Agnosticism, Atheism, Christianity, Culture, Faith, God, Religion, Truth

Contradictions Part 5: Out of Egypt

Nate

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.

Unknown's avatar

Published by Nate

238 thoughts on “Contradictions Part 5: Out of Egypt”

  2. @Howie

    “So what is it then you believe about Jesus and God?”

    It’s my belief about human beings that informs my belief. I believe we’re spiritually blind, we’re fucked up, we’re sinners, we’re assholes. What’s worse, I think we have a high opinion of ourselves and about what we’re capable of doing.

    When I say “capable of doing”, I say it with the full realization that we’re capable of making iPhones and building Pyramids and flying off to the moon and painting Sistine Chapels and writing Hamlets. Astounding capabilities I agree.

    What we’re not capable of doing is figure out how to live our lives in a way that will make us happy — but we keep trying!

    Christianity, the way I understand it, isn’t unique in its belief of God or a god. It’s the God we believe in that sets us apart because we believe in a God who’s bleeding to death, nailed to a cross. Most of the folks who say they believe in God actually believe in Zeus. They’re looking for somebody’s ass to kiss and hoping to get what they want.

    Getting what you want isn’t even an option for Christians. We can only hope to learn to want what God wants — believing that God wants what’s best for all whereas we can only want what’s best for us. When we assert ourselves, when we become men and women of prominence and prestige we become weak when viewed as God views us. God rules the universe with mercy, with yielding, with self sacrifice.

    That’s what I believe.

    This is what I believe about the supernatural: http://whatisthisthingcalledgod.wordpress.com/2013/12/16/discipleship-and-the-supernatural/#more-17

    Peace,

    Paul

    Like

  5. Paul, in a lot of ways, I am starting to think of you as a cultural-Catholic, not a practicing one. I don’t think you would describe yourself that way, and I’m not trying to argue the point with you — just trying to explain the impression I’m getting.

    I think you would enjoy a book I’ve read, called The Little Book of Atheist Sprituality. It’s written by a French philosopher who was raised in Catholicism and still loves the traditions, though he no longer believes in them. His book actually has a lot of really nice things to say about Christianity, and Catholicism in particular. In some ways, it reminds me of your position.

    And considering your view of God and humanity, have you ever looked very much into Eastern philosophies like Buddhism or Jainism?

    Thanks, by the way, for posting the link to your article — I’ll definitely check it out.

    Like

  6. ah, Cgi (Chialphagirl). She’s commented on some of nate’s blog posts before and has one of her own. She recently posted something on a new direction and another one on beating dead horses (not real horses mind you).

    She explained that she is no longer interested in having people make comments contrary to her’s… although I may be making it sound a little more childish than it actually was… anyhow, shortly after those posts she locked her blog, only allowing access to approved members. maybe she’s trying to act as her own god to her own heaven of bliss, where there is no controversy or contentions.

    If you do as she asks, she may also smile on you and grant you access.

    Like

  7. I wonder if her subjects have any memories of those of us who didn’t make the cut? You know, so they can maintain their bliss? 😉

    Like

  9. I don’t recall that he had one, William, which would indeed make two of you. Ironically, I am archaeopteryx everywhere, except on WordPress sites, where I am forced to take the name, archaeopteryx1, for the stupidest of reasons – archaeopteryx was already taken, BY ME!

    When I first considered beginning a website to debunk the Bible, I considered a WordPress blog, and registered with WordPress as archaeopteryx, then changed my mind and went with another company. Much later, when I felt the need to comment on someone’s WordPress site, I tried logging in, but it would seem I had forgotten the password I had used those years ago, and when I tried re-registering as archaeopteryx, I was told I couldn’t, as that name had already been taken – again, BY ME! So, it’s archaeopteryx1, much to my chagrin.

    There should be a statute of limitations, whereby if a name goes unused for so long (and I have never commented under archaeopteryx), it should revert to the public domain. No one should be able to hang onto a name indefinitely, and not use it. Even me.

    Feel free to file that story under Dana Carvey’s Church Lady’s, “Well, isn’t that special!”

    Like

  10. “What we’re not capable of doing is figure out how to live our lives in a way that will make us happy — but we keep trying!”

    ABSOLUTELY, CC, and that’s what makes us such remarkable creatures – it’s also why we would never be happy in a heaven, no matter how much we think we might like to go there – what we’re really trying to do (unrealistically, IMO), is extend our lives. The truth is, that we animals we call Human will never be happy without a problem to surmount, a mountain to climb, a puzzle to solve, and if such a perfect, uneventful place like your heaven DID exist, the majority of us would be ready to commit suicide – if a spirit could do that – after a month or two.

    Like

  11. CC, RE: “Chi”
    “Chialphagirl” is a lovely little Christian girl, early 30’s, married, two small children, who has a blog she calls “Fluid Theology.” She is/was very broadminded for a Christian, believing many of the same things that we atheists do.

    One day, Ark upset her, and in anger, she banned him from her site. Then she decided she was no longer going to entertain any other points of view than Christian issues, and posted a list of “dassen’t do’s” at least twice as long as the one your god felt necessary. I indicated I could no longer post there, which she lamented, calling me, “one of the good ones,” then, a few days later, I found myself banned as well.

    I later learned from a theist, whose email address I had, that she had gone still further, and decided she would only entertain points of view that agreed with her, and seems to have banned anyone who doesn’t. I suspect she’s going to have a lot of spare time on her hands.

    Charming lady, actually, but like Bruce Banner, you don’t want to make her angry – you wouldn’t like her when she’s angry!

    Like

  17. “ccording 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.”

    this about sums up Nate’s Entire point His alleged proven contradiction after all hinges on this

    “Luke actually doesn’t allow an opportunity for going to Egypt ”

    But he is wrong. If a command for the protection of her child required her to go to egypt then she would remain ceremonial unclean beyond the period. The only prohibition regarding this unclean state is in the same chapter

    Leviticus 12:4 (KJV)
    4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.

    SInce they were in Egypt it would not matter that she come in late because there was nothing holy there to abstain from and the passage states nothing else as a consequence of being ceremonial unclean. the passage does not command that under any situation that she return at the exact time and in fact the sacrifice is just so that she can reenter the temple to worship

    In this case in particular this was just done for compliance with custom because giving birth to the son of God made here not ceremonially unclean at all

    therefore the events of Matthew fit easily between luke 2:21 and verse 22 with ZERO contradiction and verse 22 having returned from Egypt she passes through jersualem on her way to Nazereth and satisfies the law so she can again enter the sanctuary.

    This was the time of THEIR/HER purification

    22 And when the time came for THEIR purification according to the Law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord

    Nate (and others) reads this as the exact required time but the law sets a MINIMUM amount of time that must pass it does not preclude a time beyond that minimum and in a time of war or with threat to her child and PARTICULARLY with another distinct command of God to go to Egypt it does not demand it unless she is to enter into the temple. Further the Greek word Plimplemi (completed) indicates only that something has been filled it does not give reference to how long ago it was filled /fulfilled.

    So in short there is no proven contradiction and the two can and do reconcile extremely easily. Contradictions are like claims of lying. They must be proven not merely alleged to stand.

    Finally The issue of the census has neither been proven nor disproven and the great great great objection is rather off about how people identified their lineage and makes no solid point.

    Like

  19. “I don’t know when I’ve seen such warping, twisting and contortion ”

    Sure you do. In the mirror on a bad hair day 🙂

    Arch you got nothing. Thats why you always go to rhetoric.

    Like

  20. You may have found your calling – pretzel making.

    There’s simply insufficient merit to any of your comments to make my effort to contribute anything of substance, worthwhile. Something about casting pearls before swine —

    Like

  21. “You may have found your calling – pretzel making.”

    You inspired me with pretzel thinking.

    “There’s simply insufficient merit to any of your comments to make my effort to contribute anything of substance, worthwhile. Something about casting pearls before swine –”

    Which being interpreted means you got the sum total of nada by way of intelligent response. Save yourself from carpal tunnel syndrome and just type

    er umm I duno. I gots nothing

    Like

  22. Thanks for the comment, Mike. The big problem I see with that explanation is Matthew 2:21-23:

    And he rose and took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there, and being warned in a dream he withdrew to the district of Galilee. And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene.

    Jerusalem is the very place that Joseph was trying to avoid. If he didn’t think it was safe enough to enter the entire district of Judea, I don’t see why he would find it safe enough to go into Jerusalem itself. When you read Luke 2:22-36, where this trip to Jerusalem is described, quite a bit of attention is given to the baby Jesus. It even says this about the prophetess Anna:

    And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years, having lived with her husband seven years from when she was a virgin, and then as a widow until she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day. And coming up at that very hour she began to give thanks to God and to speak of him to all who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem.

    You would think that this kind of attention would make Mary and Joseph very uncomfortable if they were afraid of the authorities, yet we’re given no indication of that in Luke. When you really think about what each of these accounts is saying, I don’t see a logical way to fit them together.

    Like

  23. “Jerusalem is the very place that Joseph was trying to avoid. If he didn’t think it was safe enough to enter the entire district of Judea, I don’t see why he would find it safe enough to go into Jerusalem itself. When you read Luke 2:22-36, where this trip to Jerusalem is described, quite a bit of attention is given to the baby Jesus. It even says this about the prophetess Anna:”

    Nate you didn’t really read my explanation because all you did was repeat your assertion without addressing anything in my explanation . Herod is dead (purported to happen a few months after the Wise men came) when they go to Jerusalem.They have nothing to avoid. They are on their way to Nazareth and stop in to make Mary ceremonially clean so she can enter the temple. There is no requirement that a woman under threat for her family has to enter Jerusalem to become ceremonially clean . it relates only to her privilege of entering the temple which there is none of in Egypt.

    Like

  24. Mike, I think your objection is not with me, but the Bible. Matthew says they didn’t return to Judea, even though Herod was dead, because they still feared for Jesus’ life.

    Like

  25. “Mike, I think your objection is not with me, but the Bible. Matthew says they didn’t return to Judea, even though Herod was dead, because they still feared for Jesus’ life.”

    NO Nate my problem is with you because you write about things you don’t know anything about. Judea is south Israel. Coming in from Egypt into Israel you passed through Judea. All of Matthew’s readers knew this. For goodness sake Please consult a map.

    Joseph had intend to go live somewhere in Judea but when he got into Israel (southern Israel) he realized Herod’s son was there and decides wherever in Judea he was going to is somewhere he should avoid. Mary does her purification and they withdraw to Nazareth. There was nothing to fear from a quick stop in Jerusalem. NO Jew could avoid going to jerusalem for years because they had to go to the temple from time to time as required by the law.

    Like

Leave a comment