podcast
Going out on a limb here, but perhaps they differ because neither are contemporary accounts.
Meghan’s glasses never disappoint….😅😅
These ones just exude smiles
@@Bob94390 the glasses simply enhance the beauty.
The differences in the gospel accounts don't support the notion of fundamentalists which require a literal reading.
Those aren't the only problems for these people. It starts with the two creation accounts.
@KaiHenningsen
I'm a person of faith but I'm not a fundamentalist. Those discrepancies don't threaten my faith. But they should destroy the faith of anyone who thinks the Bible is infallible and literal.
@@DummyAccount-f1qIn the sense that they're both types of people? Yes? Strange question.
@MarkV-j5j
I'm not really sure what you mean. My brain is dull this morning.. been sick the last 4 days.
Can you ask the question in a different way?
The virgin birth and the birth place of Messiah in Betlehem where two premises on which Matthew and Luke independently made up their birth stories.
The operative word being "made up"
@@Aye-Aye136 why not go with Luke was copying Matthew?
@isiahs9312 If luke followed Mark, why didn't he Matthew? Instead Luke made up a quite different genealogy and birth story. Why would he have destroyed the Sermon on the Mount, if he had known Matthew? You must read works of John S. Kloppenborg. The best case for Q, in my opinion.
@@Aye-Aye136
>? Instead Luke made up a quite different genealogy and birth story.
And? He had a different theological point to make.
>why would he have destroyed the Sermon on the Mount, if he had known Matthew?
Sermon on the plain.
@isiahs9312 I'm not a NT scholar. Please read works of John S. Kloppenborg.
Main event starts at 2:53
30:52 When I was a kid, I was told that John the Baptist (six months older than Jesus) escaped the Slaughter of the Innocents by being "hidden in the reeds" (maybe that was a Catholic thing). My big question was "why were John and his parents in Bethlehem?"
You have it muddled. Slaughter of the innocents by Herod the Great who died in 4BCE, so JC born in that year at the latest. In Luke Jesus born the year the first Judaean governor Coponius was appointed i.e. 6AD.
These inconsistencies are deliberate. These are NOT mistakes by the two authors. All 4 canonical gospels were concocted by faceless early Christians with a hidden agenda.
I think an interesting video topic should be about the first two chapters in Luke being added after the fact. I remember reading a while back about how some early churches did not have the first two two chapters and if you actually start at chapter 3, it sounds like the beginning of a book.
I wonder if after Luke was completed they got wind of Matthew's infancy portion and decided to go back and make their own.
I found this discussion bemusing; Professor E. confidently deconstructs the tale and it's symbolism Gold=kingship, Frankincense = faith, and myrrh = death - foreshadowing Jesus purpose.
Then switches to Luke substituting Wealthy dignitaries with humble shepherds.
This is clearly authors rendition of a mythical story
And he still expects us to believe he is a Historicalist
>Historicalist
I like the guy, but he got 99% of the way there and stopped. Dude, you are so close. You broke every single part of the story into propaganda and myth. Just go the other 1%
Would you do a series on the shroud of Turin? Be interested to hear Bart’s thoughts!
It’s SO clear that Joseph wasn’t the father so WHY the heck do they have the those ridiculous genealogies, this always disturbed me, even as a kid.
One explanation I have heard is that in Jewish adoption laws, an adopted son can not only inherit material goods, but also immaterial family heritage, and can therefore claim ancestry even if not biologically connected. Don't know if that is true though.
I wonder if the genealogies were recorded first, to show that Jesus really was a "son of David", and deserving of his throne, but before there was wide acceptance of the concept that Jesus was supposedly the actual son of God.
I don’t understand, why is it so clear that Joseph was not his father?
Come on! Are you serious? Because obviously Joseph was the father. Who else?
Mary's genealogy goes back to Adam, which the scripture says was the son of God. Joseph's goes back to David like you said, and shows the royal line which Christ was born into. There is absolutely nothing in scripture just for the sake of it. Everything has a reason and purpose, we just need the Holy Spirit to indwell us and help us understand. He is the Spirit of Truth.
The biggest discrepancy from my point of view is the dating; a difference of up to a decade in when Jesus was born
100% because JC a combination of two historical characters into a fantasy.
@@lebenstraum666 More likely that a Jesus existed, but the accounts of his birth were invented for theological reasons decades after his death.
Are you really suggesting that both accounts are literal truth, but for two different people? One travelling from Nazareth to Bethlehem for a census and giving birth there to be welcomed by sheperds, while the other lived in Bethlehem, was heralded by the magi but had to flee to Egypt while all the other boys born in Bethlehem were killed and ultimately returned to settle in Nazareth?
Were they both actually virgin births as well?
@jeffmacdonald9863 No. Jesus a made up story but based on two very real people.
@@lebenstraum666 Two people? Based on the different birth narratives? If so, I basically just summarized them. Which parts are real and why do you think so?
@@jeffmacdonald9863 the two real historical characters are linked via the dates 4BCE & 6AD. One character is Judas the Galilean. Read Daniel Unterbrink's work - but he fails to recognise the other character.
I think the answer is that Matthew and Luke weren't there and didn't claim to be. They claimed to be recounting the testimony of witnesses who they interacted with and they wrote down what those witnesses happened to tell them. And Christianity for the first 1000 years prior to the reformation wasn't founded on biblical accuracy. The bible was a tool of the church, not an external source of truth.
Something I have always wondered about. If Herod ordered the murder of all male children up to 2 years of age And Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt to avoid this. How did John the Baptist survive? He and Jesus were 6 month apart in age.
@@DummyAccount-f1q Somehow I don't think they were checking birth certificates.
I am surprised there was no discussion of when Jesus was born, because there are big irreconcilable differences on that issue.
so your conclusion was that Jesus was not born because some guy 140 years later mixed up who the governor of Syria was at that time?
I would have loved Bart to have addressed the irreconcilable details vis-à-vis history. Specifically, the world-wide census( Luke), and the slaughter of the innocents (Matthew.) Yes we can discern why each writer included those pericopes to meet their theological and literary agendas. But nowhere do we find historical evidence for either events. Which surely would be of such significance that there would be historical evidence.
He does in many lectures
I think these writers DID know of each other, at least in the sense that those wealthy enough to create these kind of gospels were probably also either travelers themselves or knew a lot of merchants who traveled and probably got their hands on gospels and gospel stories from all over in addition to writing letters back and forth and were actively debating amongst themselves which was right and why. I seriously doubt we're seeing first drafts of any of these works. Instead we're seeing the end result of rival groups who all considered each other to be mild heretics and were all constantly writing and rewriting what they considered to the best version of the truth.
I think your comment explains it quite well. I lean on the theory that the earliest drafts were closer to a proverbs book similar to some of those Gnostic or Apocryphal Books... Then the standard canon has to edit and rewrite the earlier stuff
One of these days, Bart should rock some special glasses, trying to out-do Megan.
He’d fail, sadly…Megan is the queen!
Bart would have to become a queen to even compete, that’s doubtful.
Hell to the yes. 😂
Maybe the same shape frames, but in purple, blue, red, or green frame colors.
The 40 issue is indeed intriguing. 4x10 the easiest, the 4 being compass directions, the latter referring to the fingers.
Yay!!! Always good day w/ a new episode.
If they were identical I’d more concerned.
My church of ultra orthodox Christians use to worship in malls now with the th death of malls we worship in amazon pick up sites
Regarding the number 40, I've associated it with signaling a big change coming. for example, after it rained for 40 days and nights, the world was very different; Jesus was in the wilderness for 40 days, and when he came out he began his ministry; the Israelites were in the desert for 40 years and went from being enslaved people to a free nation with their own land (that they stole from the people who were already there, but that happens all the time throughout history)
Happy Saturnela everyone, the real "Reason for the Season," until FESTIVUS arrived.
I used to go to secular sobriety meetings and we had a Christmas party one year, we have out little cards that said "the axial tilt is the reason for the season"
No, you need to keep Mithra in your winter solstice .
As Dan McClellan says: pure and utter nonsense.
Jimmy Akin says "They don't differ, they just had 2 homes!"
Thank you.
How long to walk from Israel to Egypt? Well, according to the bible, it takes 40 years to walk from Egypt to Israel. Maybe Joseph was a better navigator than Moses.
The fact that they did it in 40 years doesn't mean it is what it takes (and as stated in the video, 40 is a symbolic number meaning 'many'). According Google maps, Jerusalem - Cairo by foot takes just 7 days! (730 km) And this is using modern roads involving a huge deviation, so it could be done much faster by the direct way.
it only took 40 years in exodus as a punishment from yahweh
@@joshridinger3407anything that does not fit….allocate responsibility to Yahweh.
Next please😊
@ahmedvawda1282 no that's literally the way the story is written. nobody thought it actually took 40 years to get from egypt to canaan. and the israelites didn't actually wander the sinai for 40 years because the exodus never happened. it's a fictional story and the writers made up the story elenents on purpose.
@@joshridinger3407 It's a story that really makes you appreciate Google Maps. Moses was Clark Griswold-levels of incompetent at navigating.
I never understood how Mary could be married to Joseph and still a virgin…
Tantric
If your purpose is to control women for sex this narrative makes perfect sense
Love all you do and post, but especially these Christmas-related episodes 🌲
I grew up in the Mormon church. When there are discrepancies in the Bible, they teach that they are due to translation errors (not intended as well as intended) and bad people having taking away some parts of the Bible 🤪
Out of curiosity, WHY would the Wise Men from the east care that a new king was born to the Jews? Gospel accounts show them as being wise and wealthy enough to bring expensive gifts, but it doesn't say that they are Jewish or even Roman, just "from the east." So why would it matter at all to them if a new king was born to a likely foreign group of people occupied by a foreign army? I don't know if I have ever heard any context to that story.
I've always thought it was strange too. Why was there no one else expecting this monumental event? Nobody else in Jerusalem knew this was happening? B.S
@Blobberblabber Technically, other people might have known bits of it. The Wise Men consulted with Jewish scholars once they lost the trail given to them by the star.
It’s a type of name dropping
"Franklin’s inelegant dance around the issue of parliamentary power during the first half of 1768 caused his contemporaries (as well as subsequent historians) to come to different conclusions about what he really believed or what games he was playing."
Excerpt from Benjamin Franklin by Walter Isaacson
One aspect of early Christianity that never seems to be raised is the difficulty of writing on papyrus in the ancient Mediterranean. If you look at the sayings and speeches of Jesus, especially in John, they can be verbose. How could any person possibly record a conversation on papyrus in real time? It would seem an impossible task, such that the longer sayings and speeches must be later tradition. Anybody seen any research in this respect?
This because the four Gospels are fictional written at leisure.
In the past (before printing became widespread), when all transmission was oral, it was not uncomon that some people could remember perfectly every conversation they had or speech they heard. There is the famous case of Ananda in Buddhism, who was chosen to become Buddha's secretary because he had this gift. Most of Buddhas very long and complex discourses (suttas) are still known today because Ananda could repeat them and others remember them. Still today, some people have this capacity called hypermnesia, objectivated and studied in laboratory.
Bart has mentioned on various occasions that in ancient times, it was common for authors of biographies to make up speeches based on what they knew about the person.
@TartempionLampion How do we know that any of what jesus said or buddha said was actually what they said or that these people with "amazing memories" weren't embellishing, misremebering, or outright fabricating these sayings? Sounds like wishful thinking to me.
Since the 2 birth narratives are so clearly different I can’t help but think that the council at Nicaea that canonized these texts knew that they were radically different and had no problem with that. That historical accuracy was not a concern of theirs perhaps at all. They may have thought that both stories had theological importance and contradictions were not something that concerned them the way they concern us today.
“Look at their birth-narratives and genealogies! lol. They’re all different!”
- Dr. Ehrman on Mythvision
(defending the existence of Q. More specifically the idea that Luke did not redact Matthew’s story.)
Here's a topic suggestion: Were the magi a reference to Zoroastrianism? If so, is the Bible making some sort of implicit commentary on Zoroastrianism? Additionally, there are some who say that Zoroastrianism had an impact on the development of Christianity? Is this true?
yes, it was a trope in the greek world that Zoroastrian magi were experts in astrology and it lent credibility to the story to the greek readers that it was a fulfillment of prophecy. That is it. Nothing more to see there, the author was not actually familiar with Zoroastrianism, just some stereotypes about it.
You know Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln recounted all this in The holy blood and the holy grail in 1982. Before Dan Brown plagiarized it much later
It has always my understanding that 40 days is the length of time that a human could live with out food therefore the significance of the number 40, 40 days fast etc.
The rule of threes in a survival situation states that we can survive three minutes without breathing, three hours without shelter, three days without water and three weeks without food. Of course, those are rough estimates meant to be easy to remember. Your milage may vary
I thought at one point, Bart was saying the wise men gave away where Jesus was born to Herod. But I went back and read and understood what he was saying before the wise men found Jesus they told Herod the exact time the star appeared, and Herod used this information to give his order.
the key to this is quite simple. they are not writig history as we understand it but theological narratives. They are getting a profound meaning across. Every sentence has meaning beyond the literal. eg " there was no room for them in the inn". link that to the magnificat and we are asked, how much space do we make for the Christ in the poor. i am not preaching because i am not doing so well at this.
First of all, thanks for making this available to public, I was never indoctrinated, was never thought any of this as revealed truth, early in life I was kinda of a light deist, later I became an atheist oddly enough this triggered much curiosity and interest on why and how this elaborate story came about, what means for humans..which questions they were wrestling with while living in ignorance about the universe.
It is vital to understand that there was two Bethlehem s in Israel during the time of Jesus. One was located in Galilee and the other in Judea. When Constantine's mother wanted to build a church at the birth place of Jesus she had a problem for some said that he was born in Bethlehem Judea and others said he was born in Bethlehem Galilee so she built churches in both places. They have found what is left of the church built in Bethlehem Galilee and the one in Bethlehem Judea was rebuilt for it too was destroyed over time. They obviously wanted Jesus to be born in Judea for that was where King David was suppose to be born. He was however most likely born in the norther Kingdom of Israel for the distance between Bethlehem Galilee and Nazareth is only a few miles.
the only show where a six-time New York Times best-selling author and world-renowned Bible scholar uncovers the many fascinating little known facts about the New Testament the historical Jesus and the rise of Christianity -
I always love so hard how specific this claim is. Every episode my mind goes... really? The ONLY one? yeah, probably. There's that other one with the 2 times best seller one, and then the 6 times bestseller who talks about non religious topics during the same period of time. (i'm making these up but anyway...)
Insert "r/oddlyspecific" reference, lol
The Krampus story is waaay cooler. 🤣
The murder of the infants at Xmas echoes the story of the Exodus. Everyone knows that. Its not controversial
Murdering infants is not controversial?
I dont understand why these discrepancies were not 'ironed out' in the early centuries before the New Testament was officially put together.
Surely the Catholic church would have wanted the different Gospels to kind of back each other up (even if they were not eye witness accounts) to avoid Christians from developing doubts about the Bible being God's true word.
Or is it just the case that the majoity of Christians have never read the Gospels in their entirety so would never realise there was a problem ?
Tend to agree. I wonder if the fact that so many people couldn't read , or couldn't read Latin, in the European situation , plus the fact that the church has always been so powerful and corrupt that anyone who questioned the bible stories was labelled a heretic and put to death... probably helped.
@@NathanEllisBodi Thanks for your reply.
Another thing that occurred to me was that to stay a Christian & stay happy, a Christian must not entertain any doubts at all, otherwise their whole belief system will start crashing down.
& once a Christian sees the truth they can't go back.
That is why Christians continue to believe such Bible stories as Noahs Ark & Adam & Eve. Even though common sense tells us that these stories are absurd.
I think it is called cognative dissonance.
The answer to the 4BCE/6AD inconsistency is to work out the importance of these two dates for two other characters, both mentioned in Josephus, one in the NT.
IOW Jesus is based on two historical characters whose stories are cleverly combined, as well as Jesus a typology of legendary long-past kings such as David and Joash.
Amused to see Emily H. Watson's novels _Inanna_ and _Gilgamesh_ displayed on the shelf behind Megan. I read both recently, after meeting Emily on a guided archeological tour organised by _New Scientist_ magazine (which she edited until early this year). Can't wait for Volume 3!
Regarding the subject matter, let's not forget that both nativity stories were narrated some 85-100 years after the event, when all possible witnesses were likely long dead, by Greek-literate authors who were probably not Jews, had probably never been to Judea, seemingly could not read Hebrew, and were part of the Paul-instigated anti-Jewish and pro-Graeco-Roman branch of developing Christianity.
I loved those books! I interviewed Emily on both of them, and I can’t wait for number 3 😁
To me with all these differences is probably due to their emphasizing which is trying to show their spiritual message. I wish Bart would discuss the hidden meaning behind these differences. For example going back to Adam, suggests their idea of spiritual consciousness originates from the creation of man: we are born with this ability (gnosis).
Would Egyptian government have known Joseph and Mary entered Egypt? Where in Egypt did they actually go?
They would but someone chiselled it off the wall in the interest of sabotaging Christianity ✝️
I wonder if Matthew wanted to make Herod look bad and made him a villain. Perhaps he had an axe to grind?
At minimum, that both of these Christmas narratives were written independently of each other, and can mostly be reconciled with each other, means there is a historical core to this story. In short, somebody was trying to preserve this history, and succeeded to a large extent.
‘Independently’ is doing some heavy lifting there
@@ashert4918 That's what scholar Bart said, Luke was not looking at Matthew.
@@imikewillrockyou Go back and listen more closely.
@@TheDanEdwards You go back and listen, you're not paying attention.
If The early xtians know only two things1) Jesus was known as Jesus of Nazareth and 2) prophecy says the king of the Jews must be born in Bethlehem they think up, invent, different stories to explain these things. That doesn’t mean the stories are historical.
They both smoked too much ancient burning bush 😂😂
Thank you, Thank you, Thank you!! I appreciate being educated by this wonderful scholar.
If Luke was really trying to go this far out of his way to show that John was the forerunner and that Paul got along with the apostles, is there any particular area in ancient times where these disputes would have needed to have been resolved? Where were there followers of John the Baptist? Or were they scattered out and this isn’t a very good clue?
What agenda is served by a geneology back to Adam, for an audience who believe everyone's geneology begins with Adam?
To convince us that the earth is approx 6500 years.
>ahmedvawda1282 : An audience who believes everyone's geneology begins with Adam doesn't need convincing.
Note: My comment isn't referring to a modern audience or a modern agenda. The comment is asking about the agenda of the author of Matthew, whose audience lived nearly 2000 years ago. Bart said in this video that the author of Matthew must have had a different agenda than the author of Luke, and Bart said is why the geneology of Jesus listed in Matthew goes all the way back to Adam. But Bart didn't explain his reasoning.
@ahmedvawda1282 : My comment is asking about the agenda of the author of Matthew, whose audience lived nearly 2000 years ago. Bart said the author of Matthew must have had a different agenda than the author of Luke, and that the different agenda is why the geneology in Matthew goes back to Adam. But Bart didn't provide his reasoning.
I also have Mayflower ancestry. I'm a descendent of William Brewster, the spiritual leader of Plymouth Colony.
Where did Joseph and Mary get the crib? Pret a Manger of course.
out! Get out!🤣
Well actually the wise man have found Brian instead...
He's very naughty boy!
Scholars say Matthew was likely written between 55 and 65 AD. Some say 80 to 90 AD. 📖
Luke's writings most Scholars say 80 to 90 AD, but others 90 to 110 AD.
If, as is said, these Gospels were written down from word of mouth stories, then it's easy to see how different dates, events, and additions are made. Then there's the angle each writer may be trying to promote. 🎉
Canonical gospels are 2nd century creations first mentioned by Justin Martyr about 150AD.
What is the point of having genealogy from Adam or Abraham to Joseph if Joseph is not Jesus's father?
Mark has no birth narrative - the sexual purity, virgin things comes later.
If Joseph wasn't Jesus' father why do the gospels bother with his genealogy?
A fascinating read about alternate Christmas interpretations from Matthew and Luke is “Jesus’ Biological Father was Joseph: According to the New Testament”(DS WAGGONER). Mind-bending!
@ nope. The book includes the Birth Narratives from Matthew and Luke from the King James Version, then shows you how Rome had to add words, or events, or take words away from the authentic text in order to arrive at a Virgin birth interpretation. Fascinating, actually
@@DummyAccount-f1q nope. It’s a thing.
Would it be possible to have your editor add an ess filter to the audio? The "sss" sounds spike the mic, especially on Megan's end because of the zoom audio quality. It makes for an uncomfortable listening experience with headphones. Most video editing software have ess filter plugins built in and only take one click to add.
Love the podcast and all that you two do!
Would not the gifts that the magi bring make Joseph and his little family rich? At least bump them up into the middle class (or whatever passes for such at the time).
They burned it.
The incense 😊
They are symbolic.
No one received anything
The 4 gospels and their authors have their own agendas but their goals were never 👎 to tell the objective historical facts but to tell the truths as they understood them. If you read comments in RUclips, almost everybody wants to tell the truth especially ones that directly involved themselves or their loved ones like family, friends, lovers, close relatives etc. if their anecdotes do not defy logic, we can be sure to be reliable. But once they transcend the metaphysical mythical realm, and since we assume they don’t lie, the truths are actually hearsay but regarded as gospel truths by the storytellers. The same argument can be applied to the 4 gospels since so many episodes are metaphysical and illogical.
I was born in two different places, the place where my birth was registered, and the place where I was actually born. In official documents I was born that town where my birth was registered although in reality the place was a suburb of a different town, that just happened to come under a different jurisdiction. I often tell people I was born in the middle of a wood, because that is what was there before our house was built.
Luke was a detail oriented educated doctor and Matthew was just the guy that was your neighbor. Luke always over Matthew.
I wonder if the wise men hit the wrong house and originally gave gifts to the mother of Brian
Are there other birth narratives in apocryphal documents?
Yes that he came from the real God. Unnameable beyond understanding. Like Paul going to third heaven.power principalities kingdoms and jehova from lower .
I forget which one, but there's one where Mary gives birth in a cave and remains a virgin (i.e., still has her hymen intact). A midwife checks to see if this is true and is horribly punished for doubting.
There were about 20 years difference between Matthew and Luke. I can] see how their account vary.
Yes, they were both spinning a yarn to match ideology... Not history. No Jesus of Nazareth. No inconsistencies.
@ why are atheists so interested in proving the Bible to be wrong? You must all be democrats.
I love your bart
There is an implication in what you say that the star appeared up to two years after the birth of Jesus, does this have any bearing on what the star might have been and on what date Jesus was actually born?