Are the Nativity Narratives really historical or allegorical

[polonius]

Since it is approaching Christmas, perhaps it would be a good time to review Matthew’s and Luke’s Nativity Narratives which comprise the first few chapters of their gospels.

We understand that the earliest stratas of Matthew, used by the very early Palestinian Ebionite Christians, who remained obedient to Mosaic Law, did not seem to include such a nativity narrative suggesting that it was added later (perhaps to both Matthew and Luke).

Each narrative describes the birth of Jesus but involves serious contradictions. Let’s begin with the date of Jesus’ birth as given by each.

[JehovahsWitness]

[JehovahsWitness]

The list of the Roman governors of Syria during this period is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_R ... _135_AD.29

The validity and limitations of the source information of the list of Roman governors has been addressed in my post original post; but even if it were totally valid, it is noteworthy that it is generally accepted that there are doubts as to who was the Governor during the very period in question. Pointing out that historians are not sure who the Governor was during the period in question, hardly strengthens any argument that Luke was wrong. On the contrary it can only add to the possibility that Luke solved the mystery.


[1] If there were solid evidence that Lucius Calpurnius Piso was Governor during this period (as opposed to speculation) it would not be listed as "unknown". Luke's information as to the identity of the governor during this period, is as good if not better than "some" that speculate as to alternatives; in any case there is certainly nothing in the list that proves Luke's narrative impossible.

JW

[polonius]

[polonius]

[oldbadger]

I have always found it to be strange that Luke tried to show that a Galilean handworker would need to report to a Judean township as part of a Census for Idumea, Judea and Samaria, the provinces taken over by Rome after Auchelaus was removed from office.

Further, I don't think that too many Galileans could have been related to Jews such as David and Soloman because they were comparatively recent converts.

The only aspect which argued against my mindset was that a Judas the Galilean revolted against the census, and I could not figure out why. But recent posts by a member concerning the Temple Census which affected all Jews could have been the reason for this quite separate action of his.

Ergo, I think that Luke took real events, and then used them as truth pills in a manipulated and fictional account.

[polonius]

I have always found it to be strange that Luke tried to show that a Galilean handworker would need to report to a Judean township as part of a Census for Idumea, Judea and Samaria, the provinces taken over by Rome after Auchelaus was removed from office.

Further, I don't think that too many Galileans could have been related to Jews such as David and Soloman because they were comparatively recent converts.

The only aspect which argued against my mindset was that a Judas the Galilean revolted against the census, and I could not figure out why. But recent posts by a member concerning the Temple Census which affected all Jews could have been the reason for this quite separate action of his.

Ergo, I think that Luke took real events, and then used them as truth pills in a manipulated and fictional account.

RESPONSE: Yes. That has always been questionable. Some writers claimed that the practice used the original family location. However, as a practical matter, the Romans wanted the citizen to return to his actual present home so his present wealth could be assessed and taxes assigned accordingly.

However, there is the possibility (or probablity?) that the nativity narratives were written sometime after the gospels and attached to Matthew and Luke.

The earliest Christians, the Ebionites, who remained loyal to Mosaic Law as Christ had taught, had an early strata of Matthew's gospel that didn't seem to contain nativity narratives. Hence, they rejected these and any later claims that Jesus had been divine in addition to being the Messiah.

[oldbadger]

I have always found it to be strange that Luke tried to show that a Galilean handworker would need to report to a Judean township as part of a Census for Idumea, Judea and Samaria, the provinces taken over by Rome after Auchelaus was removed from office.

Further, I don't think that too many Galileans could have been related to Jews such as David and Soloman because they were comparatively recent converts.

The only aspect which argued against my mindset was that a Judas the Galilean revolted against the census, and I could not figure out why. But recent posts by a member concerning the Temple Census which affected all Jews could have been the reason for this quite separate action of his.

Ergo, I think that Luke took real events, and then used them as truth pills in a manipulated and fictional account.

RESPONSE: Yes. That has always been questionable. Some writers claimed that the practice used the original family location. However, as a practical matter, the Romans wanted the citizen to return to his actual present home so his present wealth could be assessed and taxes assigned accordingly.

However, there is the possibility (or probablity?) that the nativity narratives were written sometime after the gospels and attached to Matthew and Luke.

The earliest Christians, the Ebionites, who remained loyal to Mosaic Law as Christ had taught, had an early strata of Matthew's gospel that didn't seem to contain nativity narratives. Hence, they rejected these and any later claims that Jesus had been divine in addition to being the Messiah.

Ah... yes! If only we could see the original gospels of Mark, Q, and any others before evangelists got to embellish them. I'm not so much suggesting that the evangelists were fibbers as to suggest that their enraptured love drove them to make their editions....... they probably meant well, but just left us with the problems of unravelling it all.

Taking truths such as Herod's death 4BC, Quirinius's census 6AD, there being no room in any inns (anywhere near Jerusalem) during Great Feasts, etc, and then spinning these 'truth pills' into the total fabrication of the nativity did work well for millenia but we're unspinning it all now.

And the idea that John the Baptist and Jesus were relatives is completely undone three decades later when John sends some of his discioples to ask Jesus, 'Are you really the one?'

In fact, both Matthews'and Luke's nativities and descent descriptions just seem (to me) like embarrassing stories now.

[marakorpa]

[marakorpa]

Sorry about the duplication in my previous post. Is there an edit function here?

[marakorpa]