Board index ‹ Christmas

[Chewbacca]

Hi, I was wondering which of the two Birth narratives you guys ascribe to? Matthews, Luke’s, both or none? Growing up I was taught both simultaneously but in reading both back to back I realized they are telling very different stories set in almost completely different worlds. If you do believe both, why do you think they differ so much in thematic choices? And where do you think the authors got their info from? Thanks.

[jimwalton]

I believe both. The stories mesh well enough that I consider both to be true. It's true that Matthew and Luke are telling the story with completely different agendas in mind, but they are not telling different stories.

First, we can see where the narratives agree:
1. Jesus’s birth is related to the reign of Herod (Lk. 1.5; Mt. 2.1).
2. Mary, his mother to be, is a virgin engaged to Joseph, but they have not yet come to live together (Lk. 1.27, 34; 2.5; Mt. 1.18)
3. Joseph is of the house and lineage of David (Lk. 1.27; 2.4; Mt. 1.16, 20)
4. An angel from heaven announces the coming birth of Jesus (Lk. 1.28-30; Mt. 1.20-21).
5. Jesus is recognized himself to be a son of David (Lk. 1.32; Mt. 1.1).
6. Jesus’s conception is to take place through the Holy Spirit (Lk. 1.35; Mt. 1.18, 20).
7. Joseph is not involved in the conception (Lk. 1.34; Mt. 1.18-25).
8. The name Jesus is imposed by heaven prior to his birth (Lk. 1.31; Mt. 1.21).
9. The angel identifies Jesus as Savior (Lk. 2.11; Mt. 1.21).
10. Jesus is born after Mary and Joseph come to live together (Lk. 2.4-7; Mt. 1.24-25).
11. Jesus is born at Bethlehem (Lk. 2.4-7; Mt. 2.1).
12. Jesus settles, with Mary and Joseph, in Nazareth in Galilee (Lk. 2.39, 51; Mt. 2.22-23).

Craig Blomberg writes: Then we see that Matthew and Luke's narrative focus on different events surrounding the birth and earliest years, according to what each author is trying to say theologically. Matthew shows Jesus to be the fulfillment of the five key OT prophecies, while Luke compares and contrasts the births of John the Baptist and Jesus.

This probably raises more questions, as information always does, so let's talk more.

[Chewbacca]

I’m going to try not to come off as aggressive or confrontational here, if I do I apologize. A lot of the events come across to a skeptic as post hoc legitimizing of the storey. The authors knowing the prophecies beforehand, is creating a narrative in order to fulfill them. Like the census reasoning to place Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem, census’ don’t require you to return to your ancestral land for “registration”, they are about where you live now. And we are made to believe that a 9 month pregnant girl rode for almost 30hrs on donkey to meet this requirement? And the differences in the stories seem very large, like herods massacre of the innocents, do you believe this happened or is is playing a mythological role in the story? Or the fact in one all of the communication to Joseph is through dreams, but Mary and even the shepherds get actual Angels. To a skeptic these just appear as the author telling the story as they want to rather than for relaying actual events, how do you see it?

[jimwalton]

> I’m going to try not to come off as aggressive or confrontational here

Great, I'm glad to discuss these things.

> The authors knowing the prophecies beforehand, is creating a narrative in order to fulfill them.

What makes you think this? What makes you think they are framing a story to fit a template? I don't see this in the text. As a matter of fact, I assume you know they were expecting a warrior messiah, not necessarily a baby messiah. They were expecting a king-priest, not expecting a birth from a commoner mama. They were certainly NOT expecting a virgin birth. The virgin birth is actually difficult for them to deal with. They were not expecting shepherds to be the first witnesses—shepherds weren't even allowed to testify in courts of law and were often forbidden to come to the Temple. They were not expecting a magi visitation. So what makes you think they created a narrative to fit the prophesies?

> Like the census reasoning to place Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem, census’ don’t require you to return to your ancestral land for “registration”, they are about where you live now.

You're right that a Roman census would not have required them to return to their hometown, but Herod was free to execute the Caesar's orders in his own way. As long as Herod got the info for Rome, the manner of doing it was immaterial.

There are contemporaneous Egyptian records showing that in that culture people had to return to their homes to a tax census, not to the town they were born but to the town where they owned property. 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.

But notice that Luke 2.3-4 is rather general. It says that everyone went to register "in his own town" and that Joe went to Bethlehem. But it doesn't say "the city of one's birth" or "the city of one's heritage," or a past residence or much of anything specific. So what is this all about? It's not clear, and so we shouldn't just assume this is ahistorical. Maybe Joe still owned property there; maybe his family was still there; maybe they originally intended to settle in Bethlehem. (shrugging shoulders) Since we don't much, we can't criticize much. It's not a problem until it's proven to be a problem.

> And we are made to believe that a 9 month pregnant girl rode for almost 30hrs on donkey to meet this requirement?

The text doesn't say anything about a donkey. (Ah, too many TV specials and picture book stories.) Luke doesn't tell us how long in advance of Jesus's birth Joseph and Mary left for Bethlehem. Nor does it even tell us why he took Mary with him (although the province of Syria all taxed women; also, Bethlehem was her ancestral home as well)! She may have been only 4-5 months along, for all we know, and we don't know the mode of transportation by which she got to Bethlehem.

> And the differences in the stories seem very large, like herods massacre of the innocents

Just because Luke doesn't mention it 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.

> do you believe this happened or is is playing a mythological role in the story?

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.

Macrobius, writing in the 5th century, writes “When he heard that the son of Herod [arguably Antipater], king of the Jews, had been slain when Herod ordered that all the boys in Syria under the age of two be killed, Augustus retorted, 'It's better to be Herod's pig than his son.' " Classical scholars consider Macrobius to have been a reasonably credible historian. There is no way to evaluate, however, the accuracy of his knowledge of this quip. It is reasonable to assume, however, that he learned most of the Emperor's witty remarks, not just this one, from various internal, imperial Roman written and/or oral sources, transmitted directed or indirectly.

It is entirely possible that someone writing in his era had access to documents of Caesar’s era.

I find that the story has a great amount of credibility even though we have no direct documentation of it.

> Or the fact in one all of the communication to Joseph is through dreams, but Mary and even the shepherds get actual Angels.

Biblically, this is not a problem. God communicates in both methods rather frequently. That God makes such choices is not a surprise or a problem.

[Super Flood]

> But notice that Luke 2.3-4 is rather general. It says that everyone went to register "in his own town" and that Joe went to Bethlehem. But it doesn't say "the city of one's birth" or "the city of one's heritage," or a past residence or much of anything specific.

It says a little more than that. It says Joseph went to Bethlehem “because he belonged to the house and line of David.”

[jimwalton]

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 (presumably the next king of England), 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.

[Chewbacca]

> 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.

[jimwalton]

> 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.

[Chewbacca]

> 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.

[jimwalton]

> 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.