(March 6, 2015 at 10:16 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Seems to me that he is trying to make excuses for why the gospels tell different stories.
"Make excuses"? Why on earth would I do that? I'm doing what all critical scholars of the texts do and what historians of the ancient world do with any such texts - work out what the differences potentially tell us about the interrelationships between the texts and the possible origins of the elements in them.
Quote: There is one original story: What is now known as gMark.
Wrong. We know that gMark was using at least one original source, now lost. Then there is the Q material used by both gLuke and gMatt, at least some of which is demonstrably from a common text, also now lost. Then there is the material exclusively in gMatt and gLuke, some of which may be what you call "fanfic" (actual textual critics call it midrash) and some of it could be from further lost sources. Then there is a whole slew of stuff in gJohn that is not in any of the synoptics, which must have come from somewhere.
The idea that the other gospels are just elaborations on or embroiderings on gMark and it can all be traced back to gMark is simply wrong.
Quote:He could not be bothered with a nativity story so later traditions grew up about it which were incorporated into the fanfics which are matty and luke.
This is most likely. The fact remains that both gMatt and gLuke are using this "fanfic" stuff to "explain" how a Galilean from Nazareth could be the Messiah and born in Bethlehem in Judea. So the question is - why? Why are they going to all this trouble to "explain" how he could be the Messiah and still be from a nowhere town in Galilee.
The most logical answer? Because he was from Nazareth and this needed to be explained.
