What is your definition of “pious”? Is it honestly your position that the birth narratives are not pious?
What is your definition of “story”? My understanding of “story” takes no position on whether it is true or not. I wasn’t there. I don’t know. That is why in religion, faith is essential-objective conclusive evidence is not available.
Source: I found birth narratives in my “New American Standard” Bible. Luke and Matthew. I didn’t find it in Mark.
“What is your definition of “pious”? Is it honestly your position that the birth narratives are not pious?”
That’s certainly an interesting red herring since I didn’t mention “pious” at all in my post. What I’m interested in is your definition of “added”, as in your statement here:
“Later versions added pious stories to fill in and supplment. How much of the later versions are actual, we don’t know. Matthew in particular was still being changed in the 4th Century.”
Clear up the ambiguity. Are you saying that the pious stories were added by later editors, or that Matthew filled out Mark’s slim account with events that he knew of?
You’re taking the position that “we don’t know” how much of the gospel accounts are actual. What parts of the accounts do you believe to be actual? What is your method for separating the wheat from the chaff, so to speak?