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 
my “ego”??? who, me???
one person once said, “I never make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” i do have respect for your opinion and the opinions (beliefs) of the others on this site – and, i have my opinions (beliefs) too. that’s why i’m here. owning those is important. if you can’t trust that i actually believe what i’m saying, and i can’t trust the same of you – that we’re just having a nice, philosophical discussion – that may have value, but doesn’t have as much interest to me as what happens on this site.
not sure what thought you believe might serve me better in the present, unless maybe it gets back to “ego.” dying to self is what is needed to better serve. believe it or not, i have changed my ideas over the years – for the better, i think – but do have a long way to go.
blessings, dave
LikeLike
@Dave
I am simply not being blunt enough. The fact that you could even CONSIDER that a story about three kings, or three wise men, or what have you, who travelled thousands of miles to pay homage to a baby in a manger is literally true is convincing evidence to me that your religious teachers have taken out a lien on your brain. You no longer have the full use of your own intelligence. It’s a sad, sad thing for you; but what’s even sadder is that there are millions of others who are similarly impaired.
The “atheists” on this ‘site are attempting to pull you out of your fantasy world by urging you to use logic. I think they’re wasting their time. I work as a mental health clinician. I have lots of clients who suffer from fixed delusions. It’s very sad, but I’ve learned to stop trying to argue them out of their odd ideas. There’s a reason, a reason that has nothing to do with logic, why you’re out on a limb the way you are. You hang on to your literalism because you’re afraid. Ultimately, I suspect, you’re afraid of God. You imagine Him to be as narrow as your teachers — which, as far as I’m concerned, proves that you have no faith.
You don’t have enough faith to erase the notion that God is controlling, and powerful, and punitive, and judgmental, and vindictive. Yeah, I’m making all kinds of claims, here and — if I were actually going to try to know you as a whole person — I would keep my mouth shut and find a way to actually listen to you, and to actually learn to care about the suffering you’re in. I’m mouthing off because I’m on the internet.
Maybe I’m applying “tough love”; even though I know that it’s not going to work. You and I are just throwing words back and forth but I want you to know WHY I’m sad about your situation. You will reject my sympathy, but that’s neither here nor there. You may never believe this, but I truly want what’s best for you and I want you to be happy and I want you to get your brain out of the cage it’s in.
I love the story of the Epiphany. The fact that it’s not “really” true actually makes it better! It focuses my attention on something far more profound than the trivial issue of what three ancient wanderers happened to see when they stumbled into Palestine.
I want to know that the Prince of Peace has come into our world and that all the nations will become subject to goodness, and mercy, and compassion, and generosity, and self-sacrifice. I want to hope that our world actually can be fixed. I want to be encouraged to look beyond the frightening visage of our violence and hatred and find a way to see the spark of the divine in all the people I meet.
That’s what I want, and it’s SOOOOOOOOOOOO much better than three knuckleheads genuflecting before an infant’s crib. That’s what I think you miss by being a literalist. That’s why I’m sad for you. That’s why I cringe.
In earnest,
Paul
LikeLike
Paul, I don’t think that’s a very fair assessment of Dave’s position. If one believes in God and believes that God is supernatural and capable of speaking things into existence, then believing miracle claims is no big deal. That’s not an indication that someone has failed to use their intelligence.
Dave’s at a point where he can accept the possibility of God doing any and everything that the Bible claims. For a while, he has accepted that those claims are true, but now he’s apparently willing to reexamine that position. There’s nothing wrong with where he’s at or the approach he’s using.
At least, I don’t see a problem with it, for what that’s worth…
LikeLike
paul, this is somewhat amusing coming from you.
unless I am just completely mistaken about your brand of christianity…
Where do you learn anything about Jesus if not from the bible?
It looks like you’re criticizing Dave for reading the bible as it’s written, while you’re a believer who takes select parts as being literal (I assume you at least think jesus is literal) and the rest figurative (even though it’s written as if it’s literal).
I don’t have the rank to order a captain around though, so I may just be speaking out of place.
LikeLike
@Nate
You are an excellent blog host. Fair minded and generous. I like that, and I’ve noticed in the past how good you at “nipping in the bud” potentially hurtful exchanges.
I don’t want Dave to feel hurt anymore than you do. I’m not lashing out at him, really I’m not. My frustration is with literalists in general, not with him in particular — and I’m thinking that you realize that.
I’m sure that you, when you were in the midst of your literalist funk, would have been hurt by a comment such as I just made, You’re a nice guy. Dave’s a nice guy. I’m an asshole — but I’m elaborating on that in another string…
I made a point that I’m going to repeat here. By taking the position that the Bible is a compendium of supernatural occurrences, literalists miss out on the message that needs to be learned.
Look, I know that there is a lot of weird unexplainable shit that goes on in the world. I realize that it isn’t fair for me to rule something out simply because I think it’s improbable — but I notice, time and time again, that if you take the position that the miraculous stories in the Bible are accurate reports you end up, at the end of the day, with events that are actually quite trivial.
Let’s say a guy actually and literally braved the wind and the rain and took an evening stroll over the Sea of Galilee. What would it matter? Am I to be inspired to believe that God is mighty? Well, if the existence of a universe that actually functions according to stable natural laws isn’t enough to convince me that God is mighty, why would I come to believe in God because I notice those ‘stable natural laws’ are suspended?
How much is a trip across a lake worth? That’s how much that story would be worth if it were literal — but it’s much,much more valuable than a ferry’s fare and literalists miss the whole point.
The place where Jesus is calling Peter (and calling you!) to put yourself out on the line and to trust that what he says is true isn’t a place in time and space — any more than heaven can be located in time and space.
Literalists are actually materialists. They don’t realize it, but their position is actually anti-God.
Paul
LikeLike
Yes, Dave (voice of H.A.L., here –) do as the good Captain suggests – let go of your obsessive need for reason and rational thought and cling firmly the supernatural, after all:
Can’t have that, now can we?
LikeLike
Clearly, CC, you’re hanging with the wrong crowd – I know a LOT of people who aren’t assholes! I feel sorry for you, and much better understand why you cling to your fairy tales, where everything is sunshine, lollipops, and happily-ever-afters.
LikeLike
paul, i know you are not lashing out at me. really, it’s funny to me that when i said “i’m feeling awful,” you apparently took that literally. it’s funny to me that you have labeled the theology i hold, along with my personality. there’s a whole lot more humor i find, but probably the funniest thing of all is your comment earlier about “the respect” you actually do have for me. i would suspect your delusional patients have the ability to see right through you. you make some good points, and have a valuable perspective…. but to be blunt, at least in your writing, you’re way too condescending.
p.s. perhaps unintentionally, you continue to avoid the question that keeps getting posed to you, best summed up by william: “Where do you learn anything about Jesus if not from the bible?”
LikeLike
I’m not surprised —
LikeLike
I see what you’re saying, Paul. And I do know that you’re not trying to hurt anyone’s feelings — you’re just venting your frustration with the mindset, not the individual. I completely understand that.
At the same time, I don’t think the literalist position is completely ridiculous. If God did create everything, then he is immensely powerful, as you said. And if he wanted to talk to us, what’s stopping him from doing so? In a nutshell, that’s the literalist position. Trust God and what he says, whether it makes complete sense or not — after all, he’s God. Who are we to judge what he says?
Of course, upon closer inspection, this is rife with problems. First of all, God hasn’t told us anything (at least not all of us — I know some people believe God talks to them, but I’m leaving that aside for now). The Bible claims to be his revelation, but it was written by men. The Catholic church claims to speak for him, but they’re just people. Just as you said, you can’t escape the human element.
This is where the literalist position should break down, especially when they begin to see the problems that exist in the Bible. Sadly, many people aren’t confident enough in their own ability to examine the problems and see them for what they are. But in my opinion, this is also where the Catholic position should break down. Just look at all the problems the Catholic Church has spewed out onto the world. If they really had a divine uplink to the Almighty, shouldn’t it be a bit more apparent?
I don’t necessarily fault either position for their starting place. I just have trouble seeing why people continue along those paths once the evidence starts rolling in.
LikeLike
“I just have trouble seeing why people continue along those paths once the evidence starts rolling in.”
Probably because most of them simply refuse to accept the evidence. It’s so much easier to stay in our “comfort zone.”
LikeLike
The impression with which I’m left, William, is that Captains Courageous here believes in the Hebrew god and his little boy, but not in the literature that tells of their existence – quite a leap, when you think about it – without the back-up literature for substantiation, then why not Odin and Thor? Cronus and Zeus? Osirus and Horus? Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy?
LikeLike
“to be blunt, at least in your writing, you’re way too condescending” – Oh, Dave – SAY it isn’t SO –! 🙂
LikeLike
‘Nuf sed.
LikeLike
And for those who think that nobody believes in Odin or Thor anymore think again: http://www.odinistfellowship.co.uk/
Ah but the number of people who believe that are incredibly small though – but don’t forget that both Judaism and Christianity started out with a very small number of believers (and stayed that way for many years) and many now believe those religions to be true, so in that respect the number of believers shouldn’t sway us when it comes to religion.
Besides being an Odinist comes along with an extra appreciation of some very awesome movies.
LikeLike
I never stopped. I also clap when urged to by Peter Pan, in an effort to save Tinkerbell, but Yahweh & Son, not so much —
LikeLike
@Dave
First of all, Dave, I can understand why you’d call me out for being condescending. Your observation is right on the money. I really can come off as condescending in the way I post comments on blog entries which, in a real sense, is a case of me slandering myself because I don’t actually feel that way — it’s just that at times I’m most interested in putting something out in as powerful and clear a way as I can. Yes, I know I’m being provocative, and blunt, and candid, and even over simplistic sometimes. When I do that I’m trying to hammer home an idea that I think is important — and I think it’s important to think about the spirituality you lose out on when you’re being a biblical literalist.
I bring up this example only because it’s so commonplace in the faith life of Catholics. When I went to Mass yesterday the priest had this to say about the readings: “You know, there really are some lovely things in John’s first letter. His second and third letters, however, aren’t really worth the paper they’re printed on.” Folks on this board would accuse him of being a ‘cherry picker’ but I see it differently. I see a man who has a faith life and can speak about what he knows from first hand experience. When he reads a book he can decide for himself how well the author is expressing the things he knows to be true. I do that as well.
“[Y]ou continue to avoid the question that keeps getting posed to you, best summed up by william: ‘Where do you learn anything about Jesus if not from the bible?'”
I learned about Jesus, and continue to learn about Jesus, from other people — other members of the church. We Catholics talk about the fact that faith is ‘caught’ more often than ‘taught’. Yes, we read the Bible but the Bible isn’t an “argument settler” as it seems to be among the literalists. We use scripture passages as a jumping off spot for conversation. Sometimes our contribution to the conversation — like the priest I was with yesterday — is to say, “this isn’t at all useful.” We’re free to do that because our faith informs our reading of the Bible rather than the other way around.
When I was a child I learned about Jesus from my parents, and from my extended family. We’d pray together, and talk about faith matters, and pose questions to each other, but we only rarely read the Bible. When I was a teenager I sought out people who were really living their faith and I see now that I learned to be a disciple just by “hanging out” with them.
We talk of repentance — and for us repentance is an everyday, life long practice. We talk about becoming made over to be like Christ. Prayer is about yielding to God’s will and surrendering our own. Yes, all these concepts can be found in the Bible but the Bible isn’t the REASON I follow these practices. I follow the practice of prayer and repentance because I learned it from others and came to believe in it because I could see how it affected the people I was learning from.
We talk about the faith of the Apostles because, by our understanding, a believer catches the faith from others, who themselves caught the faith from the people who preceded them, and on and on, generation before generation, until you get back to Jesus sharing his faith with the Apostles. Faith is passed from one believer to the next the same way one candle is lit from another.
That’s how I “learn anything about Jesus”. That’s why I feel free to read the Bible and then reflect on how true it is according to my own lived faith and the faith of the people I am learning from.
Does that answer the question. I don’t mean to “avoid” it.
Paul
LikeLike
So, Captain Crunch, what I’m hearing you saying, is that you sought out the company of those who could best confirm your bias.
LikeLike
I think that’s too simplistic, arch.
Paul believes the way he does because it works for him. His approach to faith is quite different than the way I was brought up to think about it, but in a way, I get where he’s coming from.
For me, I just don’t see enough evidence to believe in a god — at least not any of the “revealed” deities. So I don’t agree with Paul, but I can see that he has reasons for his beliefs. To me, that’s not just seeking out confirmation bias.
By the way arch, your previous comment about Peter Pan was priceless! I rarely “laugh out loud” from comments, but I did over that one! 🙂
LikeLike
Oh, and Paul, thanks for posting that. It really helps me understand where you’re coming from much better. I don’t personally know many Catholics — this part of the country is mostly some flavor of Baptist or Methodist.
LikeLike
Glad for the laugh, but as for the rest, must disagree —
LikeLike
paul, i appreciate your last post, which helps me and i think others to better understand your viewpoint, a viewpoint with which i find much to agree. i believe that most if not all of us learn from those around us. our view of the world, our understanding of God, is not simply shaped by a book. i think it is the methodists who hold to a four-fold understanding of christian faith, that includes: scripture, tradition, experience, and reason. that’s a pretty good recipe.
i understand that spirituality – a living faith – can not be confined to a book. i have the immense privilege of being part of a church that helps provide food and clothing for people (in a relatively poor area), assists women in domestic violence situations, sponsors an addiction recovery group, and runs a weekday preschool that is affordable. and all of that without making faith or church attendance a precondition for participation in these things. hope others are not going to misconstrue this. i’m not saying we’re doing everything right; i’m not saying that those who are not christian aren’t doing good things; i’m simply saying that if one has faith, it ought to be lived out, and i get to see it happening daily.
here is what i am reading between your lines, though, with which i disagree: if there was no bible at all, and all that we had was oral tradition and the lives of others to count on, that our christian faith would be as strong, meaningful, and vibrant. am i correct in saying that’s what you believe?
LikeLike
Ahhh, now I see. OK, I am sorry I was getting upset with you, Paul. I appreciate your honesty…
It is clear that you were taught a set of beliefs as a child; those who taught you either knew the Bible was flawed and contradictory and so taught you that it was all MEANT to be allegorical…or else they had always been taught it was only meant to be allegorical by their parents/friends/priests.
Caught, not taught… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viruses_of_the_Mind . Richard Dawkins has a bit to say about that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scarHc8RA0g
East is East and West is West and ne’er the twain shall meet…people who rely on Evidence and people who are comfortable with an unfalsifiable Faith with nothing substantial to back it up are two different mindsets. Using the “look at the universe–clearly God exists” argument does not work (you had said this when asking “why should a story of a man walking on water impress me when the whole Universe is there to show me God is Mighty”…the point of the story was to prove the Jesus was from God/was God, not to prove “God is Mighty”). The existence of the universe MIGHT be evidence of (a) god(s), but that is a long way from proving it is the God of the Religion you believe in.
Knowing and accepting that the only source for your religion is just as factually accurate as the Silmarillion (and Eru Iluvitar) and still believing it is beyond my meagre mental powers.
LikeLike
Paul, thanks for the description. I believe I do have a better idea of where you’re coming from now.
I still, of course, disagree, but even so, I was very interested while reading. One of the reasons I still disagree is that you are still getting your information from people. People are fallible and are also not god – and those who claim to be conduits to god still can provide no divine evidence for such.
I think the convenient thing about your position is that if someone (one of these people you get your lessons from) says something contradictory or erroneous in anyway, you can simply dismiss that as human error; a type of individual cherry picking. And furthermore, these people (when going back far enough) either got their information from the bible or from those who wrote the bible.
I don’t want to appear augmentative. I feel like I gained a lot from what you have written, and I personally think that approach sounds better than the one I grew up with; however, I still think it’s misguided and incorrect. I think that if you delve a little deeper below the surface you will see that you can grow in all the admirable Christian traits (in much the same way you describe) without being under the Christian shadow… and it will likely even make more sense.
LikeLike
Captain C – I just ran across this in a discussion of “New Atheism” over on Mak’s blog, and thought you’d enjoy it – see, I’m always thinking of you:
LikeLike