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 
I think mathew is the one who said they were afraid to through judea. If they stopped by the temple while passing through there, mathew had a good opportunity to clarify that. instead, he made it seem like they were avoiding that place liek that plague…
and the guys who mentioned the temple, skipped egypt and the part about why they fled there – but this makes perfect sense to you?
I think you missed nate’s point.
LikeLike
Mike, I’m fully aware of where Judea is. Congratulations though for once again resorting to ad hominem attacks. Jesus would be proud.
If Jews couldn’t avoid Jerusalem and it was no problem for Joseph and Mary to bring Jesus there, despite being afraid for their lives, then why did they wait for Herod to die before letting Mary observe the purification ritual? According to your logic, there’s no reason why that would have been a problem.
LikeLike
What makes sense to him, William, is that which can be warped and twisted, to fit his pre-determined ending, which is how he earned his nickname, Mr. Pretzle.
LikeLike
“If Jews couldn’t avoid Jerusalem and it was no problem for Joseph and Mary to bring Jesus there, despite being afraid for their lives, then why did they wait for Herod to die before letting Mary observe the purification ritual?”
Sigh….because Herod the father was the one out to kill Jesus. Joseph was justified in not wanting to live in an area under the son’s control but there is nothing in the text that says the son had any such active command so much so they could never visit Jerusalem.
Further you only quote mine as usual without reading or understanding the rest of the text. The text is clear that Joseph was already in Israel
Matthew 2:21 (KJV)
21 And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.
No one leaves on a journey without having in mind where they were going so its clear that Joseph had a particular place in Judea he was going to take his family to live not visit nor pass through
The fact that you did not consult a map and obviously did not know that one had to pass through Judea to get to Nazareth means nothing….. well except that you don’t do good research.
Now if the text had not said he entered Israel then you might have a point. Perhaps they turned at Idumea and took the unusual arduous (and dangerous) route through Jordan wilderness and then back east to Nazereth but once it said entered Israel it would be southern Israel and Judah. All Matthew’s readers living in Israel would know what was being said – he was on his way to a particular place in Judea to live but changed his mind. Further the text indicates that Joseph anachōreō – retired, withdrew from where he was to protect the child
Matthew 2:22 (Darby)
22 but having heard that ‘Archelaus reigns over Judaea, instead of Herod his father,’ he was afraid to go there; and having been divinely instructed in a dream, he went away into the parts of Galilee,
OF course since you don’t do much research You don’t understand the importance of this. there were three areas that the land was divided in. The district of Gaillee, the district of Samaria and the district of Judea.
If he had been in Galilee he would not have been said to withdraw there
If he had been in Samaria then he would have already passed Judea and would need no Warning already making the decision not to live in Judea.
So he was already now in Judea on his way to a place to live perhaps near to the new ruler and was warned not go there to live
EZ peasy 🙂
LikeLike
Sayeth Mr. Pretzel —
LikeLike
Yes Mike, I’m well aware of the three different districts. In fact, my original post talked about the fact that Galilee was not under Herod’s control, making Nazareth (their home town, according to Luke) a perfectly good place to go to when they get the warning about Herod. There’s simply no need for them to visit Egypt.
Also, it’s true that to get to Galilee from Egypt they’ll need to go through Judea, but that’s far different than traveling to Jerusalem. In fact, they may have even used the highway along the coast. Regardless, Matthew is very clear that they would have settled somewhere in Judea (Bethlehem, presumably), but they were still afraid since Herod’s son, Archelaus, was reigning. It just doesn’t make sense that they would continue on to Jerusalem if they were too afraid to live elsewhere in Judea. I know you really want to hold on to this notion — and you’re certainly entitled to — it just doesn’t mesh with the evidence.
LikeLike
“…it just doesn’t mesh with the evidence.” – I’m not at all sure that that is his primary concern.
LikeLike
“Yes Mike, I’m well aware of the three different districts. In fact, my original post talked about the fact that Galilee was not under Herod’s control, making Nazareth (their home town, according to Luke) a perfectly good place to go to when they get the warning about Herod. There’s simply no need for them to visit Egypt.”
Nope . No can do. If they are in Bethlehem and Herod is after all children to kill them then heading north carries them right through the heart of where Herod rules. You really do need to get yourself a map. You make no sense whatsoever. the safest thing to do when in Bethlehem is to head south and out of Judea which is towards Egypt. Thats why the text say God told them to go to Egypt. In your research at least look at a map Nate. it cant be that hard. Its just silly to be talking about geographical places and not consult a map
“Also, it’s true that to get to Galilee from Egypt they’ll need to go through Judea, but that’s far different than traveling to Jerusalem. ”
Glad you finally saw the hopelessness of denying that they had to go through Judea but the threat to Jesus at the time was not immediate. Things had cooled down and the child murderer was dead. The issue with Herod’s son would have been living there not visiting Jerusalem on the way to Nazereth. Simply going to the temple would no have sent off a beacon in Herod’s house. 🙂 You are acting like some pictures were in post offices of them.
Now if they stayed and officials came across them and stories circulated about them and the fact that she had just had child and was a woman off ill repute (as they considered her back home) then they might end up on his radar but two people visiting the temple with a baby. Please. come up with something better
So as usual your point is EXTREMELY weak. You have zero evidence that because someone might have considered living somewhere dangerous over time that they would consider it dangerous merely passing through. You are just begging to make your contradiction valid because everything else has fizzled in your argument.
LikeLike
The last 3 paragraphs of you latest comment completely undermined your original point about heading toward Galilee when they were first warned of being in danger. Since no one knew who they were or what they looked like, to think that there was no possible way for them to go to Nazareth from Bethlehem without being caught by Herod’s lackeys is crazy. Even if they just headed toward Egypt and then went west before heading north… I’m sure there were plenty of ways for them to travel.
Listen Mike, you can continue to beg this as long as you want, but it doesn’t change the problems created by Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts. Unless you have some other actual point or evidence to lay out, I suggest we simply leave this as is and let people make up their own minds. I, for one, don’t get much value out of arguing the same points back and forth. Do you?
LikeLike
“The last 3 paragraphs of you latest comment completely undermined your original point about heading toward Galilee when they were first warned of being in danger.”
Do you have anything left but begging? they do nothing of the sort. the first indication of danger to Joesph we find in the text was his own conclusions having heard the that Herod’s son was ruling. the dream says nothing of immediate danger. I can have a dream warning me to move because something is going to happen to me in two weeks if i don;t and if I am looking for a place to live leave tomorrow. You make no point,
“Since no one knew who they were or what they looked like, to think that there was no possible way for them to go to Nazareth from Bethlehem without being caught by Herod’s lackeys is crazy”
Caught? You poor soul. There was no search out for them Nate. You are in full fudge mode making up things as you go along because your alleged contradiction is busted. For all Herod knew he had already killed the child. For once THINK!
“Listen Mike, you can continue to beg this as long as you want”
No you Listen Up Nate because you surround yourself with rubber stampers that never challenge your assertions and delude you into thinking you make these great posts this might be the only time you hear it. They are all equally WEAK. Its s you that can beg until the cows come home that a fear of living in a place for an extended period has to be the same fear as in going through it. Its forever babbling nonsense just to get you where you WANT o go.
If you want to be an honest person as you claim you are then accept that when you make a claim that something is a contradiction you need to prove it not beg it and then claim others must prove your begging wrong. You can twist with the best fundamentalist you claim twist and you have insisted in every debate even against the text and evidence that you are right and its the only way to read the text (when you don’t even know the geography of the area, the language and actually reject the scholarly use of usage of words determining meanings)
Begging is all you are do when your assertions are on the ropes and unable to stand to serious examination.
LikeLike
Of course we both know, Nate, that the entire Bethlehem story was concocted to make the prophecy appear to come true, but for the record, it’s much closer to Nazareth, than to Egypt. In fact, one must pass the area of Jerusalem to get to Egypt, whereas the trip from Bethlehem to Nazareth, takes one away from Jerusalem. Now which way would one go, do you suppose, if one wanted to avoid Herodian influence?
I’m not sure it’s you who needs to invest in a map.
LikeLike
The entire birth narrative is a logistical minefield.
For one thing, Mary must have been one helluva robust woman to endure all that travel. Imagine traversing a hundred miles of rough terrain while pregnant, giving birth, and then rousing yourself in the middle of the night to travel another hundred miles with a suckling infant—all within a matter of days. And if they’re traveling long distances anyways, why flee to Egypt instead of just returning to Nazareth from the outset? They could have easily made their way home long before Herod even realized the Magi weren’t coming back.
In fact, one wonders why a sickly Herod, himself facing imminent death, would suddenly concern himself over an infant becoming king long after his demise. And even if he was troubled by such concerns, why would he trust a bunch of strangers he’d just met to carry out his instructions rather than just sending a personal escort to ensure the threat was dispatched promptly and efficiently?
Luke’s failure to mention this little side trip to Egypt also seems rather odd given that the author claims to have “carefully investigated everything from the beginning” and “decided to write an orderly account” of the events. Stranger still is the fact that no other historian deemed this child massacre newsworthy enough to report.
And the fact that Matthew (2:17) quote-mines Jeremiah 31 to “fulfill” his prophecy also raises a red flag. In context, the passage reads:
First off, why would a voice be heard in Ramah—a town located along the Egyptian border—for a slaughter that took place in Bethlehem almost a hundred miles away? Second, it’s hard to conceive how the remainder of this prophecy could ever apply here. Which enemy land would the dead infants in Bethlehem return from? The Land of Nod? Perhaps that’s why Matthew conveniently left it out of the narrative.
Then there’s the Passover problem. Luke 2:41 states that “every year Jesus’ parents went to Jerusalem for the Festival of the Passover”—a claim that’s clearly at odds with Matthew 2:22-23, which states that Joseph moved to Galilee after being forewarned of Archelaus in a dream. Herod Archelaus is reported to have been a despot who reigned for ten years before finally being deposed. So if Joseph feared Herod enough to move far away to avoid him, it hardly seems likely that he’d risk being discovered at an annual festival taking place right under Herod’s nose.
Finally, fairly recent archaeological findings indicate that the Bethlehem of Judea was deserted during the Herodian Dynasty. However, another town of Bethlehem located near Nazareth in Galilee was not. I’ll let the reader ponder the implications of this discovery.
LikeLike
Sorry. The above link got mangled. It should be:
http://archive.archaeology.org/0511/abstracts/jesus.html
LikeLike
“I’m not sure it’s you who needs to invest in a map.”
No you. Bethlehem is to the south of Jerusalem
Nazereth is to the North with Jersualem in the middle in between
” In fact, one must pass the area of Jerusalem to get to Egypt,”
Really? could not actually check a map or were your eyeglasses being fixed??
“Now which way would one go, do you suppose, if one wanted to avoid Herodian influence?”
ummm need another map?
SHeesh! when you go on a trip let someone else drive or you might not get there. Stick to Hurling insults and invectives. Its your thing. Debating points? Not so much
LikeLike
Why, I wonder is there an Almighty (sic) argument about a fictitious character?
*shrugs*
LikeLike
Only six miles south, and Galilee is still closer than Egypt.
LikeLike
Yawn Ron with his half baked logic ad research again
“For one thing, Mary must have been one helluva robust woman ”
You obviously have never been to a third world country. Women do all kinds of things before and after their giving birth plus there is no indication of how long the trip took. try another fudge.
“In fact, one wonders why a sickly Herod, himself facing imminent death, would suddenly concern himself over an infant becoming king long after his demise.”
Yes of course because you know He would not care his son and family would be displaced from rule. sigh…so weak.
“And even if he was troubled by such concerns, why would he trust a bunch of strangers he’d just met to carry out his instructions rather than just sending a personal escort to ensure the threat was dispatched promptly and efficiently?”
Because it was rumour and he didn’t know if they would ever find anything or how long it would take. Plus we already know what his backup brutal plan was to make sure the child was killed. Yawn.
“Luke’s failure to mention this little side trip to Egypt also seems rather odd”
yes of course because if one person mentions something and another doesn’t its always suspicious because people always mention the same things. You’ve been reading Nate well. Everything is a Bible contradiction because they all don’t say, See or experience the same thing
“Stranger still is the fact that no other historian deemed this child massacre newsworthy enough to report.”
What child massacre? what great batch of historians do we have covering a rural area in Israel at this time? this wasn’t even the city of Jerusalem but a small town outside of it and only children under two. Neither is there an indication they were all dispatched at once rather than discreetly. If you think all the atrocities of kings were reported by Historians you are kidding yourself. This is the same old tired CNN and ABC news modern mentality skeptics always trot out. If a relatively small event is not written about by the one or two non christian historians of the time then its proof positive it did not happen. Weak stuff.
“And the fact that Matthew (2:17) quote-mines Jeremiah 31 to “fulfill” his prophecy also raises a red flag.”
LOL an atheist talking about quote mining the bible. Thats rich! You will get nowhere with Jeremiah 31.Theres good reason for Matthew to quote Jeremiah 31. Its speaks to the captivity and diaspora which the jews were still under given roman rule.
“First off, why would a voice be heard in Ramah—a town located along the Egyptian border—for a slaughter that took place in Bethlehem almost a hundred miles away?”
Read some commentaries to get the rachel connection. If you think you are inventing anything new you are deluded
“Second, it’s hard to conceive how the remainder of this prophecy could ever apply here. Which enemy land would the dead infants in Bethlehem return from? The Land of Nod?”
I guess because Its not like Bible has any teaching about resurrection just the land of Nod
LikeLike
“”Then there’s the Passover problem. Luke 2:41 states that “every year Jesus’ parents went to Jerusalem for the Festival of the Passover”—a claim that’s clearly at odds with Matthew 2:22-23 which states that Joseph moved to Galilee after being forewarned of Archelaus in a dream.”
Does no such thing. People traveled to Jerusalem for the passover no matter where they lived. Traveling to the temple is required by Mosaic Law. Again like William you research and get no sense of the culture or conventions of an area but pretend to know enough to comment on the literature from it. Clearly you are clueless.
“it hardly seems likely that he’d risk being discovered at an annual festival taking place right under Herod’s nose.”
Begging the same point Nate does but with no logical reason why a visit woud be as dangerous as living there long enough to get on his radar. thousands upon thousands of children visited Jerusalem during the passover and they would ot be conspicuous at all. Desperate begging that living there and visiting the temple are the same threat does not a contradction prove.
“Finally, fairly recent archaeological findings indicate that the Bethlehem of Judea was deserted during the Herodian Dynasty. However, another town of Bethlehem located near Nazareth in Galilee was not. I’ll let the reader ponder the implications of this discovery.”
I’ll let the readers who are not Nate atheists ponder that no archaeologist has concluded this as a proven fact and that previously skeptics Such as Ron thought behtlehem was not around for the hundreds of years we now it was now due to an inscription being found only two year ago (7 years after ron’s “source”)
Nice write up on it and the implications here
http://theway21stcentury.wordpress.com/2012/05/27/archaeological-evidence-for-bethlehem/
Which also uderscores that archaeoogical finds in Israel are ongoing not settled particularly near Jerusalem in well inhabited areas.
As usual Ron you have nothing concrete So your attempt to save nate’s alleged proven contradiction fail as well
LikeLike
“Only six miles south,’
Ah Finally Arch wipes the spittle off his mouth and actually looks at a map to see his barking blunder.
“and Galilee is still closer than Egypt”
uh-uh with Jerusalem where herod ruled from right in the way. You can say it. If you looked at a map finally everyone knows you saw that as well
LikeLike
“this wasn’t even the city of Jerusalem but a small town outside of it and only children under two.” – oh well, since it was a whapping six miles away and “only” children under two, I can certainly see why it didn’t merit serious consideration, Mr. Pretzel. Your logic is positively underwhelming!
LikeLike
“, Mr. Pretzel. Your logic is positively underwhelming!”
LOL there ya go. Back to the rhetoric where you belong. Only fitting after your embarrassing Geographic map blunder that shows you are not up to even knowing which way is south.
Plenty of things are not mentioned in historical records. We have precious little besides josephus as a historian in the time period. Try again.
LikeLike
Oh, I definitely know which way is South – you, for example, remind me of the south end of a northbound horse.
Speaking of, “josephus as a historian in the time period,” exactly when did Josephus write?
LikeLike
“Does no such thing. People traveled to Jerusalem for the passover no matter where they lived. Traveling to the temple is required by Mosaic Law. Again like William you research and get no sense of the culture or conventions of an area but pretend to know enough to comment on the literature from it. Clearly you are clueless.” – mike
I think our problem is the bible. If mathew doesnt know jewish culture and writes in wrong, why should we make up avenues to correct him and pretend he was right all along.
I think you’re missing the point mike. Mathew made mistakes. You can pretend they harmonize and you can pretend that mathew meant this or that when he wrote something else, but he wrote what he did, and in many ways it’s at odds with the other gospels and as you’ve pointed out at odds with jewish culture.
LikeLike
these issues are really simple. when you align the gospels, there are notable differences. In order for them to workout, and present no problem, is to invent ways that harmonize them. You have to force them together, guess as to when or what even took place when and/or how.
Again, you can do this with any contradicting accounts of any event.
This doesnt mean it’s impossible. you could have guessed correctly, but it’s still all made up, which means the revised, master account doesnt come from the bible you hold so dear, but from your own imagination or that of someone else.
it doesn’t really matter though, because the bible is just a collection of written claims that were made by man. they claimed god inspired them, they claimed there were miracles that proved it (although none happen today), and they claimed they witness these incredible events, and claimed they were telling the truth.
It’s all claims of man. where is god? has he confirmed it? has he told you you had the right book, or even the right understanding of that book? It’s all faith built on claims of men and now your own imagination as well.
You believe the bible despite the evidence. You discard what doesnt justify it, because that book of men, in your mind, is absolute truth, so instead of measuring it against other evidences, you weigh the evidence against it. “well, this agrees with the bible, so i know it;s true” and “well, this disagrees with the bible, so I know it’s not true.”
I just see it differently – I see it like I do any other book. how does it measure up to the evidence?
LikeLike
Yawn….two long posts of rhetoric from William without addressing any issues – just stating his claims. Let me know when theres something new. Officially bored again
LikeLike