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. In your response to Gary, couldn’t what you wrote also apply to Zeus and the Olympians? To Thor and Odin and that crowd. We all played the game Telephone ( some have called it whisper ) where one person whispers something in the ear of one person, it is repeated all around the room to everyone by whisper. In the end what the last person repeats is nothing like what the first person said. So oral stories repeated for generations must be treated the same way, with the same skepticism. Be well. Hugs
LikeLike
Ark
I don’t think I have the expertise (or time!) to get into all that. I think I’ve said before that we can be reasonably sure (by the standards of field of history) that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher associated with the John the Baptist movement, he gained some followers, antagonized the Jewish and Roman leaders and was executed for it, after which his followers reinterpreted his life, message and death in ways that led to the early Christian movement.
It’s certainly possible that some of the basic messages and events in the Gospels trace back to the historical Jesus, but I wouldn’t feel comfortable trying to identify which ones. The Jesus Seminar provided a fairly liberal scholarly approach to defining the historical Jesus. I’m not sure I would endorse their conclusions, but it does demonstrate how methodology can attempt to sift legend from history.
More generally, I would say that this is extremely common in the field of history. We don’t exactly have a whole lot of inerrant sources for ancient history. We can’t divide sources into “reliable” and “unreliable.” Once we get past the idea that a source must be either true or false, reliable or unreliable, it’s easier to understand why critical scholars have reached the conclusions they reach.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jon,
I am currently reading Bauckham’s “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses”. You are correct that Bauckham does not believe that our Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew, but he does believe that Matthew wrote a Gospel in Hebrew that was then translated and rearranged by redactors into a Greek gospel, so in essence, Matthew the Apostle is the source of the Gospel of Matthew. He believes that John Mark literally sat in dictation while Peter told him his stories about Jesus. He believes that Luke obtained his stories directly from eyewitnesses, the apostles and the family of Jesus.
However, I must correct you on one point. Bauckham does believe that the Gospel of John was written by an eyewitness. He believes that the Gospel of John was written by the Beloved Disciple. He believes that the Beloved Disciple was John the Elder, whom Papias references as being alive during Papias’ youth. A man whom Papias claims was a “disciple of Jesus”. Bauckham believes that this means that John the Elder was a disciple and companion of Jesus, therefore a witness to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
His evidence for this claim is shocking. It is based on hidden literary clues in the Gospel of John, in particular, an “inclusio”.
LikeLike
Bauckham does NOT believe that the Beloved Disciple nor John the Elder was John the Apostle, Son of Zebedee.
LikeLike
Scottie
I’m not familiar with scholarship on the origins of those stories, but I doubt the sources we have on Greek mythology are close enough to their development to give us much information about how the stories originated. Wikipedia has some origin theories for the Norse gods, but I’m not familiar with the scholarship around that.
That is what historians and critical biblical scholars do.
LikeLike
Gary
Right, that’s what I said. Bauckham agrees that the Apostle John did not write gJohn, but it was instead written by another disciple named John. As Bauckham has written, “I think that the ‘Beloved Disciple’ himself wrote the Gospel of John as we have it, and that he was a disciple of Jesus and thus an eyewitness himself, as he claims, though not John the son of Zebedee.” He thinks that is the only gospel actually written by an “eyewitness.”
I am, of course, not endorsing his views. I just brought them up to note that serious conservative scholars will often agree that the gospels “contain” eyewitness testimony rather than necessarily being composed by the Apostles with whom they are associated.
LikeLike
As we have not a shred of contemporary evidence, then this being ”reasonably sure” of course must surely take the leap of faith that the Gospel (s) are not simply rank fiction based on some smelly little itinerant preacher called Yeshu that got picked out the blue and ‘told’ ”You’re It’, and then it was simply a case of
”Once upon a time …”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jon,
I think that it is certainly possible that the general stories about Jesus’ ministry and crucifixion are historical and may have come from his disciples but do you really believe that the story of his walking on the Sea of Galilee came from his disciples or that the story of his raising Lazarus from the dead came from his disciples? I doubt it. So neither is it probable that the Empty Tomb story and the detailed Appearance Stories originated from the disciples. These stories are most likely theological embellishments. The original appearance stories are most likely those told in the Early Creed in First Corinthians: the male leadership of the Church experienced appearances of Jesus in the same manner that Paul experienced appearances of Jesus: in visions.
The Empty Tomb story and the detailed appearance stories in the four Gospel accounts are the inventions of skilled storytellers. They should not be viewed as eyewitness testimony based on the numerous discrepancies in the four accounts and the ever more fantastical supernatural claims as each Gospel is produced chronologically (one young man—>one angel—>two men—>two angels, etc.).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gary
I don’t know who those stories came from, but “is the story true” and “where did the story originate” are different questions.
Why do you think the disciples could not be responsible for embellished stories?
I expressed my own tentative view of how these stories originated in a comment earlier today (11:46am). Basically, I agree with you, though I think it’s likely that a woman was involved and that only one or two people needed to have (or just claim to have had) any sort of “experience” in order to start the whole chain of claimed experiences. It could have been anything from a “missing body” to a revelation (strong spiritual feeling) to a dream to a hallucinatory vision. Any of these would suffice to explain why that first person could make the original claim. After that, it’s all peer pressure, status-seeking and group dynamics.
Fortunately, critical scholars do not accept the gospels uncritically.
LikeLike
@Cary/Jon
I was very interested in your learned interchange. I have spent a fair bit of time trying to understand the perspective of the Jesus Seminar, specifically the interpretation of John Dominic Crossan. He sees that much of the stories in Mark are intended as parables rather than actual histort.
When I was a Christian I viewed the Jesus Seminar with disdain. But as a deconvert I can now appreciate the perspective more. If one is interested in this interview Crossan addresses the birth narratives:
LikeLiked by 1 person
No one asked, but I have to tell you why conservative NT Christian scholar Richard Bauckham believes that the Beloved Disciple wrote the Gospel of John:
According to Bauckham, Greek authors of the first century were famous for using a literary technique called an “inclusio” to indicate the eyewitness source of their story. They did this by naming this eyewitness source as the first and last character of their story. So for instance, Bauckham believes that the author of the Gospel of Mark (allegedly John Mark) did this in his Gospel, by mentioning Peter as the first and last named character in that Gospel. (This is actually incorrect. The author of Mark mentions John the Baptist first and Simon Peter second, but Bauckham limits his use of the “inclusio” to the first mention of a disciple of Jesus. Why he feels he can make this arbitrary change to the definition of an “inclusio” I don’t know.)
According to Bauckham, the author of the Gospel of John was more subtle in his use of the inclusio. The Beloved Disciple is definitely the last character named in the Gospel (if one considers chapter 21 to be an authentic part of the Gospel, which Bauckham most definitely does, but many other scholars do not), however, the big question is: is the Beloved Discipled the first character mentioned in the Gospel of John? Once again, John the Baptist is mentioned first. But if we allow Bauckham’s exception and limit ourselves to Jesus’ disciples, we find the mention of two of John’s disciples who choose to follow Jesus and become Jesus’ disciples. We are told that one of these disciples is Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. We are never told the name of the other disciple. By some very contorted logic, Bauckham is certain that this disciple is none other than the BELOVED DISCIPLE, and upon this claim, Bauckham builds a case for the Gospel of John being the work of an eyewitness to the entire ministry, death, and resurrection appearances of Jesus!
It is the most shameless collection of conjecture that I have ever read in all my life!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Gary. That’s a helpful explanation.
LikeLike
Hi Jon, I don’t have much more to say.
In passing, I feel the common critical comments against his information are often attempts to avoid the information by shooting the messenger. Why should he release his data? Does a medical researcher have to release all the details of his case studies, all the DNA test results, or whatever so that other researchers can take advantage of his hard work? Data is precious, and if people want to data they should collect it themselves. I think the attacks on him are scurrilous and reflect badly on his critics. If they think he’s wrong. let them prove it rather than make ad hominem attacks.
This is a regrettable and common attack by sceptics faced with information they don’t like. Accuse a scholar of being a christian apologist (even without any evidence – I’ve heard of Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, Geza Vermes and EP Sanders being accused of that!) and you can supposedly dismiss what they say, even if they have been peer reviewed and reflect the consensus. Habermas’ paper was published in a peer-reviewed journal, isn’t that enough?
“It’s not clear to me that he was saying ….”
But having got that little rant off my chest, it doesn’t matter in tis case because while I agree that Habermas’ information isn’t perfectly clear, I’m not using it in a rigorous sense.
“This pretty strongly suggests the conclusions are theologically influenced. It also suggests his data contained more confessional than critical scholars.”
He says they were “critical scholars” so I trust him just as I trust other scholars who are peer reviewed even if they disagree with me. But of course there is theological influence – theology influences historical conclusions and vice verse – but why is this always suggested about christian scholars, as if atheist scholars couldn’t be similarly influenced? If both sides decide to play this game, discussion becomes almost impossible. The peer review system and the establishment of consensus is supposed to reduce that bias.
“I don’t think one implies the other at all.”
I think you may have misunderstood me here. I said the majority of scholars accept one and/or the other, but I didn’t say that one implied the other. I am saying it seems like at least half, perhaps 75%, of all scholars accept the empty tomb and clearly more than half, probably more than 75%, accept the appearances, and while there is significant overlap between the two groups, there is also a number who accept one but not the other. So by simple mathematics the total number who accept one and/or the other is clearly more still, so clearly “most”.
“My own view is that the story probably originally began with a follower — perhaps one of the women, perhaps Peter — claiming they could not find his body and other followers interpreting that as evidence that he had risen. “
Yes I can see that is what you might conclude. I think that hypothesis has been shown to be quite unlikely psychologically and historically, but I don’t think I want to argue that now. Thanks for your thoughts.
LikeLike
PS Jon, I don’t mean to imply that you have libelled Habermas in the way I have criticised. I just think other people doing that has made it too easy to pass off a respected academic’s work as a conspiracy theory, as dishonest, or whatever. These are strong allegations which generally have no evidential support. But unfortunately we live (they say) in a post-truth age. So I think it becomes acceptable somehow. I have no objection to your questioning exactly what his data mean, but I do criticise the imputation in people saying they want to see his data before they will accept his findings. If every academic was treated that way, imagine the difficulty of establishing anything! So no offence to you, but just a reaction and an explanation of why I’m not interested in being part of that sort of imputation and debate.
LikeLike
Can we have that in writing?
Oh … of course you already did put that in writing. And yet you keep having more to say … in writing.
*Sigh*
As Mary Magdalene once remarked:
”Come, Jesus, come quickly!”
LikeLike
Yes, how dare we ask for verified evidence. Shocking isn’t it?
Bloody snotty little upstarts that we are.
Everyone should simply shut the frak up and accept the word of people like Habermas, Licona and Geisler with ne’er a second thought.
And blokes like Michael Grant who you also like to mention, is a straight as an arrow and shows no bias at all.
Of course Jesus walked on water for example. Who wouldn’t beleive such a story?
Odd then that someone like you will argue the toss for the veracity of something such as the Empty Tomb crap ’til the cows come home.
What a thoroughly ridiculous statement.
If Habermas has data to prove his case then of course he should stop being so smug and release it. And get it checked and peer reviewed.
Just like any genuine serious scholar would.
LikeLike
Hmmm …..
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2014/02/scholarly-consensus-for-the-jesus-resurrection/
It includes references to other claims/work from Habermas.
A few quotes from the article …
Habermas admitted in 2012, “Most of this material is unpublished.” With his data secret, his conclusions are uncheckable. Carrier says that Habermas has denied repeated requests to review his data.
And it always pays to remember that Habermas is obliged to follow his statement of faith from Liberty.
The statement of faith at his Liberty University says, in part, “We affirm that the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, though written by men, was supernaturally inspired by God so that all its words are the written true revelation of God; it is therefore inerrant in the originals and authoritative in all matters.”
Does anyone doubt for a second Habermas has an agenda?
LikeLike
This is an excellent article. Although it takes Craig to pieces, Craig uses similar apologetic garbage as Habermas.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2012/08/why-craigs-case-for-the-resurrection-is-dishonest/
LikeLike
Unklee, you don’t believe in hell do you? Seems I recall this in a discussion unless I have confused you with someone else.
LikeLike
Charity,
I miss him too. ❤
You wrote this and it resonates with me:
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Unklee, you don’t believe in hell do you? Seems I recall this in a discussion unless I have confused you with someone else.”
Hi Zoe, not as usually defined, no.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We simply cease to exist right?
LikeLike
That’s my view, and I think it was Jesus’ view. I don’t know how “simply” that occurs, because I guess there has to be some form of judgment or justice. Some christians think everyone is “saved” in the end, and I would like that to be true, but I don’t think that’s what Jesus taught.
Why do you ask?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I asked because I believe I read a few comments where it mentioned you believe we (unbeliever’s go to hell) and I thought I remembered that you didn’t believe in hell. I was looking for clarification.
I guess I used the term “simply” because if there is “some form of judgment or justice” it wouldn’t be one of those let me think about it moments on God’s part. So simple.
Either – or. Eternal life – not.
From human standards, not simple. Divine, simple.
LikeLike
Yes. I appreciate your willingness to understand a viewpoint you don’t hold yourself. And I appreciate that you accept that I have a different view rather than assume I hold beliefs that we both find repugnant. Thanks.
Were you ever a christian? Have you been through a difficult process of disbelief like some here, or has your viewpoint come easily to you?
LikeLiked by 2 people