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 
Unklee, this -> https://secularwings.wordpress.com/fka-a-complicated-salvation/ pretty much says it all. You visited my blog a long time ago, (probably through association with Doug B’s blog). I remembered the hell – annihilation discussion in one of the comment sections.
I was just putting some laundry into the dryer and I thought how best other than the link I provided here to summarize this so everyone can get back to the nativity story. 🙂
Deconversion was easy. A relief actually.
As I think on it, in so many ways, “belief” was my hell.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I knew I’d visited your blog, but I had no memory of the circumstances. I also seem to have lost contact with Doug, which is a pity.
People leaving christianity, especially in the US, seem to be at opposite poles – some find it a relief and some find it a trauma. My personal experience is that I find institutional christianity trying at times, but following Jesus is life for me, and I observe from the outside churches I would find worse than trying.
Anyway, it’s 20 minutes to the new year in Sydney, so I must turn of this computer and enjoy the end of 2016! Best wishes to you!
LikeLiked by 2 people
@unkleE, “People leaving christianity, especially in the US, seem to be at opposite poles – some find it a relief and some find it a trauma.”
How many people do you know of who consider it a trauma ? I would suspect they immediately went back to Christianity, yes ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Unklee, I’m Canadian. 🙂
LikeLike
Hey ark-
‘Everyone who follows this blog…………………….’
Doesn’t know the difference between Genesis and Revolution………………..
A little honesty maybe? The laugh factor is off the charts watching people who are clueless as to God and His word. May I repeat this most excellent observation:
‘While believing none of it………….they want answers from all of it.’ Scripture has never lost an argument to truth.
LikeLike
While I realise not everyone speaks French, I feel reasonably confident that I speak for most people on Nate’s blog, if not the consensus , then at least the majority, when I say the French express our collective sentiments beautifully, as only the French can of course, regarding your somewhat warped, but nonetheless, rather unique perspective, Colorstorm:
”Va te faire enculer.”
LikeLike
I’m tellin you ark, I can’t bear these continual compliments!!
But do know, better men have been ridiculed much more, so it’s to be expected. Daylight tends to send the rats a packin for cover, a fact that none would argue.
Yep, there’s a free thought, the difference between clean and unclean, a fine biblical principle.
LikeLike
You do have a penchant for never actually addressing any issue on any of the blogs you visit, seeming to prefer to tramp into others ‘houses’ with your Wellingtons covered in Balaam shit.
And while the biblical donkeys were generally positive symbols, all you leave is a rather unpleasant stink.
Although, I am quite content to believe you suffer from a more literal case of foot in mouth disease, especially while you are still wearing wellingtons. It seems odd how religion always leaves a similar taste in my mouth?
A thousand baths won´t clean the filth from your tongue, Colorstorm.
I wonder, have you ever considered you might actually be a tool of Satan?
Oh sweet Veles, how that has a ring of truth about it.
And how would you know that you weren’t?
In fact, the more one thinks about it, the more one is drawn to the inevitable conclusion you simply must be the Spawn of Satan.
Get behind me , Colorstorm.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ah but senor ark, I do answer. I get to the root of the matter, and not the surface chatter that is popular.
However, one must notice that in your responses, you cannot cease from mentioning scripture at every turn……quite quite interesting.
It’s as if you cannot help but to be drenched with the facts and truth of scripture, even though you may mockingjayingly scorn it.
Truly refreshing to see the hands of foolery tamper with the sacredness of scripture.
Tkx much for confirming this word which is blisteringly honest. But back on point in defense of the host, the nativity accounts stand unaccused except to the lazy reader who has not taken the time to examine the distinctions.
LikeLike
I feel it is easire to lower my satndards to your level and fell no compunction to try to raise the intellectual level of someone who considers the world once experienced a global flood and some smelly little Jewish shit walked on water.
As to your utterly stupid interpretation of the Nativity texts.
Well, I’ll let Unklee explain what seems to be wrong with your interpretation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Too funny ark. I notice how you value believers opinions only if they agree with you; otherwise they are of no use.
It’s as if you travel far and wide to create confederacies of the third kind, and pitting believer against believer.
Notice neither he nor I have yet taken your bait.
But ‘smelly little Jewish…………..’ Ah yes, more pornography on display by you. Perhaps you should read of the alabaster box, very precious……poured forth by a woman who recognized He whose name is Wonderful………
……….and the odor of the ointment filled the room…………
yeah, quite smelly.
LikeLike
Pornography? Compared to what Christianity has been responsible for over the millenia?
I think not.
Ask Zoe or Charity, or Violet.
Even what Nate was put through when he deconverted was more ”pornographic ” than calling a narrative construct a smelly little Jewish shit.
Furthermore, wasn’t pornography addiction one of the reasons you turned to the Lawd?
I do not value unklee’s opinion at all, trust me.
However,I am sure you would feel more comfortable discussing these topics with someone who might be able to come down to your level and make a modicum of sense of the rampant gibberish that is the hallmark of your comment style.
I feel more content to simply repeat:
Va te fair enculer.
Far easier. I do love the French language, don’t you?
It has a certain, je ne sais quoi
But then, after all, I am an uncouth heathen.
Now, this has been fun , but you will have to excuse me as I have quite a few pages of proofreading to get through before the soccer this evening.
Have fun …
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don'[t think that for one second ark, the mere suggestion by you of citing a believer of an addiction in which there was none, somehow gives it credibility.
But this how you roll. False accusations.
Reasonable people when they tire of the dry and dank fruits of godlessness, all will, in due time, regain their senses and know that the Lord, He is God, and He as well as His word, are very good.
After all, He made the stars also……….
..but go have fun.
LikeLike
“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? ”
Absolutely! All data must be available for review by other researchers. That is why we can be so confident in the reliability of science. Human beings love proving other humans wrong! Scientific (including medical) evidence must stand up to rigorous scrutiny before it is accepted as valid by the scientific/medical community as a whole.
I do not challenge Mr. Habermas’ scruples. He never claimed to have performed a survey of NT scholars. He simply performed a literature search. I believe his results are accurate. The problem is, such a literature search cannot be used to infer a consensus of ALL NT scholars. It can only reflect the consensus of authors who have written articles on the topic of the Empty Tomb between 1975-2005. I suggest that most liberal, and even many moderate, NT scholars would most probably not have taken the time to write a journal article on the subject of the Empty Tomb.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Let’s take a look at what EP Sanders, probably the most famous of all secular/liberal scholars believed about Jesus:
“I shall first offer a list of statements about Jesus that meet two standards: they are almost beyond dispute; and they belong to the framework of his life, and especially of his public career. (A list of everything that we know about Jesus would be appreciably longer.)
-Jesus was born c 4 BCE near the time of the death of Herod the Great;
-he spent his childhood and early adult years in Nazareth, a Galilean village;
-he was baptised by John the Baptist;
-he called disciples;
-he taught in the towns, villages and countryside of Galilee (apparently not the cities);
-he preached ‘the kingdom of God’;
about the year 30 he went to Jerusalem for Passover;
-he created a disturbance in the Temple area;
-he had a final meal with the disciples;
-he was arrested and interrogated by Jewish authorities, specifically the high priest;
-he was executed on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate.”
Gary: Notice anything missing?
No Empty Tomb.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Check out this VERY INTERESTING article by Peter Kirby which reviews the views of NT scholars who believe that the Empty Tomb is NOT historical. Kirby believes that the Empty Tomb was the invention of the author of the Gospel of Mark (which is what I believe).
One interesting point Kirby makes is that there is no indication that the early Christians venerated the site of the Empty Tomb. For instance, Paul says he spent two weeks in Jerusalem with Peter and James but says not one word, ever, about visiting the site…of the greatest event…to ever occur…on Planet Earth!
Click to access kirby_tombcase.pdf
LikeLiked by 3 people
Kirby also makes this fascinating point:
The Early Creed in First Corinthians 15 is our earliest source for Appearance Stories about Jesus. Think about it: If FIVE HUNDRED people, in Jerusalem, or the surrounding suburbs of Jerusalem, had claimed to have seen alive again a man who had just been crucified for high treason against Caesar, how likely is it that this event would have gone unnoticed in recorded history? Not very.
So for this story to have been believable to the masses, but yet ignored by historians, it had to have happened in the boonies of Galilee (in a scenario, such as: circa five hundred people sitting around on the side of a hill singing hymns, praying for the Resurrection and suddenly they all see a bright light at the top of the hill and believe it is Jesus…similar to Paul’s experience on the Damascus Road).
And the author of Mark alludes to a pre-existing belief in appearances in Galilee when he writes in his story that a young man inside the Empty Tomb tells the women that Jesus will meet the male disciples later in Galilee.
So up until circa 70 AD, the early Christians believed in the Resurrection, not because of an empty rock tomb, but because of alleged sightings of Jesus in Galilee to prominent MALE leaders of the Church, as recorded in First Corinthians chapter 15. Then, the author of Mark invented the Empty Tomb in circa 70 AD and decades later, the authors of Matthew, Luke, and John add appearances in Jerusalem to the Resurrection Story in their Gospels. This may seem wrong to us today, but it wasn’t to them because they weren’t writing history books, they were writing works of EVANGELIZATION. Only later did Christians assume that their works were written as historically accurate biographies.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ Colorstorm
Forgive me; my mention regarding you having this issue was more of a question rather than a statement of fact.
I was merely putting it out there as I have noticed from several random testimonials I have come across over the years this problem does feature.
Whenever I read a re born Christian fundamentals post I always read the about page or the testimonial first, thus ensuring I am clued up as to their position re: their faith.
Pornography addiction normally ranks ”up there ” with drug, alcohol and other forms of abuse – often sexual – heavy peer pressure following emotional problems, depression, suicidal tendencies, relationship breakdowns, unemployment issues etc etc.
One thing I have noticed since encountering people who have converted to Christianity is this: Not a single testimonial I have ever read has the convert stating they sat down, read the bible and all accompanying literature and said calmly:
”Yes, this is so obvious. How did I not recognise it before? I am a sinner and am doomed to spend an eternity in Hell if I do not immediately confess all my sins and pledge myself to following the character, Jesus of Nazareth.
Let me find a branch of this religion that perfectly fits my needs. There are, after all over 30,000 to choose form.
Furthermore, I shall spend the rest of my life trying to atone for all these sins and at the same time, set out to convince as many people as I can that they too are sinners and unless they also embrace Christianity and all its wonderful God-inspired doctrine they will be burning in hell for eternity. ”
LikeLike
… and this all based on logic and commonsense, of course.
Yeah … converts do this all the time.
LikeLike
Hey ark
Your condolences, even if not genuine, are appreciated.
The only thing I would agree with you regarding the scriptures, God, life, truth, is where you say ‘this is obvious.’ Indeed, the Creator of snow is obvious.
Well stated there, but here’s a sincere well wish for a new year on this earth.
LikeLike
Hi Nate,
I moved my page with my objections to book of Daniel to a new location. Now it is here:: https://sites.google.com/site/godlesstruthseeker
My understanding of date of Daniel is it much later than that of present scholarly consensus. I think it is written after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes. My understanding of four kingdoms is radically different to others with fourth kingdom being fiction from the author. I’m too, in the process of finding truth just like you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What condolences?
I merely apologized for suggesting you were a porn addict before turning to the Lawd,
You weren’t were you?
Should I at least presume you actually were able to pick up on the sarcasm?
LikeLike
And I assumed that you would at least recognize a ping-pong sparring.
And of course sarcasm noted, as I have told you, I am pages ahead, for I am well aware of reindeer games.
LikeLike
Ark I wonder if you are confusing ColorStorm with Bruce (Godsmanforever)?
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, Pete. I think they are all likely clones of one another.
LikeLike