> I imagine that like me you also do not believe Alexander the great was born of a God

Correct, I do not believe A the G was born of a God

> We have better evidence for Joseph Smith and the golden plates but I am going to go out on a limb and say you don't believe that.

Correct. I do not believe the golden plates were legit.

> We should have low confidence in ancient historical texts

Not necessarily. There are good and legitimate reasons to have confidence in textual material, obviously depending on the item under discussion.

> lower confidence in supernatural claims held within ancient historical texts,

Not necessarily. Supernatural claims are not subject to scientific verification any more than we can re-live and observe Brutus stabbing Julius Caesar or Martin Luther nailing his thesis to the Wittenberg door. That doesn't mean or require that I have a low confidence in them; rather, I have to evaluate them by other criteria.

> written for the sole purpose of evangelizing about those who performed them

Here you misunderstand the authors' motives. The purpose of the OT writers was not evangelism but instead preservation. God had done something, or given a message, and they wanted to preserve it. It was often written and then stored in some kind of repository. It was never used evangelically or apologetically.

> This is a particular reason you should doubt the story.

You seem to be claiming that any paper written to make a particular claim is reason to doubt it. And yet "Good scholarship is about convincing others to espouse our view instead of merely asking them to do so." Any scientist who has made a discovery writes to evangelize (share the good news) and to win others to his position by showing the evidence (apologetics). That is not a particular reason to doubt the paper.

> There are no reports of odd astronomical activity like a star hovering over Bethlehem

I would advise that you think differently about the story. Daniel was a respected magus in Babylon, so there is reason to believe the magi 600 years later would know about prophecies of the king of the Jews. They wouldn't need a magic star to lead them to Jerusalem. Matthew never says the star led them from Persia to Jerusalem, only that they had seen an omen in the sky to alert them to a significant birth. All it says is that they had seen an omen (a "star") in the heavens. We don't really know what they saw that was the "tip off." There are many possibilities here. There are other traditions telling us about magian visits to notable persons, namely Alexander the Great. What they saw that motivated the trip to Jerusalem was probably some configuration of constellations, planets, and stars that could have caught their attention. Having received word from Herod's staff that Bethlehem was the goal of their journey, locating the village and a child in it would not present a challenge. They learn the destination of their quest, Bethlehem, and attribute the omen in the sky for guiding them there. What this omen was we will never know. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to follow directions, though (Jewish capital = Jerusalem; conversation with Herod leads to Bethlehem), and being astrologers, they credit the stars with their success. Good for them. Was God involved in this? No doubt, but we don't know what they were "following," so we can't know the nature of the phenomenon.

> Now, I am sure you realize that your points don't convince me,

Not a surprise.

> The fact that Matthew has a theme is a knock against it being history

This DOES surprise me. Every writer has an agenda—something he is trying to communicate. No writer can include everything; all are selective of the material at hand. They make their choices based on their thesis.

> Ancient greek historians saw no problem misreporting historical events in the name of furthering there artistic, theological, political, or philosophical ends.

So is Matthew guilty until proven innocent?

> You know how we know it fits Herod's personality? because Josephus often reports on Herod's nefarious exploits, especially ones that effect the Jewish people

Josephus is not the only reporter of Herod's mania (There is also the Testament of Moses, Macrobius). Regardless, does it make it untrue?

> BTW if you go into academia in the field of NT scholarship, especially if its at a Christian school, I implore you to beware the statement of faith, its anti truth, and is bias confirming at worst, and a reason for skeptics to disregard you at best.

Thanks for the advice, but I'm WAY past this. That boat sailed decades ago.

Very nice, it seems like you really hold the gospels in high regard as a source for history. Now I am not accusing you of personally doing what I am about to describe, but I have listened to many hours of NT scholars who hold very similar views to you. Often times they hold the bible to lower standard than other historical texts, especially ones that have supernatural claims in them, I imagine that like me you also do not believe Alexander the great was born of a God, but rather his parents were Phillip and Olympias. But we have actual historians writing about it, and we know he himself claimed it and people believed it. We have better evidence for Joseph Smith and the golden plates but I am going to go out on a limb and say you don't believe that. We should have low confidence in ancient historical texts, and lower confidence in supernatural claims held within ancient historical texts, and yet lower confidence of supernatural claims within anonymous historical texts written for the sole purpose of evangelizing about those who performed them, which is what we have in the bible. This is a particular reason you should doubt the story. There are no reports of odd astronomical activity like a star hovering over Bethlehem, Another particular reason to doubt the story. Now, I am sure you realize that your points don't convince me, but I can let you know why at least.

The fact that Matthew has a theme is a knock against it being history. Ancient greek historians saw no problem misreporting historical events in the name of furthering there artistic, theological, political, or philosophical ends.

You know how we know it fits Herod's personality? because Josephus often reports on Herod's nefarious exploits, especially ones that effect the Jewish people

see 2 as to why we can expect Josephus to have reported this event.

Thanks for the discourse, BTW if you go into academia in the field of NT scholarship, especially if its at a Christian school, I implore you to beware the statement of faith, its anti truth, and is bias confirming at worst, and a reason for skeptics to disregard you at best.

> I may be misinterpreting your previous comment but do you hold to traditional authorship of the Gospels?

I do hold to the traditional authorship of the Gospels. Every piece of external evidence we have points to the traditional authorship. They are all unanimously affirmed by the early Church; there are no competing contenders for an alternate author, and the way they spread throughout the Empire contributes to the plausibility of traditional authors.

Internally, all of the writings (style, level of Greek, themes) match perfectly with the traditional authors. Every piece of stylistic assessment leads in their directions.

I find that the case for traditional authorship, when weighed against the competing case, is stronger and weightier than the case against. I even go for an early date of writing for the 3 Synoptics (late 50s, very early 60s)

I'm working on Matthew quite a bit now.It is said that Matthew copied Mark. I'm up to chapter 8 and I'm not seeing it, but I want to withhold judgment.

Matthew 1 - this material is not in Mark
Mt. 2: Not in Mark.
Mt. 3: This John the Baptist material not in Mark. The baptism material—quite a bit of overlap.
Mt. 4: The Temptation scene, very different. The preaching in Capernaum: not in Mark. Calling the 4 disciples: some overlap, but I'd be hard-pressed to say Mt copied from Mk. Too much is different.
Mt. 5: Not in Mark
Mt. 6: Not in Mark.
Mt. 7: Not in Mark.
Mt. 8.1-4: Healing the leper. 3 of the verses are very similar, but those are mostly quotes from Jesus. The rest is different.
Mt. 8.5-13: Not in Mark
Mt. 8.14-17: Hardly the same as Mark.
Mt. 8.18-22: Not in Mark.

So despite the BIG consensus about Mt being a copycat of Mark, I'm not seeing it, yet. Still working.

As far as date, there are SO many reasons to see Matthew as early (50s-very early 60s). I'll only list some here.

As far as date, there are SO many reasons to see Matthew as early (50s-very early 60s). I'll only list some here.

• Such early theology
• Early eschatology
• Writing as a Jew to Jews, which to me makes a WHOLE lot more sense if it's BEFORE the destruction of Jerusalem.
• early expressions
• Identifying Jesus as "the Son of Man"

...and so many more.

> From what I gathered in almost all the biblical claims in our back and forth you’ve come out in favour of the bible, is there anything that is in the biblical birth narrative that you don’t think happened in history?

No, there isn't. The authors are interested in theology and history, not fabrication or mythology. We can go through the story piece by piece if you wish; I've written a book on it. We can discuss any matter of concern in the narrative; I'm always looking both to learn and to discuss.

> And do you think the NT scholars who don’t affirm the massacre of the innocents are maliciously interpreting the texts or are they mistaken?

I think they want to discard it for 2 reasons: (1) There is no extrabibilical record to corroborate it, which to me is not a strong argument; (2) some of them have an agenda to discredit the Bible, and this is just another platform. Here are some of my points:

1. Matthew rides a theme of the shedding of innocent blood (Mt. 2.16-18; 23.34-39; 27.3-10, 24-25). I don't doubt Judas's suicide or Jesus's crucifixion, so I don't doubt the massacre of the innocents.

2. It fits Herod's personality and behavior, especially late in his life.

3. I wouldn't expect a secret raid on a tiny village to make the official records or to be noticed by later historians. It's possible we're talking about the deaths of maybe 15-20 children. Usually historians pick up major trends and items of concern. We have specific lack of records from reliable historians about other major events.

I don't see a particular reason to doubt the story. There is no particular body of evidence leading me to consider it a fraud.

Amazing! I have so many questions! First I want to say that my question was malformed, dismiss is the wrong word, it should have been why do you hold views contrary to the scholarly consensus? But you answered that satisfactory. I may be misinterpreting your previous comment but do you hold to traditional authorship of the Gospels? You seem to have an early dating of Matthew, is this correct. From what I gathered in almost all the biblical claims in our back and forth you’ve come out in favour of the bible, is there anything that is in the biblical birth narrative that you don’t think happened in history? And do you think the NT scholars who don’t affirm the massacre of the innocents are maliciously interpreting the texts or are they mistaken?

> It seems like you dismiss a lot of the scholarship and consensus to get to your views on the these accounts.

Oh, no, I don't dismiss it at all. I digest it voraciously. I have a ream of notes on this issue and add to them regularly as I come across new information. But that doesn't mean that I agree with everyone on it (well, it's impossible to agree with everyone on it because there are conflicting theories and a variety of conclusions). So here's the deal: I study it as deeply as I can, and I weigh the evidence at hand, and I draw my own conclusions, not following consensus, or a particular position, or the loudest voice, like a sheep or a lemming. I use my brain and analyze it myself with all the information I can find.

> I try to stick to scholarly consensus when it’s not my expertise

Sometimes that's a useful strategy, but sometimes even scholarly consensus is politically or positionally motivated. Like, can you just IMAGINE if a well-respected scholar found convincing evidence against a well-grounded theory, like evolution or the Big Bang and came out with it. Can you imagine the ridicule and deprecation that person would receive by going against the "consensus"? I imagine he/she couldn't even get published. The status quo can have intense power.

Just to branch into a different (and controversial) direction, look at the power of the mainstream media and social media to squelch what they consider to be incorrect information, which is usually views voiced by conservatives. It's ASTOUNDING how they try to create an artificial consensus. It has made us very wary and skeptical of all things media in this world of bias and lies. I find that I have to listen critically and with discernment because the "consensus" is sometimes just another means of manipulation.

> Or is it your expertise? I’d be psyched if I was actually talking to a New Testament scholar.

Yes, it's my expertise. Yes, I'm a NT scholar.

I could say a lot and I still might. It seems like you dismiss a lot of the scholarship and consensus to get to your views on the these accounts. I try to stick to scholarly consensus when it’s not my expertise, does your approach differ on this? If it doesn’t how did we get to different conclusions? Or is it your expertise? I’d be psyched if I was actually talking to a New Testament scholar.

> Its nitpicking but malicious is the wrong word, I think its propoganda.

I chose the term "malicious" because if he was just doing it to falsely legitimize and therefore to manipulate to a false conclusion, I consider that pernicious. People should not follow Jesus if He wasn't legitimately the Messiah.

> If he believes Jesus is who he said he was than its not malicious to want people to follow him

Yes, but if that's just Matthew's agenda and not the truth, then it's deceitful at best and malevolent at worst.

> I don't know how this is a weakness?

I consider your proposal a weakness because then Matthew is deliberately trying to crowbar prophecies illegitimately into his template. It's a worst-case-scenario of bias. "I first draw my conclusion, then I force the evidence to fit it." But if Matthew is looking at the historical situation and then having eureka moments about, "Whoa, this is a fulfillment of Isaiah!", that's a whole different dynamic and approach.

> Since he no doubt has Matthew in front of him

This is very doubtful. Luke has more in common with Mark than Matthew, but the evidence that he's even copying from Mark is slim.

> Can you offer a more reasonable hypothesis?

Sure. Matthew and Luke are writing separate accounts. Matthew is a disciple of Jesus, who was possibly involved in the composition of the mysterious Q, who lives in Jerusalem, and who is writing to his fellow Jews in the late 50s to legitimize Jesus as Messiah to the Jews and God to Jews and Gentiles alike. Luke is writing as a Gentile, also in the late 50s and therefore traveling with Paul, interviewing people on his journeys and putting together a narrative showing that Jesus is the prophet who is the fulfillment of prophecy, the Spirit-empowered servant, God in history. Matthew emphasizes huge blocks of Jesus's teaching, Luke emphasizes Jesus's appeal to common people. Therefore in the nativity narrative, Matthew emphasizes Jesus's lineage and the visit of the Gentile magi, along with prophecies of Jesus as a witness also to the Gentile world (Mt. 3.14-16), while Luke's narrative focuses on the common folk: Mary, shepherds, and humble old-folk prophets in Jerusalem.

> We have lots of historical information that leads us to believe this census never happened

This actually isn't true. We have indicators (but only indicators) that censuses happened every 14 years in the Roman Empire. We know little about them. We have a public notice from Egypt daed AD 104. We have a note from Josephus about a census in AD 6. But there is also indication that periodic censuses seem to have occurred at less regular intervals (- Craig Keener). Even Empire-wide censuses could take years to fulfill and were subject to local enforcement and execution. "They were generally conducted locally, so all local governments in all regions probably did not simultaneously implement Caesar’s decree." Other evidence from Egypt shows an on-going census, it took to long in a pre-technology, pre-modern-communication era. Craig Blomberg writes, "we are lacking the vast majority of documentation from any culture in history, including Rome. We do know, however, that Rome periodically issued censuses over various portions of the empire. *The Deeds of the Divine Augustus* (paragraph 8, lines 2-4) confirms that Augustus himself ordered a census in 8 BC —a census that sounds empire-wide in scope (with 4 million citizens in an empire in which most people were not citizens). In a world without the ability to travel and communicate nearly as speedily as ours today, it would be expected that it might take such an endeavor years to unfold and come to both fruition and completion."

> Right, So why was he in Bethlehem for the census? The text tells us why.

The text doesn't tell us why. When Luke parenthesizes "because he was of the house and lineage of David," that may be a comment to link Jesus to the Davidic line, which is his true agenda, not to give the reason for Joseph returning to Bethlehem, which is somewhat superfluous. When it comes right down to it, it doesn't really matter why Joseph returned to Bethlehem; the point is that he did. The greater point is that he was in the royal line, and I think that's Luke's reason for including this tidbit.

> experts say this didn't happen for multiple reasons.

I know what the experts say. The truth is, even according to the Wikipedia article, there is debate about it, and it does fit Herod's m.o. I find the narrative credible. As I mentioned, other authors have neglected major events; authorial selectivity doesn't make one who includes it a fabricator.

> the years of the first 5 centuries CE are very very spotty

This is true. It was one of those eras. But that just tells me we shouldn't be too judgmental about what has survived, just as we shouldn't be unreasonably accepting. Much is lost. Almost everything we have is because of Eusebius and because of the libraries of later monasteries. The monasteries basically preserved the early history of western civilization.

To me, the question is: What did Macrobius have access to that we don't? And, of course, we don't know the answer to that question, but based on the total amount of documentation we do have, Macrobius has been assessed as a reliable source. Because of that, the burden of proof is on the detractors who would cry foul. I'm not yet convinced that you have credible reason to disregard his account.

> It's true that Matthew uses a lot of prophecies and that he is writing to legitimize Jesus aimed at a Jewish audience. So I perceive his writing intent as purposeful, whereas you perceive his writing intent as malicious

Its nitpicking but malicious is the wrong word, I think its propoganda. If he believes Jesus is who he said he was than its not malicious to want people to follow him, its actually quite nice of him.

> The weakness of this perspective is that Matthew used "prophecies" that were never perceived as Messianic prophecies, such as Isaiah 7.14, so I can't agree with your assessment. Matthew isn't just rolling down the text and checking off boxes; instead, he sees what happened in history and he's searching the Scriptures (under the superintendency of the Holy Spirit to see what's true (cf. Acts 17.11, and we might assume Paul was doing the same thing for 14 years in Gal. 2.1).

I don't know how this is a weakness? It kind of bolsters my case that Matthew was combing the scriptures to make Jesus legitimate, The Isiah 7:14 was not referring to Jesus as it was made 700 years prior to king Ahaz as a sign for King Ahaz. But it was enough for Jesus as the title Immanuel is fitting, and the virgin birth probably was part of some of the oral traditions of Jesus. the Hebrew used for "virgin" is ambiguous and could just as easily denote a young women pre marriage (assumed virgin). From the skeptics view we have Matthew stretching a prophecy meant for 700 years prior to fit Jesus, then creating a plot point to get him to egypt for another prophecy, but because Luke is not concerned with prophecy he just wrongly dictates the happenings after Jesus' birth? Since he no doubt has Matthew in front of him why would he omit this, maybe there was competing traditions of the reports of events after his death and Matthew put it in to fulfill prophecy. Can you offer a more reasonable hypothesis?

> (1) We have very little information about the registration/census in Palestine, and even in Rome. (2) The information we DO have comes from one source, Josephus, and it's a questionable source. (3) We do find a similar kind of situation in Egypt that might help us understand. We have only a keyhole view of the situation, so we bring whatever information we have to bear on it to try to yield a little understanding. We don't have much, but the little we have doesn't prove Luke to be false.

We have lots of historical information that leads us to believe this census never happened, It was mentioned in a comment below how the timelines for the claims in Matthew don't line up with documented history. Aside from historical contradiction we have logical contradictions, you asked if I thought they expected everyone in the line of David to report to a small village just for the census, the answer is no, I do not think they expected that, that's one of the reasons I don't think this happened in history, because its unreasonable. The only way to make it reasonable is to move beyond the text and make large assumptions that contradict what the text says, like Joseph owning land.

> You're missing my consistency. If the text doesn't say it, we don't take a stand on it. If the text doesn't say she rode a donkey, we don't assume a donkey. If the text doesn't say Joseph owned land there, we can't assume he did.

Right, So why was he in Bethlehem for the census? The text tells us why.

> But she had to get from Nazareth to Bethlehem in some way. We presume cart, donkey, or walking. With Joseph being a carpenter, we might expect he owned a cart and a pull animal. We also know that people in that day, era, and region often walked, so they might not have thought a second thing about it; it was not considered a burden. We don't know how preggo she was, and was also know that for some women pregnancy is the best time of their lives and for others, the worst. The average person walks 2-3 mph, so for a 7-hr day, they could make 20 miles in a day. Joe and Mary could make the 100-mi trip in less than a week, even at a slow pace. The fact is, we don't know how she traveled, but these scenarios are not unlikely, uncommon, or unreasonable.

> Sure, I'll grant that.

> Neither Philo nor Josephus—very prominent writers of the era—mention Emperor Claudius's expulsion fo all Jews from Rome in c. AD 49-50. Only Suetonius and Luke mention it, and each give it only one line. For a modern example, Ronald Reagan, in his autobiography, wrote only 2 sentences about his first marriage, from which two of his children were born! So we can't conclude Josephus "would have almost certainly mentioned it" if it were true, since he didn't mention the Claudius expulsion, of MUCH more import to him as a Jewish-Roman historian. So this logic doesn't hold.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Innocents I know its Wikipedia but this is well sourced, experts say this didn't happen for multiple reasons.

> Yes, he was 5 centuries later, but still assessed by experts as a reliable historian. I've read biographies of Martin Luther, who was also 500 years ago. Should I trust them, or just reject them outright just because it's 500 years?

For me it really depends on the 500 yrs, the years of the first 5 centuries CE are very very spotty, and we should hold even the most well attested ancient historical claim lightly. Also its important to note that by 500 CE Christianity was the state religion, so does it surprise me a state historian took Christian historical claims as historical fact, no, we do history much better these days as we have the benefit of the historical method.

> Matthew basically just knocks the prophecies out like a checklist, in my interpretation in order to legitimize the story to the jews,

It's true that Matthew uses a lot of prophecies and that he is writing to legitimize Jesus aimed at a Jewish audience. So I perceive his writing intent as purposeful, whereas you perceive his writing intent as malicious.

> He no doubt had the prophecies in front of them

The weakness of this perspective is that Matthew used "prophecies" that were never perceived as Messianic prophecies, such as Isaiah 7.14, so I can't agree with your assessment. Matthew isn't just rolling down the text and checking off boxes; instead, he sees what happened in history and he's searching the Scriptures (under the superintendency of the Holy Spirit to see what's true (cf. Acts 17.11, and we might assume Paul was doing the same thing for 14 years in Gal. 2.1).

> Just like stated below, you have to make the text fit this interpretation, we have no evidence this was the case

I'm not twisting the text into the template. What I'm saying is this: (1) We have very little information about the registration/census in Palestine, and even in Rome. (2) The information we DO have comes from one source, Josephus, and it's a questionable source. (3) We do find a similar kind of situation in Egypt that might help us understand. We have only a keyhole view of the situation, so we bring whatever information we have to bear on it to try to yield a little understanding. We don't have much, but the little we have doesn't prove Luke to be false.

> And the text states the reason for them going to Bethlehem, because it was there ancestral land.

I wrote this last night in response to a different comment, and I think it also pertains to your comment: "Correct, but what does that tell us. Not much; too nonspecific. Is there an expectation that after 1000 years, EVERYONE who descended from David had to go to Bethlehem? I don't think so, so we still don't really know what's going on.

"I am one of the two primary genealogists for our family. We have traced several of our threads back 1000 years. Amazing. I mean, I'm astounded that it's possible, and on about 4 different lines. It turns out (WAAAAY back) that one of our ancestors is Lord Hugh de Berges (born 1070). That means we're (VERRRRRY remotely) related to Princess Diana, and therefore William (the presumptive next king of England), William the Conqueror, Winston Churchill, 5 US presidents, Count Von Bismarck, King Henry VIII, Charlemagne, Hugh Jackman, Madonna, and MILLIONS of others. Millions of us in 1000 years.

Who are you expecting converged on Bethlehem that year? Did every Jew anywhere in the Empire who could trace their lineage back to David have to go to Bethlehem (possibly thousands or tens of thousands of them)? Luke doesn't actually say that. 'One's own town' could mean many things; it's possible Luke added the 'because he was of the house and lineage of David' to reinforce the Davidic connection, not because everyone of Davidic descent had to return to Bethlehem."

> I was being generous to say she had a donkey, If you want to put her walking for 30 hrs be my guest. but I see you have switched epistemologies here: "the text doesn't mention a donkey" so no donkey, "the text doesn't mention Joseph owning land but he must because otherwise"... This is problematic.

You're missing my consistency. If the text doesn't say it, we don't take a stand on it. If the text doesn't say she rode a donkey, we don't assume a donkey. If the text doesn't say Joseph owned land there, we can't assume he did.

But she had to get from Nazareth to Bethlehem in some way. We presume cart, donkey, or walking. With Joseph being a carpenter, we might expect he owned a cart and a pull animal. We also know that people in that day, era, and region often walked, so they might not have thought a second thing about it; it was not considered a burden. We don't know how preggo she was, and was also know that for some women pregnancy is the best time of their lives and for others, the worst. The average person walks 2-3 mph, so for a 7-hr day, they could make 20 miles in a day. Joe and Mary could make the 100-mi trip in less than a week, even at a slow pace. The fact is, we don't know how she traveled, but these scenarios are not unlikely, uncommon, or unreasonable.

What about Joe owning land there? The truth is, we don't know how "he was of the line of David" factored into the registration picture. As I mentioned above, maybe it was Luke's mechanism to tie this narrative into Davidic lineage and that he was not providing the *reason* Joe was going there. So we try to suggest some reasonable alternatives. There's nothing renegade about my suggestions.

> my problem is that it almost certainly didn't happen.

Um, you stand on swampy ground here, and I'll explain why in the next comment.

> Josephus the Jewish historian would have almost certainly mentioned it, let alone any other historians...

Neither Philo nor Josephus—very prominent writers of the era—mention Emperor Claudius's expulsion fo all Jews from Rome in c. AD 49-50. Only Suetonius and Luke mention it, and each give it only one line. For a modern example, Ronald Reagan, in his autobiography, wrote only 2 sentences about his first marriage, from which two of his children were born! So we can't conclude Josephus "would have almost certainly mentioned it" if it were true, since he didn't mention the Claudius expulsion, of MUCH more import to him as a Jewish-Roman historian. So this logic doesn't hold.

> Bethlehem is beside Jerusalem, where the a lot of Jewish historians lived and worked out of, an order to kill all the first born infants of Jewish decent in Bethlehem and its vicinity would very likely have been documented.


> Bethlehem is beside Jerusalem.

Yep, 6 miles away.

> where the a lot of Jewish historians lived and worked out of,

Hmm. You'd have to name these for me.

> an order to kill all the first born infants of Jewish decent in Bethlehem and its vicinity would very likely have been documented.

As already commented, not necessarily. Bethlehem was a tiny and insignificant town. Herod often did murderous things. I've already shown that the historians of the day didn't always include even important events. I'm not convinced it's "likely."

> Macrobius was 5 centuries later, and making a remark about a quip not documenting history.

Yes, he was 5 centuries later, but still assessed by experts as a reliable historian. I've read biographies of Martin Luther, who was also 500 years ago. Should I trust them, or just reject them outright just because it's 500 years?

> I hope the tone of this isn't off putting

Nope. I'm enjoying the conversation.

> I am just trying to be frank as to why I am skeptical and not dress up my words unneccesarily.

That's fine. Glad to talk.

> What makes you think this? What makes you think they are framing a story to fit a template?

Well its exactly what you say leads you to believe otherwise, the text. Matthew basically just knocks the prophecies out like a checklist, in my interpretation in order to legitimize the story to the jews, He no doubt had the prophecies in front of them, I don't see this as a wild theory, or reading to much into the text.

> A number of papyri in Egypt have the heading enrollment by household. It's possible, if this were the same kind of census, that Joseph still owned property in Bethlehem, the land of his heritage

Just like stated below, you have to make the text fit this interpretation, we have no evidence this was the case, and the text states the reason for them going to Bethlehem, because it was there ancestral land.

> It's not a problem until it's proven to be a problem.

It is a problem when it doesn't make sense and we have to assume its credible in order to find a reasoning. No, the reasoning is what would make it credible not the other way round.

> The text doesn't say anything about a donkey.

I was being generous to say she had a donkey, If you want to put her walking for 30 hrs be my guest. but I see you have switched epistemologies here: "the text doesn't mention a donkey" so no donkey, "the text doesn't mention Joseph owning land but he must because otherwise"... This is problematic.

> Just because Luke doesn't mention it (the massacre of the innocents) isn't a contradiction. Neither Matthew nor Luke show any intention of trying to tell the whole story. The details each chooses reflect their reason for writing. Every author is selective in their use of materials. This is not a problem

My problem wasn't necessarily that Luke doesn't mention it, though yes that is a problem as its integral to the story, my problem is that it almost certainly didn't happen. Josephus the Jewish historian would have almost certainly mentioned it, let alone any other historians, as far as I know Matthew is the only mention, and it serves as an obvious(to a skeptic) device to get them to egypt, fulfilling a prophecy. When we have good reason to doubt the legitimacy of one of the prophecies it makes it easier to dismiss the parts of the story that are less so but still questionable like the reason of being in Bethlehem, Matthew (very likely) did it once and that can inform us on rendering judgement on his other dubious claims.

> I do. It fits perfectly with everything we know about Herod. He was very murderous of anyone he thought was competition for his throne. But also there is no reason to think that a secretive jealous raid on a tiny village would make it to the official annals.

Bethlehem is beside Jerusalem, where the a lot of Jewish historians lived and worked out of, an order to kill all the first born infants of Jewish decent in Bethlehem and its vicinity would very likely have been documented. Macrobius was 5 centuries later, and making a remark about a quip not documenting history.

I hope the tone of this isn't off putting, I am just trying to be frank as to why I am skeptical and not dress up my words unneccesarily.