Discrepancies In the Nativity Story

[JohnnyRudick]

Originally Posted by Enlil-An

Even without the phrase, "turned aside", it's still obvious that Joseph was planning on returning to Judea.

Answer these questions the best you can.

1. Why was Joseph afraid when he found out Herod's son ruled in Judea?

2. How was going to Galilee a solution to this problem?

It precludes it from being a return journey which is what it is in Luke.

What does it really matter whether Luke thought they both came from Nazareth or just one of them came from there? The point is that Luke has them make a journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem and then back to Nazareth. This Journey does not occur in Matthew.

No, none of them knew about any prophecy of the Messiah coming out of Nazareth...

John 1:45-46 - "Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?"

John 7:41-42 - "Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?"

John 7:50-52 - "Nicodemus saith unto them, (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,) Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth? They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet."

I don't believe that applies to John in this situation.

Do you have sources of these?

All of the prophecies Matthew quotes in reference to Jesus' birth are taken completely out of context. All of them.

The only ones who don't believe Matthew's prophecies are bogus are those who refuse to accept the premise that Matthew could be lying.

They don't compliment each other. They contradict each other. In Luke, they stay about a month and return straight back to Nazareth. In Matthew they stay in Bethlehem long enough to find a house (the Bible says Jesus was 2 years old which means he was about 1 year old) and escape to Egypt before moving to a little town called Nazareth.

The problem is that how can Matthew and Luke claim that Jesus is the Messiah when everyone knows that the Messiah is supposed to come from Bethlehem and Jesus comes from Nazareth. Both authors tackle the same problem from different angles. Matthew's story starts out at Bethlehem and ends up in Nazareth in an attempt to save the young baby's life. Luke's story starts at Nazareth and has the divine family travel to Bethlehem for the census which just happened to coincide with the Savior's birth and then travel back to Nazareth after it's over. There is no dangerous escape from Judean authorities or anything of the sort.

To my mind, neither authors deglected parts of the original story. The simplist thing to me is to see them as two different stories altogether.

The scripture says Jesus was two years old. Either way, it's of little matter because the Savior never comes to the attention of any Judean authorities in the gospel of Luke. His parents present him at the temple after which they peacefully return back to Nazareth no one pursuing them at all.

It definately wasn't known to Luke. I personally think John believed Jesus really was born at Nazareth and just doesn't care. In John's gospel, worrying about where the Savior is born is nothing more than a stumbling block for those who are outside God's favor.

That's assuming of course that Luke is correct about that part of history when he was wrong about other parts. No other gospel mentions any relatives in Judea.

Luke 2:22, 39 - "And when the days of [Mary's] purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished [33 days according to Leviticus], they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord...And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth."

Also notice the difference in wording between the two gospels here:

Luke "They returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth."

Matthew "He turned aside into the parts of Galilee: and he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth."

I have read this thread through at least three times and gone over Matthew and Luke
over and over looked at all the notes that I can still discern and I see no problem with
the narratives


Not two different stories,

Just two different accounts.


One from a student of the legal perspective.
(Matthew)



And one from a doctors perspective.
(Luke)

Just cannot see your problem.

I have heard these arguments years ago and have found them mostly to be from people just trying to find discrepancies in the Scripture.

I can't find it

I am sure that does not include you.


Bro. Rudick

[Enlil-An]

I can't help you, Brother Rudick. I wasn't looking for discrepencies when I found this out. When someone first told me the birth narratives contradicted eachother, I didn't believe them. But once they showed me how they contradicted eachother, it took me only one reading of both accounts and I saw it right away.

[volgadon]

Originally Posted by Enlil-An

Even without the phrase, "turned aside", it's still obvious that Joseph was planning on returning to Judea.

Answer these questions the best you can.

1. Why was Joseph afraid when he found out Herod's son ruled in Judea?

2. How was going to Galilee a solution to this problem?

You are parroting. I addressed the issue, why don't you refute it.
You are focusing on it being Herod's son, when the problem is not that, but the cruel and bloody Archelaus. Going to the Galilee solves that problem because Archelaus had no control in Galilee.

What does it really matter whether Luke thought they both came from Nazareth or just one of them came from there? The point is that Luke has them make a journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem and then back to Nazareth. This Journey does not occur in Matthew.

The journey is not excplicitely mentioned in Matthew, no, but what precludes it?
Anyway, if Joseph wasn't from Nazareth he could have been from Bethlehem, or at least from there originaly.
Another possibility is that Matthew didn't care where Mary and Joseph were from, the important thing to his audience was how the birth fit into Jesus's role as Messiah. Also, mentioning Nazareth explicitly might have weakened the account or at the very least, distracted from it.

No, none of them knew about any prophecy of the Messiah coming out of Nazareth...

John 1:45-46 - "Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?"

John 7:41-42 - "Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?"

John 7:50-52 - "Nicodemus saith unto them, (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,) Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth? They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet."

I've addressed Nathaniel.

The arugment among the crown in 7:41-42 has nothing to do with what Matthew said, that he should be called a Nazarene. I suspect that Christ being born in Bethlehem was not known to everyone. Nowhere does it say that this should be a way for him to prove that he is the Messiah.

Those talking to Nicodemus are obviously ignoring the good amount of OT prophets who HAVE arisen out of Galilee. There are though several traditions about the Messiah appearing out of Galilee, look up Arbel. A prophet however is not a messiah necesarily.

I don't believe that applies to John in this situation.

What do you mean?

Do you have sources of these?

Yes, but I didn't jot down notes, so I'll have to search again.

All of the prophecies Matthew quotes in reference to Jesus' birth are taken completely out of context. All of them.

Or they have multiple applications, an aspect of OT prophecy which is accepted by academics. Yes, Hosea is talking about the Exodus, but why isn't he talking about Christ as well, seeing as the Exodus is a type and shadow of Christ.

The only ones who don't believe Matthew's prophecies are bogus are those who refuse to accept the premise that Matthew could be lying.

And why should we accept that premise if it can be refuted?

They don't compliment each other. They contradict each other. In Luke, they stay about a month and return straight back to Nazareth. In Matthew they stay in Bethlehem long enough to find a house (the Bible says Jesus was 2 years old which means he was about 1 year old) and escape to Egypt before moving to a little town called Nazareth.

How long does it take to find a house?
It is about a year or two from the point the star appeared to the magi, not neccessarily from Jesus's birth.

The problem is that how can Matthew and Luke claim that Jesus is the Messiah when everyone knows that the Messiah is supposed to come from Bethlehem and Jesus comes from Nazareth. Both authors tackle the same problem from different angles. Matthew's story starts out at Bethlehem and ends up in Nazareth in an attempt to save the young baby's life. Luke's story starts at Nazareth and has the divine family travel to Bethlehem for the census which just happened to coincide with the Savior's birth and then travel back to Nazareth after it's over. There is no dangerous escape from Judean authorities or anything of the sort.

To my mind, neither authors deglected parts of the original story. The simplist thing to me is to see them as two different stories altogether.

But you at least accept that neglecting parts of the story is a reasonable and likely possibility, just as likely as yours.

The scripture says Jesus was two years old. Either way, it's of little matter because the Savior never comes to the attention of any Judean authorities in the gospel of Luke. His parents present him at the temple after which they peacefully return back to Nazareth no one pursuing them at all.

It says he was under two.

It definately wasn't known to Luke. I personally think John believed Jesus really was born at Nazareth and just doesn't care. In John's gospel, worrying about where the Savior is born is nothing more than a stumbling block for those who are outside God's favor.

And he is right (about stumbling blocks, not your opinion that John believed Jesus was born in Nazareth), but that is neither here nor there.

That's assuming of course that Luke is correct about that part of history when he was wrong about other parts. No other gospel mentions any relatives in Judea.

On what grounds do you throw out everything in Luke?

[Enlil-An]

You are focusing on it being Herod's son, when the problem is not that, but the cruel and bloody Archelaus. Going to the Galilee solves that problem because Archelaus had no control in Galilee.

The point is that if Joseph was planning on going to Galilee in the first place, why worry about who was ruling in Judea?

The journey is not excplicitely mentioned in Matthew, no, but what precludes it?

Because Matthew makes it quite clear that the divine family only end up in Nazareth by an inconvenient set of circumstances. They never had any intention of going there originally. "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth." Unlike Luke who says, "they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth."

Another possibility is that Matthew didn't care where Mary and Joseph were from, the important thing to his audience was how the birth fit into Jesus's role as Messiah. Also, mentioning Nazareth explicitly might have weakened the account or at the very least, distracted from it.

You're reaching. There is no evidence for any of this.

I've addressed Nathaniel.

The arugment among the crown in 7:41-42 has nothing to do with what Matthew said, that he should be called a Nazarene. I suspect that Christ being born in Bethlehem was not known to everyone. Nowhere does it say that this should be a way for him to prove that he is the Messiah.

Those talking to Nicodemus are obviously ignoring the good amount of OT prophets who HAVE arisen out of Galilee. There are though several traditions about the Messiah appearing out of Galilee, look up Arbel. A prophet however is not a messiah necesarily.

Your explaination of Nathaniel's ignorance of messianic prophecies is weak to say the least. The Jewish crowd in John 7 shows that, contrary to what Matthew says, there is no prophecy written or oral that says the Messiah would be from Nazareth. If John really believed that Jesus was from Bethlehem, he would have corrected their mistake for his readers but he doesn't. Reading the gospel of John, no one would know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem either. John's Pharisees are ignorant about a lot of things including the Jewish captivity in Babylon (which demonstrates more that John's account is inacurrate), but I think they were telling Nicodemus that there was no prophecy of any prophet arising out of Galilee which I think is true. There is definately no tradition of the Messiah coming out of Galilee and especially none of him coming from Mt. Arbel.

What do you mean?

Meaning that there is no evidence to show that the Jews were denying prophecies of the Messiah coming out of Nazareth because they didn't like the idea. Everything in John's gospel denotes that they were sincerely confused because there were no such prophecies or traditions. And John never corrects them on this fact for the benifit of his readers.

Or they have multiple applications, an aspect of OT prophecy which is accepted by academics. Yes, Hosea is talking about the Exodus, but why isn't he talking about Christ as well, seeing as the Exodus is a type and shadow of Christ.

Because there is no evidence for that. There are no examples of prophecies with multiple meanings in the Old Testament without the author revealing them. This is just pure conjecture.

The only ones who don't believe Matthew's prophecies are bogus are those who refuse to accept the premise that Matthew could be lying.

And why should we accept that premise if it can be refuted?

Because it can't be refuted. All those who have tried have resorted to implossible conjecture none of which is based on any real evidence.

How long does it take to find a house?
It is about a year or two from the point the star appeared to the magi, not neccessarily from Jesus's birth.

Herod inquires as to the time of the star's appearence to determine the Savior's birth. But even if the Savior was only two days old when the wise men found him, it makes no difference because the accounts contradict eachother. In Luke Jesus' life isn't threatened at all and they don't escape to Egypt. Wise men don't come to visit and there's no star announcing the Savior's birth.

But you at least accept that neglecting parts of the story is a reasonable and likely possibility, just as likely as yours.

No I don't. The plot of both narratives doesn't allow for them to be different highlights of the same story. They are two totally different stories. Even if you could force them together ignoring the blatant contradictions there is still a problem. None of the events in Matthew are mentioned in Luke while none of the events in Luke are mentioned in Matthew. The odds of two independant authors recounting the same history and not covering at least one event twice is so astronomical as to be impossible.

It says he was under two.

No it says that Herod ordered the deaths of all boys two years of age and younger. It doens't specifically say that Jesus was under two. Even if it did, saying a child is under two and saying they are a month old is very differenct, don't you think.

On what grounds do you throw out everything in Luke?

On the grounds of his dubious history. Herod was not alive during the rein of Quirinius and Quirinius' census didn't require people to travel to their ancestral home. Also the fact that nothing Luke says in his first couple of chapters can be corroborated in any of the other Gospels including Matthew's.

[volgadon]

Originally Posted by Enlil-An

The point is that if Joseph was planning on going to Galilee in the first place, why worry about who was ruling in Judea?

because he had to travel through.

Because Matthew makes it quite clear that the divine family only end up in Nazareth by an inconvenient set of circumstances. They never had any intention of going there originally. "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth." Unlike Luke who says, "they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth."

In the Hebrew and Slavonic it reads he arrived in the city Nazareth and lived there. That is an entirely neutral statement, which does not exclude the possibility of them knowing it earlier.

You're reaching. There is no evidence for any of this.

Not any more than you. I'm speculating based on the text.

Your explaination of Nathaniel's ignorance of messianic prophecies is weak to say the least. The Jewish crowd in John 7 shows that, contrary to what Matthew says, there is no prophecy written or oral that says the Messiah would be from Nazareth. If John really believed that Jesus was from Bethlehem, he would have corrected their mistake for his readers but he doesn't. Reading the gospel of John, no one would know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem either. John's Pharisees are ignorant about a lot of things including the Jewish captivity in Babylon (which demonstrates more that John's account is inacurrate), but I think they were telling Nicodemus that there was no prophecy of any prophet arising out of Galilee which I think is true. There is definately no tradition of the Messiah coming out of Galilee and especially none of him coming from Mt. Arbel.

Really? None at all? Try Menachem ben Amiel. Were I to look outside my window, I would see Mt Arbel, so I think it is rich to claim that there are no traditions.

Meaning that there is no evidence to show that the Jews were denying prophecies of the Messiah coming out of Nazareth because they didn't like the idea. Everything in John's gospel denotes that they were sincerely confused because there were no such prophecies or traditions. And John never corrects them on this fact for the benifit of his readers.

Meaning that I don't take notes as well as I ought to when I come across things.
As I have indicated, John's gospel does not make that out to be the case.

Because there is no evidence for that. There are no examples of prophecies with multiple meanings in the Old Testament without the author revealing them. This is just pure conjecture.

There most certainly are and the author does not always reveal them. This is especially true of Isaiah.

Here's a question for you, what does it mean if Nephi supports Matthew's interpretations?

Because it can't be refuted. All those who have tried have resorted to implossible conjecture none of which is based on any real evidence.

That Matthew lied is neither the only nor the likeliest of possibilites.

Herod inquires as to the time of the star's appearence to determine the Savior's birth. But even if the Savior was only two days old when the wise men found him, it makes no difference because the accounts contradict eachother. In Luke Jesus' life isn't threatened at all and they don't escape to Egypt. Wise men don't come to visit and there's no star announcing the Savior's birth.

Yes we know what each account omits.

No I don't. The plot of both narratives doesn't allow for them to be different highlights of the same story. They are two totally different stories. Even if you could force them together ignoring the blatant contradictions there is still a problem. None of the events in Matthew are mentioned in Luke while none of the events in Luke are mentioned in Matthew. The odds of two independant authors recounting the same history and not covering at least one event twice is so astronomical as to be impossible.

I'll recommend this again. Read up on historiography of the late classical period, that might lay to rest some of your presentist assumptions. These are two different accounts written for two very different target audiences and bearing two different agendas.

No it says that Herod ordered the deaths of all boys two years of age and younger. It doens't specifically say that Jesus was under two. Even if it did, saying a child is under two and saying they are a month old is very differenct, don't you think.

All that verse means is that Herod was taking no chances.

On the grounds of his dubious history. Herod was not alive during the rein of Quirinius and Quirinius' census didn't require people to travel to their ancestral home. Also the fact that nothing Luke says in his first couple of chapters can be corroborated in any of the other Gospels including Matthew's.

Then according to your strict criteria, one would have to throw out 90% if not all primary sources ever written.

[Enlil-An]

because he had to travel through.

Try and think at least 3 steps ahead, volgadon. If Joseph had to travel through Judea to get to Galilee and he was headed to Galilee already, why does Matthew say that he went to Galilee because Archelaus was ruler over Judea?

It's obvious, isn't it? Joseph was originally heading to Judea, not Galilee. When he found out Archelaus was ruler over Judea, he changed his mind and went to Galilee. You yourself said that he moved to Galilee because Archelaus had no control over Galilee. But in saying that you contradicted what you said earlier that he was always planning on going there anyway. Matthew says Joseph only went to Galilee because Archelaus reigned in Judea.

In the Hebrew and Slavonic it reads he arrived in the city Nazareth and lived there. That is an entirely neutral statement, which does not exclude the possibility of them knowing it earlier.

I never said that. I said it precludes the possibility of their arrival there being a return journey. Look at the way Matthew phrases it as opposed to the way Luke phrases it:

Matthew "He turned aside into the parts of Galilee: and he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth."

Luke "They returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth."

See the difference?

Not any more than you. I'm speculating based on the text.

No, you're speculating based on the Chrismas programs you were raised on that merge Matthew and Luke together to make one story and your painfully twisting the scriptural passages to make it work...which it doesn't.

Really? None at all? Try Menachem ben Amiel. Were I to look outside my window, I would see Mt Arbel, so I think it is rich to claim that there are no traditions.

You're trying too hard to spin the things I've claimed. I never said that Mt Arbel had no traditions. I said that there are no prophecies befor Christ stating that the Messiah would have any association with Mt Arbel. And I stick by that claim until you can prove otherwise without sending me on another wild goose chase.

Meaning that I don't take notes as well as I ought to when I come across things.
As I have indicated, John's gospel does not make that out to be the case.

When you find the information again, let me know.

There most certainly are and the author does not always reveal them. This is especially true of Isaiah.

Chapter and verse, please?

Here's a question for you, what does it mean if Nephi supports Matthew's interpretations?

He doesn't. And if he did it would be strong evidence against the Book of Mormon or it would mean that Nephi is reading the the Old Testament in Greek just like Matthew which is an impossibility.

That Matthew lied is neither the only nor the likeliest of possibilites.

Assersions without argument to back them up is worthless and a waste of time.

I'll recommend this again. Read up on historiography of the late classical period, that might lay to rest some of your presentist assumptions. These are two different accounts written for two very different target audiences and bearing two different agendas.

No. The idea that methodology of the "historiography of the late classical period" some how supports your idea that two contradictory stories can both be true is just rediculous. If you've got any real evidence that these two opposing birth narratives are compatible, provide a link. I'm not going on another one of your wild goose chases.

All that verse means is that Herod was taking no chances.

It means that the star appeared in the sky about a year before the wise men arrived at Jerusalem.

On the grounds of his dubious history. Herod was not alive during the rein of Quirinius and Quirinius' census didn't require people to travel to their ancestral home. Also the fact that nothing Luke says in his first couple of chapters can be corroborated in any of the other Gospels including Matthew's.

Then according to your strict criteria, one would have to throw out 90% if not all primary sources ever written.

Don't be silly. All three of those points I made are supposed to go together. If there was another source that somehow supported Luke's dubious claims his story might stand a chance. But Luke stands alone on his position and all other historical sources refute what he says.

Edited to add: Luke is far from being a primary source for Roman and Israelite history in 1 BC. The primary sources for that time say that Luke is wrong.

[JohnnyRudick]

Originally Posted by Enlil-An

I can't help you, Brother Rudick. I wasn't looking for discrepencies when I found this out. When someone first told me the birth narratives contradicted eachother, I didn't believe them. But once they showed me how they contradicted eachother, it took me only one reading of both accounts and I saw it right away.

In the Accounts of Matthew and Luke where they mention the events which transpire during the first few years of Jesus' life concern very few verses.

The Wisemen coming to the house being led by the star rather then going on to Bethlehem could very well have been led to Nazareth where I believe they returned to after the circumcision.

Joseph takes his family from Nazareth and heads to Egypt.

Coming back from Egypt they settle in Galilee in or near Nazareth.

I find no problem in any of the Gospels concerning this.


I know.


You can't help me


Bro, Rudick

[volgadon]

Johhny, that is a wonderful theory, except for one problem. Matthew is very adamant about Bethlehem.

[volgadon]

Originally Posted by Enlil-An

Try and think at least 3 steps ahead, volgadon. If Joseph had to travel through Judea to get to Galilee and he was headed to Galilee already, why does Matthew say that he went to Galilee because Archelaus was ruler over Judea?

It's obvious, isn't it? Joseph was originally heading to Judea, not Galilee. When he found out Archelaus was ruler over Judea, he changed his mind and went to Galilee. You yourself said that he moved to Galilee because Archelaus had no control over Galilee. But in saying that you contradicted what you said earlier that he was always planning on going there anyway. Matthew says Joseph only went to Galilee because Archelaus reigned in Judea.

What a pathetic attempt to set a snare. Your question was 1. Why was Joseph afraid when he found out Herod's son ruled in Judea?
2. How was going to Galilee a solution to this problem?
You did not ask was Joseph going to live in Judaea. I don't see how my answers contradict my position that Joseph was passing through. If Archelaus was a murderus nutcase, then passing through land under his control was scary to Joseph, who had a wife and kid. Archelaus has no control over the Galilee, so there is no problem with living there.

The text does not say that Joseph went to the Galilee because Archelaus ruled over Judaea. The text says that he was afraid to go through Judaea, because Archelaus ruled there. What we have is a case of Joseph being given a command from God to go to a certain place, yet is scared to do so, because he has to pass through a dangerous area. He overcomes those fears because he was commanded in a dream to do so and if God commands, then he will provide a way. The warned in verse 22 is rendered commanded in every other translation I have.

So no, it isn't obvious.

I never said that. I said it precludes the possibility of their arrival there being a return journey. Look at the way Matthew phrases it as opposed to the way Luke phrases it:

Matthew "He turned aside into the parts of Galilee: and he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth."

Luke "They returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth."

See the difference?

It precludes nothing.

If I were to say in the summer of 2007 I went by train through the city of Krasnodar, yet my friend says he went through the city of Krasnodar, where he had previously been, which is the contradictory statement?
Or if I said that in the summer of 2008 whilst living in the village of Livnim I found a job in a towen called Hatzor, does that preclude my having lived there in the past?

No, you're speculating based on the Chrismas programs you were raised on that merge Matthew and Luke together to make one story and your painfully twisting the scriptural passages to make it work...which it doesn't.

You are trying some put-downs. I haven't painfuly twisted anything, but I've challenged some of your assumptions. And guess what, I was raised in an environment which doesn't believe in Christ, so I've heard all these arguments way before you brought them up.

You're trying too hard to spin the things I've claimed. I never said that Mt Arbel had no traditions. I said that there are no prophecies befor Christ stating that the Messiah would have any association with Mt Arbel. And I stick by that claim until you can prove otherwise without sending me on another wild goose chase.

What spin? I took your statement at face value. "There is definately no tradition of the Messiah coming out of Galilee and especially none of him coming from Mt. Arbel."
Most Jewish traditions were written down years later, because before the destruction of the temple, they considered it a sin to write down the oral teachings. Here is another wild goose chase for you. Learn a bit about the Mishan, Talmud and other ancient Jewish writings.

When you find the information again, let me know.

Will do.

Chapter and verse, please?

Here's one off the top of my head. Isaiah 9:1-2.
The first time the prophecy was fulfilled was when the Assyrians suffered defeat. The second was when Christ began his ministry and dwelt in Capernaum, and before you go saying that Matthew twisted the verse out of context you should realise that tzalmaveth, the word translated as the shadow of death, was another term for hell. The third fulfilment was in 2007, when the Galilee Branch meeting house was dedicated. Elder Holland explicitely stated so, so that isn't my interpretation.

He doesn't. And if he did it would be strong evidence against the Book of Mormon or it would mean that Nephi is reading the the Old Testament in Greek just like Matthew which is an impossibility.

Must have been reading a different Nephi. He states that Mary is a virgin.

Assersions without argument to back them up is worthless and a waste of time.

When formulating a theory, you really do need to consider all the other possibilities, if just to rule them out.

Here is one no less likely than your own. Scribal error and corrupted texts.

No. The idea that methodology of the "historiography of the late classical period" some how supports your idea that two contradictory stories can both be true is just rediculous. If you've got any real evidence that these two opposing birth narratives are compatible, provide a link. I'm not going on another one of your wild goose chases.

What you term a wild goose chase I term learning. I really don't care if you won't learn more about it, your loss.

It means that the star appeared in the sky about a year before the wise men arrived at Jerusalem.

But did it appear when Jesus was born, or before.

Don't be silly. All three of those points I made are supposed to go together. If there was another source that somehow supported Luke's dubious claims his story might stand a chance. But Luke stands alone on his position and all other historical sources refute what he says.

Edited to add: Luke is far from being a primary source for Roman and Israelite history in 1 BC. The primary sources for that time say that Luke is wrong.

Luke is still a primary source, even the majority of Israeli scholars consider it as such. Not all primary sources share the same degree of accuracy though.

[volgadon]

And another thing, where in John are the pharisees ignorant of the captivity?