Jesus' Nativity and birth

know1 wrote:

Who said the magi arrived the night of his birth? I've always interpreted the story as they arrived at some point after his birth after following the star from "afar". They even stopped to visit with Herod on the way there.

i know this from my christmas quiz at work.... they arrived 12 days after his birth.

dunkman wrote:

know1 wrote:

Who said the magi arrived the night of his birth? I've always interpreted the story as they arrived at some point after his birth after following the star from "afar". They even stopped to visit with Herod on the way there.

i know this from my christmas quiz at work.... they arrived 12 days after his birth.

Thus Epiphany!

OutOfBreath wrote:

Just reading through the gospels right now, actually, and what strikes me is how much they disagree about the birth of Jesus, and how it went down. Some have wise men as leading actors, others have them nowhere. One recount flight to Egypt, which the others ignores. John doesn't even state that he really is born in Betlehem at all, in fact it is mentioned as an argument against him when debating his messiah-hood. John just skips the whole thing actually. Yet another (Luke, I think) focus on the relation between Jesus' mom and John the baptist's mom being friends.

Seems to me noone really knew, and inserted the beginning of the story that suited them the best. Some wanted him to be in Bethlehem to tie him to David, others were more concerned in tying him in with the baptist, and John, just skips to grown-up Jesus and makes him out to really be from Galilee.

As for why I'm reading the gospels right now, it's out of archeological/historical interest as well as I want to know for myself what the bible really says and reads like. I finished OT last summer, and started on the NT a few weeks ago. Generally unimpressed with the wit and coherency of the parables, and as I mentioned, find it interesting how much the gospels differ in tone and content.

Peace
Dan

One thought on the different tone and content of the gospels...

If you ask four fans to describe the same Pearl Jam show one may tell you about the amazing opening song, while another may tell you about the bands energy, still another will talk about the rare b-sides they played, and of course there will be one who complains about his seat. Now, maybe two of the four mentioned the opener, and three mentioned the b-sides, while all four mentioned the energy (but all with different explanations), while only the one guy complained about his seat. All four are telling the same story but telling it very DIFFERENTLY - it doesn't make any of them wrong, they just have a different point of view, or a different focus, or a different message to their story. I think this is what we have in the four gospels.

spamsonite wrote:

One thought on the different tone and content of the gospels...

If you ask four fans to describe the same Pearl Jam show one may tell you about the amazing opening song, while another may tell you about the bands energy, still another will talk about the rare b-sides they played, and of course there will be one who complains about his seat. Now, maybe two of the four mentioned the opener, and three mentioned the b-sides, while all four mentioned the energy (but all with different explanations), while only the one guy complained about his seat. All four are telling the same story but telling it very DIFFERENTLY - it doesn't make any of them wrong, they just have a different point of view, or a different focus, or a different message to their story. I think this is what we have in the four gospels.

Well, if it was just different tone and emphasis, that might fly. But it's more than that.

The analogy (which I've heard in several variants before) is flawed, because it assumes the gospels are eye-witness accounts written down just after the events. The gospels aren't that. At the best case estimates, the earliest gospels were written some 30 years afterwards, and even then patched together from various sources by supporters.

My interpretation is that Jesus inspired a following and disciples and gained a reputation for being a miracleman (like any respectable prophet), and his followers spread the cult further. The gospels are the vehicles for spreading the faith, put together by people who had that purpose. It seems Jesus' origins in particular were subject for revisionism depending on the intended audience. For jews, he had to be of David's bloodline (hence the trip to Bethlehem), for others, that wasn't important so the device to place him in Davids line were left out. Also the wise men, Herod's slaying of infants etc borrow from earlier mythology and is intended to lend authority and importance from birth.

He was in the accounts given the birth and origins as befits a king in some way or other. Except John, being the most platonic greek gospel, focuses on Jesus being the word incarnate and ignores all such devices altogether. So I'm tempted to disbelieve the entire narrative of his birth altogether, since when you add the gospels up, they can't all be right at the same time.

My interpretation anyway.

Peace
Dan

spamsonite wrote:

There's no doubt you're right about the purpose of the gospel's, they were indeed meant to further the message of Jesus, and were written accordingly, but I'm not sure that having a purpose or message to telling a story automatically makes the story fiction.

And you're also right about the time between the events in the gospels and the gospels being written. It was AT LEAST 30 years between Jesus' death and the first written gospel, probably around 60 years between the crucifixion and the writing of John. But again, I'm not sure that makes them fiction. If time between an event and writing it down nullifies the writing we'd have to throw out every history book we use.

I don't believe the gospels claim to be eyewitness accounts, two for sure (Mark and Luke) were not written by apostles, and all the gospels tell stories that occurred when the writer wasn't there. But like every account of history they were "patched together from various sources".

PS Thanks for the discussion, and not just angry railing like too many (on both sides) can be guilty of!

Alright then, you pretty much agreed with me then.

Apart from the fiction part, sort of. My point with that is that many I've heard from and talked to (raised by baptists), they read the book like you would a court record or something. And further, since some "artistic license" was involved in some of the parts, that sort of puts the other bits on not so solid ground when it comes to factuality. So he probably performed some miracles, but they may also be grossly exaggerated in order to impress. Given some decades before event and writing, there's plenty of room for falsehoods and exaggerations to slip in. (Ever play the whispering game, or the copy the lines on a note and pass on games?) I know I do put in exaggerations in my stories to make them more interesting from time to time. Or further exaggerate on a story I've heard.

Point is, you find some historic material on, say, the biography of a king, you rarely take it at face-value, as he's wont to put himself in the best possible light. And stories like that, is really all we have of Jesus. No non-supporter sources mention him much apart from perhaps and arguably his name in roman records. That's what's tricky about it. There's a core, and that's a holy man with a following who was most likely executed. The cult remains spread to the greeks, meshed with platonic philosophy and turned into christianity. That last part is my own theory striaght from the arm-chair.

And since the most edited and widely differing part of the gospels is his birth, I have a suspicion his birth went by and large unrecorded, and probably not in Bethlehem. The wise men/Herod thing is borrowed almost wholesale from earlier mesopotamian myths in the gospels that have them, and the necessity to go to another city in order to be counted in a census sounds rather silly, since censuses are supposed to find out who and how many people live where, and not make them go to where their supposed ancestors were from. The point here is to underscore the "from humble beginnings" theme (powerful in myths) and also couple it with a dash of "royal decent" for those who'd fancy that.

As a general statement, after reading through the OT and the gospels of the NT, I think it's mad to be strict fundamentalist about the exact wordings. If we're allowed some interpretative adjustments, it's better, but I still don't see it as anything more special than any other ancient tome of a book. Any book that can trace it origins a couple of thousand years is by default historically interesting. But consulting it today on any other level than "don't be bad and do good stuff"...

Getting off my soapbox now. I think I was being mostly on topic.

Peace
Dan