posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 10:58 AM
Luke's prologue indicates that he based his historical monologue on sources, but as far as I know there is no evidence which suggests that Paul
informed part of Luke's birth narrative. Clement indicated that Mark received his information directly from Peter, as he travelled with him, but
there is no similar account in early church literature concerning Luke and Paul. Furthermore, in Paul's writings there is no mention of Jesus birth,
nor the events surrounding his birth. This "conspiracy" is really a hypothesis, and like all hypotheses it must meet three criteria to be considered
viable: 1) It must explain the relevant data 2) It must do so with simplicity, as opposed to requiring a slew of ad-hoc and unfounded assumptions for
support 3) If this is truly as good hypothesis it should be able to shed light on related areas of investigation. I don't think your hypothesis
fulfills these criteria so at present it remains unconvincing to me. Also, by "discrepancies", do you mean "differences", or "inconsistencies"?
It should come as no surprise that different authors would include different data in their treatments of a certain topic. It would be unreasonable to
expect that Luke and Matthew's birth narratives should only contain the same information. As for inconsistencies, they are exactly of the nature that
one would expect to arise in ancient biographies/histories written by different individuals based on different strands of oral tradition and
eyewitness testimony. If there were none of these inconsistencies among the secondary details of the Gospels then it would be quite plausible that
their authors had been in collusion. What we have in the gospels, from a literary/historical point of view, is exactly what we should expect to find.
Anyone who claims that they are "infallible" probably has an unciritical and naive view of them, and almost no understanding of their historical