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 
And yea, the age-ed atheists were persecuted unto death for their (non)faith. Amen.
LikeLike
@ Paul
An excellent analogy, Paul.
Although Christianity is not an S.T.D, this sounds like what happened to the South American Indian tribes (among other poor unfortunates caught unawares) after Cortez and the Jesuits arrived.
Once they ”caught” Catholicism they were pretty much F***** anyway.
LikeLike
@Ark
Yeah.
I’d love to know whether you suppose that if the Spaniards and other European settlers who came to the Americas in the 16th and 17th Centuries had been atheist they wouldn’t have been carriers of the infectious viruses to which they were immune but the natives were not?
LikeLike
@Paul
I suppose if the “Settlers” were “Atheists” the outcome would likely be the same. The only difference is they wouldn’t have tried to convince the natives this was a “Gift from God”. 🙂
LikeLike
Cortez was in Mexico, Ark – I think you’ll find it was Pizarro in S. America, but I don’t disagree with your point, so I’m going to stfu now.
LikeLike
Personally, CC, I’m more curious as to how this hemisphere would have eventually turned out, if the Spaniards would have stayed the hell home, or the Native Americans had insisted on Green Cards.
LikeLike
@Paul
Sadly, pretty much all of white expansionism back in the day was for God & Country. And that god was the Catholic one.
The one you are still trying to peddle as the Real Deal even now.
One would have thought the mindless followers of this god would have worked it out by now?
Seems this is not the case, eh Paul?
Although I’ll venture that there are an awful lot more Priests, Pastors, Vicars, Nuns, and whathaveyou that are atheist and know it is all a crock, but are keeping quiet.
Not much fun being an out of work former member of the clergy.
If atheists had encountered the Mayans, and Aztecs etc I don’t doubt there would have been conflict but I suspect the approach would have been different and also the outcome.
One thing is for sure, there wouldn’t be a bloody great statue of some make-believe itinerant eschatological halfwit on top of sugar loaf mountain.
Almost 80% of Jews have pretty much ditched Yahweh and the Torah, so what’s your problem?
If it looks like horse manure and smells like horse manure then chances are this is what it is, and it makes no difference how you try to dress it up with your New Age Catholicism and funky day-glo approach to the bible; it stank than and it stinks now.
LikeLike
It’s interesting to think about how history might have turned out if more people had been atheists early on. The Catholic Church certainly has a large number of atrocities to answer for, but we don’t need to gloss over the paganism it replaced either. It’s not like that was a “kinder, gentler” set of beliefs. Much of it was just as harsh toward outsiders as the Old Testament is.
As time goes on, humanity is relabeling more and more religions as “mythology.” I think that trend will continue, but it takes time. And we have to remember that it’s not easy for people to shed their personal beliefs. That doesn’t make them idiots, liars, or insane; their unwillingness to drop long-held positions is very human.
LikeLike
And being free of religion doesn’t guarantee a peaceable or loving individual – especially back in the 14 and 1500’s.
Now, when all of our needs are satisfied and we have disposable income to buy stupid and trivial things, it is easier to be more empathetic and peaceful. Take away any necessity or even things that we may want badly enough, and either greed or the will to survive could make anyone eliminate what stands between them and it.
I tend to agree with KC. Had the first explorers into the new world been atheist, I don’t think much would be different.
LikeLike
Amazing how Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs works, isn’t it, William?
LikeLike
Well, maybe not insane, but when one considers the numbers affiliated to the Clergy Project, for example, there is an enormous amount of responsibility attached to those that continue to perpetuate the falsehood that is religion, and here we are only talking about the ones who have come out the metaphorical closet but still remain mum in order to preserve their jobs and social network.
These folk, while I might acknowledge a certain aunt of sympathy , are liars nonetheless. And I would venture that the rot goes very, very deep indeed.
LikeLike
For those who might be interested.
http://www.clergyproject.org/
LikeLike
You make a good point. It’s a difficult situation those guys are in, but I think it could do a lot of good if they would come out about their beliefs and not continue giving support to falsehoods.
LikeLike
@Ark
Thanks for the link to the Clergy Project. I was very interested to take note of the way they define ‘believer’ and ‘non-believer’:
“The Clergy Project is a confidential online community for active and former professional clergy/religious leaders who do not hold supernatural beliefs.”
This little ‘mission statement’ helped me put my finger on something that everyone else on this thread (“believer” and “non-believer” alike) seems to accept as a given but I reject entirely.
There is nothing more important or valuable to me than my faith in Christ. Let’s not have any misunderstanding about that. But….!! I am probably as skeptical about claims of supernatural phenomena as any of you. In fact, from what I can see, most of what you guys seems to want to debunk is stuff that deserves to be debunked.
I’ve said this many times, I’m sure you’ve all heard me say it; but I’m going to repeat it here because I want to emphasize where I’m coming from. “What I like about atheists is that the god they don’t believe in is the god I don’t believe in.”
As I said, I’m skeptical but I’m not going to claim 100% certainty that “supernatural phenomena” doesn’t exist. I leave myself the ‘out’ of allowing that there’s all kinds of weird shit that goes on in the world that I can’t explain. My biggest (well, my second biggest) problem with the “supernatural” is that it’s hard to pin down what the word even means.
Case in point. Let’s say I invite Nate to my daughter’s wedding and during the reception I take him aside and confess that I’m worried I’ll be bankrupted trying to pay for all the booze the guests are knocking down. Nate, being the swell guy he is, might help me out by placing his hands over a sixty gallon fish tank and turning the contents into Seagram’s Seven. Lucky fish! Naturally, I’m thrilled now that I’m able to keep all the alcoholics in my family well watered without losing the house; but once word gets around about what happened we’re going to have to deal with the people who claim that Nate has supernatural powers — which will be plenty annoying to all of us, especially Nate.
Obviously, there’s no scientific explanation for Nate’s little trick — but how does that make it “supernatural”? Who’s to say that once we learn more about science we won’t HAVE a scientific explanation? Is it supernatural until we figure it out? And besides, if people started to claim that Nate was accessing a realm that is imperceptible in the known universe would they be talking about anything more ‘supernatural’ than the things physicists regularly say about ‘dark matter’?
Beyond that, even if we accept the idea that Nate’s accomplishment is supernatural, what should we conclude about Nate? I’m no more willing to trust my soul to him after he’s turned water into whiskey than I was before. An aptitude for parlor tricks doesn’t prove that a guy is trustworthy — it probably indicates the opposite!
So, where does that leave me? I’m religious. In fact, I’m super-religious. I’m Captain Catholic!! But a belief in the supernatural isn’t a factor in my faith. This comment is already too long for me to elaborate, but I’m convinced that a belief in the supernatural is an IMPEDIMENT to faith.
So, I ask you to help me sort this out….
LikeLike
Thanks for the comment, Capt! I get more and more fascinated by you every time you write something.
The way you describe your Catholicism is very similar to how I describe my atheism. I don’t believe in the supernatural, but I like to leave open the possibility that it exists. Like you said, “supernatural” may not even be the correct word — when we use it, we’re usually just talking about things we can’t explain. I think it was Robert Heinlein that said sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. I think there’s a lot of truth in that.
I want to think more about your comment before I say anything else… you’ve left me lots to consider!
LikeLike
Arthur C. Clark, Nate – however, there is this:
LikeLike
Actually, Cap’n, you’re in a not-easily-occupiable position – a half-breed theist/atheist, by which I mean you are certainly a theist, but without all of the hocus-pocus baggage with which most theists saddle themselves.
I recently ran across a gentleman on another site – a gentlemen known only as “William,” – whom I informed I was not from “Christian Mingle” by any means, but that I knew another (big assumption here) gentleman, a “captaincatholic,” (and gave him Nate’s URL), so if anyone named William does indeed contact you, know, a) it is at my recommendation (however much credence that buys him), and b) he is the only theist I’ve met thus far, who shares your atypical views.
LikeLike
Captain: You threw us all a nice monkey wrench on this last comment of yours. I also thought I was reading the comment of an atheist during some of it. And by the way I got a good kick out of the way you described Nate at the wedding – I even visualized it!
I also don’t rule out there being “weird shit that goes on in the world” – I like to label it transcendental stuff. In fact I even go further and say that I wouldn’t be surprised if there was some strange reality beyond what we currently think of as natural. (And yes, I’ve also pondered the difficult definition of supernatural just as you’ve described.) But I would be surprised however if it turned out that there are anthropomorphic “spirits” as many religions of the world have described. And I also don’t see the benefit of claiming we know anything about that “stuff” that might be there.
So what is it then you believe about Jesus and God? Do you believe they are spirits that exist in the natural realm, or do you believe that they are just metaphors made by humans to help us connect with reality? Or let me not second guess – why don’t you try and describe?
LikeLike
@CaptainC, if I understand your last comments, why would you have a deep faith in Christ if he is just a “Natural Person” since you don’t believe in the “Supernatural” ? What can a faith in Christ do for you ?
I am a Deist only because I believe the creation of the universe had a cause. I certainly don’t have a faith in anything or anyone because I don’t believe in Divine Intervention .
Just curious…..
LikeLike
I have heard of “religious scientists” who “compartmentalize” their Skeptical Science side and their, shall we say, Less-skeptical Religious side…but this does seem a difficult position to hold.
Perhaps I don’t know enough about Catholicism, but I really don’t understand how one can be a Catholic AND skeptical of the Supernatural. How are Saints made? “Evidence” of Miracles said to be done by long-dead So-and-So.
This reminds me of the Scottish comedian (I think…) Frankie Boyle. He’s an atheist, but generally considers himself a “Catholic” b/c “once a Catholic, always a Catholic–even if you’re an atheist you’re merely a “bad Catholic”. (que laughter and applause)
Catholicism stands for a certain set of beliefs and doctrines…like the Pope–infallible or not? Vicar of Christ or not? Having little faith in the Authority of the bible (a justifiable position, as Nate’s series points out), you have put all your faith in the people who Indoctrinated you as a child (as Dawkins likes to say…not Christian/Jewish/Muslim children, but Children of X/Y/Z parents). That seems less justifiable, esp. in light of what appears to be your otherwise Skeptical outlook.
LikeLike
@ Captain Catholic.
Jesus H! What a load of bollocks!
This is like an alcoholic trying to hide a bottle of jack behind his back while slurring,
“Honest, I really don’t drink a having problem.”
LikeLike
Guess what, Ark? Suddenly I can’t get onto Chi’s site either! And she said I was one of the good ones –!
LikeLike
Chi is no longer interested in open discussion. She is in search for echos.
LikeLike
I recall suggesting she was looking for a mutual admiration society, but it’s also known as a circle-jerk. No dissenting opinions allowed – which I find interesting, in light that she is in complete disagreement with her more rigid parents over homosexuality and the early OT fables.
Well, she certainly won’t draw a crowd that way, but of those she WILL draw, you can bet they’ll all agree with her.
LikeLike
@Arch
“If anyone named William does indeed contact you…”
You’re not only the thinking man’s thinking man — you’re a matchmaker for cyber-friendships.
Who could ask for anything more?
PB
LikeLike