Well, it’s that time of year again. Regular church attendees are going to have to share their pews with people who have finally decided to make it out for their second service of the year. Their belief that Jesus bled and died so they can gain eternal salvation might be unshakable, but it apparently isn’t all that motivating, considering how little these believers seem to do in response. Nevertheless, they can at least be counted on to show up for a retelling of Jesus’s miraculous birth.
But what version will they hear? More than likely, they’ll hear a “Hollywood” version of the tale that incorporates the most exciting elements of the two versions that we read about in Matthew and Luke. A quick Google search turned up this one, which illustrates my point perfectly. But what if someone tried to tell the full version? A version that included every detail that both Matthew and Luke provide?
Honestly, it just can’t be done. I had wanted to attempt it here, but there’s just no practical way to do it. For example, the version I linked to above goes like this:
The Standard Tale
- Mary’s visited by an angel who tells her about the pregnancy (Luke)
- She and Joseph live in Nazareth of Galilee, but are forced to travel to Bethlehem in Judea for a census commanded by the Roman authorities (Luke)
- They’re unable to find normal accommodations and are forced to room in an area intended for livestock. Mary gives birth there and is visited by local shepherds (Luke)
- Wise men far to the east see a star that somehow signifies the birth of the Jewish Messiah (Matthew)
- They travel for an unspecified period until they reach Jerusalem, where they inquire about the child (Matthew)
- These inquiries reach Herod, the ruler of the region, and he asks the wise men to send back word to him once they find the child, so Herod himself can also pay his respects (Matthew)
- The wise men make their way to Bethlehem, find the family, bestow their gifts, and return home via a different route (Matthew)
- An angel tells Joseph to hightail it out of Bethlehem, because Herod’s sending a posse to wipe out all the children 2 years old and under in an effort to stamp out Jesus (Matthew)
- Joseph and his family flee to Egypt and remain there until an angel tells him it’s safe to return, because Herod has died (Matthew)
- Joseph intends to go back toward Bethlehem, but after finding out that Herod’s son is in charge, he takes the family to Nazareth in Galilee (Matthew)
So what’s wrong with this story? I mean, it’s very cohesive, and it makes for a compelling tale. What’s not to like? Its only real problem is that the very books of the Bible that provide its details, contradict its overall narrative.
Two Very Different Stories
Let’s go back to Luke’s version. After Jesus’s birth and the visit from the shepherds, we don’t read about wise men or Herod’s animosity. Instead, Luke 2:22 says that after the days of Mary’s purification were over, the family went to Jerusalem. The “days of purification” are referring to Leviticus 12:1-4, where the Law of Moses stated that a woman was to be considered “unclean” for 40 days after giving birth to a male child. So when Jesus was about 40 days old, Luke claims that they all traveled to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices as thanks for his birth. While there, two elderly people see Jesus and begin proclaiming praise and prophecies concerning Jesus. And there’s no indication that an effort was made to keep any of this quiet, which is very different in tone to what we read in Matthew. Finally, in Luke 2:39, we read “And when they had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.” We’ll come back to this point in a moment.
The synopsis we looked at earlier incorporated most of Matthew’s version of the story. As we just read, his story ends very differently from Luke’s. However, it’s also significant to note that Matthew gives no indication that Joseph and Mary are from Nazareth. Matt 1:18 through the end of the chapter talks about Mary’s pregnancy, even though she and Joseph had never slept together, but it never specifies where they’re living. Chapter 2 begins with the sentence “Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, ‘Where is he who has been born king of the Jews?'” Of course, it’s possible that Matthew still knew they were originally from Nazareth and just doesn’t bother to tell us that or divulge how they got to Bethlehem in the first place. But there are three context clues that point against such a possibility. First of all, regardless of how far the wise men had to journey, it likely took them quite a while to make the trip. When Matthew says “the east” he certainly doesn’t mean “east Jersualem,” and travel being what it was back then, any journey would have taken considerable time. The second clue is that Herod supposedly kills all the male children of Bethlehem who are 2 and under. So it’s unlikely that we’re supposed to still be thinking of Jesus as a newborn. Finally, Matthew says that when the family was able to leave Egypt, Joseph wanted to go back to Judea (where Bethlehem is). But after finding out Herod’s son was ruling, he became afraid and “went and lived in a city called Nazareth” (Matt 2:23). This is a very strange way to refer to Nazareth, if it’s where Joseph and Mary were already living.
So Matthew gives no indication that Joseph and Mary were just visiting Bethlehem. He never mentions a manger; instead, he references a house that they were staying in. He never talks about the shepherds from the fields, but has wise men who visit the child. He includes a story about Herod slaughtering a town’s children, though no other historical or biblical source ever mentions this. He claims that the family flees to Egypt until Herod’s death, that they want to return to Bethlehem, but finally settle in “a city called Nazareth.”
Luke, on the other hand, says that Nazareth is their home town, and they’re only visiting Bethlehem. He has no story about wise men, but does talk about shepherds from the fields that visit the newborn Jesus. Instead of Herod attempting to hunt them down and a subsequent flight to Egypt, the family travels straight to Jerusalem, where Herod lives. And there’s no effort to keep Jesus’s identity secret while they’re there, as two elderly prophets begin proclaiming who he is. And after making their sacrifices, the family simply goes back home to Nazareth, far from Herod’s reach (not that Luke indicates Herod’s even interested).
Can These Stories Be Put Together?
The main sticking points between the stories are the flight to Egypt and the trip to Jerusalem. On the one hand, Luke is very clear about his timeline: Jesus was only about 40 days old when they went to Jerusalem and then went home to Nazareth. Matthew doesn’t give specifics on how old Jesus was when the family was forced to flee to Egypt, except that it must have occurred before he was 2 years old.
Could the trip to Egypt have happened before the trip to Jerusalem?
No. First of all, considering all the details Luke provides, why would he have left out such an important event? Secondly, this means Herod would have needed to die within the 40 day purification period, but Matthew tells us that this still wouldn’t have been good enough, because Joseph was determined to avoid all of Judea while Herod’s son was reigning. There’s simply no way he would have felt safe enough to travel directly into Jerusalem. That just makes no sense.
Could the trip to Egypt have happened after the trip to Jerusalem?
No. Luke 2:39 is clear that the family went straight back to Nazareth after their trip to Jerusalem. And considering Luke claimed that Nazareth was already their home, why would they have needed to go back to Bethlehem anyway?
In fact, Luke’s claim that the family was from Nazareth creates a lot of problems for Matthew’s account. Nazareth was far outside of Herod’s reach. So if Herod really had hunted Jesus in Bethlehem, the family could have simply gone back to Nazareth rather than flee to Egypt. But this isn’t a consideration in Matthew’s account, because for him, the family has never been to Nazareth until they simply can’t go back to Bethlehem anymore, even after Herod’s death (Matt 2:23).
Additional Problems
I don’t want to spend too much time here, but for completeness sake, I need to mention a couple of historical issues. Both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus is born during the reign of Herod the Great. Historians usually place his death in 4 BCE, which means Jesus would have been born sometime before that. However, Luke says that Mary and Joseph had traveled to Bethlehem, because Quirinius, the governor of Syria, had commanded a census. However, Quirinius didn’t become governor of Syria until 6 CE — 10 years after Herod’s death. You can find additional resources about these two issues here.
Finally, Luke’s claim is that this census required Joseph to travel back to his ancestral home of Bethlehem, since he was of King David’s lineage. But David would have lived some 1000 years before Joseph. It’s ludicrous to think that the Romans would have cared about such a thing, or that they would have wanted their empire to be so disrupted by having people move around like that for a census. It would have been an impossible feat and would have made for a highly inaccurate, and therefore useless, census.
What Do We Make of All This?
The easiest way to understand why these accounts have such major differences in detail is to understand why either writer bothered with a story about Jesus’s birth at all. You have to remember that the writers of Matthew and Luke didn’t know one another and didn’t know that they were both working on the same material. They certainly didn’t know that their books would one day show up in the same collection. Both of them were working with two basic facts: Micah 5:2 seemed to prophesy that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem; Jesus came from Nazareth (John 1:45-46).
Since those two facts were at odds with one another, it’s easy to see how both writers would have been compelled to explain how Jesus could be from Nazareth but still be from Bethlehem. Unfortunately for them, close comparison shows that both versions simply can’t be true.
How would people react if they showed up for church this weekend and were presented with the full details from both of these stories? I like to think it would spur many of them into deeper study. That it would possibly make them question some of the things they’ve been taking for granted. But 2016 has been pretty demoralizing when it comes to the number of people who seem concerned about what’s true, and I’m not sure how many of them would see this information as a call to action. I know there are people who can be changed by facts. Perhaps there aren’t as many of them as I once thought, but I know they’re out there. And with the way information spreads these days, I’m sure they’ll eventually find the facts they’re looking for.
Finding Truth 
Peter,
Why do you disagree with Crossan’s conclusion? I personally wouldn’t say I disagree with it. I would just say it is impossible to say for sure that the authors meant these stories as parables but it is an interesting possibility.
LikeLike
Gary I don’t have any compelling reason to disagree with Crossan, I am not ruling out Crossan’s conclusion rather my ‘gut feel’ is that it is less likely rather than more likely. I concede Crossan knows far more about these matters than I ever will.
LikeLike
This is definitely worth a read.
I recommend it.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5x4SUZZrHuKcjVBMmR6THZiV1E/view
LikeLike
Oh man, doug/ark, thank you for this laugh. Sooo much new information! NOT. lol
One more lazy reader, instigator, and scoffer of scripture. I just love it when people sit in judgment of God and His word, as if they are bringing ‘something new.’
Too funny. But certainly, the atheist will gobble this up as gospel, forgetting that ‘evil men and seducers SHALL wax worse and worse, deceiving, AND being deceived.’
Thank you for providing yet one more example of the wisdom of God by giving people a heads up that His word is verifiable, reliable, and ever spot on as to the nefarious acts of men.
On behalf of good people everywhere, thank you, And to the host of this blog, perhaps you will admit, that is spite of the charlatan acts of men tampering with the truth of God and scripture, His word stands unaccused, while accusing all men as liars, at the same time offering grace to such diabolical acts. God is that good.
LikeLike
So, aside from your little ramble, on a factual and historical level what about the paper was it you disagreed with?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well ark, let me just highlight the obvious and most important.
He may be speaking about a man named ‘jesus,’ but he is certainly not speaking of the Lord Jesus Christ of the scriptures.
Indeed, factually and historically. And no, no other explanation is necessary.
Nuff said.
LikeLike
So you didn’t, in fact, read all of it?
LikeLike
19 pages of undiluted garbage.
He said he has an agenda. He says he does not believe in God. He cited Paul as delusional.
He claimed the writers were liars, uninformed. Please ark. As I said, nothing new here, and his opinions are flavored through the lens of godlessness. So what.
‘There is nothing new under the sun………
Can I repeat:’Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived…………..’
LikeLike
He stated Paul may have been. He also stated he may very have been a work of fiction. A point I tend to agree with.
He may the pertinent point that there is absolutely no first century contemporary evidence of who is claimed to be the most famous person ever to have lived.
Why do you think there was no evidence, Colorstorm?
LikeLike
Please. He was not the most famous person who ever lived during his lifetime, or within centuries of his lifetime. Surely you know that is a non sequitur.
Can you identify any other early 1st century preachers in that region who are identified in contemporaneous literature? Any?
LikeLike
ColorStrom,
The argument of, “nothing new here,” always confuses me. It’s senseless. So what of it’s new or not new?
we can make that claim about the bible:
“the bible’s old, nothing new here, so therefore…” what?
No, none of the objections we have with the bible are new, and all that means is that the bible has been questioned by people from the start of it, and instead of addressing these issues, believers try to dismiss them with, “nothing new here,” or “nothing to discuss,” etc.
The bible is compilation of claims made by other men. Why should we accept their claims, when there are very questionable things in it, and when the believers have to ignore problems, or perform incredible intellectual gymnastic (something they will not do for any other religion) to hold to it?
If it’s so oblivious as you claim, and if these “old” issues we bring up have been so soundly refuted, then please, share them with us, as we are obviously unaware that they exist.
This would be a better approach than the one you appear to be taking, which more resembles a kid who’s scared to fight, bit too embarrassed to back away, so he makes big statements about how tough he is or his side it, but seems to have not desire to demonstrate that self declaired strong position.
LikeLike
Sorry ark, but only a cold heart cannot see the evidence.
LikeLike
“Can I repeat:’Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived…………..’”
How do you know you’re not the one who’s deceived?
How do you know you haven’t fallen for an Emperor’s New Clothes scenario, where part of your strong conviction is the implication that you’re not righteous, that you’re rejecting God, that you’re lacking a good and honest heart, if you question the bible or find it unbelievable?
LikeLike
“only a fool won’t see how marvelous the emperor’s new clothes are…”
LikeLike
I was referring specifically to first century contemporary evidence, as thewriter mentioned.
Why do you think there is not a scrap of contemporary first century evidence for Jesus, especially when there is contemporary evidence for other prophets etc?
LikeLike
I would love nothing more than to see my loved ones who have died before me. This is why I remained a Christian for 50 years . I never said I wanted to de-convert or give up the faith. Allowing science and logic to enter my religious world gave me no choice.
CS, you can’t allow science and logic to enter your religious world or the same thing will happen to you. I think you are well aware of this .
LikeLike
@Jon
I did not say he was the most famous person who ever lived during his lifetime. You did.
I said he is claimed to be.
LikeLike
Good gravy chief. For the love of God He created science as well as the ability to use logic and the brain.
Or unless, you think that blood, lungs, bones, just crawled around waiting to ‘think of a way how to be born………’
Yeah, there’s real logic. It is not God’s fault you find His word suspect. Try reading it again, actually engaging the brain, especially:
‘the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked above all things.who can know it?’
Or perhaps you haven’t read the news lately………..
You will NEVER win an argument against God or scripture.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth………and He saw that it was very good………..
Gee, I wonder what happened………….
LikeLike
@CS, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth………and He saw that it was very good………..
Gee, I wonder what happened………….”
What happened is your God stacked the deck to make sure Adam and Eve sinned. Since you believe your God created everything, you have to accept that he also created sin, something you can’t make yourself do.
LikeLike
Ah so you admit to the Creator, you just do not appreciate the choices men made……..
It is you chief who views God as a puppetmaster. Maybe you should break the strings and enjoy the creation……..
The God of scripture inspired arithmetic, the alphabet, and all things whereby you may think; after all, in His image is a truth not given to the hyena………
LikeLike
ColorStorm,
As far as reason and logic,
does it make sense to create a rule that says you have to sacrifice your own son, who is also you, who was born to a virgin (how is that validated?), in order to save your own creations from a hell that you created for them? A hell that you created to place them for being flawed, when you deliberately made them flawed?
And this logical masterpiece goes on and on…
But again, even if we all agreed for argument’s sake that there was an intelligent creator or creators, can you take us from that position to the God of the Bible in a logical manner, that other religions couldn’t also claim?
Can you back up your position with evidence or logic, instead of just a say so or presupposition, in other words?
LikeLiked by 3 people
@Jon. Re: 1st century preachers.
Apologies. That was a silly error!
I
LikeLike
@Colorstorm
Fair enough.I have a cold heart.
You have a warm heart. Therefore, why do you beleive there are no contemporary accounts of an actual Jesus?
LikeLike
What contemporary evidence is there for other prophets?
As far as why there is not a scrap of contemporary (during his lifetime) evidence for Jesus, the answer is two-fold:
1. We don’t have a scrap of contemporary (lifetime) evidence for almost anybody in the ancient world, especially anybody in early 1st century Judea and (warning: made -up word incoming) uber-especially early 1st century Galilee where Jesus spent almost all of his life. In fact, I am not aware of any extant contemporary literature written in early 1st century Judea. Perhaps it exists and I am just unaware of it (very possible!), but our literary record from that period is mostly just a barren wasteland. The semi-relevant literature from the 1st century is almost entirely about prominent political figures.
2. Even if there were writers covering the area and period, Jesus was absolutely not important enough to get any significant literary attention during his lifetime. He was a minor rural preacher, one of many, who came to Jerusalem and got killed for causing trouble.
In other words, the lack of literature about Jesus during his lifetime is exactly what we should expect given the characteristics (of Jesus and of the period’s literature) that I have described.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am going to presume you read the paper, yes?
I am curious, what do you base this assertion that he was an historical figure?
LikeLike