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 
@Jon. I was speaking specifically of you using people in, and talked about being in, the bible to prove your point. Your sarcasm notwithstanding I don’t put you in the same class as respected climate scientists. I am not even sure of your historical sources as you seem to use some people here disregard, and question the validity of them, the bais they seem based on. I also see that the question of Paul’s reality as a person has come up. So your little spurt about “critical scholars and historians” means little to nothing to me. You have shown belief in and acceptance of authors others here have disputed. The same is said about your view of the Nothnagle paper. I disagree with your conclusion but I won’t mock your ability to come to one even though I am sure others with far more training and education have looked the material over. As for scholars not being theologians, dunces, or apologists, quite frankly some are. I have heard them. I have watched them. So some run with their biases instead of objective facts. I feel you have proven my whole point about bais. I joined the conversation with what I felt to be a valid point as I saw the conversation developing. I may not have a history degree, but I can read and I can follow a discussion. Thanks for making it so pleasant. As I see how much you value my participation I will refrain from intruding on your critical scholarly examination of a subject most here seem to disagree with you on. Oh and I do feel more comfortable with what I have read them post than yours. Hugs and bye.
LikeLike
As we have diverted on this thread to the matter of Paul, I will make a brief comment on the matter.
When I studied the Bible at a post graduate level, I was taken aback by the difficulty that academics had in reconciling what was written about Paul in the Book of Acts with what Paul wrote in his own letters. This discrepancy related not only to ‘historical facts’ but also theology and even to Paul’s apparent personality.
The most striking difficulty is reconciling what Paul wrote in chapters 1 & 2 of Galatians with the version of events in Acts.
This is really a bit like the birth narrative difficulties, in that they make perfect sense in a ‘human’ book, but by contrast cause great difficulty if the Bible is really a divine book. Dare I say another difficulty that ‘God’ allowed that seems strange if the book is to be your testimony to the world.
LikeLike
William I was impressed by your contribution to the discussion with ColorStorm. From past experience I would suggest that his lack of response is because your questions were too difficult.
CS is especially vulnerable on questions that compare his justification for the truth of the Bible to the claims of other religions. As you mention his arguments could apply to any religion.
LikeLike
Jon, I misunderstood the path you were taking in this thread as Nate tactfully pointed out to me. My apologies.
I now understand where you are coming from. Sometimes it is hard to keep track of “Who’s on first, what’s on second and I don’t know’s on third” . 🙂
I hope you are old enough to know of this classic scene from Abbot and Costello.
LikeLike
Ark
Critical biblical scholarship is a relatively new thing. The fact that the Catholic Church accepted 13 books as authentically Pauline 500 years ago has no relevance to critical scholarship, because critical scholarship didn’t really exist at the time. Unless you are making the Chronological Snobbery argument of CS Lewis (where we shouldn’t regard modern conclusions as more valid than historical conclusions), I think we should be comfortable accepting that modern biblical scholarship is more likely to be right than outdated biblical scholarship for the same reason we accept that in virtually every other field of history.
What would constitute “verifiable” evidence? Because it seems to me that you are just making up standards and methodology as you go. Every time I provide the evidence you ask for, you just move the goalposts farther out.
You cannot see the relevance of contemporary textual evidence to your question about contemporary textual evidence? You argue we should “expect” to have contemporary evidence of them, but cannot see the relevance of what kind of contemporary evidence exists?
Critical scholars are perfectly capable of distinguishing between the historically valid details and the invented details. You and Christian (or Mormon) apologists are the only ones who see a need to make it all true or all false.
Because I find the topic interesting and I am frustrated by fellow atheists turning into conspiracy theorists. Because I find the popular-on-the-internet idea that every critical scholar is wrong and 2 fringe guys who can’t find work in academia and haven’t published this idea in credible journals are right is….lunacy. I find this frustrating for the same reason I find so much of Christian apologetics frustrating. It’s extremely clear that people are reaching conclusions because it’s what they want to believe and because they don’t actually understand how the academic field works, not because it’s where the evidence leads.
But hey, you don’t see the relevance of questions about the subject on which you are opining, so what’s the point? If you have reached your conclusion without understanding the subject, I doubt you are interested in why every relevant expert working in the academic field has come to the opposite conclusion.
LikeLike
KCChief:
We’re cool!
Naturally! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scottie
I tried to cover a few of the different avenues of evidence. I can wholeheartedly agree that just because somebody is mentioned in a book, that doesn’t necessarily mean we should accept the historicity of that person. There are many people mentioned in the New Testament whose historicity is quite dubious. But with regards to Jesus and Paul, we have substantial evidence that they were real people. We have far, far more evidence for their existence than for almost any other figure in that time.
I have tried to identify and even quote sources, where relevant.
To each, their own. I consider experts relevant and important. At the very least, they have more knowledge and credibility than a music producer whose awareness of the field amounts to having read a few books on one side of the argument.
They absolutely have. I am citing the overwhelming consensus views of the people with far more training and education who have studied the material and pretty universally concluded that Jesus was a historical figure. The only quasi-exceptions being the people I mentioned previously, who operate outside of academia and whose proposals have been soundly rejected by field. That fact should, at the very least, inspire a modicum of humility in the people who support their proposals.
LikeLike
There is little point in me trying to explain Nothnagle’s essay if you are simply going to dismiss what he wrote.
Yet, I reiterate, you are merely personifying the position he writes about and continue to cry ”Critical Scholar”.
And just what evidence do you offer to explain what this term actually means?
What evidence to these critical scholars have that you and I don’t that clearly demonstrates the historical veracity of these characters?
Well?
How was the bible compiled is one of the first questions I would ask.;
And what is the answer?
By vote!
Even though we are merely trying to establish veracity for the man/men, not the god man, you see nothing untoward in the fact the original compilers of the bible, the primary source for this evidence, were men who were supposedly inspired/guided by God (sic).
I don’t consider I am moving the goalposts, though I do apologise for not laying out the case more succinctly. I would have hoped you would have read the essay in a little more depth. He makes a much better case than I do.
Even the bare minimum of claimed facts are merely suppositions,or at best, hearsay.
What verifiable evidence do we have for anything about the biblical characters, Jesus of Nazareth or Paul?
Ark.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What evidence?
LikeLike
@Jon.
“I tried to cover a few of the different avenues of evidence.”
I just went back to what I wrote the first time to make sure I had written what I thought I had. I think you and I maybe talking across each other. I hope that is the problem. I addressed only one issue. I did not address any other. I was offering my opinion on methodology, one used here only. I did not mention any other. I did not even draw a conclusion. I simply offered my view on that method. It seems to me my comment can stand on its own merit. Yet your response to it threw me as you dragged a lot more into it than I wrote and what I intended.
As for the veracity of Paul and of Jesus, I disagree with you. I have read the posts here, and formed a different opinion than you have. I have weighed what I read here with what I have read on other sites and I disagree with you. The fact I disagree with you is not of major importance , it won’t make the crops fail or the cow’s milk sour. However it does mean I personally reject your blanket statement of “substantial evidence” of their being real people. If that was the case the people here would conceded the point. The fact that reasonable debate over that substantial points means it is not as conclusive as you claim.
Everyone is quoting the same sources and frankly there is a lot of difference in the way those same sources are viewed and interpreted. It is like two people looking at a river and one saying “the river is really low” and the other saying ” the river is really high”. In this case the more logical an argument is the more credence to give it. To me it makes no sense a omnipotent all powerful anthropomorphic entity would give its most important message out in a flawed format such as the Christian bible. The bible is so flawed as to be about worthless as a messenger for this deity. That being the case it clearly couldn’t have been the work of such a deity. That being the case it was a work of man. That being the case we have to ask what the intent of the stories was. Seems rather simple to me it was a means of behavioral control over the masses. It gave a foundation to the channeling of control from the bottom to the very top, for the lower classes to cede all power to the upper echelon, and that the upper class was deserving of the fruits of the lower classes labors. Taking all that into account, and adding the need of people even today to use every emotion trick to scam others, and I am thinking the types such as Pat Robertson, Jim Bakker, the founders of every modern religious cult…….I can see how they would make up any story, any figure to promote their goals. They would create and profess to know, have seen, to have touched, to walked with , yes even heard the words personally if need be to help the story along. Add to that we have consensus that other biblical figures such as Noah did not exist but were composites that were made up of other fictional characters in other stories, and you start to see a clear pattern. So clearly it becomes more than possible that any of the biblical characters are simply make believe. Not real people, just made up fictions to make a point or drive a story to the conclusion.
Jon you totally missed the point of my comment “I also see that the question of Paul’s reality as a person has come up. So your little spurt about “critical scholars and historians” means little to nothing to me.” In my opinion and the way I took your response was dismissive and mocking. so as you seemed to be throwing the idea that only “critical scholars and historians” having the final say on these matters, settled in your favor in your view, I responded the way I did to show you what I thought of that. Plainly I was not clear enough and that is my fault as I believe I should be able to express myself well enough that people shouldn’t have to read my mind to understand. So I think that should clear that up and I will bypass what I see as a passive aggressive response.
Again as to the “overwhelming” consensus that Jesus is a universally agreed historic figure I disagree. Look we have people on this blog, well educated people with backgrounds in this stuff who disagree it is both conclusive and universally accepted. That being the case your assertion of that as undisputed fact except for a fringe element raises more questions than it puts to bed.
I am going to ignore your whole “inspire a modicum or humility” crack as that does far more in my mind to weaken your case than improve it. Hugs
LikeLike
Scottie, Ark, and everyone else,
Maybe this doesn’t need to be said, but bear with me for a second:
Right now, none of us is trying to defend the idea that Jesus (if he existed) could perform miracles or actually spoke on behalf of a god. We’re just talking about “the historical Jesus,” which refers to a Jewish preacher who had followed John the Baptist, and then inspired his own small following. He didn’t do real miracles, and he certainly didn’t come back from the dead.
Such a person probably wouldn’t have attracted a whole lot of attention. The only reason the Jewish leaders became interested in him is probably because he created some kind of scene in the temple.
If such a person existed, it wouldn’t be that surprising that we don’t have any contemporary sources of him. But if his followers were really zealous, it’s conceivable that their stories about him grew over time and turned into the Christian movement that we’re familiar with.
Why should we think this guy might have existed? Because we know that such a movement did spring up during the first century. It’s more likely that the movement had a real individual as its inspiration than that it sprang up from some cleverly devised fable.
There are other reasons that people more qualified than I could go into, but I think that’s a decent foundation. Again, the historical Jesus and the Jesus from the gospels are very different people.
LikeLike
@Nate. We have a current example of a religion being created totally out of a fiction in our own time. Jedi.
“Is Jedi a recognized religion?
It’s official: “Jedi Knight” is ON the list of religions for the 2001 UK census. A campaign to get people to write the entry on their census forms has succeeded in the term being included on the list of religions, alongside Church of England, Roman Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu.”
In the USA there are cases of prisoners asking for and receiving Jedi priests. So it is happening. Totally made up. So is it really that far of a stretch to think a religion can be made up without having a real person existing? Hugs
LikeLike
Scottie, I think Scientology is an even better example for your case study. I suspect most Jedi folk play it as a joke, but not with Scientology where the adherents are serious. I still remember my reaction the first time I seriously examined the beliefs of Scientology. I was staggered, to me it seemed tin foil hat stuff. But still it has developed a following.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Peter. Thank you. I never learned about them. I will look them up tomorrow. Thanks. Hugs
LikeLike
So, what are the various possibilities on how Christianity began? If there’s no historical Jesus behind it, who started the religion? Certainly not Paul — his writings don’t detail Jesus’s life or even very many of his teachings, and he writes as though his readers know what he’s referring to. Not the gospels — they were written after Paul’s letters. So how did the idea get off the ground, and what did the instigator/creator have to gain?
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Nate. First let me say that you have been really nice to me and this is your blog. I don’t want to interfere with your discussion of the post or what it has become. So if you wish me to stop let me know and I will back away. That said I will try to answer your question as best I can.
I think you have to look at this as we see today with TV preachers, Mega churches, and little home religions like the West Baptist Church. What all these have in common is a charismatic individual trying to do three things. Get recognition and a following. Get money and resources. Get power over others. We see it every day in the world and have become so use to it we ignore it. These people create their own kingdoms. I watched a clip of Pat Robertson telling a lady in her 80’s to go back to work to afford the tithes to the church. Yes a woman called into his show and said she was not making it , couldn’t even feed herself and also pay the tithes,and he told her to get a job. These people control those in their circle.
Now expand that to where there are a bunch of these in an area of some size all competing with different versions of a story. So to survive and get more power some combine. We know there were many versions of the same story as we have the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
“This first ecumenical council was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom, although previous councils, including the first Church council, the Council of Jerusalem, had met before to settle matters of dispute.[5] It was presided over by Hosius, bishop of Corduba who was in communion with the See of Rome”
For me the point is that all through history some people have tried to take charge over others. Normally violently. However it is much better to get them to follow you through persuasion. Do we doubt anyone in that age who could spin a tale would have used these stories, expanded them, made a name and a place for themselves to get well off on? I know it would happen today if they had half a chance. Hugs
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Nate. I left out the part of making things up . Such as the golden plates of Joseph Smith, and the whole scientology thing of Ron L Hubbard. Interesting reads both of them. Also there is the idea that Ellen G. White is a prophet created for the Seventh Day Adventist. Sorry got ahead of myself and left this part out of my reply. Hugs
LikeLike
Oh, no worries 🙂 I always enjoy seeing where the conversations go!
I think your point about a charismatic individual is very good. To me, I think Jesus could fit that description, and his followers, shocked at his sudden execution, continue to follow him after death. Much like the Branch Davidians after David Koresh (http://www.npr.org/2013/04/20/178063471/two-decades-later-some-branch-davidians-still-believe).
If instead, there was no Jesus, but several competing charismatic leaders who preached about him, who were they? And where did the original idea come from? I agree completely with you that there were many widely varying views about Jesus early on in the movement, but there still needed to be some specific inspiration for each of these ideas to spring off of, right?
LikeLiked by 1 person
If one considered the new testament a work of fiction, the person of Jesus could be a msde-up individual based on the stories of the Hebrew bible.
LikeLiked by 2 people
First I have to ask… How do you and others get those neat white boxes of what others say? I love them and have no idea how to do it. As to your big question. Where did the idea come for a messiah come from.. well we have to look both to the past and their present. First in the past people made up supernatural stuff. Some of it became parts of the biblical legends. I am not an authority but there is the Epic of Gilgamesh. Second we have to look at the current time frame of those people. What was their reality and what were they hoping for. Any smart charismatic scam artist could build a story around what people wanted to hear. They wanted an end to Roman rule. They wanted a leader to put them first. A kingdom of their own. Does this make sense to you? I have more examples but I feel others could do better than I can. Hugs
LikeLike
Oh and by the way.. there are still Branch Davidians recruiting today trying to grow their religion. What I did not know and am stunned to find out they are an offshoot, yes a local time offshoot of the SDA. I am off to read up on this.. Weird. Hugs
LikeLike
Check this out: https://findingtruth.info/how-to-format-comments/
🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow…….. supercool !!!!!!!! I printed it and it will be tacked up on my desk… as soon as I can get Milo off my lap to go to the printer to get it. Thanks a bunch. Hugs
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s probably the most popular (and useful) thing I’ve written 😉
LikeLiked by 3 people
It is super. I never knew you could do that stuff and I have been repairing computers since 2001. I never took programing, and self taught myself to repair computers and passed the microsoft A plus test. But with my health I was never able to go to work, so I help out people in my mobile home park when they need it. This is awesome. Thanks. Hugs
LikeLiked by 1 person