Differences Between Matthew And Luke Birth Narratives – James Bejon writes: As Christians, most of us are familiar with the reconciled versions of the New Testament birth narrative. We see them played out every year in the nativity plays (if we sit down to such things). In isolation, however, birth stories are less known, and even less understood. They cover major events. Or, to put the point another way, they don’t mention what we might (reasonably?) expect them to mention. Therefore, many critical interpreters reject (aspects of) them as historical. If Joseph had really fled to Egypt to escape execution, we are told, Matthew would not be the only one to mention it. And if Joseph ended up in Bethlehem because of the census spread throughout the kingdom, Luke would not be the only one to mention it. And so it continues.
But how can these commentators be sure that they know what Matthew and Luke – people who can tell us very little – want to include in their narratives? If their narratives are inconsistent in nature (as I have tried to show here), and if we can give plausible reasons why Matthew and Luke did not want to mention certain events that they refuse to mention, then why should we believe that the narratives are historical , even partially?
Differences Between Matthew And Luke Birth Narratives
Here I will assess whether such justifications can be given. The theory I will develop is as follows. Jesus was born in difficult times. The events of his birth included the census, the massacre, the flight into Egypt, and many other things, and Matthew and Luke took these events seriously—that is, mentioning Jesus as the fulfillment of the Bible story—but each writer focused on these events. in their various fields. For Matthew, Jesus is a deliverer like Moses, who poses an immediate threat to the Herodians of the world. As far as Matthew is concerned, the presentation of Jesus in the temple and infancy in Nazareth are meaningless and their inclusion would be a distraction. At the same time, for Luke, Jesus is a more deviant person who resembles Samuel, who grows up and walks around the temple. From Luke’s point of view, Jesus’ stay in Bethlehem (after his presentation in the temple) and his flight to Egypt are not important, while his presentation in the temple and childhood (insignificant) are very important.
The Birth Narratives In St Luke And St Matthew
Therefore, that Matthew and Luke do not write as we might expect, it is certainly true, but it is not a proof of their history, but of the purpose and skill of their narrative (not to mention the character of the climax of the entry of their Messiah into world. history). If, by today’s standards, that makes elements of their narrative historic, then it makes elements of their narrative historic. But honesty and following (modern) expectations are two different things. Ultimately, if we want to engage with Matthew and Luke fruitfully, we must engage on their own terms rather than based on our own expectations.
The most famous critical commentary on the NT birth narrative is Raymond Brown’s The Birth of the Messiah. It was written over a period of more than fifteen years, contains about 750 pages and represents the largest group of scholars. At the end of the book’s introduction, Brown dismisses many aspects of the nativity narrative as historical. If the census had actually taken place, he says, Matthew would have mentioned it as well as Luke. And if the flight into Egypt was true, Luke would have mentioned it as well as Matthew. And even about murder
Name, it would be reflected elsewhere in the New Testament. And so it continues. Below we will consider the details of Matthew and Luke’s narratives and see if we agree with Brown’s assessment of them. (Note: Brown also notes other problems with nativity narratives, but for now we will limit our discussion to the question of their internal plausibility.
What Is The Old Testament And The New Testament? What Is The Difference Between The Two?
As I have tried to show elsewhere, the narratives of Matthew and Luke are based on a common foundation of events. Both stories begin with descriptions of a couple who are engaged, namely Mary and Joseph. Both identify Joseph as a descendant of David. Both allow Mary to become pregnant by the agency of the Holy Spirit. And they both have Jesus who was born in Bethlehem and then grew up in Nazareth.
However, the accounts of Matthew and Luke differ on some important points. While Matthew tells us about Herod, the Magi, the massacre at Bethlehem, and the flight to Egypt, Luke tells us about a different series of events in general—events involving Caesar, the shepherds, the presentation of Jesus to the Temple, and Jesus . childhood in Nazareth. They are organized in this way:
Thus, the accounts of Matthew and Luke show the early years of Jesus against different circumstances, which has led many commentators to question the authenticity of the accounts of Matthew and Luke. If Luke was a skilled historian, wouldn’t he know about the massacre of the Bethlehem babies? And if he
The Synoptics: Mark, Matthew, And Luke
Know, why didn’t he mention it? Instead, why does Luke allow the head of the family to return to Nazareth, without mentioning Joseph’s flight to Egypt? And why, if Luke’s account is reliable, does Matthew not mention the command of the emperor and/or the shepherds? Is it credible to believe that Matthew was aware of the events recorded in Luke’s narrative and yet refused to mention them (and vice versa in Luke’s case)?
It all depends on how and why we believe the Gospels were composed. If we believe that Matthew’s goal was to know as much information as he could about Jesus and then write it all down in the Gospel, then Matthew’s inability to mention certain events really seems to be a problem (and the same in the case of Luke). However, very few people believe that that is what the Gospel writers did, and with good reason. Consider, for example, the genealogy of Matthew and Luke. Matthew and Luke were familiar with the Old Testament. So Matthew had names that he chose not to include in his genealogy, and Luke had an entire genealogy (from Shealtiel to David) that he chose not to include.
Genealogy (compare 1 times 3). More specifically, consider the Gospel of John. Do we believe that John did not know things that he did not mention in his Gospel (eg Jesus’ temptations, parables, exorcisms, transfiguration, and the establishment of the Lord’s Supper)?
Reasons Matthew Begins With A Genealogy
Like all other writers, Matthew and Luke wrote with specific purposes in mind. Everyone wanted to tell the story of Jesus in their own way—to focus on a specific theme of Jesus’ ministry, to emphasize certain parallels between Jesus’ ministry and Old Testament history, and so on. And if we consider how they did it, it will help us understand their choice of material.
So, what is the specific purpose of the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke? We start with Matthew. Its differences can be summarized as follows.
It is written more fully: while Luke tells us about Caesar and the census, Matthew tells us about Herod and the infanticide. While Luke tells us about the shepherds, Matthew tells us about the wise men (star struck) and their gifts. And while Luke has Jesus in the temple and/or Nazareth, Matthew has Jesus’ family fleeing to Egypt.
Beginnings Of The Gospel: Narrative #1
Now, why has Matthew chosen to tell us about these particular events (rather than those described by Luke)? What is their common theme/connection? The answer, I suggest, is that they are all open
Consider some relevant comparisons. Both stories open with Israel being ruled by a foreign master (in one case an Egyptian, in the other an Edomite). Both are about the birth of a child destined to redeem his people. In both cases, the affected older man sees the child as a threat (cf. Exodus 1.9–10). Both stories involve the mass killing of Israeli infants in an attempt to win his place. In both stories, God’s savior flees to a foreign land, where he hides until his enemies have passed (compare Mt. 2.20 v. Ex. 4.19). In both stories God defeats (ἐμπαίζω) his enemies (compare Mt. 2.16 w. Ex. 10.2). And in both stories, God’s people are made rich by Gentiles (compare Egypt’s wealth with the gifts of the wise).
These parallels are not coincidences. In fact, in Mt. 2:15 Matthew explains the importance of Joseph’s journey in Egypt with a quote from Hosea 11:1: ‘Out of Egypt I called my son’. Just as God began the work of redemption in Moses’ day when he called Israel out of Egypt, in the same way in Joseph’s day God will again call his Son out of Egypt and begin a greater work of redemption.
Bible Contradictions Explained: 4 Reasons The…
Exit history. Everything goes back to the front. The murderous king is not the pharaoh of Egypt, but the ‘king of the Jews’. The land where God’s son is in danger is not Egypt, but Israel. And the country where the son is accepted is not Israel, but Egypt. Why? Because coming from Jesus will not just be a natural return; it will be a different type of output. The dividing line between God’s people and God’s enemies will not be drawn on the basis of nationality (Israel against Egypt: Mt. 8.11-12, 10.34-39), but on the basis of obedience (12:46-50). And on
Similarities and differences between matthew mark luke and john, differences between corporation and llc, differences between medicaid and medicare, differences between options and futures, matthew vs luke birth narratives, similarities between matthew and luke birth of jesus, differences between cold and flu, differences between matthew and luke, differences between matthew and mark, matthew mark luke john differences, infancy narratives in matthew and luke, differences between matthew mark and luke
