Evidence That Jesus Was Married to Mary Magdalene? (1 Viewer)

[Psychopav]

Parts are similar because the authors of Matthew and Luke used the book of Mark for certain stories.

How do you know this?

Because most all bible scholars regard it as the earliest gospel.

But that doesn't mean the other guys copied it. In fact, what you're writing now contradicts your earlier argument. If the later Gospel writers were all about copying the first Gospel, why would they only copy part of it? Why not copy the whole thing? Why would there be contradictions?

There aren't really contradictions between Mark and Luke or between Mark and Matthew. There are elaborations in the new material. 3/4 of what's in Mark is in all three synoptic Gospels. Another 18% of Mark appears only in Matthew. And another 1% appears only in Luke. Which means that only 3% of Mark appears elsewhere. As between Matthew and Luke there is an additional 25% or so of shared content that is not derived from Mark (which is why scholars hypothesize about "the Q Gospel" and the "two source hypothesis"), as Matthew takes a bit more of Mark, Matthew has a little less unique content than Luke. As might be expected, it is between this "unique" content that Matthew and Luke contradict each other.

Do you have a link on this? I'd like to read more about it.

 

[PatsFanCT]

So the "Last Supper" was pretty much a stag party. That changes everything.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

If a piece of paper with my name and the word "wife" is found this afternoon, it means I'm married? If it quotes me as saying "I'm married to my work", it means my marital status is no longer single? Saying "booze and poker are my mistresses" means I'm cheating on my spouse?You people are trying too hard to see what you want to see.

Who in this thread are claiming this document is proving that?I see some people who who are claiming (wrongly, I believe) that this document should be afforded the same evidentiary weight as the Gospels, but I don't see anyone claiming that this means that there was a historical Christ who was married.

 

[Jayrok]

If the later Gospel writers were all about copying the first Gospel, why would they only copy part of it? Why not copy the whole thing? Why would there be contradictions?

The answer lies within the motives of the authors of each gospel. As mentioned earlier in this thread, the authors were not interested in writing biographies of Jesus and his life. They had theologocal reasons for writing what they did. Matthew didn't "copy" Mark, but used Mark's gospel as a source. He changed some aspects here and there in such a way to correct Mark to be more in line with his (Matt's) theological view. The gospel of John isn't interested in much of what the synoptic gospels describe with regards to relevant events in Jesus' life. He had his own theology to portray to his readers. These writers weren't interested in whether their own accounts contradicted any others. When all of them were bound together in a book, of course contradictions are going to appear. But John wasn't concerned that his story didn't match any of the others. To him, his version of Jesus as the Logos, God encarnate in the flesh, was more important than a roaming Jewish upstart who gathered a following with his teachings. So his version differs in many areas.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Parts are similar because the authors of Matthew and Luke used the book of Mark for certain stories.

How do you know this?

Because most all bible scholars regard it as the earliest gospel.

But that doesn't mean the other guys copied it. In fact, what you're writing now contradicts your earlier argument. If the later Gospel writers were all about copying the first Gospel, why would they only copy part of it? Why not copy the whole thing? Why would there be contradictions?

There aren't really contradictions between Mark and Luke or between Mark and Matthew. There are elaborations in the new material. 3/4 of what's in Mark is in all three synoptic Gospels. Another 18% of Mark appears only in Matthew. And another 1% appears only in Luke. Which means that only 3% of Mark appears elsewhere. As between Matthew and Luke there is an additional 25% or so of shared content that is not derived from Mark (which is why scholars hypothesize about "the Q Gospel" and the "two source hypothesis"), as Matthew takes a bit more of Mark, Matthew has a little less unique content than Luke. As might be expected, it is between this "unique" content that Matthew and Luke contradict each other.

Do you have a link on this? I'd like to read more about it.

I got my details from Wikipedia. Nothing special. I read a few books about it when my wife had a fascination with the Gnostic Gospels about 15 years ago, figuring I should know a little about the actual Gospels. I don't think I'm saying anything that isn't pretty much agreed upon.

 

[Parrothead]

So the "Last Supper" was pretty much a stag party. That changes everything.

lost in translation - "Supper" was meant to be "Stripper" makes more sense.. bunch of dudes sitting around a table drinking waiting for the last stripper to perform..

 

[Jayrok]

Serious question: why isn't there more biographical information about Jesus in the Gospels? For instance, why all the detail of his birth and baptism, and then the timeline jumps to when he is 30 and begins his ministry? What about Jesus the young man, in his teens and 20s?

Even still...the gospels are vastly different. They contradict each other left and right.

They "contradict" each other the same way our stories would "contradict" each other if we were each giving our personal account of the same event.

I think the issue would then be which account is accurate, given the premise that the gospels are infallible/god-breathed/inspired? If one contains incorrect information on an event, for instance, does that result in any damage to the gospel?

We are talking about "details" that really have no impact to the story though. It's not "Jesus is the Son of God" vs "Jesus was some random dude pretending to be God"....it's more "It was cloudy that day" vs "It was raining that day" kind of "contradictions".

well, I believe there are some that might have an impact on the story with regards to historical truth, but I see your point.

 

[Claydon]

If the later Gospel writers were all about copying the first Gospel, why would they only copy part of it? Why not copy the whole thing? Why would there be contradictions?

The answer lies within the motives of the authors of each gospel. As mentioned earlier in this thread, the authors were not interested in writing biographies of Jesus and his life. They had theologocal reasons for writing what they did. Matthew didn't "copy" Mark, but used Mark's gospel as a source. He changed some aspects here and there in such a way to correct Mark to be more in line with his (Matt's) theological view. The gospel of John isn't interested in much of what the synoptic gospels describe with regards to relevant events in Jesus' life. He had his own theology to portray to his readers. These writers weren't interested in whether their own accounts contradicted any others. When all of them were bound together in a book, of course contradictions are going to appear. But John wasn't concerned that his story didn't match any of the others. To him, his version of Jesus as the Logos, God encarnate in the flesh, was more important than a roaming Jewish upstart who gathered a following with his teachings. So his version differs in many areas.

This. Unfortunately your average churchgoer has no idea about any of this, and they believe the bible to be the literal inerrant word of god. And that's why we have crazy Christian fundamentalists.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Parts are similar because the authors of Matthew and Luke used the book of Mark for certain stories.

How do you know this?

Because most all bible scholars regard it as the earliest gospel.

But that doesn't mean the other guys copied it. In fact, what you're writing now contradicts your earlier argument. If the later Gospel writers were all about copying the first Gospel, why would they only copy part of it? Why not copy the whole thing? Why would there be contradictions?

There aren't really contradictions between Mark and Luke or between Mark and Matthew. There are elaborations in the new material. 3/4 of what's in Mark is in all three synoptic Gospels. Another 18% of Mark appears only in Matthew. And another 1% appears only in Luke. Which means that only 3% of Mark appears elsewhere. As between Matthew and Luke there is an additional 25% or so of shared content that is not derived from Mark (which is why scholars hypothesize about "the Q Gospel" and the "two source hypothesis"), as Matthew takes a bit more of Mark, Matthew has a little less unique content than Luke. As might be expected, it is between this "unique" content that Matthew and Luke contradict each other.

Do you have a link on this? I'd like to read more about it.

I got my details from Wikipedia. Nothing special. I read a few books about it when my wife had a fascination with the Gnostic Gospels about 15 years ago, figuring I should know a little about the actual Gospels. I don't think I'm saying anything that isn't pretty much agreed upon.

Not that you need my help on this, but I've read the same argument in a bunch of places as well and this seems to enjoy a pretty broad consensus among biblical scholars. Nobody anywhere disputes that there's a lot of overlap among the first three gospels whereas John is really different.Edit: Just to chime in further, my reading was motivated by basically the same thing -- a curiosity about the apocryphal NT gospels. It turns out that the more you learn about these, the less interesting they become and the better the canonical gospels look. IMO of course.

 

[timschochet]

Unfortunately your average churchgoer has no idea about any of this, and they believe the bible to be the literal inerrant word of god. And that's why we have crazy Christian fundamentalists.

I'd be interested to find out if the average churchgoer truly believes the Bible is inerrant, as you claim. I have a feeling that you're not correct about this, but I have no information one way or another.

 

[CrossEyed]

This is not a new argument. It's been answered.

I'm curious to know what the answer is. Can you briefly explain it?

There are numerous explanations. The simplest one is that there is reason to believe that there was more than one census. Luke 2:2 says it was the first one under Quirinius. There's also good reason to believe that Quirinius was in a position of leadership over Syria on two separate occasions. So it's not that much of a stretch tha there would have been two different censuses.

 

[Claydon]

Unfortunately your average churchgoer has no idea about any of this, and they believe the bible to be the literal inerrant word of god. And that's why we have crazy Christian fundamentalists.

I'd be interested to find out if the average churchgoer truly believes the Bible is inerrant, as you claim. I have a feeling that you're not correct about this, but I have no information one way or another.

As a person living in the south that used to be a fundamentalist evangelical until I was 15 or 16....I can assure you many believe it.

 

[Claydon]

This is not a new argument. It's been answered.

I'm curious to know what the answer is. Can you briefly explain it?

There are numerous explanations. The simplest one is that there is reason to believe that there was more than one census. Luke 2:2 says it was the first one under Quirinius. There's also good reason to believe that Quirinius was in a position of leadership over Syria on two separate occasions. So it's not that much of a stretch tha there would have been two different censuses.

Any links to respected biblical scholars that say this?

 

[Toad_1234]

I believe the Bible to be the true word of God as do many of my friends. No one calls us crazy, they just think we're boring or misled for not having the same values they do. I'm always amazed at the narcissism of people who think the other side must be "stupid" or "crazy" for not seeing it their way.

I've checked out the contradictions in the Gospels. I read through them and was not dissuaded at all. One of them read that because one Gospel said the rooster crowed and another said that it crowed three times here was immutable proof that the Bible was false.

I burst out laughing and moved on.

 

[Jayrok]

This is not a new argument. It's been answered.

I'm curious to know what the answer is. Can you briefly explain it?

Christian apologists have bickered back and forth with skeptics over alleged differences in the birth and resurrection accounts for a long time. Whether or not one finds the "answer" to be acceptable is up to the reader to decide. I believe the accounts differ between Matthew and Luke simply because this story is not present in the book of Mark, another indication that Matt and Luke used Mark as a source. Where a story isn't present in Mark (birth and post-resurrection accounts), Matthew and Luke offer different details. It is believed that Luke may have used Josephus as well to place a timeframe on the birth narrative (e.g. during the time of the Roman census in AD 6). Matthew was more interested in showing Jesus fulfilled Jewish prophecy through his birth and escape to Egypt. Putting Jesus' birth at the time of the census would take it out of the time of King Herod, which is why Joseph fled to Egypt with Jesus and Mary... to get away from Herod.

 

[Psychopav]

Unfortunately your average churchgoer has no idea about any of this, and they believe the bible to be the literal inerrant word of god. And that's why we have crazy Christian fundamentalists.

I'd be interested to find out if the average churchgoer truly believes the Bible is inerrant, as you claim. I have a feeling that you're not correct about this, but I have no information one way or another.

As a person living in the south that used to be a fundamentalist evangelical until I was 15 or 16....I can assure you many believe it.

Although I am a churchgoer I don't know how average I am.I believe that the Bible is inerrant in the areas of faith and morals, but it's not necessary to believe it inerrant in any other areas.

 

[timschochet]

Unfortunately your average churchgoer has no idea about any of this, and they believe the bible to be the literal inerrant word of god. And that's why we have crazy Christian fundamentalists.

I'd be interested to find out if the average churchgoer truly believes the Bible is inerrant, as you claim. I have a feeling that you're not correct about this, but I have no information one way or another.

As a person living in the south that used to be a fundamentalist evangelical until I was 15 or 16....I can assure you many believe it.

I have no doubt that religious Baptists and other fundamentalist-type churchgoers believe it- but when you use the term "average churchgoer," you're referring to a lot more than these people. You're talking about Catholics, Methodists, Epsicopaleans, Lutherans, etc. etc. Do all of these denominations hold that the Bible is inerrant? I doubt it.

 

[Psychopav]

Unfortunately your average churchgoer has no idea about any of this, and they believe the bible to be the literal inerrant word of god. And that's why we have crazy Christian fundamentalists.

I'd be interested to find out if the average churchgoer truly believes the Bible is inerrant, as you claim. I have a feeling that you're not correct about this, but I have no information one way or another.

As a person living in the south that used to be a fundamentalist evangelical until I was 15 or 16....I can assure you many believe it.

Although I am a churchgoer I don't know how average I am.I believe that the Bible is inerrant in the areas of faith and morals, but it's not necessary to believe it inerrant in any other areas.

ps - not surprisingly (if you know me) this is what the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[Claydon]

Unfortunately your average churchgoer has no idea about any of this, and they believe the bible to be the literal inerrant word of god. And that's why we have crazy Christian fundamentalists.

I'd be interested to find out if the average churchgoer truly believes the Bible is inerrant, as you claim. I have a feeling that you're not correct about this, but I have no information one way or another.

As a person living in the south that used to be a fundamentalist evangelical until I was 15 or 16....I can assure you many believe it.

I have no doubt that religious Baptists and other fundamentalist-type churchgoers believe it- but when you use the term "average churchgoer," you're referring to a lot more than these people. You're talking about Catholics, Methodists, Epsicopaleans, Lutherans, etc. etc. Do all of these denominations hold that the Bible is inerrant? I doubt it.

I probably should phrase it differently...as in average protestant churchgoer, especially in the south.The majority of churches around here don't even have pastors that went to seminary school.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

In order to have an honest historocity argument, I think you eventually end up arguing over trivialities. Let's consider four positions.

1. The Gospels and relatively contemporary historical sources provide conclusive proof that a man named Jesus lived, preached, performed miracles, and was resurrected.

2. The Gospels and relatively contemporary historical sources provide proof that is at least as consistent as the proof we have of many other figures in antiquity that a man named Jesus lived and preached a philosophy that his disciples popularized around the ancient the world.

3. The historical record shows that a philosophy attributed to a man named Jesus was popularized around the ancient world by ancient Christians. The evidence cannot establish whether this philosophy was the work of one charismatic man, a composite of multiple historical figure, or a calculated creation of a political movement incorporating common spiritual and political beliefs at the time.

4. The hitorical record proves that the acts attributed to Jesus are simply a myth.

It appears to me that the "historocity" debate normally falls between points 2 and 3. And it all strikes me as a little pointless. Yes, I think the arguments that we "have as much historical evidence of Jesus as we do of Alexander the Great" are silly. We have coins with Alexander the Great. And cities and stuff. While we don't know if any of the histories written of him are correct (as they were written after his death by those with agendas) we can be pretty sure of his existence. But it's also true that we treat other figures from anitquity and historical with far less historical evidence. Cincinattus, for instance. Our "primary sources" for him are 400 years after his death.

Whether there actually was a guy who held dictatorial power only for the 16 days he needed to defend Rome, and who then gave up that power to return to his farm is kind of irrelevant. Because we know that the fact that people told that story was significant.

 

[Toad_1234]

OT but fascinating (not in a good way)...

http://www.mandatory.com/2012/09/19/the-weirdest-game-shows-from-around-the-world/#photo=2

 

[timschochet]

BTW, this debate plays out in Judaism as well. The Hasids, Lubavich, and Orthodox Jews, which perhaps represent 25% of Jews who regularly attend synagogue, believe that the Torah (5 books of Moses) is inerrant. In addition, Hasidic Jews also believe that the Talmud, which represents the rabbinic interpretation of biblical law as it applies to human society, is also inerrant (though most Orthodox don't believe this.)

Conservative and Reform Jews, which represent the vast majority of Jews who regularly attend synagogue, do not regard either work as inerrant. (Though most regard it as generally true).

 

[B-Deep]

did someone make a joke regarding an all knowing god knowing better than to get married?

 

[The Commish]

So they have an excuse for the blatant clash with historical documents?

Here's a tip if you choose to take it...it's probably not best to phrase things this way if you want to actually have productive dialogue OR if you're attempting to present a facade of actually caring when you really don't.

 

[CrossEyed]

This is not a new argument. It's been answered.

I'm curious to know what the answer is. Can you briefly explain it?

There are numerous explanations. The simplest one is that there is reason to believe that there was more than one census. Luke 2:2 says it was the first one under Quirinius. There's also good reason to believe that Quirinius was in a position of leadership over Syria on two separate occasions. So it's not that much of a stretch tha there would have been two different censuses.

Any links to respected biblical scholars that say this?

Respected by who? By you? Probably not.

 

[Marvin]

I believe the Bible to be the true word of God as do many of my friends. No one calls us crazy, they just think we're boring or misled for not having the same values they do. I'm always amazed at the narcissism of people who think the other side must be "stupid" or "crazy" for not seeing it their way.

I've checked out the contradictions in the Gospels. I read through them and was not dissuaded at all. One of them read that because one Gospel said the rooster crowed and another said that it crowed three times here was immutable proof that the Bible was false.

I burst out laughing and moved on.

Allow me. You and your friends are crazy.

 

[meatwad1]

If the later Gospel writers were all about copying the first Gospel, why would they only copy part of it? Why not copy the whole thing? Why would there be contradictions?

The answer lies within the motives of the authors of each gospel. As mentioned earlier in this thread, the authors were not interested in writing biographies of Jesus and his life. They had theologocal reasons for writing what they did. Matthew didn't "copy" Mark, but used Mark's gospel as a source. He changed some aspects here and there in such a way to correct Mark to be more in line with his (Matt's) theological view. The gospel of John isn't interested in much of what the synoptic gospels describe with regards to relevant events in Jesus' life. He had his own theology to portray to his readers. These writers weren't interested in whether their own accounts contradicted any others. When all of them were bound together in a book, of course contradictions are going to appear. But John wasn't concerned that his story didn't match any of the others. To him, his version of Jesus as the Logos, God encarnate in the flesh, was more important than a roaming Jewish upstart who gathered a following with his teachings. So his version differs in many areas.

This. Unfortunately your average churchgoer has no idea about any of this, and they believe the bible to be the literal inerrant word of god. And that's why we have crazy Christian fundamentalists.

Unfortunately the average liberal lemming still believes that the 'crazy Christian fundamentalists' represent the 'average' churchgoer.

 

[timschochet]

Unfortunately your average churchgoer has no idea about any of this, and they believe the bible to be the literal inerrant word of god. And that's why we have crazy Christian fundamentalists.

I'd be interested to find out if the average churchgoer truly believes the Bible is inerrant, as you claim. I have a feeling that you're not correct about this, but I have no information one way or another.

As a person living in the south that used to be a fundamentalist evangelical until I was 15 or 16....I can assure you many believe it.

I have no doubt that religious Baptists and other fundamentalist-type churchgoers believe it- but when you use the term "average churchgoer," you're referring to a lot more than these people. You're talking about Catholics, Methodists, Epsicopaleans, Lutherans, etc. etc. Do all of these denominations hold that the Bible is inerrant? I doubt it.

I probably should phrase it differently...as in average protestant churchgoer, especially in the south.The majority of churches around here don't even have pastors that went to seminary school.

That's fine. But I want to emphasize the point that there is no necessary connection between the belief in inerrancy and ignorance. Most of those who attend a Jesuit seminary, for example, are going to believe in the inerrancy of the New Testament. Almost all of those who attend an Orthodox Yeshiva are going to believe in the inerrancy of the Torah. And these are fine institutions of learning, where the Bible is studied to the nth degree. I know it's pretty common to regard anyone who believes the Bible to be absolutely true as a dumb, uninformed idiot, but this is not always the case.

 

[Claydon]

This is not a new argument. It's been answered.

I'm curious to know what the answer is. Can you briefly explain it?

There are numerous explanations. The simplest one is that there is reason to believe that there was more than one census. Luke 2:2 says it was the first one under Quirinius. There's also good reason to believe that Quirinius was in a position of leadership over Syria on two separate occasions. So it's not that much of a stretch tha there would have been two different censuses.

Any links to respected biblical scholars that say this?

Respected by who? By you? Probably not.

By the majority of biblical scholars.

 

[Marvin]

I believe the Bible to be the true word of God as do many of my friends. No one calls us crazy, they just think we're boring or misled for not having the same values they do. I'm always amazed at the narcissism of people who think the other side must be "stupid" or "crazy" for not seeing it their way.

I've checked out the contradictions in the Gospels. I read through them and was not dissuaded at all. One of them read that because one Gospel said the rooster crowed and another said that it crowed three times here was immutable proof that the Bible was false.

I burst out laughing and moved on.

Allow me. You and your friends are crazy.

 

[Claydon]

If the later Gospel writers were all about copying the first Gospel, why would they only copy part of it? Why not copy the whole thing? Why would there be contradictions?

The answer lies within the motives of the authors of each gospel. As mentioned earlier in this thread, the authors were not interested in writing biographies of Jesus and his life. They had theologocal reasons for writing what they did. Matthew didn't "copy" Mark, but used Mark's gospel as a source. He changed some aspects here and there in such a way to correct Mark to be more in line with his (Matt's) theological view. The gospel of John isn't interested in much of what the synoptic gospels describe with regards to relevant events in Jesus' life. He had his own theology to portray to his readers. These writers weren't interested in whether their own accounts contradicted any others. When all of them were bound together in a book, of course contradictions are going to appear. But John wasn't concerned that his story didn't match any of the others. To him, his version of Jesus as the Logos, God encarnate in the flesh, was more important than a roaming Jewish upstart who gathered a following with his teachings. So his version differs in many areas.

This. Unfortunately your average churchgoer has no idea about any of this, and they believe the bible to be the literal inerrant word of god. And that's why we have crazy Christian fundamentalists.

Unfortunately the average liberal lemming still believes that the 'crazy Christian fundamentalists' represent the 'average' churchgoer.

Rick Santorum won the primary in my state.Yep.

 

[Jayrok]

This is not a new argument. It's been answered.

I'm curious to know what the answer is. Can you briefly explain it?

There are numerous explanations. The simplest one is that there is reason to believe that there was more than one census. Luke 2:2 says it was the first one under Quirinius. There's also good reason to believe that Quirinius was in a position of leadership over Syria on two separate occasions. So it's not that much of a stretch tha there would have been two different censuses.

Not to argue with you over this, but there were reasons for Rome to declare a census. The census in AD 6 was the result of Rome liquidating the new Jewish ruler, King Herod's son, from power after the Jews complained against him. When King Herod the great was alive, there was no reason to have a census because he ensured Rome received their tributes. When he died and his son turned out to be a clown, they removed him and brought in a Roman overseer and put in a system to collect from the region. That is why they needed the census in that part of the empire.

 

[B-Deep]

If the later Gospel writers were all about copying the first Gospel, why would they only copy part of it? Why not copy the whole thing? Why would there be contradictions?

The answer lies within the motives of the authors of each gospel. As mentioned earlier in this thread, the authors were not interested in writing biographies of Jesus and his life. They had theologocal reasons for writing what they did. Matthew didn't "copy" Mark, but used Mark's gospel as a source. He changed some aspects here and there in such a way to correct Mark to be more in line with his (Matt's) theological view. The gospel of John isn't interested in much of what the synoptic gospels describe with regards to relevant events in Jesus' life. He had his own theology to portray to his readers. These writers weren't interested in whether their own accounts contradicted any others. When all of them were bound together in a book, of course contradictions are going to appear. But John wasn't concerned that his story didn't match any of the others. To him, his version of Jesus as the Logos, God encarnate in the flesh, was more important than a roaming Jewish upstart who gathered a following with his teachings. So his version differs in many areas.

This. Unfortunately your average churchgoer has no idea about any of this, and they believe the bible to be the literal inerrant word of god. And that's why we have crazy Christian fundamentalists.

Unfortunately the average liberal lemming still believes that the 'crazy Christian fundamentalists' represent the 'average' churchgoer.

And the average conservative warmonger still thinks osama bin laden represents the average mulsimand that welfare leaches represent the average poor person

 

[Toad_1234]

I believe the Bible to be the true word of God as do many of my friends. No one calls us crazy, they just think we're boring or misled for not having the same values they do. I'm always amazed at the narcissism of people who think the other side must be "stupid" or "crazy" for not seeing it their way.

I've checked out the contradictions in the Gospels. I read through them and was not dissuaded at all. One of them read that because one Gospel said the rooster crowed and another said that it crowed three times here was immutable proof that the Bible was false.

I burst out laughing and moved on.

Allow me. You and your friends are crazy.

Thank you for proving my point!

 

[CrossEyed]

This is not a new argument. It's been answered.

I'm curious to know what the answer is. Can you briefly explain it?

There are numerous explanations. The simplest one is that there is reason to believe that there was more than one census. Luke 2:2 says it was the first one under Quirinius. There's also good reason to believe that Quirinius was in a position of leadership over Syria on two separate occasions. So it's not that much of a stretch tha there would have been two different censuses.

Any links to respected biblical scholars that say this?

Respected by who? By you? Probably not.

By the majority of biblical scholars.

Sure, Darrell Bock. Don't have time to do the research for you, but I'm sure it's out there.

 

[Black Box]

Ehrman, Bart D. (2009-02-20). Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them) (p. 35). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Just to throw out a more conservative scholar's take (Ben Witherington) on what Ehrman is saying here.

Bart carries on in much the same vein in his analysis of the birth narratives. What is of concern to us is not where he sees differences in Matthew and Luke’s accounts, but rather where he finds what he deems to be actual discrepancies. The first of these is that Bart claims that what Luke says in Lk.2.1-3 is clearly historically in error (pp. 34-35). What however does the Greek text of Lk.2.2 actually say--- “this registration happened first/prior to the governing of Syria by Quirinius.” The issue here is the function of the word prote. What it seems to indicate is that the census in question took place prior to when Quirinius was governor of Syria. There was indeed a famous and indeed notorious census which led to the rebellion of Judas the Galilean in A.D. 6, and so Luke would be distinguishing that census from the earlier one when Mary and Joseph were enrolled. Bart also deems the notion of such enrollments as historically improbable, at least in the way Luke tells the story. There are however very clear examples from the province of Egypt of such census taking done for the purpose of taxation. And in fact, the evidence suggests a link with one’s ancestral home. I see no reason why the Romans would do it any differently with the province of Judea. Furthermore, when Augustus decide to go for the full blown Empire deal, he needed much more money for many more troops and armaments.

While Luke may be using rhetorical hyperbole when he says all the oikomene was being enrolled, a rhetorical usage common in Hellenistic historiography influenced by rhetoric, what Luke is referring to is the inhabited Roman empire, outside of Rome itself. In other words, his audience would likely have understood the reference quite easily and naturally. Bart also takes exception to the story of the wise men following the star. He says nothing of the fact that ancients often thought stars were living beings, the heavenly hosts, and it is more than likely that what Matthew is describing is the leading of the heavenly host or angels, of these persons to the birth place. Here again however some latitude must be allowed for ancient story tellers to present their narrative in ways that their audience would understand. While Matthew’s account does not tell us that Nazareth was Mary and Joseph’s hometown, his account is compatible with this fact, which Luke does tell us. The absence of an explanation does not a discrepancy make nor should it lead one to conclude the author thought something different, especially when Matthew tells us that eventually the holy family did go to Nazareth, and why would they pick that wide place in the road out of the blue if they had no prior associations with it? No good reason. The scripture fulfillment text in Matthew is a midrashic attempt to explain the fact that Nazareth was their home. It did not generate such an idea.

Lastly, Bart wants to argue that both Matthew and Luke made up the notion of a trip to Bethlehem independently of one another based on Micah’s prophecy, in order to indicate Jesus’ messianic origins, rather than suggesting he was born in a one horse town in Galilee. The problem with this is that Bethlehem itself was also a one horse town in Jesus’ day, and among other things, the slaughter of the innocents is perfectly in character with Herod’s paranoia as described in Josephus. It was hardly necessary for a messianic figure to come from Bethlehem unless one wanted to insist he was a descendant of David, but as we know from Qumran, there were other Jewish traditions that did not associate messiah with the Davidic line. In regard to the oft parodied story of the slaughter of the innocents, we are only talking about a handful of infants at most in such a tiny village anyway, perhaps 6-8. There is nothing improbable about a birth in Bethlehem at all or a slaughter of a few infants. Jesus was called Jesus of Nazareth because he grew up there from infancy.

Differences there are indeed in the accounts of the birth of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. And they are not explained by denying their existence, or resorting to false harmonizing tactics and exegetical gymnastics. We are not however talking about direct contradictions at all here. These narratives are quite compatible in all their essential details, and it is remarkable that two such independent accounts would in fact emphasize the same crucial points--- a virginal conception and a birth in Bethlehem. This did not happen because they were both creative exegetes. It happened because they both relied on historical sources of information about these events. Ehrman’s conclusion that “there are historical implausibilities and discrepancies that can scarcely be reconciled” (p. 34) is saying far more than he knows or the evidence suggests. Had Luke said Jesus was born in Nazareth and Matthew said no he was born in Bethlehem, then we would have a contradiction. But we find nothing like a contradiction in these two accounts—differences do not necessarily equal discrepancies much less equal disagreements. One has to come up with much better examples than this if one wants to claim the accounts can’t be explained or reconciled.

From here. It looks like this guy went through the entire book in a series of blog posts, so I just linked and quoted the relevant part here.

 

[Black Box]

Unfortunately the average liberal lemming still believes that the 'crazy Christian fundamentalists' represent the 'average' churchgoer.

Dude. Not necessary.

 

[timschochet]

Ehrman, Bart D. (2009-02-20). Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them) (p. 35). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Just to throw out a more conservative scholar's take (Ben Witherington) on what Ehrman is saying here.

Bart carries on in much the same vein in his analysis of the birth narratives. What is of concern to us is not where he sees differences in Matthew and Luke's accounts, but rather where he finds what he deems to be actual discrepancies. The first of these is that Bart claims that what Luke says in Lk.2.1-3 is clearly historically in error (pp. 34-35). What however does the Greek text of Lk.2.2 actually say--- "this registration happened first/prior to the governing of Syria by Quirinius." The issue here is the function of the word prote. What it seems to indicate is that the census in question took place prior to when Quirinius was governor of Syria. There was indeed a famous and indeed notorious census which led to the rebellion of Judas the Galilean in A.D. 6, and so Luke would be distinguishing that census from the earlier one when Mary and Joseph were enrolled. Bart also deems the notion of such enrollments as historically improbable, at least in the way Luke tells the story. There are however very clear examples from the province of Egypt of such census taking done for the purpose of taxation. And in fact, the evidence suggests a link with one's ancestral home. I see no reason why the Romans would do it any differently with the province of Judea. Furthermore, when Augustus decide to go for the full blown Empire deal, he needed much more money for many more troops and armaments.

While Luke may be using rhetorical hyperbole when he says all the oikomene was being enrolled, a rhetorical usage common in Hellenistic historiography influenced by rhetoric, what Luke is referring to is the inhabited Roman empire, outside of Rome itself. In other words, his audience would likely have understood the reference quite easily and naturally. Bart also takes exception to the story of the wise men following the star. He says nothing of the fact that ancients often thought stars were living beings, the heavenly hosts, and it is more than likely that what Matthew is describing is the leading of the heavenly host or angels, of these persons to the birth place. Here again however some latitude must be allowed for ancient story tellers to present their narrative in ways that their audience would understand. While Matthew's account does not tell us that Nazareth was Mary and Joseph's hometown, his account is compatible with this fact, which Luke does tell us. The absence of an explanation does not a discrepancy make nor should it lead one to conclude the author thought something different, especially when Matthew tells us that eventually the holy family did go to Nazareth, and why would they pick that wide place in the road out of the blue if they had no prior associations with it? No good reason. The scripture fulfillment text in Matthew is a midrashic attempt to explain the fact that Nazareth was their home. It did not generate such an idea.

Lastly, Bart wants to argue that both Matthew and Luke made up the notion of a trip to Bethlehem independently of one another based on Micah's prophecy, in order to indicate Jesus' messianic origins, rather than suggesting he was born in a one horse town in Galilee. The problem with this is that Bethlehem itself was also a one horse town in Jesus' day, and among other things, the slaughter of the innocents is perfectly in character with Herod's paranoia as described in Josephus. It was hardly necessary for a messianic figure to come from Bethlehem unless one wanted to insist he was a descendant of David, but as we know from Qumran, there were other Jewish traditions that did not associate messiah with the Davidic line. In regard to the oft parodied story of the slaughter of the innocents, we are only talking about a handful of infants at most in such a tiny village anyway, perhaps 6-8. There is nothing improbable about a birth in Bethlehem at all or a slaughter of a few infants. Jesus was called Jesus of Nazareth because he grew up there from infancy.

Differences there are indeed in the accounts of the birth of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. And they are not explained by denying their existence, or resorting to false harmonizing tactics and exegetical gymnastics. We are not however talking about direct contradictions at all here. These narratives are quite compatible in all their essential details, and it is remarkable that two such independent accounts would in fact emphasize the same crucial points--- a virginal conception and a birth in Bethlehem. This did not happen because they were both creative exegetes. It happened because they both relied on historical sources of information about these events. Ehrman's conclusion that "there are historical implausibilities and discrepancies that can scarcely be reconciled" (p. 34) is saying far more than he knows or the evidence suggests. Had Luke said Jesus was born in Nazareth and Matthew said no he was born in Bethlehem, then we would have a contradiction. But we find nothing like a contradiction in these two accounts—differences do not necessarily equal discrepancies much less equal disagreements. One has to come up with much better examples than this if one wants to claim the accounts can't be explained or reconciled.

From here. It looks like this guy went through the entire book in a series of blog posts, so I just linked and quoted the relevant part here.

The part I bolded represents pretty concisely my own initial thoughts upon reading the article that Claydon posted, and I don't begin with this author's religious knowledge. But what he writes here makes logical sense.

 

[Village Idiot]

Serious question: why isn't there more biographical information about Jesus in the Gospels? For instance, why all the detail of his birth and baptism, and then the timeline jumps to when he is 30 and begins his ministry? What about Jesus the young man, in his teens and 20s?

Uneventful and didn't receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost until then?

As a footnote in Christian history, there were early Christian groups that believed that Jesus was chosen by God not at birth, but at his baptism. The holy spirit descended upon him like a dove at his baptism and subsequently departed from Jesus when he died on the cross. He gave up the spirit when he said "it is finished" and the Temple curtain ripped as the holy spirit ascended back to heaven. There were many arguments, for hundreds of years, over Jesus' divine nature.

So you're saying it's possible God is an indian giver?

 

[Jayrok]

Serious question: why isn't there more biographical information about Jesus in the Gospels? For instance, why all the detail of his birth and baptism, and then the timeline jumps to when he is 30 and begins his ministry? What about Jesus the young man, in his teens and 20s?

Uneventful and didn't receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost until then?

As a footnote in Christian history, there were early Christian groups that believed that Jesus was chosen by God not at birth, but at his baptism. The holy spirit descended upon him like a dove at his baptism and subsequently departed from Jesus when he died on the cross. He gave up the spirit when he said "it is finished" and the Temple curtain ripped as the holy spirit ascended back to heaven. There were many arguments, for hundreds of years, over Jesus' divine nature.

So you're saying it's possible God is an indian giver?

The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away.

 

[Jayrok]

the slaughter of the innocents is perfectly in character with Herod’s paranoia as described in Josephus.

meh.. Josephus didn't have a problem with documenting Herod's cruelty and seemingly would have loved to pen Herod as the killer of innocent babies. But he doesn't mention it.

 

[Psychopav]

Serious question: why isn't there more biographical information about Jesus in the Gospels? For instance, why all the detail of his birth and baptism, and then the timeline jumps to when he is 30 and begins his ministry? What about Jesus the young man, in his teens and 20s?

Uneventful and didn't receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost until then?

As a footnote in Christian history, there were early Christian groups that believed that Jesus was chosen by God not at birth, but at his baptism. The holy spirit descended upon him like a dove at his baptism and subsequently departed from Jesus when he died on the cross. He gave up the spirit when he said "it is finished" and the Temple curtain ripped as the holy spirit ascended back to heaven. There were many arguments, for hundreds of years, over Jesus' divine nature.

Cool.What do you know about the zombies that were wandering around just after the crucifixion?

 

[Jayrok]

Serious question: why isn't there more biographical information about Jesus in the Gospels? For instance, why all the detail of his birth and baptism, and then the timeline jumps to when he is 30 and begins his ministry? What about Jesus the young man, in his teens and 20s?

Uneventful and didn't receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost until then?

As a footnote in Christian history, there were early Christian groups that believed that Jesus was chosen by God not at birth, but at his baptism. The holy spirit descended upon him like a dove at his baptism and subsequently departed from Jesus when he died on the cross. He gave up the spirit when he said "it is finished" and the Temple curtain ripped as the holy spirit ascended back to heaven. There were many arguments, for hundreds of years, over Jesus' divine nature.

Cool.What do you know about the zombies that were wandering around just after the crucifixion?

They did the monster mash. Fortuntately, Rick was there to show the Jews how a shot to the head will kill them again.

 

[Psychopav]

Serious question: why isn't there more biographical information about Jesus in the Gospels? For instance, why all the detail of his birth and baptism, and then the timeline jumps to when he is 30 and begins his ministry? What about Jesus the young man, in his teens and 20s?

Uneventful and didn't receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost until then?

As a footnote in Christian history, there were early Christian groups that believed that Jesus was chosen by God not at birth, but at his baptism. The holy spirit descended upon him like a dove at his baptism and subsequently departed from Jesus when he died on the cross. He gave up the spirit when he said "it is finished" and the Temple curtain ripped as the holy spirit ascended back to heaven. There were many arguments, for hundreds of years, over Jesus' divine nature.

Cool.What do you know about the zombies that were wandering around just after the crucifixion?

They did the monster mash. Fortuntately, Rick was there to show the Jews how a shot to the head will kill them again.

This is an awesome answer.Seriously, though. The zombies. What do the scholars make of them?

 

[Jayrok]

Serious question: why isn't there more biographical information about Jesus in the Gospels? For instance, why all the detail of his birth and baptism, and then the timeline jumps to when he is 30 and begins his ministry? What about Jesus the young man, in his teens and 20s?

Uneventful and didn't receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost until then?

As a footnote in Christian history, there were early Christian groups that believed that Jesus was chosen by God not at birth, but at his baptism. The holy spirit descended upon him like a dove at his baptism and subsequently departed from Jesus when he died on the cross. He gave up the spirit when he said "it is finished" and the Temple curtain ripped as the holy spirit ascended back to heaven. There were many arguments, for hundreds of years, over Jesus' divine nature.

Cool.What do you know about the zombies that were wandering around just after the crucifixion?

They did the monster mash. Fortuntately, Rick was there to show the Jews how a shot to the head will kill them again.

This is an awesome answer.Seriously, though. The zombies. What do the scholars make of them?

Well, it isn't scholars that believe the spirit descended upon and left Jesus at the cross. Some Christian groups believed and argued over that. I don't know what scholars believe about corpses rising and walking the streets of Jerusalem in the mid-first century. I've never read or talked to anyone who actually believes dead Jewish bodies rose from graves and walked the streets, outside of baptist circles anyway.

 

[Claydon]

Ehrman, Bart D. (2009-02-20). Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them) (p. 35). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Just to throw out a more conservative scholar's take (Ben Witherington) on what Ehrman is saying here.

Bart carries on in much the same vein in his analysis of the birth narratives. What is of concern to us is not where he sees differences in Matthew and Luke’s accounts, but rather where he finds what he deems to be actual discrepancies. The first of these is that Bart claims that what Luke says in Lk.2.1-3 is clearly historically in error (pp. 34-35). What however does the Greek text of Lk.2.2 actually say--- “this registration happened first/prior to the governing of Syria by Quirinius.” The issue here is the function of the word prote. What it seems to indicate is that the census in question took place prior to when Quirinius was governor of Syria. There was indeed a famous and indeed notorious census which led to the rebellion of Judas the Galilean in A.D. 6, and so Luke would be distinguishing that census from the earlier one when Mary and Joseph were enrolled. Bart also deems the notion of such enrollments as historically improbable, at least in the way Luke tells the story. There are however very clear examples from the province of Egypt of such census taking done for the purpose of taxation. And in fact, the evidence suggests a link with one’s ancestral home. I see no reason why the Romans would do it any differently with the province of Judea. Furthermore, when Augustus decide to go for the full blown Empire deal, he needed much more money for many more troops and armaments.

While Luke may be using rhetorical hyperbole when he says all the oikomene was being enrolled, a rhetorical usage common in Hellenistic historiography influenced by rhetoric, what Luke is referring to is the inhabited Roman empire, outside of Rome itself. In other words, his audience would likely have understood the reference quite easily and naturally. Bart also takes exception to the story of the wise men following the star. He says nothing of the fact that ancients often thought stars were living beings, the heavenly hosts, and it is more than likely that what Matthew is describing is the leading of the heavenly host or angels, of these persons to the birth place. Here again however some latitude must be allowed for ancient story tellers to present their narrative in ways that their audience would understand. While Matthew’s account does not tell us that Nazareth was Mary and Joseph’s hometown, his account is compatible with this fact, which Luke does tell us. The absence of an explanation does not a discrepancy make nor should it lead one to conclude the author thought something different, especially when Matthew tells us that eventually the holy family did go to Nazareth, and why would they pick that wide place in the road out of the blue if they had no prior associations with it? No good reason. The scripture fulfillment text in Matthew is a midrashic attempt to explain the fact that Nazareth was their home. It did not generate such an idea.

Lastly, Bart wants to argue that both Matthew and Luke made up the notion of a trip to Bethlehem independently of one another based on Micah’s prophecy, in order to indicate Jesus’ messianic origins, rather than suggesting he was born in a one horse town in Galilee. The problem with this is that Bethlehem itself was also a one horse town in Jesus’ day, and among other things, the slaughter of the innocents is perfectly in character with Herod’s paranoia as described in Josephus. It was hardly necessary for a messianic figure to come from Bethlehem unless one wanted to insist he was a descendant of David, but as we know from Qumran, there were other Jewish traditions that did not associate messiah with the Davidic line. In regard to the oft parodied story of the slaughter of the innocents, we are only talking about a handful of infants at most in such a tiny village anyway, perhaps 6-8. There is nothing improbable about a birth in Bethlehem at all or a slaughter of a few infants. Jesus was called Jesus of Nazareth because he grew up there from infancy.

Differences there are indeed in the accounts of the birth of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. And they are not explained by denying their existence, or resorting to false harmonizing tactics and exegetical gymnastics. We are not however talking about direct contradictions at all here. These narratives are quite compatible in all their essential details, and it is remarkable that two such independent accounts would in fact emphasize the same crucial points--- a virginal conception and a birth in Bethlehem. This did not happen because they were both creative exegetes. It happened because they both relied on historical sources of information about these events. Ehrman’s conclusion that “there are historical implausibilities and discrepancies that can scarcely be reconciled” (p. 34) is saying far more than he knows or the evidence suggests. Had Luke said Jesus was born in Nazareth and Matthew said no he was born in Bethlehem, then we would have a contradiction. But we find nothing like a contradiction in these two accounts—differences do not necessarily equal discrepancies much less equal disagreements. One has to come up with much better examples than this if one wants to claim the accounts can’t be explained or reconciled.

From here. It looks like this guy went through the entire book in a series of blog posts, so I just linked and quoted the relevant part here.

My problem with Witherington is he is more of an apologist whereas Ehrman is a historian.

 

[Psychopav]

Serious question: why isn't there more biographical information about Jesus in the Gospels? For instance, why all the detail of his birth and baptism, and then the timeline jumps to when he is 30 and begins his ministry? What about Jesus the young man, in his teens and 20s?

Uneventful and didn't receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost until then?

As a footnote in Christian history, there were early Christian groups that believed that Jesus was chosen by God not at birth, but at his baptism. The holy spirit descended upon him like a dove at his baptism and subsequently departed from Jesus when he died on the cross. He gave up the spirit when he said "it is finished" and the Temple curtain ripped as the holy spirit ascended back to heaven. There were many arguments, for hundreds of years, over Jesus' divine nature.

Cool.What do you know about the zombies that were wandering around just after the crucifixion?

They did the monster mash. Fortuntately, Rick was there to show the Jews how a shot to the head will kill them again.

This is an awesome answer.Seriously, though. The zombies. What do the scholars make of them?

Well, it isn't scholars that believe the spirit descended upon and left Jesus at the cross. Some Christian groups believed and argued over that. I don't know what scholars believe about corpses rising and walking the streets of Jerusalem in the mid-first century. I've never read or talked to anyone who actually believes dead Jewish bodies rose from graves and walked the streets, outside of baptist circles anyway.

I'm surprised - seems like kind of a big thing, but I agree that it's not often mentioned. I assume it's true but don't really know anything about it or it's theological significance.

 

[CrossEyed]

Ehrman, Bart D. (2009-02-20). Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them) (p. 35). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Just to throw out a more conservative scholar's take (Ben Witherington) on what Ehrman is saying here.

Bart carries on in much the same vein in his analysis of the birth narratives. What is of concern to us is not where he sees differences in Matthew and Luke’s accounts, but rather where he finds what he deems to be actual discrepancies. The first of these is that Bart claims that what Luke says in Lk.2.1-3 is clearly historically in error (pp. 34-35). What however does the Greek text of Lk.2.2 actually say--- “this registration happened first/prior to the governing of Syria by Quirinius.” The issue here is the function of the word prote. What it seems to indicate is that the census in question took place prior to when Quirinius was governor of Syria. There was indeed a famous and indeed notorious census which led to the rebellion of Judas the Galilean in A.D. 6, and so Luke would be distinguishing that census from the earlier one when Mary and Joseph were enrolled. Bart also deems the notion of such enrollments as historically improbable, at least in the way Luke tells the story. There are however very clear examples from the province of Egypt of such census taking done for the purpose of taxation. And in fact, the evidence suggests a link with one’s ancestral home. I see no reason why the Romans would do it any differently with the province of Judea. Furthermore, when Augustus decide to go for the full blown Empire deal, he needed much more money for many more troops and armaments.

While Luke may be using rhetorical hyperbole when he says all the oikomene was being enrolled, a rhetorical usage common in Hellenistic historiography influenced by rhetoric, what Luke is referring to is the inhabited Roman empire, outside of Rome itself. In other words, his audience would likely have understood the reference quite easily and naturally. Bart also takes exception to the story of the wise men following the star. He says nothing of the fact that ancients often thought stars were living beings, the heavenly hosts, and it is more than likely that what Matthew is describing is the leading of the heavenly host or angels, of these persons to the birth place. Here again however some latitude must be allowed for ancient story tellers to present their narrative in ways that their audience would understand. While Matthew’s account does not tell us that Nazareth was Mary and Joseph’s hometown, his account is compatible with this fact, which Luke does tell us. The absence of an explanation does not a discrepancy make nor should it lead one to conclude the author thought something different, especially when Matthew tells us that eventually the holy family did go to Nazareth, and why would they pick that wide place in the road out of the blue if they had no prior associations with it? No good reason. The scripture fulfillment text in Matthew is a midrashic attempt to explain the fact that Nazareth was their home. It did not generate such an idea.

Lastly, Bart wants to argue that both Matthew and Luke made up the notion of a trip to Bethlehem independently of one another based on Micah’s prophecy, in order to indicate Jesus’ messianic origins, rather than suggesting he was born in a one horse town in Galilee. The problem with this is that Bethlehem itself was also a one horse town in Jesus’ day, and among other things, the slaughter of the innocents is perfectly in character with Herod’s paranoia as described in Josephus. It was hardly necessary for a messianic figure to come from Bethlehem unless one wanted to insist he was a descendant of David, but as we know from Qumran, there were other Jewish traditions that did not associate messiah with the Davidic line. In regard to the oft parodied story of the slaughter of the innocents, we are only talking about a handful of infants at most in such a tiny village anyway, perhaps 6-8. There is nothing improbable about a birth in Bethlehem at all or a slaughter of a few infants. Jesus was called Jesus of Nazareth because he grew up there from infancy.

Differences there are indeed in the accounts of the birth of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. And they are not explained by denying their existence, or resorting to false harmonizing tactics and exegetical gymnastics. We are not however talking about direct contradictions at all here. These narratives are quite compatible in all their essential details, and it is remarkable that two such independent accounts would in fact emphasize the same crucial points--- a virginal conception and a birth in Bethlehem. This did not happen because they were both creative exegetes. It happened because they both relied on historical sources of information about these events. Ehrman’s conclusion that “there are historical implausibilities and discrepancies that can scarcely be reconciled” (p. 34) is saying far more than he knows or the evidence suggests. Had Luke said Jesus was born in Nazareth and Matthew said no he was born in Bethlehem, then we would have a contradiction. But we find nothing like a contradiction in these two accounts—differences do not necessarily equal discrepancies much less equal disagreements. One has to come up with much better examples than this if one wants to claim the accounts can’t be explained or reconciled.

From here. It looks like this guy went through the entire book in a series of blog posts, so I just linked and quoted the relevant part here.

My problem with Witherington is he is more of an apologist whereas Ehrman is a historian.

Right, you're an apologist if you agree with the Bible, and you're an historian if you disagree.

 

[Jayrok]

I'm surprised - seems like kind of a big thing, but I agree that it's not often mentioned. I assume it's true but don't really know anything about it or it's theological significance.

I would say it has theological significance that is a common theme throughout Matthew. That is, fulfillment of prophecy was a major point of reference for Matthew. By saying the earth shook (earthquake) and the rocks split and the tombs broke open, Matthew could be recalling prophets such as Ezekiel (37:7-13)where God said he would open their graves and bring them up from them (Ezekiel 37:7-13). The context in Ezekiel was bringing the exiled Jews back to Israel (the whole dry bones thing), but Matthew often used OT passages to bring to life real events in his gospel narrative (e.g. "Out of Egypt I called my son").

 

[Black Box]

My problem with Witherington is he is more of an apologist whereas Ehrman is a historian.

I'm not entirely sure of your point here... those categories are not mutually exclusive. Admittedly, I don't know much about Witherington, but a brief reading of his Wikipedia entry (which I linked to) and his list of works (which I did not) seemed to indicate he seems to know what he is taking about when it comes to NT studies.But if Witherington is not a scholar in a relevant field of study, I'll withdraw the post.