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 
Do you mean the Peter Nothnagle paper? I skimmed it (skipped the setup to get to the key arguments) and found it was basically a layman retreading the arguments made by Carrier and Fitzgerald. He just repeats the same rejected interpretations they use, and makes a number of additional mistakes (e.g., “Outside of [Mark]…there is no attestation of Jesus or his direct protégés from the entire first century”), and generally seems to have a poor understanding of what critical scholars actually argue. This reads like a paper by somebody whose education largely consists of reading Richard Carrier, Robert Price and a few other mythicists.
Incidentally, after writing the above, I scrolled down to his bibliography. I was right. He’s just retreading Carrier, et al.
And finally, he makes the same mistake I’m arguing against here. He argues that “What we have instead is a striking lack of evidence where we would really expect to find it if there were an even slightly remarkable person at the origin of the stories…”
This makes it exceedingly clear that the guy has no idea whatsoever what we should “expect” to find from that period. He certainly never explains why we would expect to find these things.
Let me illustrate: There were a few major annual religious events in Jerusalem to which Jews would travel. Pentecost was one of them. I forget the names of the others, but they were big festivals attended by tens or hundreds of thousands of religious devotees.
Can you find any extant contemporary writings about those events? Surely, if you think we should “expect” to find contemporary writings about some minor rural preacher from Galilee, we should also expect to have even more extensive literature about events that involved far, far larger numbers of people, right? But we don’t.
I base the assertion that he was a historical figure on the facts that A) there was a “Christian” movement very early on (as documented by Paul and others in the 1st century), and 2) there were numerous people writing about Jesus (Paul, authors of the synoptic gospels and possibly gJohn, other sources that went into those books, Clement, Josephus) as a historical figure in the first century. A historical Jesus (as critical scholars describe him) is by far the most reasonable explanation for all of that, and the arguments against these points (e.g., Paul only described him as a celestial figure, “brother” didn’t mean a literal brother, late dating for gospels, etc) are individually unpersuasive and collectively absurd.
The overwhelming consensus of critical scholars is not, in itself, evidence that the historical Jesus existed. But it should make you a lot more humble about how “obvious” your position is. Especially when it is a position that is only advanced by a few atheist activists, only a couple of whom have relevant PhD’s (Carrier and Price) and most of whom are just enthusiastic laymen (Fitzgerald, Doherty, this Nothnagle guy) and none of who are actively working and publishing on the topic within academic journals. The closest any of them come to academic credibility is Carrier’s sort of “peer reviewed” book, although the fact that he solicited his own peer reviewers and conducted his own peer review makes that somewhat dubious, too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And what evidence outside of the bible do we have for the character of Paul?
LikeLike
Why “outside of the bible”? That is literature from the period. It is relevant evidence. Apart from 7 of his authentic letters, we also have letters that were forged in his name (Titus, Timothy, etc) and stories about him in Acts (scholarly dating for this ranges from late 1st to early 2nd century). Outside of the bible, Clement also mentions Paul in about 95 CE and a few other early Christian writers mention Paul in the very early 2nd century.
Obviously, we can’t take Acts as an authoritative and reliable accounts of his life any more than we can take most historical biographies as entirely reliable accounts of their subjects. But it is evidence that he was a known figure at the time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
With all due respect, your argument is exactly what Nothnagle raises; the same argument that has been raised since forever, and an argument that has also diminished somewhat in authority as scholars have come to recognize and acknowledge the true nature of ”Paul’s” letters.
And it is also an argument that has been severely derided anytime it is raised.
Of course Paul was a real historical character.
It was once said the same of Moses.
Actually, I don’t think we can say this.
All there is is simply evidence that a few Christian writers wrote about someone called Paul and there is nothing concrete about ”Clement” either.
As far as I am aware,Saul of Tarsus is not mentioned in any Jewish literature of the time and, in fact, it appears there are no non-Biblical contemporary references to Paul.
I stand to be corrected of course.
LikeLike
@Jon. I would be rather careful using a book to validate the information and characters in the book. I wrote that before here above. The example I used is the Harry Potter series. It mentions proven places. It is referenced in other media, including the books, movies, websites, and news broadcasts. People even dress up as the figures in the books. We can even prove the author is a real person who should have the best knowledge of these events and people. Yet for all that the books were a work of fiction, and everything based on them ( except the news reports ) was a made up fiction. So I as I wouldn’t use the Harry Potter books to say that Albus Dumbledore was a real head wizard and ran a top notch school for students with a mostly grand selection of assisting teachers. Be well. Hugs
LikeLiked by 1 person
In the research I did for my chapter on Paul, I found NO evidence or information about him outside the bible. Of course, those who believe “The Book” are convinced that what’s written therein is real and true so there’s simply no doubt he was a living, breathing person. To try and get them to see otherwise is a losing battle.
Having said this … if one accepts his hypothetical existence, the role he played in forming the Christianity practiced today is undeniable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And if Jesus and Paul were real dudes, something I have no issue accepting, it’s still a far cry from some literal, virgin born son of God and miracle working apostle.
Similar to “Creation, therefore God of the Bible,” a real man Jesus doesn’t not automatically mean Jesus was the Son of God who died, came back to life and flew away.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I think this was also Nothnagle’s argument , Nan, and he seems to feel that maybe it is about time people stopped simply accepting certain aspects of this whole rigmarole and begin to ask ordinary, straightforward questions.
Most people are simply unaware of the fact there really is no verifiable evidence outside of the bible for any of the tale.
In his previous comment, Jon states Clement mentions Paul, yet a cursory internet search reveals even this is not exactly correct and with due respect to Jon this too illustrates how we have all been ( to my mind) conned into accepting what has been dished up over the years.
LikeLiked by 1 person
right, and even with all the information easily available these days with the internet people still hardly take the time to look at it, so is it really a surprise that the religion was accepted so easily when the information was infinitely more scarce?
Except I think a lot of people don’t look to religion for fact and much as they do feeling, or connection, or security and what have you.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dude, your source here is a music producer who read a couple books by Richard Carrier, Robert Price and David Fitzgerald. Critical scholarship accepts 7 of Paul’s letters as authentic. If you want to make this argument, fine, but please stop pretending there is any significant scholarly support for your argument.
You continue to avoid answering my question about what other similar figures we have contemporary literary evidence of from this period/area. “We don’t have contemporary references to them” only seems like a valid argument to you because you pretend that we should have contemporary references to them.
Can you either answer the question and demonstrate that we should expect to have extant contemporary references to these figures, or quit making the argument? Either one would be great.
Full stop. The argument against Jesus was that we didn’t have any contemporary writings by him or by people who knew him. Now we’re talking about Paul, for whom we DO have 7 extant letters, and suddenly the goalposts have moved. Now, direct evidence of their writing is insufficient to demonstrate their existence, or at least to make their historical existence more likely than not.
Every time you make this no non-biblical evidence argument, I point out that A) evidence is not irrelevant just because it’s in the Bible, and B) there IS non-biblical evidence for Jesus (and for Paul). And every time, you just ignore it and go on making the claim.
First Clement, usually dated to around 95 CE: “By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith.” Later in First Clement, he also writes “Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle. What wrote he first unto you in the beginning of the Gospel?”
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html
QED.
LikeLike
@Jon, “First Clement, usually dated to around 95 CE: “By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance.”
I’m not sure I would be using Clement as a source for anything. I think he is the one who believed the mythical phoenix to be real.
LikeLike
Scottie
I cited multiple books and letters, including 7 by the person in question.
Beyond that, do you really think that this argument has never occurred to critical scholars and historians? Do you think historians just uncritically accept anything they read as true? Do you think they don’t have any methodology for distinguishing between historical and non-historical (or purely literary) figures and events?
This all reminds me of climate change skeptics who say things like, “Have scientists even considered whether global temperatures might be affected by the sun?” As if this basic fact might have never occurred to people who have spent their life studying the climate. As if climate scientists are going to smack their forehead and say, “Why didn’t that occur to us? Thank you, brilliant layman, without whom we never would have noticed that the sun affects the climate!”
Critical scholars are not theologians, they are not dunces, and they are not apologists. If you want to overturn the consensus of the entire field, you need to at least understand how the field works.
LikeLike
This isn’t even an argument. Newton believed in alchemy. So what? Ancient authors routinely wrote about and believed in magical and otherwise fantastical things. Ancient people believed in that stuff. Do you want to throw out as a useful source every ancient writer who was wrong about something? Because you’re not going to be left with a whole lot of historical information.
LikeLiked by 1 person
using jon’s link about Clement, “CHAPTER 25 — THE PHOENIX AN EMBLEM OF OUR RESURRECTION.
Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in Eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed.” (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-roberts.html)
It is plain to see that he really believes in the Phoenix.
LikeLike
@jon, “Ancient authors routinely wrote about and believed in magical and otherwise fantastical things.”
Do you realize how funny this statement is ?
LikeLike
For what it’s worth, I’ve got to side with Jon here.
We have writings from multiple authors, even if they’ve been placed in one collection, that claim these people existed. It’s possible that they didn’t, but I think the claim that they were purely mythological is a more extraordinary claim and requires more evidence.
LikeLike
KC, that doesn’t mean that everything they wrote was fantastical. Each claim should be examined on its own merits.
LikeLike
“Ancient authors routinely wrote about and believed in magical and otherwise fantastical things.”
Jon, what separates this statement from the magical and fantastical things in the Bible ?
LikeLike
Don’t want to speak for Jon, but he doesn’t believe in the magical and fantastical things in the Bible. However, he does believe some of the Bible’s statements: like Jerusalem is a city, figs grow on trees, Herod and Pilate were real people, and more than likely, Jesus and Paul were real people as well. Doesn’t mean they could perform miracles or were in league with the divine, any more than a real Arthur had a magical sword.
LikeLike
“KC, that doesn’t mean that everything they wrote was fantastical. Each claim should be examined on its own merits.:
No it doesn’t Nate. As I asked Jon, what separates Clement’s belief in the Phoenix from his belief in the divinity of Jesus ?
LikeLike
I get your point Nate.
LikeLike
I’m open to the possibility that Jesus was mythical — maybe even Paul was. But I think it’s important for us, as skeptics, to be mindful of the stances we take on things. We get frustrated when we feel like Christians hold to beliefs that seem to be based on very inadequate evidence. But that’s not just a Christian tendency, it’s a human one. We’re no less susceptible. Maybe guys like Price and Carrier are right, but unless we’ve become experts in these areas ourselves, I think we have to be careful being dogmatic about something that’s not in line with the current consensus of critical scholarship.
LikeLike
This is a good question. I really like the author Bernard Cornwell, who writes historical fiction. In one of his books, a character who lives in Britain is told about a lion and doesn’t believe such a creature could exist (this story took place in about 500 CE). It struck me how large the world would have felt long ago, when one couldn’t easily travel to other parts of the globe (and they didn’t even know about half of it). I can see how someone like Clement might have heard of a phoenix and believed it was a real animal — he believed in the miraculous, after all.
But when it comes to relaying normal things, like who an individual is, I think we can have a bit more confidence in what he claims. It’s still possible that he was wrong about Paul, and that Paul was just a myth. But I think that’s not very likely. And as Jon was saying, if we take the fact that these people believed in fantastical things as a reason to discount their more mundane claims, then we really do lose most of ancient history, because all ancient historians believed in the miraculous.
LikeLike
Once upon a time they accepted more than seven. Maybe in the future they will accept less? So, please tell me exactly what are the sources critical scholarship uses?
Do you know?
Nope.
There is no verifiable non-biblical evidence for either of these characters.
And yes, unfortunately it is irrelevant because it is in the bible, as is claiming veracity for Harry Potter on the same grounds.
Just because the former claims it has historical veracity does not mean it does.
And this has been ably demonstrated with the Pentateuch.
My apologies, Jon, I ‘m not avoiding it, I just can’t see the relevance.
When one takes all of the bible story into consideration, including how it was compiled and redacted, and recognize just how much fiction and fraud there actually is, then one is left with basically nothing other than what some man said to some other man two thousand years ago.
If it weren’t for the fact a worldwide religion was hammered out of this fraudulent nonsense I doubt anyone would give a damn.
As the essay points out, you aren’t so credulous to accept the utter garbage Joseph Smith punted, now are you?
Yet millions do, so what do they know that you don’t, Jon?
And yet you continue to vehemently defend the exact position Nothnagle writes about.
I suppose the question one should probably ask is, why?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nothing. That’s why critical scholars don’t argue for the historicity of miracles. That’s why the “historical Jesus” is a human figure, not a divine figure. Critical scholarship is all about identifying historical facts in the incomplete, embellished and otherwise flawed sources of information we have.
LikeLiked by 1 person