Infancy of Jesus

I was wondering if anyone was aware of a visual filter that contrasts the historical content about the infancy stories of the four canonical Gospels with that of the extrabiblical infancy Gospels. I am also interested in a workflow that might analyze this data if the visual filter is not accessible. I am aware that there are different reconstructions out there, so this could be complicated. Any advice is appreciated.

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Comments

Justin Gatlin

I don't think I understand. A visual filter marks up text based on certain parameters. What kind of automatic highlighting are you looking for?

DMB

I am also interested in a workflow that might analyze this data if the visual filter is not accessible. I am aware that there are different reconstructions out there, so this could be complicated. Any advice is appreciated.

The easy way is to link your Biblical infancy text, to an apocrypha resource with tagging, using a CitedBy tool. The Ante-Nicene v8 Infancy Gospel does that, though there is a preponderance of OT links.

MJ. Smith

contrasts the historical content about the infancy stories of the four canonical Gospels with that of the extrabiblical infancy Gospels

Hmmm ... I assume you mean "historical content" in the sense understood by the (human) authors and audience of the period not our current early 21st century understanding. So how does that understanding different from that of the authors and audience of the extrabiblical infancy Gospels? Which is my way of saying, I would be very careful about the presuppositions underlying my study before starting the study. I would also read the infancy narratives of some of the false Messiah's of the same general era to get a sense of the author/audience expectations.

At that point, I would decide whether I wanted to compare individual events or the theological/mythological point of each event. I would build a "Bible harmony" personal book of parallel events and color code the text by theological point made.

Christian Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1312038#Comment_1312038

I am not really sure Justin. I do not quite get Visual Filters. I thought it would show the differences between the textualities of the gospels. I want to compare the textual differences, history and culture between canonical gospels and other texts. The infancy narratives in the four canonical Gospels and the extrabiblical infancy Gospels present significantly different accounts of Jesus' early life. My analysis shows that Mark and John do not have an infancy narrative. The canonical Gospels primarily emphasize Jesus' divine nature and his role as the Son of God. They highlight events and prophecies that foreshadow his messianic identity. From what I see, the extrabiblical infancy Gospels often focus on the human aspects of Jesus' life, including his childhood pranks, miracles, and interactions with other children. DMB's suggestion is good. It links the analysis and rhetoric. I want to see why Mark and John did not include these narratives as well.

Justin Gatlin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1312125#Comment_1312125

I am not really sure Justin. I do not quite get Visual Filters. I thought it would show the differences between the textualities of the gospels. I want to compare the textual differences, history and culture between canonical gospels and other texts. The infancy narratives in the four canonical Gospels and the extrabiblical infancy Gospels present significantly different accounts of Jesus' early life. My analysis shows that Mark and John do not have an infancy narrative. The canonical Gospels primarily emphasize Jesus' divine nature and his role as the Son of God. They highlight events and prophecies that foreshadow his messianic identity. From what I see, the extrabiblical infancy Gospels often focus on the human aspects of Jesus' life, including his childhood pranks, miracles, and interactions with other children. DMB's suggestion is good. It links the analysis and rhetoric. I want to see why Mark and John did not include these narratives as well.

Visual filters are just rules for automatic highlighting. So you can highlight every instance of a certain word or certain tagging. But it isn't going to be helpful here.

The non-canonical gospels are about a century later than the canonical ones. Mark and John did not include them because they were made up considerably after Mark and John were dead.

Mike Binks

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1312301#Comment_1312301

The non-canonical gospels are about a century later than the canonical ones. Mark and John did not include them because they were made up considerably after Mark and John were dead.

This reminds me of the folk who get their understanding of Scottish History from watching the film Braveheart or their Roman History from watching Spartacus.

Christian Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1312301#Comment_1312301

The non-canonical gospels are about a century later than the canonical ones. Mark and John did not include them because they were made up considerably after Mark and John were dead

Where can I find documentation to this effect? I have not read that information in any of my studies. Are you saying the infancy stories were additions to the line of story found in the canonical Gospels?

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1312340#Comment_1312340

Where can I find documentation to this effect?

Try using Factbook as a starting point.

You could look for Infancy Gospels, Infancy Gospel of Thomas or others

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1312340#Comment_1312340

Are you saying the infancy stories were additions to the line of story found in the canonical Gospels?

Or they drew from the same oral tradition from which different authors drew different elements. An all search brings up useful information including:

INFANCY GOSPELS
A collection of GOSPELs probably written after the NT Gospels and probably motivated by an interest in Jesus’s childhood, a subject about which the CANONICAL GOSPELS say very little. According to Bart Ehrman, “After the New Testament gospels were written—and possibly earlier, although we have no hard evidence one way or the other—Christians began to tell stories about Jesus as a young boy. For the most part, the legendary character of these creative fictions is easily detected. We are fortunate that later authors collected some of them into written texts … which began to be produced by the first part of the second century at the latest” (191). An example is the infancy Gospel of Thomas, which dates from about 125 CE. Among other stories in this gospel, one presents Jesus as cursing a boy when he accidentally runs into Jesus. The boy subsequently dies, but Jesus later raises him from the dead.
Bibliography. Ron Cameron, ed., The Other Gospels: Non-canonical Gospel Texts (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982); Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (2nd ed.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).

Christian Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1312492#Comment_1312492

Factbook was not helpful but Bard was somewhat more advanced. Early Christians may have passed down stories about Jesus' birth, and Matthew and Luke chose to incorporate different elements of these traditions in their Gospels. The variations in their accounts could reflect the different communities or theological emphases that shaped each Gospel. For example, Matthew's account focuses on Jesus' connection to Jewish prophecy, while Luke's account highlights Jesus' universal mission and concern for the marginalized. I wonder why Mark and John did not include these. Was it a literary variable?

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1312713#Comment_1312713

I think you need to backtrack as to canon vs non-canon dating, and what actually supports either (vs layers of reasoning).

Today's journals that shipped, included a great article on Luke and Justin Martyr, with considerable detail on who said (or seemed to mean) what. Just an example.

Plus, you seem to want to read authors' minds ... or modern authors' speculations. But the end-point, is you're 2,000 years too late.

Christian Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1312722#Comment_1312722

I think you need to backtrack as to canon vs non-canon dating

Possibly. I think canonization and the development of the Bible is a lot more messy than people often give it credit for, and it’s easy to talk past each other and misrepresent things, especially when the conversation turns to polemics. In The Canon of Scripture, Bruce makes the case for both an early conclusion to both procedures and for significant agreement on the issue among all first-century CE Jews. asserts that the majority of the New Testament canon was completed in the second century. has a lot of helpful allusions to ancient literature and evaluates the majority of those references with care, but it makes an assumption that the early church established the biblical canon in response to heresy in the second century. This reminds me of Metzger.

Today's journals that shipped, included a great article on Luke and Justin Martyr

Can you give citation please?

Plus, you seem to want to read authors' minds ... or modern authors' speculations

That is exactly what a friend of mine told me.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1312725#Comment_1312725

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1312725#Comment_1312725

I think canonization and the development of the Bible is a lot more messy than people often give it credit for,

I find it absolutely hilarious to read books on the canonization of the Bible. They start with an assumption that what "regional officials" said should be used is closely related to what was actually used. In the colloquial "NOT". I prefer to define the canon by actual practice as that allows comparison across all traditions where the naming of doctrinal/liturgical/private reading categories don't hold across all traditions. Not to mention, those who reopen what should be canonical -- Martin Luther, Quakers, Mormon, Progressive Protestants, ... Reread Philip Jenkins' The Many Faces of Christ: The Thousand-Year Story of the Survival and Influence of the Lost Gospel for perspective. And remember that in hotbeds of apocrypha, apocrypha was part of the cultural milieu in which the Bible was read. This point is why I'd like to see Logos put more effort into integrating the non-canonical texts - especially those that were considered canonical somewhere at sometime.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1312744#Comment_1312744

This point is why I'd like to see Logos put more effort into integrating the non-canonical texts - especially those that were considered canonical somewhere at sometime.

Today I was looking for the Noncanonical dataset which I guess I bought. Bible Browser seemed to go outside the Bible, but was quite thin.

Christian Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1312744#Comment_1312744

Thank you DMB. I was wrapping my brain around your original post as I could not see the picture. That journal is very reputable and academic. If you come across anything else on my topic forward it to me.

I find it absolutely hilarious to read books on the canonization of the Bible. They start with an assumption that what "regional officials" said should be used is closely related to what was actually used

Agreed. It is very sickening to see this kind of assumption.

Reread Philip Jenkins' The Many Faces of Christ: The Thousand-Year Story of the Survival and Influence of the Lost Gospel for perspective

Reading it again at the moment. Thank you for your suggestion.

This point is why I'd like to see Logos put more effort into integrating the non-canonical texts - especially those that were considered canonical somewhere at sometime

I agree with you 100%