The first post in this series can be found here.
In Matthew’s account of Jesus’ birth, we aren’t told how or why Joseph and Mary are in Bethlehem. We also aren’t told exactly how old Jesus was by the time the wise men came, but it’s possible that he was already a year or two old. And by the time they do arrive, Joseph and Mary are staying in a house (Matt 2:11). In 2:13-15, an angel tells Joseph to take Mary and Jesus into Egypt because of Herod. Then, once the threat was over, we’re told in verses 19-23 that they moved from Egypt to Nazareth, as though it was the first time they had ever been there. In fact, verse 22 says that Joseph wanted to go back to Judea, but was afraid of Herod’s successor.
Luke’s account is pretty different. In Luke 2:4, we see that Joseph and Mary were already living in Nazareth, but had to go to Bethlehem for a census. Several scholars have been puzzled by this reasoning, but that in itself is nothing conclusive. Luke agrees that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but he says there was no room in the inn, so Jesus was laid in a manger after his birth. Luke has shepherds that visit, but there’s nothing about Herod or the wise men.
According to Luke, the family of three stays in Bethlehem until Mary’s time of purifying was over (Lev 12:1-8); this would have been about 6 weeks. Then they travelled to Jerusalem to perform the purification rituals. Once that was completed, they returned to Nazareth (Luke 2:39).
This is not merely an instance where Matthew provides more information than Luke – Luke actually doesn’t allow an opportunity for going to Egypt – nor does there seem to be any reason to. In Luke’s account, Joseph and Mary obviously weren’t concerned about Herod, because they went right into Jerusalem. In order to agree with Matthew, we could say that after their trip to Jerusalem, they returned to Bethlehem, where they met the wise men and were warned about Herod. But this disagrees with Luke 2:39 (where they go straight back to Nazareth), and it also doesn’t make any sense. If their home was in Nazareth, as Luke says, why would they return to Bethlehem?
We could also try to find agreement by saying that they left Bethlehem for Jerusalem, went to Nazareth, and then fled to Egypt. But Matthew says that Herod’s murder of the infants only happened in Bethlehem, so there would be no need to leave Nazareth. In fact, if they left Bethlehem to escape the infanticide, why not just go straight to Nazareth?
Here’s what I think: Jesus was from Nazareth. Jews believed that the Messiah was supposed to come from Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), as seen in John 1:46, when Nathanael asks if anything good can come out of Nazareth. So Matthew and Luke both needed to have Jesus born in Bethlehem. Matthew simply had Joseph and Mary start out there. But then he needed a reason to have Jesus come to Nazareth, so he devised Herod’s slaughter of the infants, which no historian ever recorded, even those who weren’t fans of Herod. In creating the infanticide, he also found an opportunity to work in the “out of Egypt” “prophecy” that we talked about earlier.
Luke decided to start Jesus out in Nazareth and used a census to bring him down to Bethlehem. Again, most scholars have been puzzled by this since it also seems a little contrived. [Note: After all, Luke says they needed to go to Bethlehem for the census because Joseph was of David’s lineage. But David lived a thousand years before these events – can you imagine the upheaval that would occur if every family had to go back to the hometown of their great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great- great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grand father (could be more, depending on the genealogy you use) every time there was a census?] Once Luke had them in Bethlehem, it simply makes sense for Mary and Joseph to wait there until they could present Jesus at the temple. From there, they simply went home to Nazareth.
The bottom line is that these accounts are widely divergent when it comes to the details. The most likely explanation seems to be that they were written by two people who knew that Jesus was from Nazareth, but came up with different ideas about how he could have been from Bethlehem too.
In the next post, we’ll look at the conflicts surrounding Jesus’s genealogy.
Finding Truth 
(Luke 4.28-30) is a good example.
Where the ”multitude” wanted to sling Jesus off of a cliff.
That would have been a walk of around 4 kilometres. Not impossible but I wouldn’t have bothered tramping so far if i wanted to do someone in for simple blasphemy. I’d be knackered b y the time I got there. And then another tramp of 4 clicks back home? Stoning would have done just as well.
Furthermore, if this was his home town then everyone would likely know him. Where were his family? His brothers and sisters and cousins and aunt etc. Would you allow an unruly mob to lay their hands on one of your kids/ family?
Besides, if he was born of a virgin the whole bloody village would have known about it inside five minutes after Gabriel had made his house call.
And of course, there was the incident at the temple when he was 12. So all in all those residents of “Nazareth” would have known him pretty well.
Ah..you are probably referring to the bathhouse thing they found a while back yes?
Did you ever read any follow-up (non christian) reports from secular archaeologists who don’t have any ties with the likes of the IAA, by chance?
LikeLike
Also, another thing of consideration in Jesus’ resurrection story is jesus being touched after his resurrection but before his ascension.
We all know of the account where Doubting Thomas touched jesus’ wounds for proof (John 20:24-29). Also in Matt 28:9 it had some disciple holding feet while they worshiped him. But in John 20:17 he said not to touch him because he had not yet ascended.
Either jesus just didnt want Mary to touch him and was making up reasons for her not to, or he ascended once after speaking with mary and then came back to let the others touch him and then ascended again, or it’s just another problem with a made up story.
LikeLike
Dave, you wrote – “i do think both of our positions are faith-based. in my case, i have faith that God exists and that Jesus is God who came in the flesh. in your case, you have faith that either there is no God or that God is nothing like what we see in the bible…”
I wanted to comment on this for clarification. While neither position may have iron clad proof, the differing positions are not equal positions of faith.
Here’s an example: Let’s say that I believed in unicorns and bigfoot, and you did not. can you prove that they do not exist? because you cannot prove their non-existence, does that mean you have faith they do not exist? Obviously this is very different than the belief in their existence.
Many people say that atheism is faith (I’ve even heard some say that it takes more faith than believing that the bible is god’s word). They say this in order to try and make their positions equal to those they disagree with. They are not the same. The Bible makes huge claims which take faith to believe. It is the lack of faith, of evidence, or explanation that people do not believe.
But again, iron clad proof? No, I guess not… But then, it’s hard to point somewhere and say, “ah ha, there it isn’t.” On the other hand, if we’re talking aliens, bigfoot, and unicorns, it is well expected to be able to say, “ah ha!, there it is,” to prove the claim. I just think it takes something similar to prove god, or at least, which god and book to chose from.
anyhow, there is a difference. I dont mind people using the term “faith” to describe my position, as long as they understand the difference with my position and their faith.
LikeLike
I’ve been playing with merging the two stories from matthew and Luke of the birth of jesus, which has been kind of fun, but again, when reading them as their own accounts, neither really seem to give room to be merged with another.
nate, did you say that someone had merged the two or that there is a translation/adaptation that does this? if so, can you cite it so that i might compare mine with it?
So far, mine is only really an outline. I’ll see if i can post the spreadsheet…
LikeLike
Hi William,
There are probably some attempts at combining the two accounts, but I’ve never really looked for any. I was referring to the Diatesseron, which was a 2nd century attempt to combine all 4 gospels into one narrative. I’m not sure how the birth narratives were handled in it, but I do know that the genealogies were either omitted, or one was chosen over another. That point always stuck out to me, because some Christians claim that no one was bothered by the divergent genealogies back then. Obviously, that’s not the case.
LikeLike
arkenaten, your claim was that luke’s geography is “all over the place.” i was left with the impression of a man with a poor understanding of geography. however, the example you gave doesn’t dispute the geography; rather, it questions the history of what actually took place. though my guess is that you really don’t think anything like this took place at all, i still will make the comment that i suppose luke could have written that they tried to stone Jesus right there and then, but He escaped. that would have been just as good of a story. we have to determine, then, whether luke’s goal was to make stuff up, or whether he was interested in finding out what happened and faithfully recording it.
i wouldn’t allow one of my family members to be abducted as far as i could help it. but i’m not superman, and there are some really tragic examples of this kind of thing happening all the time.
not sure i understand the comment about gabriel’s house call. why would that necessitate the whole town knowing?
i have not done much research into the archaeological digs at nazareth. from what i’m reading, the evidence is not all in, and because of finances, politics, etc. there remains a lot to discover. if you have a suggestion for an article, please pass it along.
LikeLike
Good points William.
I often have wondered how different the writings “attributed to Matthew and Luke in particular and all the writers of what we refer to today as the Bible” would be if 1.) Their audience was 90 + % literate 2.) If they knew their writings would be distributed to millions of people in a collective book 3.) Their audience had the Internet to research and verify
LikeLike
william,
on your discussion of the “touching”: this is an interesting point that i had never thought of. i don’t know why Jesus would have given two separate instructions. but i would not jump to the conclusion that this is a made up story. indeed, if it were made up, i would conclude that little discrepancy would have been edited out (i realize that perhaps you, nate, and others don’t buy this).
if i’m hearing your other “faith-based” comment correctly, the burden of proof is upon those of us who believe in Jesus. i accept that. however, neither i nor anyone else will ever be able to offer an air-tight case, for example, on the resurrection of Jesus. all i can do is look at the evidence that surrounds it and figure out what best explains the evidence.
to use an analogy, if i was driving along and saw a sign in the desert that said “future home of ferris wheel”; and an hour later i passed a couple of trucks going toward that area that had ferris wheel parts; and then a month later i passed the same place and the sign was gone and there was no ferris wheel, but i spoke with someone who said they rode the ferris wheel; and i said to that person, “but i didn’t see the ferris wheel myself,” and he said to me, “well, it was there. would you like to come and meet a few others who rode it?”… i could probably come up with a number of theories about the existence of the ferris wheel, but what theory best fits the evidence?
of course, analogies are imperfect. one of the main problems with my analogy is that it is contemporary. going back 2,000 years complicates matters, but i still need to use my reason (and as i told nate, i don’t at all think that you and others are not using reason) to determine what best fits the evidence.
LikeLike
Haha! You’re doing admirably, if that’s any consolation! I know it’s tough to be outnumbered in these kinds of discussions — it’s happened to me on some Christian blogs a number of times. I do actually have some good friends here in blogland that are Christians — they may not be aware of this conversation, but maybe one of them will jump in soon.
Anyway, you’re right that we could go back and forth over some of those points, and it probably wouldn’t get us anywhere. And I don’t want to dig too much into some of those points anyway, out of respect for you. Those were your reasons for why you believe, and I appreciate your sharing them with us.
As briefly as possible, let me try to explain why I believe as I do. Like William, I think there’s a difference between the levels of faith required for agnosticism or even atheism compared to the faith required for theism. I won’t elaborate anymore on that, because he explained it very well.
I view agnostic atheism as the default position. Not atheism in the sense of stating there is no god, but in simply not having an active belief in a god. To use William’s example, we’re all a-sasquatchists, because none of us believes in bigfoot. We might be hesitant to say that bigfoot absolutely does NOT exist, because that requires a high level of proof that’s difficult to come by. But it’s perfectly reasonable to say that we don’t believe in bigfoot because we haven’t been given enough evidence to overcome our skepticism.
In the same way, I haven’t been given enough evidence to overcome my skepticism of any of the various deities people believe in. I used to be a Christian, and while I was a dedicated Christian and had formed my beliefs through thought and study, my faith had still been primed by my upbringing. When I finally had cause to question my beliefs, I realized that I had built a magnificent structure on sand — I had never gone back to examine the basic evidence of Christianity. I had assumed its truth because everyone I’d ever known had believed it. Instead, I had focused on learning what God wanted us to do — in other words, I had focused entirely on what the Bible was trying to teach rather than whether the Bible was actually from God. When I went all the way back to square one, I realized that I didn’t have enough reason to believe it.
Christianity makes some massive claims. Just like every other religion, it explains our existence by attributing it to God. Furthermore, it claims that this God is very interested in our thoughts and actions. That once upon a time, he interacted with people personally. Sometimes, he commanded one group of people to slaughter another group of people. He was very concerned with things like circumcision, sexual preference, and what kind of food people ate.
Eventually, this God sent his son (who was also himself) to live as a human and be offered as the ultimate sacrifice to appease his own wrath and sense of justice. And for all of us to be accepted by this God, we need to believe that he did those things. For evidence, we’re given written accounts that are largely anonymous — yet we don’t have the originals, only copies of copies of copies. These will disagree with each other in places. Some entire passages will be questionable because they will only show up in later copies. Hundreds of years will pass before most people ever have access to all these accounts, and even then, most people will be illiterate.
Once people are able to read the accounts for themselves, some of the accounts will seem to contradict other accounts. Some of the prophecies will seem to be utter failures. And one gospel in particular will claim that all kinds of things fulfilled prophecies, but when examined, it will be evident that those passages were never prophecies at all. The writings will occasionally contradict history and science as well.
This collection of writings will also be the primary avenue for people to learn God’s will. If they don’t learn it correctly, they can’t be saved. To make it more complicated, God will allow many people to be born into cultures that are fiercely dedicated to other religions. These people will need to become mature enough to shed their own dogma, and then wade through the seeming false prophecies, the seeming contradictory passages, the seeming bad science and history to eventually find the “truth” that is Christianity.
In a nutshell, this is why I find religion (and Christianity in particular, since it’s the one I’m most familiar with) to be so unbelievable. Sorry this comment was so long!!
LikeLike
Dave,
I think the ferris wheel analogy has another problem too. It might be odd for a ferris wheel to be in the desert, but it’s still very possible. If someone told you that they rode an alien spaceship and could introduce you to other people that had also ridden it, would you be as likely to believe them?
LikeLike
no, not nearly as likely. but i think there are more pieces to the puzzle of Jesus and his resurrection – both before and after – than there are for an alien spaceship ride.
haven’t had time to go over your longer piece, and have to run now. but i did read the first part about being respectful to me. i do appreciate the respect i have been shown on your blog by your and others. and, no worries, i don’t feel that it would be disrespectful to question or otherwise disagree with the reasons i’ve listed. these reasons are either true or false. there are much more subjective, personal reasons for my faith as well, that i haven’t put out there because those are not really helpful to our discussion.
would love to hear from one of your friends!! 🙂
LikeLike
Maybe. At the same time, there have been countless UFO sightings, many many abduction claims, and some odd stories like Roswell and the “Battle of Los Angeles” from WW2. Plus, if you’re alluding to the prophecies concerning Christ, that was a major consideration for me as well when I was going through my deconversion. After going back through them more critically, I was not nearly as impressed with them as I had been before. Matthew, especially, takes a lot of liberties with scripture to find his “prophecies.”
And I put the call out to get you some reinforcements — hopefully they’ll stop by! 🙂
LikeLike
In addition to the so-called “prophecies,” there’s another, lesser-known reason for the Messiah to have been born in Bethlehem, that fits very well into the Jesus/Yeshua myth.
This, from my own website:
“35:21 ‘And Israel journeyed, and spread his tent beyond the tower of Edar.’”
The “tower of Edar” would have been known by its Hebrew name, “Migdal Eder,” meaning, “Tower of the Flock.” Much, much later, we will hear of Mary Magdalene, or, Mary, the Migdalene, meaning that she came from the area of the tower, or migdal.
In ancient times, this was a military tower erected to view into the valley on the edge of Bethlehem (Ephrath, Ephratha, or it’s Egyptian derivative, Ephratah). The original history of the watch towers is lost in the mists of pre-history, doubtless built and maintained by one of the many nations that conquered the Levant, only to have been themselves conquered by the next generation of tyrants. Real estate agents in those days, made a fortune.
As times passed, the watch towers located along that road came to serve a dual purpose, at times used for the safety of the country, but also used to watch over large flocks of sheep.
The flocks in Bethlehem were raised for very special purposes. The shepherds that cared for these flocks would have been specially trained for their job, as a special flock of sheep were raised by rabbinical shepherds from Jerusalem. These shepherds were very knowledgeable of the ceremonial laws of cleanliness and took very seriously their job that the sheep were to be protected from harm or injury of any kind.
Bethlehem was the birthplace of these lambs and since their final destination involved being offered as a religious sacrifice in the temple at Jerusalem, special care had to be taken that they were not blemished. Only a perfect lamb would be acceptable. These people’s god wasn’t satisfied with factory seconds. Regarding his human creations, he admits he made junk, but he expects only perfection in return.
Migdal Edar was a two-story tower that was covered to protect the watchman who looked over the horizon to be on guard for any impending danger from both human and animal enemies. The lower level of the tower was specifically used as the place where the lambs from the flock were born. It was ceremoniously clean and orderly.
According to historic writings, underneath the watch tower itself was a cave-like lower portion. This is where the ewes would be taken to be protected and cared for while they delivered their newborn lambs. Temple ritual would have required that the birthing place for these lambs be ceremonially clean, so a lamb used for sacrifice would likely not be born in a dirty environment as we would think of a stable in our Western mindset.
When a lamb was born, it was immediately wrapped in swaddling clothes (described historically as strips of cloth) to keep it from injuring or otherwise blemishing itself and placed in a small stall or manger, where it could temporarily recuperate until it gained strength. This was done so the lambs would be protected from harming themselves on their unstable legs. Then, at some point, they would be examined by a priest to ensure they were fit for use as a sacrifice. This was the only function of the lower level of the Migdal Eder.
The flock of sheep was kept outside 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This was a holy place, set apart for the sole purpose of birthing the temple sacrificial lambs.
As can be seen, it took a lot of work to incorporate sufficient details into the Yeshua myth as to make it appear as though it was an event millennia in the making.
LikeLike
There were so many points to which I wanted to comment, but there were no “Reply” buttons – oh well —
The differences in the stories lie in the fact that both Matthew and Luke took freely from Mark, but there’s no indication that those anonymous authors ever read each other’s work, and no opportunity to synchronize their efforts.
As for the trip to Egypt, apparently Matthew felt it was essential to create the imaginary vacation, in order to satisfy Hosea 11:1, “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.“
LikeLike
@Dave
First, sorry I’m a little slow with my response to your response, but I do have other things going on in my life besides reading and posting on blogs. 🙂 And, too, I needed to do a little research.
1. Yes, John does record Jesus’ statement that he and the Father are one. However, if you will note in John 17:22-23, Jesus makes a request of “the Father” that all may be one. Is he asking that everyone be God in the flesh? Rather, I think he is saying he is one with the Father in purpose and it is his desire that this same unity exists among all believers.
As for Jesus saying he is the Messiah, I think it’s important to point out that the early writings of Paul predate the gospels by several years. His first few epistles were written around 10-20 years before Mark (who wrote the first gospel) and at least 40-50 years earlier than the gospel of John (generally dated anywhere from 90-125 CE). Taking note of this, it was Paul who first made the claims that Jesus was the “the Christ.” As he spread his version of Christianity, this soon came to be the general consensus and thus became part of the belief of the gospel writers. Particularly John, whose gospel is said to be the most “spiritually-based” (as opposed to “historical”).
2. Well, yes, this verse could indicate that Jesus was talking about his return to life, but again, the gospels were written after Paul had his say and he’s the one who talked about Jesus dying and returning to life. (BTW, his reasons for doing so are based on his need to convince the gentiles that Jesus was a dying/rising savior.)
3. The gospels do report people seeing Jesus, but in what form? On three different occasions, he was not recognized (why not?). On another, he appeared as a “ghost.” Yet Thomas is said to have touched him and Luke writes that he ate and drank with the disciples. And Paul? Nowhere does it say that Jesus appeared to him. What he saw was a talking “light from heaven” that claimed to be Jesus.
40 days? Hmmm. Luke’s gospel says he was around for only a few hours, John reports he was only seen up to a week after his death. It was the writer of Acts that reported he was present for 40 days. Which one is right?
4.Not sure that this is an indication of James dying for the faith. It sounds more like a political death to me since all it indicates is that he “belonged to the church.” I tend to agree that the reported “deaths for the cause” are more tradition than fact.
And finally, the reason you don’t know of any other sources is because there aren’t any.
@Nate (and others),
Hope you’ll forgive me for taking away from the original subject of this blog posting.
LikeLike
hi nate, just had a chance to read your longer post, and though i don’t personally accept some of what you have said (e.g., failed prophecies), much of what you have said resonates with me (e.g., assuming Christianity is true, God allowing people to be born in non-Christian cultures with the implication that they will never have a real chance to learn of Christianity).
i may be wrong, but at or near the bottom of what you are saying is the true presupposition that many Christians believe huge amounts of people will be spending eternity in hell. if that is a major objection you have, it is an objection i share. i think the ideas of hell that many christians have are more like dante’s inferno than the bible. like many other things we have discussed, that idea is either true or false; i believe it to be false, and that the biblical evidence for it to be mis-interpreted.
there’s lots of directions to go from here, and we’re all beginning to stray far away from the logic/illogic of the nativity stories… since you are the moderator of this blog, is all of this ok with you? or do different discussions need to be held in other places (i have not taken the time to view other areas)?
LikeLike
SO glad you picked up on that, Nan, I had intended writing extensively on it at some point in the future.
Note also that when Mary Magdalene sees him in the garden, and first believes him to be the gardner, then finally recognized him, she falls to her knees in an effort to throw her arms around his legs, but he cautions her not to touch him, “For I am not yet ascended to my father.” What do you suppose he means by that? In the sense of the word that I understand “ascend,” it really hard to touch someone AFTER they’ve ascended!
I could swear that at some point in the past, I read that passage as, “Do not touch me, for I am not yet become flesh,” which could mean he had not yet “solidified” from a “spiritual” form, but I’ve not been able to find it since, in any version of the Bible.
LikeLike
Nan,
In John’s account, I don’t get the week time constraint when I read it. John says he appeared to the disciples, and then appeared to them again 8 days later when Thomas was with them. That’s all in chapter 20. Ch 21 says he appeared to them again while they were fishing in the Sea of Tiberius (in Galilee), and we don’t know when that was. I don’t particularly see a timeline disagreement between Acts and John.
However, the gospels definitely give different impressions. In Luke, the impression is given that Jesus was only there that one day. In Acts, it says he was there for 40. John doesn’t really say, nor does Matthew. But what’s interesting in Matthew and John is the intermittent nature of his appearances. Where is he going when he’s not with the disciples? He appears to some of them in Jerusalem, but then they don’t see him for a while. Then he appears to them in Galilee, but according to Matthew, it seems that he doesn’t spend much time with them before ascending.
If his resurrection was physical, why doesn’t he stay with the disciples the entire time? What’s he doing during that 40 day period? There’s nothing substantial enough here to call foul over anything in particular, but it does strike me as very odd.
LikeLike
Hi Dave,
I’m fine with letting the conversation go wherever it goes. Thanks for checking though!
And yes, people’s positions on Hell and what salvation actually means are all over the board. I was raised to believe in a literal Hell, but I’ve since come to see that such a belief was built over a long period of time. It’s certainly not what the Israelites believed.
Since you don’t believe in Hell, what do you believe the point of the gospel is? What’s it saving people from? Is there a Heaven, and if so, will everyone be there?
LikeLike
Well, the Mormons maintain he popped in on the Native Americans, presumably to say, “See ya later!” – that could have taken some time.
LikeLike
Ah, that explains it! 😉
LikeLike
@Dave
Luke claims that Nazareth was built upon a hill and they want to sling him to his death from it.
Nazareth is not built on a hill and the nearest point to throw anyone down is 4km away.
It is also worth remembering that the population Luke’s ”city” has been conveniently scaled down from a few thousand to include a 25 family hamlet to a one family farm to the site of a nearby Roman Garrison hypothesis you mention ,which has been roundly refuted btw but I’ll’lll be blowed if I can find the link.
So if we say for argument’s sake it was a tiny hamlet, straightaway this is in conflict with Luke.
If we go with the city as stated, there is no archaeological evidence at all.
Were the residents unaware that they had a god in their midst?
Did the parents make no mention of the visit by the Magi?
What about the slaughter of the innocents and the family;s flight to Egypt.
That story must have been known and still the residents of this Nazareth are unaware that they had a god man living in their midst even after they returned home.
It becomes more and more difficult to square away the Lucan account with reality.
And even Catholic archaeologist Father Bellarmino Bagatti found nothing to support Luke’s version and neither has any other archaeologist.
In other words…someone made it up.
LikeLike
@ Dave
Just in case…( not everyone reads the bible :))here’s the passage.
My emphasis.
LikeLike
Luke’s account states that Nazareth was built upon a hill. It isn’t. And the nearest place that they could have possibly cast him down from was 4kms away.
Luke also states Nazareth was a city with its own synagogue.
Over the years this has been downscaled until it was considered a one family farm.
If the latter is correct where did the multitude come from?
What happened to the synagogue Jesus spoke in?
LikeLike