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 
That’s nice chief. Wow, you believe the writings of men thousands of years ago, but have no use for the history of life itself by far better writings. .
Truly, the godless mind is comical.
LikeLike
It is you CS who believe the writings of men thousands of years ago and not the historical evidence we have today . I’ve been to Egypt. I’ve seen first hand what an advanced culture was able to do.
LikeLike
No, chief, once more you have it wrong.
I believer the scriptures because they are true.
The Creator of the acorn is quite capable of giving human beings a heads up on life so they are not lost as fog and filthy as dirt.
Let me repeat:
‘He made the stars also.’
Don’t you love such terse, majestic, and simply profound words……
So like God to say it all in few words. You can never win an argument against the God of heaven. Never.
LikeLike
“He made the stars also” is the worst defense of the Bible I’ve ever seen. Why not quote “Jesus wept”? Ah, such simplicity! How divine!
If you like simple and direct statements, perhaps Ernest Hemingway was God?
Guys, I think we’re just wasting our time with CS. I’d never tell anyone to stop commenting here, but (watch — I’m going to give a prophecy!) any continued debating with CS will get absolutely nowhere, other than net us a few more “He made the stars also” quips. He’s just not going to engage with real discussion — he’s here to snipe. Feel free to continue, if you like. I just suggest keeping expectations to a minimum.
And sorry for the uncharacteristic rant 😛
LikeLike
who can deny such prophecies?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nate is right. CS isn’t arguing. He’s just repeating his opinion.
Poe’s Law seems relevant here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can’t tell if ColorStorm actually thinks he’s making good points, or if he’s being intentionally obtuse.
Using scripture in such ways may work when you’re speaking with other believers, but when you’re speaking with people who don’t believe it, saying “the bible true because it says that it is,” is no different than saying “the koran is true because it says it is.”
And defending that with, “There is no way an honest person can compare the truth of the bible with the lies of the koran,” is no different than saying, “There is no way an honest person can compare the truth of the Koran with the lies of the bible.”
or any other book….
That’s why showing your work is important. Your say you’re right, defend it, explain it, demonstrate it.
LikeLike
I think Jon’s point is important — it’s one I’ve thought about too. Maybe CS isn’t a Christian at all? Of course, if he is, then you’re right too, William.
LikeLike
Jon,
NRSV give the following translation
42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up as usual for the festival.
does “went up as usual” imply habitual practice BEFORE the child became 12?
whatever apologetic christians come up with, they need the child to be returned to palestine before he hits 12, right?
LikeLike
or returned anywhere as long as his parents are doing the annual practice , but it has to be before he reached the age of 12, right?
LikeLike
“Of course, the more likely answer is that these are two very different stories and there’s no point in trying to reconcile them because they don’t purport to tell the same story.”
can i ask what would make you think there would be a clash of TIMELINE between the fleeing and the yearly visits ?
carrier, avalos, ferguson, ehrman and others seem to think there is a clash in timeline.
LikeLike
Bart January 17, 2017
Yes, “as usual” means that it was their custom prior to the event mentioned when Jesus was twelve. What it doesn’t indicate is when they started the custom. And yes, that is hard to reconcile with what Matthew says about wanting to stay out of the jurisdiction of Archilaus.
can someone please explain to me ehrmans reply.
LikeLike
Nate,
I think CS is a truly believing Christian. I think he wants to fervently defend the faith, but I think his position is that one must accept that there is a creator, then accept the God of the Bible is that creator and then to therefore accept the Bible as God’s Word.
My impression is that those are basically givens in his mind, and the bible is right regardless of whether we see or understand how – or even if it makes sense or not, or aligns with all external evidence or not. I think he fails to back up a few additional steps and keeps himself from questioning because he thinks to question is to question God himself and shows some doubt – why would a devout believer want to risk rejection by God, or allow themselves to be so arrogant as to suggest God is wrong or a liar?
I hope, that by replying logically to each of his restated opinions, he may eventually see that he is holding everyone to a higher standard than he holds God and the Bible to, show him that any person from any other religion can defend their faith and their text in the way he defends his. If nothing else, show him and remind everyone else that he’s not really doing anything but making baseless, unsupported claims.
That’s my take.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hey nate, this bud’s for you.
Perhaps you can tell us all, including your friends, just what EXACTLY a Christian is……….
because if you do know, then certainly you must understand that the Word of God defines such, and dismisses gripes which are a dime a dozen.
‘They went out from us…………because they were not OF us………’
Ring a bell? The charges of they who do not believe one word of scripture, defining what a believer is……is to be pitied. Too bad you cannot see your own dilemma.
And oh, there is this: ‘OF thou whom thou hast given me…..I have lost none…………’
The good shepherd is also the Great, as well as the CHIEF shepherd. He is more than capable of holding onto His possessions. Such is the worth of Christ, and the jewels of scripture.
There are no defects in God, nor His word. Any gripes or poor interpretations, are Always on our end.
LikeLike
That’s right, and actually my point exactly, “there are no defects in God.” Therefore, since there are defects in the bible, the Bible isn’t from God.
and it keeps seeming like you’re suggesting that if someone doesn’t believe the bible that they cant understand the bible. If that’s what you’re trying to say, then it doesn’t make sense. Not at all.
If that were the case, how would anyone ever be converted?
Are people to just believe it’s true before they read what it has to say?
tell me I’m just not understanding you.
LikeLike
Cheers, CS 🙂
LikeLike
CS, you still don’t “get it,” do you?
Nate outlined your perspective in a very clear, concise manner based on everything you have submitted to the discussion. Yet you simply must have the “last word” — which, in itself, is just another example of what Nate said.
LikeLike
Hi everyone, I have watched the interaction between ColorStorm and the rest of you, and now you are all deciding to end it, I thought I would offer an observation from somewhere in the middle.
Firstly, hi Colorstorm, thanks for not having any issues with me, and for your blessing. I feel the same about you. I am about to talk about you, which is a kind of rude thing to do, so I apologise.
To the rest of you, I want to offer an alternate view to the ones you are all espousing about ColorStorm. Probably won’t change much, but may help a little.
He and I are brothers. We both follow Jesus; on many essentials we have the same beliefs. Obviously on the matters of the Bible and evidence and how to relate to atheists on this blog we differ greatly, but that doesn’t worry me over much.
People have different approaches to life. Some think deeply, some don’t. Some think rationally (analytical is the psychologists’ term), some think more intuitively, some don’t think much at all. People in one category have a hard time understanding those in the other categories.
Christians and atheists and everyone else can fall into any category. Some of you may like to think that atheists are all logic and evidence and christians are all blithering idiots, but it ain’t so. In fact, here in Australia, the greatest correlation is probably unthinking hedonist agnostics.
Now my preferred mode is analytical, but I have many friends who are more intuitive. Both are useful ways to think; in fact, on complex issues, studies show that intuitive can often be better than analytic, whereas on simpler issues analytic may be better.
I don’t think Colorstorm is a fool or a troll. He has a consistent viewpoint (philosophers would say it si coherent). I think he has a quite clever way with words and a neat turn of phrase. Go to his blog and read a bit (e.g. try this intro) and I think you’ll find that he writes very well, even though you’ll disagree with the content. I have learned from his style and would like to think I can make my own writing a little more colourful. And the way he writes here is consistent with that.
The art of communication is not just to say what we think but for that message to get through to the other person and hopefully their understanding. That means we have to try to think a little like the other person. I don’t think either side in this discussion has been doing that, which means it is bound to be frustrating and eventually pointless. (This is one of the reasons why I don’t reply to many people, here and elsewhere.)
I’m not sure I have any particular suggestion on how anyone could respond differently. But my tentative thought would be for you atheists to try to respond to Colorstorm as a friend who has an interesting perspective. Enjoy his company and perhaps he will enjoy yours. Not sure really. But I hope if he and you part ways, that it is amicable.
Best wishes to all of you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
UnkleE, I can buy all that.
I do think ColorStorm is a real believer and I think he means what he says.
he can be a bit of a jerk, but then so can I – and everyone knows Ark can be…. so I’m not throwing stones.
My biggest issue is one of claims and validating those claims. I can understand someone saying, “I believe this, I can’t explain it, but I believe it anyways,” but I have a hard time understanding why someone with that viewpoint is a jerk to those who do not believe the same things – you’ve given no reason for them to, so why be so critical when you cant even explain it yourself?
And when asked to provide explanation for the claims and assertions you’re making, it’s not a stupid or arrogant request, but an obvious one. To refuse to provide such, while maintaining that those who want it are being dumb is itself, pretty dumb.
I’d be happy to discuss with ColorStorm, but so far it’s basically a one sided discussion, as you have seen, no doubt.
nate: “the bible has errors and problems. look here in Matthew and Luke and see this and that verse – also, here’s my explanation as to why I see them as problems…”
CS: “the Bible is God’s perfect Word.”
Nate: “I disagree, but okay, can you show where I was wrong.”
CS: “God made the stars.”
Nate: “well maybe, but even if he did, how do you know God wrote the bible? and, can you explain where I’m off with Matthew and Luke?”
CS: “God’s word need no explanation.”
Nate: “hm. I dont think the bible is God’s word – for these reasons.”
CS: “you dont get it do you, nate? You just dont get it. God made bones grow.”
nate: “are we having the same discussion? are you talking with me, I really cant tell any more.”
the odd thing is that this isnt much of a paraphrase. ColorStorm is welcome to speak, it would be better if join the discussion and maybe provide some support for his claims and positions like the rest of.
LikeLike
Great comment, unkleE.
ColorStorm,
My last couple of comments to/about you likely came off as condescending, so let me apologize for that. In truth, I feel no animosity toward you at all. In fact, you’re probably a really likable guy, and if we knew one another personally, we might get along well. Earlier, I wasn’t trying to say that you aren’t a “true” Christian in the way that people often use that. I really just meant that with the way you interact here, I could believe that you’re a nonbeliever playing the role of Christian. That’s probably not the case, and either way, I don’t mean for it to sound offensive.
I think unkleE is right — the way we’re currently discussing things here is pretty unproductive, and that’s the real point I was trying to make earlier, but not as diplomatically as unkleE did. If you have any suggestions for how we can interact more meaningfully, I’m all ears.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ah yes cheers.
But it was you nate who challenged the reality of a person’s profession, and I called you to explain what a Christian is. You avoided it, and that’s fine.
But you laughed off a profound truth, comparing the eloquence of scripture (written thousands of years ago by retarded herdsmen remember????????????) with Hemingway, when the Alphabet was not even discovered, and when Ernest was still in diapers. This logic escapes you..
You miss entirely the depth of such words:
He made the stars also…………………
No human being left to himself would have written so much in so few words. God’s word is that good.
But I do agree, it is pointless to continue, especially on a thread where you call into question the veracity of scripture, which confounds all the bitchin found here.
And yes it is God and His word who has the last word, whether you believe it or not.
LikeLike
Thanks Nate.
William, I think I’ve said enough. So I’ll just say I think asking him to validate his claims is discussing on your terms, not his. Whether you should try to discuss on his terms, or whether he should try to discuss on yours, is not for me to say.
LikeLike
Tony
I’m not sure I want to be deputized into making harmonization arguments on behalf of Christian apologists.
I suppose you could salvage the apparent contradiction by saying that Joseph and family began going to Jerusalem for passover regularly after 6 CE (or perhaps even somewhat before then) and so traveling there in 8 CE was their “usual” custom for most of Jesus’ life, apart from his first 9-10 years. That wouldn’t be inconsistent with the text.
But again, I think attempts to harmonize these two passages miss the point. The authors were not trying to tell the same story. Trying to make them work together is like trying to establish a single timeline into which all the Batman movies fit. They aren’t the same story!
LikeLike
UnkleE I don’t think that’s right.
My terms or his terms – i don’t think that comes into play here.
So let’s look at this as if we were talking about food or music, things that are purely subjective. Like what;s the best food in the world, or the bets song in the world.
Those are stupid questions, and the explanations could go any number of ways, but I think it’s quite clear that saying something like, “steak is the best food in the world because it offers protein that rebuilds muscle and cells, and fat for energy and iron for the blood and it tastes so good…” than to offer, “carrots, because carrots are better.”
ColorStorm is saying the bible is perfect and without error and stands up to scrutiny, yet nate, on this very blog post, demonstrated how the bible conflicts at least in regard to the birth narrative. so we have one claim backed up by demonstrations and explanations and another claim backed up by just the claim itself.
I dont think this is a situation of wanting to discuss things on my terms so much as it is a situation where I want a discussion and ColorStorm wants to make mandates. It sounds like he’s the one who wants things on his terms, if anyone is.
LikeLike
“No human being left to himself would have written so much in so few words.” – CS
except they did.
You’re so certain the Bible is from God that you’re not even looking at it. You’re like the masses who proclaim, “what marvelous clothes, oh great emperor.” You cower before Oz, the great and powerful, and are too scared or too entrenched to notice that there is a curtain, never mind a man behind it.
I only point this out because again an again, you avoid offering any real support for your assertions. You say the bible fits perfectly, but wont actually speak on the specific points nate has made regarding it.
yet here we are, still waiting.
LikeLiked by 1 person