The dangers of harmony

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Of the readings in the Revised Common Lectionary for 6 January 2014  I chose to reflect on Matthew 2:1-12.

The dangers of harmony

Today is Epiphany, which celebrates the giving of the gifts by the magi to Jesus.  With this feast day coming but twelve days after Christmas, this has led to this event being associated with the nativity.  Yet early tradition did not always hold that to be the case, since the Slaughter of the Innocents that resulted from the magi not returning to Herod targeted all who were two years old or younger.

Yet it is not merely the closeness in dates that have led to this, but an effort to harmonize Matthew with Luke.  It makes no sense in Luke's account that he would hang around Bethlehem any longer than necessary.  Indeed, a literal reading of Luke in isolation would have Joseph, Mary, and Jesus, leaving Bethlehem on the seventh or eighth day for nearby Jerusalem to present Jesus for his naming (and circumcision) and then returning from Jerusalem not to Bethlehem, but to their hometown of Nazareth.

Conversely, Matthew read on its own conveys the impression that Bethlehem was the hometown of Joseph and Mary, who fled to Egypt because of Herod.  Then when Herod dies, they return from Egypt, but because they are still afraid of returning to Bethlehem, they go to Nazareth instead.

Basically both Nativity narratives are meant to explain how Jesus of Nazareth could be the Messiah since the Messiah was supposed to be born in Bethlehem.  Either works well on its own, but trying to harmonize the two leads to tensions that I just don't see as being resolvable.  It would be like trying to harmonize the Christopher Bale and Adam West versions of Batman. (Well, maybe not that extreme.)

I like the Matthew version better since it has fewer flashy miracles.  Not that I have anything against flashy miracles, but they undermine the whole theme of Jesus coming out of obscurity at the start of his ministry.  Still, as flashy as Luke can be, it's nowhere near as miracle ridden as some of the texts that were left out of the Bible, such as the Protoevangelium of James, which despite its non-canonical status is the source for a lot of Mariology.

Well, I could say more, but I suspect that I'll be returning to this text in Years B and C of the three year lectionary cycle so I'll save comments on the kings and gifts for future reflections.

[Mopsus]

This is the second of these threads that has addressed an inconsistency in Scripture. Will this be an ongoing theme?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This is the second of these threads that has addressed an inconsistency in Scripture. Will this be an ongoing theme?

Where I find them. I am a Christian Universalist who finds the canon to be inspired, but not infallible or inerrant.  These discrepancies don't bother me since I consider the Bible to have been written by men giving their perceptions on God and not by God Himself.  That's why we have the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and not the Gospel according to Jesus. God is too broad to be comprehended by one account. While I feel the Nativity scenes in Luke and Matthew cannot both be historically true, they both can and do have religious truth.

[Mopsus]

I am a Christian Universalist who finds the canon to be inspired, but not infallible or inerrant.  These discrepancies don't bother me since I consider the Bible to have been written by men giving their perceptions on God and not by God Himself.  That's why we have the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and not the Gospel according to Jesus. God is too broad to be comprehended by one account. While I feel the Nativity scenes in Luke and Matthew cannot both be historically true, they both can and do have religious truth.

I can sympathize with that.

Does that mean that you're open to looking to other faith traditions for religious truth as well?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I am a Christian Universalist who finds the canon to be inspired, but not infallible or inerrant.  These discrepancies don't bother me since I consider the Bible to have been written by men giving their perceptions on God and not by God Himself.  That's why we have the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and not the Gospel according to Jesus. God is too broad to be comprehended by one account. While I feel the Nativity scenes in Luke and Matthew cannot both be historically true, they both can and do have religious truth.

I can sympathize with that.

Does that mean that you're open to looking to other faith traditions for religious truth as well?

Yes.  Tho not those which take the Gnostic/Dualistic approach of seeing the physical world as inherently undesirable/evil.  (Tho unfortunately you can find that approach within the Abrahamic tradition thanks primarily to the influence of Zoroastrianism.)  I see the physical world is morally neutral.  It is what we choose as spiritual beings to do with the physical world that is good or evil.  That isn't to say that we should wallow in physical aspects that tempt us to do evil. As the Lord's Prayer asks, "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil."

[Mopsus]

I am a Christian Universalist who finds the canon to be inspired, but not infallible or inerrant.  These discrepancies don't bother me since I consider the Bible to have been written by men giving their perceptions on God and not by God Himself.  That's why we have the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and not the Gospel according to Jesus. God is too broad to be comprehended by one account. While I feel the Nativity scenes in Luke and Matthew cannot both be historically true, they both can and do have religious truth.

I can sympathize with that.

Does that mean that you're open to looking to other faith traditions for religious truth as well?

Yes.  Tho not those which take the Gnostic/Dualistic approach of seeing the physical world as inherently undesirable/evil.  (Tho unfortunately you can find that approach within the Abrahamic tradition thanks primarily to the influence of Zoroastrianism.)  I see the physical world is morally neutral.  It is what we choose as spiritual beings to do with the physical world that is good or evil.  That isn't to say that we should wallow in physical aspects that tempt us to do evil. As the Lord's Prayer asks, "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil."

I disagree, but I think that we've already gone over this

So do you believe that there is divinely-inspired truth to be found in, say, Hinduism? Or can it only be found in religions whose theology can be fit more neatly into a Christian Univeralist framework?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So do you believe that there is divinely-inspired truth to be found in, say, Hinduism? Or can it only be found in religions whose theology can be fit more neatly into a Christian Universalist framework?

It can be found in most religions, tho in some it is more layered with human additions than in others.  Incidentally that's one reason why I have a negative view of Gnosticism/Dualism.  I view it generally as an attempt to avoid responsibility for the evil humans do by placing the blame for evil upon a supernatural being.  "The devil made me do it" is bad theology. At worst, "the devil tested me to see if I would do it" could be considered applicable.

But back to your question, one reason I retain my Christian orientation within Universalism is because I don't find as many layers of human varnish on it as with other religious traditions.  Also, because it is the tradition I was brought up in, it's the one in which I think I've been able to strip some of the varnish off.

[Mopsus]

So do you believe that there is divinely-inspired truth to be found in, say, Hinduism? Or can it only be found in religions whose theology can be fit more neatly into a Christian Universalist framework?

It can be found in most religions, tho in some it is more layered with human additions than in others.  Incidentally that's one reason why I have a negative view of Gnosticism/Dualism.  I view it generally as an attempt to avoid responsibility for the evil humans do by placing the blame for evil upon a supernatural being.  "The devil made me do it" is bad theology. At worst, "the devil tested me to see if I would do it" could be considered applicable.

I would argue that that's actually a misrepresentation of what dualists/Gnostics believe, but that would be neither here nor there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That makes sense (and I assume that your conception of unvarnished divine truth has been influenced by your Christian upbringing as well).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So do you believe that there is divinely-inspired truth to be found in, say, Hinduism? Or can it only be found in religions whose theology can be fit more neatly into a Christian Universalist framework?

It can be found in most religions, tho in some it is more layered with human additions than in others.  [...] , one reason I retain my Christian orientation within Universalism is because I don't find as many layers of human varnish on it as with other religious traditions.  Also, because it is the tradition I was brought up in, it's the one in which I think I've been able to strip some of the varnish off.

That makes sense (and I assume that your conception of unvarnished divine truth has been influenced by your Christian upbringing as well).

Of course.  We're all influenced by both nature and nurture.  But I don't claim to known the unvarnished truth.  Indeed, it's likely that even as I scrape away some layers in some places, I'm adding layers in others.  I'm only human after all, and thus just as fallible as anyone else.

[© tweed]

Basically both Nativity narratives are meant to explain how Jesus of Nazareth could be the Messiah since the Messiah was supposed to be born in Bethlehem.

yessir.  if I ever found my way into divinity school, perhaps I'd write a thesis on how positivism and positivistic attitudes impact how people read the Bible.  the idea of 'literal truth' is a recent phenomenon, only a few hundred years old.  we have the idea that truth is ultimately reducible to facticity; meanwhile the nativity stories are designed to convey a deeper truth that goes beyond facticity.