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 
I’ve heard born again Christians use their previous “sinful, party going ways of the past” as way to claim, “look how bad I was, but now even I’m saved,” as a way of reaching out to others. Some of these people even embellish how bad they really were because they think it makes the point even better.
Paul may have been doing the same, “I once was real bad. I once despised Jesus, and even went on missions to arrest his followers, but now I’m a believer…”
There are really a lot of possibilities.
LikeLike
@Ark. Thanks for the link to the post about Paul. It was a long hard slog for me to get through it. I understood some but not all I will admit. By the end I think my eyes were a bit glassy. But it was very clear to me about several things. First as a history text the bible stinks. I know some fundamentalists in the USA want the bible used as both a history text and a science text in public schools. This with other things I have read leads me to see the bible has little verifiable true history. Not all of it is wrong, but even the Harry Potter books got London and England correct. The second thing it does is reaffirm my belief that the person of Paul in the bible is a made up character to advance the narrative. Thanks again. Hugs.
Scottie
LikeLike
In addition to what Jon said about this, we have no reason to think Paul was the only Jew persecuting Christians during this time.
LikeLike
Anyone here read Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter? it obviously can’t be literal history, but should that make us question the existence of Abraham Lincoln?
LikeLike
Hey scott-
Yeah I know, you have said you can’t understand a word I say, but this bud’s for you anyway.
Don’t you tire of discussing things you find to be a myth? Paul never lived? Are you serious?
The greatest document this world has ever known, also called the ‘book of Romans,’ was written by Paul, formerly Saul, exposing the perversity of anybody who says he ‘never lived……’
There is no man in his own strength, either being that large idiot Goliath, or the current clowns of atheism, who can defend against the genius of Romans. Oh yeah, Paul lived, plenty of proof if you open your ears.
Back on point: the nativity account is good as gold. Have a great day.
LikeLike
Well, if you accept what this bloke writes about Roman Law of the time it seem preposterous to beleive a lone Christian Hunter went off to ”Slaughter” Christians.
Based on much of what is recounted in Acts, I am inclined to beleive it is simply a work of fiction, which brings us, once again, to the seven Epistles considered genuine by the current consensus of scholars.
And, to my mind that is pretty much it.
Which, in truth, doesn’t give anyone much to go on.
And the character described in these ”genuine” epistles doesn’t strike me as someone who could begin the conversion of half the bloody Roman Empire pretty much on his own or with the help of a couple of side-kicks.
And this is one of the major reasons I reckon he is a make-beleive character.
Yes, someone penned the Epistles, this much is obvious, and probably the same hand penned the 7 ”official” ones. Call him Paul if you like. Or Reginald Sidebottom, if you prefer, or even Incontinetia Buttocks, it is just a name.
But as to this person being, the sole founder of what we know as Christianity?
Well …. I’ll pass, thanks all the same.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree — I don’t think he was the sole founder of Christianity. His letters already talk about Jesus in a way that indicates the readers already knew about him and already believed that Jesus’s core followers were in Jerusalem.
LikeLike
nate, that’s an interesting point about Lincoln, but it is different that this, right?
If all we had about Lincoln was the Vampire book, then yeah, we may actually all think Lincoln was just fiction – but we have a lot of other things confirming Lincoln as a real guy, and we dont for Paul or Jesus.
Still, we’ve seen cults arise before, with human leaders, who were viewed by their followers as being a little more, or at least more divine than the rest of them.
Ark, see though? Believers like ColorStorm let themselves be hijacked from the bigger issues into being able ignore them and instead focus on whether or not Jesus or Paul were even real – a debate that has no ironclad answer, than cant be settled with logical discourse…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, you’re right of course. I was just trying to point out that it’s possible to take a real person and add mythologized elements to them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m with you
LikeLike
So it seems we need some sort of foundation to agree upon.
Are we all happy enough to regard Acts as fiction?
LikeLike
I’m happy enough to regard the entire bible as fiction that happens to have a few factual parts to it, like names and places, and so on.
LikeLike
So Paul would be real (factual) … what about the disciples?
LikeLike
all of them or specific ones?
LikeLike
You choose …
LikeLike
I believe there were disciples. For the most part, I feel like the named ones were likely real, although I would’t be surprised if they weren’t. I think the broad mention of “disciples” doing this or that are more likely made up, but not always.
Anyhow, my problem isnt with plausible natural and physical things, or in regard to anyone who believes the characters in the bible were base doff of real people, but instead with the religious aspects that create all sorts of division, the miraculous and supernatural – stuff like that.
LikeLike
@jon
The Gospels that we read are not the originals, but Saint Saul Paul came at an even later date, as is the case for “Acts of the Apostles”.
On the basis of the datings – obtained without any evidence by experts with faith – the Apostles Mark, Matthew and John (authors of the Gospels) compiled the manuscripts long after Saul Paul had entered into action (which was immediately after the death and resurrection of the Savior). But, if Paul had truly existed, the “Evangelist Holy Apostles” would surely have reported him in their writings (as he was their “colleague” and author of marvellous acts carried out thanks to the impulse of Jesus Christ: this fact, strangely enough, does not emerge). The only evangelist who speaks about Paul is “Luke”, who was neither an Apostle nor eyewitness of Christ. Only Luke has Saul Paul interact with Simon Peter and John (in “Acts of the Apostles”), both of whom do not mention in their writings the “acts” of the super Apostle thus determining a relentless contrast among the various “depositions”.
http://www.gospelsandhistory.eu/approfondimento.asp?ID=26
LikeLike
So the guy who is unaware of how or why critical scholars date ancient texts now thinks the authors of these texts surely would have mentioned a guy who didn’t become relevant until about 2-3 years after the stories covered by the books? And then he acknowledges that one of the Gospel authors did write about Paul in the book he wrote about what happened after the gospels.
Which sort of undermines his point.
LikeLike
Look at all the energy we non-theists are spending arguing with each other over whether or not two ancient men existed when the real issue is whether or not one of them could do spectacular magic tricks and whether the second one saw the first one do one of his spectacular magic tricks on a dark desert highway a couple of years after he was dead!!!
Why do non-theist mythicists and non-theist historicists spend time debating each other on this issue? I think it comes down to: Purpose.
What is your purpose or objective in debating against the (conservative) Christian belief system? My purpose is to deconvert (enlighten) other Christians regarding the improbabilities of the supernatural claims of their ancient superstition and the dangers those superstitions pose to humankind. I believe that Ark’s purpose is not to deconvert anyone but simply to blow up the superstition itself by any means available. I don’t think he is wrong at all in his objective but it isn’t always compatible with my objectives.
LikeLiked by 3 people
As we are discussing possible fictional characters this is also a fascinating article I came across regarding the Testimonium F. which should ease the minds of any who still think it has a core of truth.
One more non-biblical reference we can (hopefully) kick into touch. Yay!
Sorry to interrupt … where were we?
😉
http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7437
LikeLiked by 1 person
This comment of Carrier’s brought a smile, I must be honest.
🙂
It’s time for “the consensus” to stop clinging to what has been thoroughly debunked. It’s time for scholars in this field to stop generating and relying on a “consensus” that is frequently and embarrassingly based on no logic or evidence of any merit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Spot on!
I became fascinated by certain aspects of religion during the initial writing of a piece of fantasy that satirized Moses. At that point I never suspected he was a work of fiction; nor Jesus or Paul. Why would I?
I was brought up in a westernized Christian family and although not a full-on Christian like most of you lot I was still (to a degree ) indoctrinated with the best of them.
So you will forgive me if I thoroughly enjoy the challenge of tipping over the anthill just to see what the ”experts” tell us and what the ”consensus” is and how much slack even many hard core atheists will give these experts from time to time.
Imagine a world without Christianity and its associated religions? Impossible?
Nah, It’s simple. Imagine a world that no longer believes in Zeus.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The problem isnt that people believe there was a guy named Jesus who had a following, or that there was a guy named Paul who was a preacher. The problem is that people believe the Bible is divine, and God’s direct line to man.
The Bible has contradictions, errors (like the one in the article Nate wrote about the Birth Narrative), and has teachings within it of questionable morality, and others that are divisive and contentious.
I’d hate for the more pressing matter to be overlooked due to arguments over whether Jesus the Lord was based on a man Jesus or a complete imagined, fiction.
Matthew and Luke have issues – for real.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why would you assume he is unaware of the dating process of the gospels?
Correct me if I am wrong. ”Paul” supposedly wrote first around 50 ad.
”Mark”was written next, around 75 a.d.
(Based upon the date of destruction of the Temple if memory serves?)
However, even NT Wright states there is no proof that this is when Mark was written.
Although the Gospel account supposedly predates Paul and his writings why would the gospel writer not be aware of him?
He had nigh on 20 – 25 years.
Yes the ”Luke” references in the (fictionalized) Acts is a conundrum.
LikeLike
if there were more records of people who the Romans actually executed in Rome or Palestine at that time, then there may be a reason to discuss it.
If there were more contemporary records of other random religious sect leaders, then there may be a reason to discuss it.
But since there isn’t much, there just may not be much to point to.
LikeLike