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 
ColorStorm,
I’ve read the bible a few times and still look it over.
I’m not sure why you stick around if you’re not going to actually offer any citations, or explanations that could support your claims, but you should know that no one will read this thread and think that you’ve done anything but say, “nuh uh,” as you dodge direct questions asking you to support your position.
Here I am, a non-believer, asking to study and discuss the bible with you, while you, a believer, refuse to do so. You just want us to accept it just because, which is one of the worst possible reasons to believe in something. If you do not understand that, then we are maybe too far apart to discuss anything.
LikeLiked by 2 people
For the last time william, read the near 400 comments here. Look at who is dodging the truth of scripture.
The accounts and narrative stand on their own. It is you sir, who have also said the accounting of the young Hadassah, then Queen Esther is mere poetry.
So yes, it appears there is no common ground, and if you cannot see the reasons why a long winded conversation is pointless…………
LikeLike
ColorStorm,
C’mon. I have seen who’s been dodging, as has any onlooker or passerby – you. As plain as day.
I could agree that the narratives speak for themselves, and as nate has pointed out, they conflict. Nate has cited scripture, placed them side by side and even explained the differences. You say he’s wrong, but refuse to show it or explain how. You just refuse to do it, and only proclaim, “God is true” – but then wont even explain or show you know or believe that the Bible is a product of God.
So yeah, we’re at an impasse I guess, because I think discussions like these require more than undefended and unsupported claims.
You’re not making sense to me, but that’s okay.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Jon
The primary source of all biblical scholarship for the historicity of the characters Jesus of Nazareth and Paul is the New Testament.
The standards applied are often not the same as for other areas of ancient history.
I don’t recall saying Clement did not mention Jesus. Please point this out.
There is no non-biblical evidence to verify these characters. Thus, based on the history of the bible’s compilation and how it developed organically, the interpolation, the atrocious geography, the falsity of a great many historical and scientific aspects, and the outright level of fraud employed, one can easily say the characters are as likely fictitious as they aren’t and be perfectly justified in doing so.
I lean toward the former.
Re: Voting for the canon.
Fair enough. Not voted for. Perhaps the ”Ayes” didn’t have it after all?
Maybe you would prefer the term ‘’… agreed upon after lengthy deliberation from apparently God-inspired Church Fathers and other prominent notables, initially at the express invitation from Constantine, and later developed organically after further deliberation until eventually settled, more or less, by Church Hierarchy and metaphorically Rubber-Stamped by the Pope.”
How’s that?
PS.
Re: Alexandre and Nazareth.
She is a Christian as far as I am aware. I do not consider her judgment in these matters to be without bias.
However, if you have details of the peer-reviewed report ( if we are talking about the first century house, yes?) I would be interested in reading it.
Unless you are referring to the Nazareth Farm Report which I have read.
And to close for now …
PPS.
I would be very interested if you are prepared to answer my follow-up post regarding the top five biblical scholars ( in your view) and their methodology and their evidence.
Read up the thread and you can see the full comment.
Thanks.
Chill.
Ark.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ark
This is a valid request, but I am reluctant to perform on command for somebody who continually ignores my own questions. More to the point, I simply do not have time to study up enough to be able to summarize each (recent, atheist) scholar’s arguments and how they arrived at them. Heck, for many scholars, it’s not even clear whether they have religious beliefs or not.
I understand the desire for non-Christian scholars, though I think that is a bit unfair to critical scholars who happen to be Christian and yet manage to leave their religious beliefs at the door. For example, Catholic scholars will often acknowledge that the virginity of Mary story was based on a faulty reading of the Septuagint and that the Bible indicates Jesus had siblings, even if they “mentally assent” to the teachings of the church. They distinguish between a faith belief and a scholarly conclusion.
Some atheist scholars who come to mind…
Bart Ehrman — Ehrman is the most accessible, widely known biblical scholar. His particular expertise in in textual criticism, where he is regarded as one of the most important textual critics of the past century and has contributed enormously on the topic of the textual history and developments in early Christianity.
Maurice Casey — I have not read his work, but I understand he has done excellent work on the topic.
Steven DiMattei — He is not famous like the preceding fellows (almost no biblical scholars are famous, of course), but I’ve enjoyed his work. He runs the “Contradictions in the Bible” website and has written occasionally against mythicism, though he mostly focuses on the OT.
James Crossley — Crossley is an atheist bible scholar at St. Mary’s University, in England. I think he has spoken out against mythicism in the past, but it’s not a regular topic for him.
Those are just a few that came to mind off the top of my head. There are others, as well, but as I’ve said, most biblical scholars are not famous, many don’t feel a need to publicize their religious positions (or lack thereof), and the historicity of Jesus is not a subject many scholars feel the need to retread. While mythicism is a popular topic on the internet, it is a long-settled question in academia.
You might also look into the Jesus Seminar. I believe some of the participants in that were atheist, agnostic or pretty close to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar
LikeLike
@Jon.
That’s a fair list, and as I said I will accept Ehrman even though I beleive he demonstrates undue bias regarding historicity of Jesus.
Casey has passed away I understand and he held out for an Aramaic version of Matthew, am I correct? Not a view shared by many I read somewhere.
But his methodology would be interesting to read. I haven’t bothered, although I know Unklee is a fan.
Crossley I have heard of DiMattei I have not.
As you side with these scholars, I would appreciate if you would also mention something about their methodology and how they arrive at their belief in the historicity of Jesus and Paul.
As I said, a brief summary of their arguments is fine.
The reason I ask this is, with due respect, merely stating something along the lines of ” …critical biblical scholars say ….” is in fact not saying anything and certainly not telling the reader how these scholars arrive at the position they do.
As I said above, you agree with their position, so I assume you must know at least some details of how they work.
Thanks.
Read about the Jesus seminar a while back. Interesting.
LikeLike
I vaguely remember Ehrman’s reasoning for why he believes that Jesus was a real historical person (and why he believes the overwhelming majority of scholars and historians also believe that Jesus was a real historical person) in his book on the subject as being that there are (six?) independent source that refer to Jesus as an historical person. I can’t remember them all, but I will take a stab at the ones I can remember:
1. The author of the Gospel Mark
2. The source of “Q”
3. The author of the Gospel John
4. The apostle Paul
5. The author of the Gospel of Peter
I may not have those correct. If someone has the correct list, please correct me.
However, I think what is more important than whether or not Jesus existed is whether or not Jesus performed unheard of before or since magic tricks: like coming back from the dead!
It is one thing if twelve people tell you that they saw a dead man walk out of his sealed tomb having come back to life in front of their very eyes. It is quite another if four NON-EYEWITNESS authors, two (and maybe three) of which copied almost wholesale the story of the first, many decades after the alleged event, leave four anonymous stories filled with all manner of supernatural tales and ask you to not only believe their stories as historical fact…but that your eternal salvation depends upon believing them as historical fact!
The consensus of NT scholars is that no eyewitness, nor even a close associate of an eyewitness, wrote even ONE of the Gospels. Therefore, the probability of the reality of Jesus’ magic tricks are just as probable as the probability of the reality of the magic tricks performed by “Magic Mike” the magician at your child’s birthday party.
Here is conservative NT scholar NT Wright’s statement on the authorship of the Gospels:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah Gary, this is where I sit on it, too. I lean toward thinking Jesus was a real figure for 2 main reasons: the current consensus of the experts heavily favor that view, and it also makes sense to me as an explanation for early Christianity.
But like you, I don’t think it matters a great deal whether the Jesus of the gospels was ever based on a real Jewish preacher named Jesus or was pure myth. The most important thing is that there’s not enough evidence to reasonably think all the miracles took place.
LikeLike
I assume ColorStorm will comment again, because if he doesn’t, William will have had the last word. So I’ll go ahead and make an observation, too.
William and Nan, I think you’ve both made some really excellent points and raised some pertinent questions for ColorStorm, but he’s obviously not going to engage. And really, I think that’s okay. When I was a Christian, his comments would have worried me. If he’s a Christian who’s familiar with the kinds of arguments we’re raising (as he obviously is), but is refusing to offer any kind of rebuttal or evidence to resolve the problems, it would make me think that there’s a good chance that there simply are no good responses to these issues. In other words, his comments would have done just as much to make me doubt my faith as any of the other comments here. And I don’t think I’m alone in that. Most Christians I’m familiar with don’t buy into the presuppositionalism that ColorStorm seems to deal in.
So really, I don’t see the point in trying to press ColorStorm to engage. It would be great if he did, but many readers will simply see his refusal to offer evidence as a tacit admission that he has none.
Kudos for trying, though!
LikeLike
Nate you offered an excellent summary of ColorStorms contribution to the conversation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@nate
peter
Will
nan,
and whosoever will…..
I do agree that nate summed up tersely at least, that there is an impasse. I do not agree however that there lies any weakness in my observations regarding scripture, and my ‘refusal’ to play endless rounds of ping pong.
When I say without reservation that ‘God made the stars also……….’ according to the testimony of scripture, no amount of ‘explanation’ by myself nor others will satisfy a ‘seeker’ who is bent on not believing.
God’s word stands alone, apart, and anybody who is honest knows there is no comparison with the ‘religions’ of the world.
Christianity alone, as revealed in the context of the law of God, unveils the grace of God. There is no other faith in the same universe. But creation is easy to see; redemption, ah, now there’s the difficulty. Easy too when understood, but difficult.
When there is the charge made that ‘Nazareth was an imaginary construct’ for example, surely you can understand that such a point of view being absurd, is hardly worth engaging, since the scriptures are quite clear, so I will not.
It is a simple matter of believing the record of scripture, whose record was written by men of far greater character than you or myself.
LikeLike
And there you have it, you dimwits. His book says it is so…so it is so.
Who can argue with that logic?
LikeLike
CS, had you been born in Iran, you would most likely be pounding your head on the ground 5 times each day while facing Mecca. Praise to Allah.
LikeLike
That kind of destroys your narrative chief, that people of every tribe, kindred, tongue, and nation, are represented quite well by the power of the true word of God.
And no, there are no commands to lop heads off………….
Chinese, Russian, Iranian, you name it, bowing to the truth of God’s word and happy in the process.
God’s word is not hindered by geography.
LikeLike
“That kind of destroys your narrative chief, that people of every tribe, kindred, tongue, and nation, are represented quite well by the power of the true word of God.”
Oh, so you believe Islam is as true a religion as Christianity ? How nice !
LikeLike
Are you purposefully being recalcitrant, or does it come natural?
I just told you Christianity has no equal. Surely you know the difference between rat poison and Cheerios which rats enjoy……….
LikeLike
@CS, “Are you purposefully being recalcitrant, or does it come natural?
I just told you Christianity has no equal.”
And I just told you CS, had you been born in Iran, you would most likely be pounding your head on the ground 5 times each day while facing Mecca. What don’t you understand about this ???
LikeLike
@chief
If you are drunken, it is understandable. You apparently cannot follow a line of thought.
LikeLike
I have always said that fundamentalism is the safest form of Christianity. It has the surest defense: the circular argument: “The Bible is true because God says so and God is true because the Bible says so.” No smart-ass skeptic will ever defeat that argument.
If Colorstorm wants to remain a traditional Christian, he would be a fool to give up his current strategy.
LikeLike
@Gary
1. The author of the Gospel Mark
Heresay. No corroborating evidence.The long ending is an interpolation. Fraudulant.
2. The source of “Q”
Pure speculation.
3. The author of the Gospel John
See Mark and worse …
4. The apostle Paul
No corroborating evidence this character existed. Several epistles fraudulant. Weakens the case for historicity.
5. The author of the Gospel of Peter
Pseudoepigraphical.
@Nate
Would Christianity have survived as long as it has if we knew for a fact that the character, Jesus was a myth from the beginning?
It is worth contemplating the horrors that have been committed in the name of this man-god.
Would you personally, have gone through what you did for the fist part of your life ( 30 years?) if the character was a myth?
Would you and your family still be going through what you are right now if it could be shown categorically that the entire story was a fabrication?
Imagine the first conversation you and your dad would have if we could demonstrate this beyond all reasonable doubt…. and your dad agreed!
Now consider for a brief moment those right across the globe that are still subject to this crap.
And remember, we are only talking about one religion….
Imagine your response to a Dickhead like Colorstorm if you could categorically state that the character Jesus of Nazareth was simply a narrative construct.
I wonder …..
Ark.
LikeLike
@CS,”If you are drunken, it is understandable. You apparently cannot follow a line of thought.”
CS, these comments are even below you. You are the one who didn’t follow my line of thought. My point was about your certainty of Christianity being the only true religion. I was trying to get you to realize that had you been born in Iran to a Muslim Family, through indoctrination, you today would be arguing with us that Islam is the only true religion.
People tend to (but not always) follow the religion their parents adhere to. And their parents tend to adhere to the dominant religion of their culture.
Continue to berate me if you like because this seems to be the only response you are capable of using. Why ? Because Jesus the one you follow was also quite capable of calling people names.
LikeLike
The Emperor’s New Clothes arguments, like these, “God’s word stands alone, apart, and anybody who is honest knows there is no comparison with the ‘religions’ of the world,” astound me.
“Only the wisest will see how amazing the emperor’s wardrobe is, but fools will not.”
Your jedi mind trick wont work on me.
I can plainly see that in stead of demonstrating your position, you’re trying to imply that anyone who doesn’t just accept your position is dishonest. That’s stupid, lazy and disingenuous – perhaps even dishonest.
You’d have us believe that your position is so obvious that you wont take the time to explain it, but will take the time to keep commenting here again and again only to explain why and how you don’t need to explain… Surely, sir, you’re not that aloof.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eye for an Eye was first written by Hammurabi, not Moses or his God on Sinai.
Circumcision was practiced by others, including Egyptians, before Abraham.
Socrates said “render not evil for evil” a long time before Paul wrote it.
Even the Golden Rule was spoken by Rabbis before Christ was born.
Persians had a virgin birth, a heaven and hell and messiah before the Jews or Christians did.
Islam has any many disciples as Christianity, and is also represented on every continent, and in every tongue.
So, ColorStorm, what sets Christianity apart or makes it as special as you claim? Is in anything more than, “the bible says so,” or “it’s just obvious,” or, “you’re not honest if you don’t see it my way?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
@William
I did mention some time ago that $50 said he would never give you straight answer, so don’t say you weren’t warned.
😉
Occasionally he responds – by going away – to, Va te faire encular
LikeLiked by 1 person