Scripture: What's myth and what's history?

[StAnastasia]

I’m sure there was a fig tree. What genre could that story possibly be, if not historical? Lying? Is slander a new genre of biblical exegesis? It certainly was used a lot by people of that time

If the fig tree was real, perhaps this was one of Jesus’ few malicious miracles, like the destruction of 2,000 swine belonging to someone else.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

If the fig tree was real, perhaps this was one of Jesus’ few malicious miracles, like the destruction of 2,000 swine belonging to someone else.

Are you assuming that the fig tree belonged to someone, and Jesus destroyed that person’s property? Maybe it was a wild fig tree. Surely there isn’t such a thing as ‘malice’ towards a tree… I’ll assume you meant the owner of the tree.

As for the story with the swine running over the cliff, it’s very mysterious. There could be many explanations other than saying that it didn’t really happen. If Jesus hadn’t let them possess the swine, would they have possessed another person instead?

 

[StAnastasia]

Are you assuming that the fig tree belonged to someone, and Jesus destroyed that person’s property? Maybe it was a wild fig tree. Surely there isn’t such a thing as ‘malice’ towards a tree… I’ll assume you meant the owner of the tree.

As for the story with the swine running over the cliff, it’s very mysterious. There could be many explanations other than saying that it didn’t really happen. If Jesus hadn’t let them possess the swine, would they have possessed another person instead?

Yes, one can act with malice toward a tree, or toward a cat, or toward a meadow. I suspect the fig tree pericope is a garbled remnant of some larger story that was not transmitted.

As to the swine, I suspect I would get in trouble with the law if I sent someone’s herd of 2,000 swine over a cliff. Jesus got off scot free on that one…

StAnastasia

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Yes, one can act with malice toward a tree, or toward a cat, or toward a meadow. I suspect the fig tree pericope is a garbled remnant of some larger story that was not transmitted.

God is allowed to kill a fig tree if he wants. Even we lowly humans are allowed to do that. It’s just a plant!

Garbled!!! GARBLED !!! The HOLY SPIRIT is the AUTHOR of SCRIPTURE!

As to the swine, I suspect I would get in trouble with the law if I sent someone’s herd of 2,000 swine over a cliff. Jesus got off scot free on that one…

You think you would be arrested in this day and age for telling demons to go into a herd of swine?

 

[StAnastasia]

God is allowed to kill a fig tree if he wants. Even we lowly humans are allowed to do that. It’s just a plant!
Garbled!!! GARBLED !!! The HOLY SPIRIT is the AUTHOR of SCRIPTURE!
You think you would be arrested in this day and age for telling demons to go into a herd of swine?

Yes, a garbled story. And yes – in my state we are not allowed wantonly to destroy other people’s herds of animals.

StAnastasia

 

[Neil_Anthony]

You think you would be arrested in this day and age for telling demons to go into a herd of swine?

yes

Wow you must live in a very special place. In my country, no one has ever been help responsible for financial damages related to giving permission to demons to possess over people’s livestock.

 

[StAnastasia]

Wow you must live in a very special place. In my country, no one has ever been help responsible for financial damages related to giving permission to demons to possess over people’s livestock.

It’s illegal in neighboring states too!

 

[Pete_Holter]

Justin Martyr, is the book of Jonah a historical narrative of events in the life of the prophet called Jonah, or is it a work of fiction?

“And that He would rise again on the third day after the crucifixion, it is written in the memoirs that some of your nation, questioning Him, said, ‘Show us a sign;’ and He replied to them, ‘An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and no sign shall be given them, save the sign of Jonah.’ And since He spoke this obscurely, it was to be understood by the audience that after His crucifixion He should rise again on the third day. And He showed that your generation was more wicked and more adulterous than the city of Nineveh; for the latter, when Jonah preached to them, after he had been cast up on the third day from the belly of the great fish, that after three (in other versions, forty) days they should all perish, proclaimed a fast of all creatures, men and beasts, with sackcloth, and with earnest lamentation, with true repentance from the heart, and turning away from unrighteousness, in the belief that God is merciful and kind to all who turn from wickedness; so that the king of that city himself, with his nobles also, put on sackcloth and remained fasting and praying, and obtained their request that the city should not be overthrown. But when Jonah was grieved that on the (fortieth) third day, as he proclaimed, the city was not overthrown, by the dispensation of a gourd springing up from the earth for him, under which he sat and was shaded from the heat (now the gourd had sprung up suddenly, and Jonah had neither planted nor watered it, but it had come up all at once to afford him shade), and by the other dispensation of its withering away, for which Jonah grieved, [God] convicted him of being unjustly displeased because the city of Nineveh had not been overthrown, and said, ‘You have had pity on the gourd, for the which you have not laboured, neither made it grow; which came up in a night, and perished in a night. And shall I not spare Nineveh, the great city, wherein dwell more than six score thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?’

“And though all the men of your nation knew the incidents in the life of Jonah, and though Christ said among you that He would give the sign of Jonah, exhorting you to repent of your wicked deeds at least after He rose again from the dead, and to mourn before God as did the Ninevites, in order that your nation and city might not be taken and destroyed, as they have been destroyed; yet you not only have not repented, after you learned that He rose from the dead, but, as I said before you have sent chosen and ordained men throughout all the world to proclaim that a godless and lawless heresy had sprung from one Jesus” (Justin Martyr, , Ch 107-108Dialogue with Trypho).

 

[Pete_Holter]

Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and Jerome: how do you answer the question?

“Long-suffering therefore was God, when man became a defaulter, as foreseeing that victory which should be granted to him through the Word. For, when strength was made perfect in weakness, it showed the kindness and transcendent power of God. For as He patiently suffered Jonah to be swallowed by the whale, not that he should be swallowed up and perish altogether, but that, having been cast out again, he might be the more subject to God, and might glorify Him the more who had conferred upon him such an unhoped-for deliverance, and might bring the Ninevites to a lasting repentance, so that they should be convened to the Lord, who would deliver them from death, having been struck with awe by that portent which had been wrought in Jonah’s case, as the Scripture says of them, ‘And they returned each from his evil way, and the unrighteousness which was in their hands, saying, Who knoweth if God will repent, and turn away His anger from us, and we shall not perish?’” (Irenaeus, , Bk 3, Ch 20, 1Adversus Haereses).

“For if He were the son of Joseph, how could He be greater than Solomon, of greater than Jonah, or greater than David, when He was generated from the same seed, and was a descendant of these men?” (Ibid., Bk 3, Ch 21, 8).

“If, however, any one imagine it impossible that men should survive for such a length of time, and that Elias was not caught up in the flesh, but that his flesh was consumed in the fiery chariot, let him consider that Jonah, when he had been cast into the deep, and swallowed down into the whale’s belly, was by the command of God again thrown out safe upon the land. …] Neither the nature of any created thing, therefore, nor the weakness of the flesh, can prevail against the will of God. For God is not subject to created things, but created things to God; and all things yield obedience to His will. Wherefore also the Lord declares, ‘The things which are impossible with men, are possible with God.’ …] and [as it might also appear impossible] that from the whale’s belly and from the fiery furnace men issued forth unhurt, yet they nevertheless did so, led forth as it were by the hand of God, for the purpose of declaring His power” (Ibid., Bk 5, Ch 5, 2).

“Nay, this very long-suffering of the Creator will tend to the condemnation of Marcion; that patience, (I mean,) which waits for the sinner’s repentance rather than his death, which prefers mercy to sacrifice, averting from the Ninevites the ruin which had been already denounced against them. …] Then, you will say, if you excuse the evil under name of justice, on the ground that He had justly determined destruction against the people of Nineveh, He must even on this argument be blameworthy, for having repented of an act of justice, which surely should not be repented of. Certainly not, my reply is; God will never repent of an act of justice” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Bk 2, Ch 17; 24).

And in showing Marcion how God has acted mercifully in history – not in man’s imagination, but in history – Tertullian also says that in “Jonah you find the signal act of His mercy, which He showed to the praying Ninevites” (Ibid., Bk 5, Ch 11).

“The history of Jonah contains a great mystery. …] As, then, Jonah spent three days and as many nights in the whale’s belly, and was delivered up sound again, so shall we all, who have passed through the three stages of our present life on earth— I mean the beginning, the middle, and the end, of which all this present time consists— rise again” (Methodius, From the Book of the Resurrection, 1-2).

“Have you no fear, then, lest the Saviour may say to you: ‘Are you angry, Paula, that your daughter has become my daughter? …] Jonah, that headstrong prophet, once fled from me, yet in the depths of the sea he was still mine’” (Jerome, Letter 39, 3).

 

[KingAlfred]

“How are we to know what is historical and what is not? What are we to take literally? What really happened in the Bible?”

The vast majority of it you must take on faith alone.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Oh wait, I forgot one!

“I was talking to the students of UCLA last year and someone in the audience heckled or asked the question, he said, ‘How was Jonah in the belly of the whale for three days?’ I said, ‘I haven’t the vaguest idea. But when I get to heaven, I shall ask Jonah.’ He said, ‘Well, suppose Jonah isn’t there.’ ‘Well,’ I said, ‘then you ask him!’” (Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, “There is Life in the Womb”)

 

[Pete_Holter]

Thank you for your analysis, Pat. I hope that this exchange is fruitful.

The book of Jonah is a work of didactic fiction - a story which attempts to teach something using a fictional story from the author’s imagination.

This is what you’re seeking to establish. OK.

Instead of using a debate to teach (as the author of Job did), the author of Jonah chose didactic fiction. In this genre he could use humor, parody, and irony to teach his audience a lesson

True that he could, although God can use these same elements in a narration of real history as well. And I’m not sure that there is even any humor or parody intended, but we’ll take a look.

The setting of the book is not realistic - a prophet from Israel preaching in Nineveh before the fall of the northern kingdom.

It is about as unrealistic as St. Francis going to meet with the Muslim leader during the crusades.

The plot of the book is obviously unrealistic.

The episode with the fish, the psalm from the belly of the fish

Since the historicity of the fish is a point in contention, I’ll leave that untouched. But I would think that praying to God at some point while in the belly of a sea creature for three days is the least one would do in such circumstances.

Interesting to note here is that in his prayer he speaks of being in the belly of Sheol… very interesting because Jonah being in the “belly of the great fish” is a sign of Jesus being in the “heart of the earth,” which the Church understands as referring to His ransacking of Sheol to ransom the just who have died. It must be said however, that Jesus’ body was physically in the grave, literally in the “heart of the earth.” So although Jonah’s soul was in the agony of death, being a sign of Jesus suggests that Jonah was also, bodily speaking, in the belly of a great fish. By the way, if I remember correctly, this wording, “belly of Sheol,” is a reason why Scott Hahn does not think that the story of the great fish is historical fact. He does, however, hold to other portions of the book as historically based.

the immediate repentance of the Ninevites,

Ahhh… immediate in the way that the story is told, yes! And perhaps historically as well. But this is not a comprehensive history. Jonah had been there for at least a day, but perhaps longer, perhaps a month’s time before the sweeping repentance described later takes place. Regardless, repentance is a gift from God that comes in a moment for some and over a course of time for others. It may have been that the king was touched by God in a special way. I would see the description found in Jonah 3:5 as a summary statement of what unfolds in the following verses. If this is the proper way to interpret the people’s repentance - that is, in reverse - then it may be that all we have is a king repenting inwardly, who then issues a decree for his people to repent outwardly, and in this way “they turned from their evil way.” Cuius regio, eius religio. It could also have unfolded differently. I’m sure there were some people authentically repenting before word reached the “king,” and within a day of Jonah’s preaching.

 

[Pete_Holter]

and the whole episode with the castor-oil plant

It would be interesting to look at the details of this. Let me start with something. So God causes a plant to grow that Jonah ends up using for shade. The text reads, “the next day,” which we may think of as the day after Jonah really starts appreciating and enjoying the benefits of this plant. God appoints a worm, and perhaps by “a worm” the text means that He appoints a type of worm as opposed to appointing just an individual worm. The morning following Jonah’s newfound enjoyment, the worm or worms start causing structural damage to the plant so that it “withers” enough to be knocked over in the “scorching east wind.” And Jonah gets very angry. If the event is miraculous, I would interpret it differently.

Now… is Jonah being petty?

The prophet hates the Ninevites enough to disobey God and take the opposite course. He thinks he’s in the clear and ends up being woken up from his sleep in a storm so violent that the ship “thinks” that it will break apart. He gets thrown into the ocean which is so terrifying that Jonah is grateful for being swallowed by the fish (2:6)!

The reason he didn’t preach to the Ninevites is because he suspected that God was going to have mercy on them if they repented (4:1-2). And yet, from the synopsis of his preaching, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown,” it seems that he was trying to purposefully hide this possibility from the Ninevites. This suggests to me that he was holding onto the hope that the Ninevites would simply despair and accept their fate. And yet, they repent and God has mercy on them. So that not only do Jonah’s enemies receive mercy, but he looks like a fool to them because the impending punishment that he threatened them with doesn’t come to pass!

By the time we get to the scene with the plant, we are working with a Jonah who is at the extreme end of frustration and vengeful bitterness. He ends up taking pleasure in this one little thing and God takes it away. Because of all that has preceded this, his response, instead of suggesting pettiness, seems more like exasperation and circumstantially provoked petulancy at this point.

are perfect for a humorous fictional narrative and ludicrous for a historical narrative.

Or vice versa since the account doesn’t even strike me as being funny.

 

[Pete_Holter]

And finally, the humorous tone clues us in to the fact that we are reading fiction: Jonah is not anything like the historical Jewish prophets but a parody of a historical prophet. His total lack of concern for the Ninevites, even after receiving his call, his angry and accusatory tone toward God, and his constant pettiness all make him a delightful fictional creation rather than a serious historical prophet who could only be regarded with contempt.

This doesn’t sound like humor to me. The tone of the book, when I read through it, does not prompt me to laughter, although some incredible things are narrated. I remember the first time I read C. S. Lewis’ view of Jonah: “Jonah, a tale with as few even pretended historical attachments as Job, grotesque in incident and surely not without a distinct, though of course edifying, vein of typically Jewish humour” (Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism). I was surprised, because I was not similarly struck by this “humour” and I wonder if this interpretation is more driven by one’s own personality, or if perhaps the person, having been told that it is humorous, expects to find it where it is absent.

The message, as you say, would be a difficult one for Jews to embrace; and I’m not sure why this does not work to excuse his anger and “pettiness” to make them seem more realistic to you. It seems that Jonah hated the Ninevites with a racist/xenophobic hatred. It is most likely that he saw them as being God’s enemies as well and was perplexed by God’s command to him. “And do I not loath those who rise up against you? I hate them with complete hatred; I count them my enemies” (Ps 139). The message would be received by the Jews much in the same way that Habakkuk – who shares Jonah’s outlook – received God’s proposed plan to use the enemies of the Jews (God’s people!) to punish the Jews: “You who are of purer eyes than to see evil and cannot look at wrong, why do you idly look at traitors and are silent when the wicked swallows up the man more righteous than he???” (Hab 1:13).

Jonah is one prophet among thousands and perhaps tens of thousands of prophets in ancient Israel. We know of about a comparative handful of these prophets by name. For everyone to have a cookie-cut profile and for nothing unusual to ever happen, this is not to be expected in this life. Some exceptional events are bound to happen and these are the ones that are going to be preserved in writing.

His anger towards God is not an unheard of phenomenon and is common enough to be portrayed in contemporary movies. I do not hold Jonah in contempt. I view him as a man of this time trying to serve God and yet who is a true sinner like me. His “pettiness” perfectly captures a common outward manifestation of the sin nature. When things are bad for him, he is busy worshiping God and hoping for deliverance. Once he is delivered, his piety quickly drops off with a seeming loss of memory. And the mercy he wanted for himself, he does not want shared with others. When his enemies are delivered, he is upset. John Chrysostom gives a great sermon where he notes how very difficult it is to obey the exhortation, “rejoice with those who rejoice”:

’to weep with them that weep, and to rejoice with them that rejoice.’ For even this last is a part of charity. And yet this seems a little thing, to be rejoicing with them that rejoice: nevertheless it is exceedingly great, and requireth for it the spirit of true wisdom. And we may find many that perform the more irksome part (peikroteron), and yet want vigor for this. For many weep with them that weep, but still do not rejoice with them that rejoice, but are in tears when others rejoice; now this comes of grudging and envy. The good deed then of rejoicing when our brother rejoices is no small one, but even greater than the other: and haply not only greater than weeping with them that weep, but even than standing by them that are in danger. There are many, at all events, that have shared danger with men in danger, but were cut to the heart when they came into honor. So great is the tyranny of a grudging spirit!

And yet, Jonah sacrifices himself for the crew on the ship, so that we’re not dealing with a caricature or “parody,” but with a multifaceted personality.

Hopefully this helps to make a historical interpretation seem more reasonable in your eyes, even if you don’t adopt it as your own.

I hope you have a blessed day, Pat!

 

[Pete_Holter]

They could rise again, in the sequel to Jonah. It’s perfectly valid to refer to fictional characters and comment on whether they would rise again at the Judgement or not. Of course, if they are fictional, and they will not receive a real judgement. But the point is the same - that the characters in Jonah put to shame the people who don’t recognize Jesus.

That’s the thing about the ancient biblical stories… their message and how we use them to teach is completely 100% the same whether they are fiction, legend, or history. You can’t tell from how Jesus or an apostle quoted the story and used it in teaching, whether they thought it was historical or not, unless they specifically address that question, which is unlikely, since they weren’t hung up about it like we are.

Hey Neil! I haven’t seen you in a while…

Before I analyze what’s being said here, I want to make sure you’re serious because I feel like Augustine did about other verses of Scripture (not the verse under question)…

“I think that so clear and open a sentence as this only requires to be read, and not expounded.”

And

“how ought we, or can we, understand by the statement, ‘The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here,’ as anything else than suggesting that the men of Nineveh are necessarily historical figures,] unless indeed we try to pervert or wrest the plainest sense of Scripture to our own arbitrary will?.. what again can be plainer than even this clear statement?”

Try to reconstruct this scene taken from Jesus’ life and give thoughtful consideration to the seriousness of the subject matter, and let me know if you truly believe what you have written here. Otherwise, I’ll leave you with Augustine’s words as a sufficient interpretation.

May the Lord be with you, my brother!

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The reason he didn’t preach to the Ninevites is because he suspected that God was going to have mercy on them if they repented (4:1-2). And yet, from the synopsis of his preaching, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown,” it seems that he was trying to purposefully hide this possibility from the Ninevites. This suggests to me that he was holding onto the hope that the Ninevites would simply despair and accept their fate. And yet, they repent and God has mercy on them. So that not only do Jonah’s enemies receive mercy, but he looks like a fool to them because the impending punishment that he threatened them with doesn’t come to pass!

see how funny it is!!! Trying to trick God always backfires! Not only did Jonah try to sabotage the preaching as much as possible, but it was so highly unlikely that evil Ninevites would ever repent no matter what. But, just a few hours of Jonah with his fainthearted preaching, and the Ninevites are all of a sudden complete converts, making him look like the fool.

I have a weird sense of humor though, maybe its just me?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Try to reconstruct this scene taken from Jesus’ life and give thoughtful consideration to the seriousness of the subject matter, and let me know if you truly believe what you have written here. Otherwise, I’ll leave you with Augustine’s words as a sufficient interpretation.

May the Lord be with you, my brother!

Hi Pete,

I have been through that exercize while reading this thread, but let me share a little anecdote that maybe will help explain a bit:

The way I was brought up, I had never even considered the possibility that faithful Catholics might not take every event in the bible as history. I sat through religion class after religion class and sermon after sermon by teachers and priests who just took for granted that these stories were myth, but I never realized that they thought they were myth. I didn’t realize it, because when we look at the meaning behind a story, we don’t comment on whether it is historical or not. There is no difference in how you talk about the story.

Then the opposite happened recently. I was in a doctrine class that discussed the creation stories in Genesis. I sat through the whole class just assuming that this person believed they were myths. I even asked questions and chatted with the teacher a bit about the significance of Eden. It wasn’t until afterwards that I realized that he probably took it literally, since the teacher was from a rather conservative group, and I thought back over the way he had presented the class.

Anyway, the point is, you can’t tell by how someone refers to a religious story, whether they take it as history.

One more way to demonstrate that: Do you know whether the Good Samaritan story was based on a real event? Was it something Jesus heard from a reliable source, or did he make up the story to illustrate a point? Is there any way to tell?

 

[Pete_Holter]

see how funny it is!!! Trying to trick God always backfires! Not only did Jonah try to sabotage the preaching as much as possible, but it was so highly unlikely that evil Ninevites would ever repent no matter what. But, just a few hours of Jonah with his fainthearted preaching, and the Ninevites are all of a sudden complete converts, making him look like the fool.

I have a weird sense of humor though, maybe its just me?

Yeah, maybe you need to work on the “mourn with those who mourn” side of the injunction.

 

[Pete_Holter]

The details of where the Holy Family went and when are irreconcilably different, but that does not change the truth of the Gospels.

Greetings TMC, and may the LORD shower His love upon you!

The response to this requires less imagination from the Evangelists, but more from us. I think it’s a good trade.

1. Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth. (Luke 1:26)
2. They travelled to Bethlehem. (Luke 2:4)
3. While in Bethlehem, Joseph found work there or perhaps made a network of friends that he decided to maintain. (A conjecture carrying no authority, but which serves to explain all of the Biblical data. )
4. Jesus is born in Bethlehem. (Matt 2:1 and Luke 2:6-7)
5. After 40 days they go to Jerusalem. (Luke 2:22)
6. They return to Nazareth to say their goodbyes. (returning to Nazareth: Luke 2:39; to say their goodbyes: another conjecture carrying no authority.)
7. They return to Bethlehem and the magi pay a visit to them in their new home. (returning to Bethlehem: yet another conjecture carrying no authority; the visit of the magi: Matt 2:1-12; the house: Matt 2:11; the newness of the house: derived from the conjectures lacking authority. )
8. They flee to Egypt. (Matt 2:13-15)
9. Herod seeks to kill Jesus. (Matt 2:16-18)
10. They want to return to Bethlehem, but are unable and they end up back in Nazareth. (Matt 2:19-23)

“Those sacred chariots of the Lord (the four Gospels), however, in which He is borne throughout the earth and brings the peoples under His easy yoke and His light burden, are assailed with calumnious charges by certain persons who, in impious vanity or in ignorant temerity, think to rob of their credit as veracious historians those teachers by whose instrumentality the Christian religion has been disseminated all the world over, and through whose efforts it has yielded fruits so plentiful that unbelievers now scarcely dare so much as to mutter their slanders in private among themselves, kept in check by the faith of the Gentiles and by the devotion of all the peoples. Nevertheless, inasmuch as they still strive by their calumnious disputations to keep some from making themselves acquainted with the faith, and thus prevent them from becoming believers, while they also endeavour to the utmost of their power to excite agitations among others who have already attained to belief, and thereby give them trouble; and further, as there are some brethren who, without detriment to their own faith, have a desire to ascertain what answer can be given to such questions, either for the advantage of their own knowledge or for the purpose of refuting the vain utterances of their enemies, with the inspiration and help of the Lord our God (and would that it might prove profitable for the salvation of such men), we have undertaken in this work to demonstrate the errors or the rashness of those who deem themselves able to prefer charges, the subtlety of which is at least sufficiently observable, against those four different books of the gospel which have been written by these four several evangelists. And in order to carry out this design to a successful conclusion, we must prove that the writers in question do not stand in any antagonism to each other. For those adversaries are in the habit of adducing this as the palmary allegation in all their vain objections, namely, that the evangelists are not in harmony with each other” (Saint Augustine, , Bk 1, Ch 7, 10The Harmony of the Gospels).

 

[TMC]

Greetings TMC, and may the LORD shower His love upon you!

The response to this requires less imagination from the Evangelists, but more from us. I think it’s a good trade.

1. Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth. (Luke 1:26)
2. They travelled to Bethlehem. (Luke 2:4)
3. While in Bethlehem, Joseph found work there or perhaps made a network of friends that he decided to maintain. (A conjecture carrying no authority, but which serves to explain all of the Biblical data. )
4. Jesus is born in Bethlehem. (Matt 2:1 and Luke 2:6-7)
5. After 40 days they go to Jerusalem. (Luke 2:22)
6. They return to Nazareth to say their goodbyes. (returning to Nazareth: Luke 2:39; to say their goodbyes: another conjecture carrying no authority.)
7. They return to Bethlehem and the magi pay a visit to them in their new home. (returning to Bethlehem: yet another conjecture carrying no authority; the visit of the magi: Matt 2:1-12; the house: Matt 2:11; the newness of the house: derived from the conjectures lacking authority. )
8. They flee to Egypt. (Matt 2:13-15)
9. Herod seeks to kill Jesus. (Matt 2:16-18)
10. They want to return to Bethlehem, but are unable and they end up back in Nazareth. (Matt 2:19-23)

“Those sacred chariots of the Lord (the four Gospels), however, in which He is borne throughout the earth and brings the peoples under His easy yoke and His light burden, are assailed with calumnious charges by certain persons who, in impious vanity or in ignorant temerity, think to rob of their credit as veracious historians those teachers by whose instrumentality the Christian religion has been disseminated all the world over, and through whose efforts it has yielded fruits so plentiful that unbelievers now scarcely dare so much as to mutter their slanders in private among themselves, kept in check by the faith of the Gentiles and by the devotion of all the peoples. Nevertheless, inasmuch as they still strive by their calumnious disputations to keep some from making themselves acquainted with the faith, and thus prevent them from becoming believers, while they also endeavour to the utmost of their power to excite agitations among others who have already attained to belief, and thereby give them trouble; and further, as there are some brethren who, without detriment to their own faith, have a desire to ascertain what answer can be given to such questions, either for the advantage of their own knowledge or for the purpose of refuting the vain utterances of their enemies, with the inspiration and help of the Lord our God (and would that it might prove profitable for the salvation of such men), we have undertaken in this work to demonstrate the errors or the rashness of those who deem themselves able to prefer charges, the subtlety of which is at least sufficiently observable, against those four different books of the gospel which have been written by these four several evangelists. And in order to carry out this design to a successful conclusion, we must prove that the writers in question do not stand in any antagonism to each other. For those adversaries are in the habit of adducing this as the palmary allegation in all their vain objections, namely, that the evangelists are not in harmony with each other” (Saint Augustine, The Harmony of the Gospels, Bk 1, Ch 7, 10).

OK, except that Matthew does not say that Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth, he says when they returned from Egypt they were going to go to Judea but they were “afraid to go back there.” Instead they went “to a town called Nazareth.” If they already lived in Nazareth they wouldn’t be going “back there” to Judea, and the evangelist wouldn’t refer to Nazareth as if they had never lived there.

Also, Luke does not mention the multi-year trip to Egypt. Luke says they went to Jerusalem every year for Passover until Jesus was twelve, something they couldn’t have done from Egypt.

The accounts don’t agree. I find it odd and ironic to twist the accounts and jump them through hoops to try show they are literally true, when the literal meaning conflicts so clearly.