(16 votes, average: 4.94 out of 5)
Loading...On several occasions on the blog I have discussed the similarities and differences between the accounts of Jesus’ birth in Matthew and Luke (Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2), most recently, I think, two years ago at this time (check out the archives for December 2020). I won’t go over all that turf again just now, but I do want to hit several of the key points because I think the *discrepancies* between the two accounts that appear irreconcilable tell us something significant about the birth of Jesus. I think they help show that he was actually born in Nazareth.
Both accounts go to great lengths to show how Jesus could be born in *Bethlehem* when everyone in fact knew that he *came* from Nazareth.
It is a particular problem for Matthew, because he points out that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of Micah 5:2 , that a great ruler (the Messiah) would come from Bethlehem (Matthew 5:2). If you read the account carefully, you’ll see that Matthew explains it by indicating that Joseph and Mary were originally from
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
And so, it was two or more years after Jesus’ birth that the family relocated to Nazareth in Galilee, over a hundred miles to the north, to get away from the rulers of Judea who were thought to be out to kill the child. (That in itself, I hardly need to say, seems completely implausible, that a local king is eager to kill a peasant child out of fear that he will wrest the kingdom away from him….)
Luke has a completely different account of how it happened. In Luke, Bethlehem is decidedly not Joseph and Mary’s home town. The whole point of the story is that it is not. They are from Nazareth. But then how does Jesus come to be born somewhere else? In the most famous passage of the birth narratives, we are told that it is because of a “decree” that went out from the ruler of the Roman Empire, Caesar Augustus. “All the world” had to be “enrolled” – that is, there was a world-wide census. We are told that this was the “first enrollment” made when Quirinius was the governor of Syria (for what it’s worth, we have solid historical evidence for the rule of Quirinius in Syria: was ten years after the death of King Herod.)
Since Joseph is “of the house and lineage of David,” and since David (his ancestor from about 1000 years earlier) had been born in Bethlehem, Joseph had to register for the census in Bethlehem. In other words, everyone in the Roman empire is returning to the home of their ancestors (from a 1000 years earlier??? Really? “the entire world?” And everyone in the Roman empire is doing this? How are we to imagine the massive shifts of population for this census? And no other source even bothers to mention it???) (But pursue the questions further: why does Joseph have to register in the town of his ancestor [David] from 1000 years before? Why not an ancestors from 1200 years earlier? or 700 years earlier? or 100 years earlier? Does this even make sense? Why David in particular?).
In any event, since Joseph has to register in Bethlehem, and since Mary is his betrothed, they make a trip to Bethlehem. And it just so happens that this is when Mary goes into labor. So she gives birth to Jesus in Bethlehem. Since there is no room for them in the inn, they lay the child in a cattle manger, and the shepherds come to worship him.
Six weeks after that “when they had performed everything according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth” (this is a reference to Leviticus 12; the woman who gives birth needs to perform a cleansing ritual 40 days later; Mary does that, and then they go back home)
So even though Jesus was raised in Nazareth (starting when he was just under two months old), he was born in Bethlehem.
But what about the wise men from Matthew who come to find them in a house in Bethlehem, over a year later? Moreover, if Luke is right that they return to Nazareth a month after Jesus’ birth, how can Matthew be right that they fled to Egypt (they’re obviously doing this on foot, so it would, well, take a while), and that they don’t return until much later after Herod dies?
So what’s going on here? What’s going on is that both Matthew and Luke want Jesus to be born in Bethlehem even though they both know that he came from Nazareth. Both accounts are filled with implausibilities on their own score (a star leading “wise men” to the east – they wouldn’t be very wise if they thought that a star could lead them in a straight line anywhere — and stopping over a house; a census of the entire Roman world that could not have happened); and they contradict each other up and down the map.
My view is that neither story is historical, but that both have an ultimate objective to explain how Jesus could be the messiah if he was from Nazareth instead of Bethlehem. So they (or their sources) came up with stories to get him born in Bethlehem. These stories are meant to show that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of Micah 5:2, and Matthew himself indicates in clear terms, by quoting the very prophecy.
And so what conclusion can we draw? To me it seems all fairly straightforward. Jesus was not really born in Bethlehem.
OK then, if not there, where? He came from Nazareth. I can’t think of a single good reason to think he wasn’t born there.
As per Luke the city of Nazareth was on the mountain Nazareth hill – now and the city was large enough to have a big synagogue which can store scrolls – so – how can we reconcile – all these myths
What verse in Luke are you thinking of, locating it on the mountain Nazareth? I’m not sure which myths you’re thinking of?
I detect a scribal corruption in the above text. I also predict a plurality of comments pointing it out.
Ugh! Better change it!
The last sentence of the first paragraph of this post says “I think they help show that he was actually born in Bethlehem.” Did you mean to say Nazareth instead of Bethlehem?
OUCH. Better change that, huh?
You mean Nazareth, I believe, at the end of the first paragraph.
“I think they help show that he was actually born in Bethlehem.”
UGh. thanks.
Fascinating!
If we identified the background at the time, then we might understand the motives behind Luke and Matthew.
I think, at least from the scientific historical perspective, that Jesus had a very high level of Charisma. Also, he was the first Jewish mass preacher. Therefore. he had good number of followers and fans (fans were not followers, but they liked the story and followed any new highlights).
But we can assume that after 70AD, this fan base completely evaporated, and probably 95% of the Nazarenes (The Jewish followers of Jesus) were no longer believing in Jesus because of one simple argumentative question: If Jesus didn’t return back to protect the temple then when is he returning back, and why is he returning back!!!!!
However, Christianity (the Greek followers of Jesus) were established probably starting from 40AD, and they became independent from the Nazarenes religious authority after 70AD, and they (the Christians) started to march quickly toward the liberal version of the faith.
But the Christians were constantly bombardment with arguments (and probably mockery) from the mainstream Jews (and why not! after all, Jesus was Jewish), and specially about the previous argumentative question.
—>>
—>>
Whenever a self-established minority group is faced with a severe disappointment or severe inconsistency then they will highly-likely treat the disappointment or inconsistency with exaggerated metaphysics or exaggerated self-assertions.
These exaggerated metaphysics are not directed toward the outsiders. The main purpose (and probably the only purpose) is to elevate the spirit within the ranks in the group. If logic is not the main glue for the unity of this group, then the group can safely use illogical means (including highly illogically exaggerated metaphysics) to raise the spirit among them.
I think the Gospel of Matthew was directed toward increasing the spirit of the group by exaggerating any possible signs in the metaphysics.
Therefore, if an argument from an outsider asking how a “King like David” is born in a tiny village, the answer would be: he was born in Bethlehem the city of his grandfather; David the Great. But then, you a need a plausible (and not necessarily logical) story to back this claim.
I would assume that there were many stories to back the Bethlehem claim. One is favored by Matthew, and another is favored by Luke.
In your first paragraph, where you write ” I think they help show that he was actually born in Bethlehem”, don’t you mean “actually born in Nazareth”?
Whoops!
I’m glad you conclude Jesus was born in Nazareth and not in Bethlehem as you state, obviously in error, at the beginning of the post.
Whoops!
Thanks, Bart, for your informative posts. I’m a history buff, but very thin on Biblical history. I really enjoy the depth of your knowledge–you confirm, with evidence, what I have been thinking for a long time. I hope you and your family have a Merry Christmas!
Though I have seen people twist, join, and distort family stories to make sense of them in my study of genealogy, I have always had trouble imaging who these early Christian writers would have been. Did they believe so strongly that they had no qualms about inventing tales to piece together stories long in circulation, or were they paid to put together a cogent Christian story by true believers? Why didn’t they wonder, since so much couldn’t be reconciled with the expectations of the messiah, for instance a birth in Bethlehem, that maybe Jesus’s story revealed he was not, in fact, the expected messiah. Oh, I probably know the responses, but I still can’t help but wonder about the writers and their motivations.
My sense is that peole readily accept stories they very much want and expect to be true about their favorite religous leaders, politicians, public figures, and so on, without thinking to try to verify them. It’s not duplicity so much as an uncritical attitude to any information that supports views we already have.
How is it explained that Joseph, who was not Jesus’ biological father ( God was Jesus’ father according to the birth narratives), is a viable link to the House of David? Or is Jesus in the lineage of David through Mary? If through Mary, was she a viable link, as far as the Law? I also think he was not born in Bethlehem for all the reasons you ( quite humorously )cite), but even if he had been born there, how would the David ancestry work at all?
I think the idea is that Joseph must have adopted him, just as Octavian because Julius Caesars heir as the direct one in his line by adopition But, well, technically (for Joseph and jesus) it just don’t make sense….
“I think they help show that he was actually born in Bethlehem.”
Looks like maybe you forgot a “not” in this sentence?
Whoops…
A different take on the census: Luke says people were to register “each to his own city.” (NASB) In other words, your hometown, not necessarily your ancestral home. The reason Joseph chose to go to Bethlehem was to avoid the embarrassment (or worse) of registering a pregnant but unmarried Mary in their small town of Nazareth. I think this is more likely than a decree that everyone had to go to their ancestral home, although I still think both accounts in Matthew and Luke are manufactured, not historical. Still, you want your stories to sound plausible, not too many plot holes!
That would work, EXCEPT that Luke explains that Joseph register there because he is from the line of David, no?
Do we know what sources Luke used to create Acts of the Apostles, particularly his knowledge of Paul?
Unfortunately they can only be inferred. And so thatre are numerous debates. It does appear some of the srouces were at odds (hence the different accounts of Paul’s conversion) and there (oddly) is nothing to suggest that the letters of Paul we have were among them!
Also, we’re Joseph and Mary ever married?
Yes, in the biblical accounts they are.
Hi, new member of the blog here. I’m listening to The Triumph of Christianity from my local library, and your narration of the introduction was really good. I hope you’ll consider narrating entire books one day. You have a great voice/tone and pacing for it!
Related to your post… What do you make of how someone (M, L, or others in the early church) might have reconciled Jesus being of the house of David (through explicit genealogies of Joseph) with their belief that Joseph was not Jesus’ (biological) son? Is there any precedence in 1st century Palestinian Judaism or Gentile culture for this making any sense to them? To my mind this is undoubtedly the merging of 2 unrelated traditions, but I wonder how it could have been justified.
1. Thanks! 2. No, this is a unique situation. In the end it doesn’t make sense to trace a genealogical line down to a person who doesn’t belong to it….
You are confusing me. The last sentence of your first paragraph says, ” I think they help show that he was actually born in Bethlehem.” The last sentences of your essay say, “He came from Nazareth. I can’t think of a single good reason to think he wasn’t born there.”
It sounds as if you have made a mistake.
This is a fascinating topic. I hope to read more about it.
Who, me??? Yup, a scribal corruption of the text, now corrected!
I’ve forgotten where I read that Joseph, a builder, a widower, was from Nazareth, and was doing some work for Mary’s family in a little town nearby named Bethlehem (not the Little B-town near Jerusalem). He took a shine to young Mary while working on the family home, and they got engaged. Any merit to this?
~eric. MeridaGOround dot com
Whoa! Now *THAT’S* a good one. But no, If you read Luke 1-2 it’s clear that this is the Bethlehem next to Jersusalem (the home of king David).
Ok, here’s a report of ANOTHER BETHLEHEM:
https://www.npr.org/2012/12/25/168010065/dig-finds-evidence-of-pre-jesus-bethlehem
And in RABBI JESUS, a novelization of the story of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, by scholar of Aramaic, Bruce Chilton, we find it mentioned (speculatively) as well. (Excellent book!)
Yes, I know about it. But it doesn’t fit the story. Just read Luke 1 and 2 and you’ll see.
The last sentence of the first paragraph is confusing – shouldn’t it say that you think they show he was actually born in Nazareth?
WHOOPS!
This is the blog post!
That a king is eager to oof a peasant child is improbable. Galileans are the peasantyest, but Jesus is not from there, he’s just in the rural ‘witness protection program’.
Jesus kinda says that he’s also the son of a deified king. And as I’ve bored you with before, inscriptions thanking Obodas Theos peak in modern-day Israel during Aetas IV’s reign, 6 BCE-39 CE. Seems a little like the Governator’s child with his Mexican maid — if that child was raised in Mexico, he’d need protection.
King Herod was 100% lineage Nabataean, if you go by Philo’s definition that Idumaean meant Nabataean (in the way that Native Americans are Americans.) Gold, frankincense, and myrrh are Nabataea’s trade items– he knew what was coming more clearly than if a trained owl was flown over his head after eating taco bell from the trash.
The census may be from the *first* time Quirinius has a role, with Augustus’ Patrius decree in 2 BCE. There’s also lunar eclipses in 2 BCE, and earlier manuscripts have the 22nd year of Tiberius. I think.
So, conceived at Winter Solstice (Petra likes this), and born during the Feast of Tabernacles per gJohn, around ~2ish BCE?
In the Proto-gospel of James, where are Joseph and Mary living before head to Bethlehem?
Bart,
I agree! Some Christian apologists might try to get around this by arguing that Joseph and Mary were originally from Nazareth, traveled to Bethlehem, Jesus was born there, and after all was said and done, they went back to Nazareth. They will argue that the holy family moved from Nazareth to Bethlehem when Jesus was a toddler and then had to escape to Egypt and then decided to move (back!) to Nazareth. I am not sure how to refute this. Any thoughts?
I”ve thought of that took though I’ve never heard anyone argue it. Apart from the fact that it is giving a narrative that precisely none of the sources gives (!) (it’d be even stranger than claiming that Peter denied Jesus *six* times — once before the cock crowed and once more before it crowed the second time), one big problem is that the star appears to have appeared when Jesus was born and the magi have been following it for a couple of years.
Since the star was supernatural anyway, why could it not have appeared to the Magi a couple of years before the birth of Jesus, and allowed them to visit the newborn King right after his birth?
I know that Matthew says that the Magi visited the family at a house, but maybe they found accommodations shortly after his birth?
Bart, I am skeptical of the apologist “solution” as well. For one thing, Matthew doesn’t say anything about Joseph and Mary moving back to Nazareth. There is no explanatory note explaining that they had lived there before moving to or visiting Bethlehem. It says that they “went and lived in Nazareth” suggesting they were moving there for the first time.
Another problem with the story is related to your objection about the star. If Jesus was born in Bethlehem but his family returned to Nazareth after his birth, why didn’t this supernatural star just lead the Magi to Nazareth? Thus, Herod need not have been involved and innocent children wouldn’t have been murdered. I would also argue that the biggest flaw in trying to reconcile these accounts is the reign of Quirinius.
I think you have made another scribal error – you dropped a significant “not” at the end of the first paragraph. Merry Christmas to you and family.
No I did ….
Dr. Erhman – Forgive me, but I’m confused…in the first paragraph of this post you say “I think they help show that he was actually born in Bethlehem”, but then your conclusion is “Jesus was not really born in Bethlehem”. Am I missing something? Or is this just a typo?
Scribal corruption of the text. Aplogies for the typpoe.
No apologies needed – a perfect teaching moment!
Is the notion that the Messiah must be born in Bethlehem, a Christian belief not shared by Jews? Do u know if Jews in the period around the time of Jesus and when the canonical Gospels were written believed that the Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem? Do u know if Jewish experts on the Hebrew scriptures today believe that these scriptures foretold that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem?
Did Mathew believe Jesus had to be born in Bethlehem because of his interpretation of Micah 5:2 and absent Micah he would have had no reason to have Jesus of Nazareth born in Bethlehem? Where the devil did Luke get the notion that the Messiah must be born in Bethlehem?
Is it reasonable to assume that Mark, John, and Paul (or any of the Apostles) had no notion whatsoever that Jesus was born of a virgin in Bethlehem? i m certain that Jesus’ brother James would have found laughable the notion that his mom gave birth to Jesus in Bethlehem while she was still a virgin. Did not Mark write that James and his mom tried to have Jesus put away because they thought Jesus had gone nuts? Mark3:30
Micah 5:2 is pretty clearly not talking about a messianic figure to come in the distant future. Read the book and you’ll see (it’s about someont provideing deliverance from the Assyrians’ military threat).
Your first paragraph ends with “I think they help show that he was actually born in Bethlehem.” Is that what you really meant to say? Or do you mean they claim he was born in Bethlehem, but the overall evidence points to Nazareth?
Scribal corruptoin! Sorry! It’s changed now.
“Six weeks after that “when they had performed everything according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth” (this is a reference to Leviticus 12; the woman who gives birth needs to perform a cleansing ritual 40 days later; Mary does that, and then they go back home)”
Did women outside of Jerusalem area worry about this cleansing ritual?
Almost certainly not. I think the idea in this case is that they were right next to Jerusalem anyway. But the bigger point is that Luke wants to stress how rigorously law-abiding Jesus’ family was.
I read on another (non NT history, not even vaguely religious) comment thread that perhaps Joseph and Mary returned to an ancestral place to celebrate Sukkot. Have you heard this idea?
Yup. But there’s nothing to support it in any of our texts.
What does coveting in the OT and NT (Romans) mean? Does it include “trying to steal” it from someone or just “wanting” to have it?
Probably something in between. Wanting something so badly that you try to figure out how to get it.
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
I’ve been reading an online article by lawyer-turned-firefighter Doston Jones, titled, “When were the Gospels Written and How Can We Know?” (July 24, 2017), in which he argues that “Luke’s claim of an empire-wide or universal census is anachronistic,” as “there is no record or apparent possibility of a universal Roman census ever in the empire until Vespasian and Titus conducted a universal census in 74 CE.” On the other hand, I’ve recently become aware of a book published this year (which I haven’t read yet) by Dr. Jonathan Bernier, titled, “Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament,” in which he argues that all of the Gospels were written before 70 CE. (Key points that he mentions include: (i) the fact that the Synoptics give a very vague description of the destruction of the Temple, with Matthew and Mark, in particular, seeming to imply that it would be followed immediately by the Parousia, which obviously didn’t happen; (ii) the fact that Acts ends on a very unexpected note, in 62 CE; (iii) the fact that John 5:2 speaks of the pool of Bethesda as still being there.) What are your thoughts? Merry Christmas and happy New Year.
YEah, those arguments have been around a long time and don’t seem very persuasive. But their problems would take a long time to explain — too much for a comment here. Esp. 1 and 2. as to #3 — well, the Talmud in the fifth century CE still speaks of the Temple as standing. What does that show, exactly?
Does the differences in the infancy narratives give any insight into the synoptic problem? Is there a reason Luke or Matthew would have thrown out the narrative of the other had it been available to them?
For me it is a powerful argument that Luke did not know Matthew. Oddly for me, Mark Goodacre, a major proponent of Matthew having used Luke, thinks it is a powerful argument in his favor! We don’t see eye to eye on that one!!
There are several cities in Europe called Nazareth, and even more city neighborhoods, especially ports. It seems to be derived from Lazaretto, the district where the plague victims were quarantined after disembarking.
The census story kind of indicates that people in those days had poor memories. By the time the census story appeared, surely there would have been someone still living who could say: “Wait a minute! I don’t remember that! I would have heard about it from my parents or I would remember traveling.” Similarly for the story of the slaughtered infants– when the story appeared the event would not have been all that far in the past. Surely someone back then could say, “no, no, that didn’t happen! I never heard anything about that until recently and I know people who would have been alive then, and it was never mentioned!” It makes you wonder what kind of records ordinary people might have had access to. On the other hand, if you had never been in that area, and you heard the stories, you might believe them. So the stories might have gained currency with listeners from other parts of the empire, far from Judea, far from Rome.
Merry Christmas (a little too late, I know) and a Happy New Year to Bart and all of you!
I agree with you Bart about almost all you wrote. I agree that Jesus was born in Nazareth and that Matthew and Luke contradict each other.
However, I believe it is possible to interprete Luke so that the Joseph’s registration for the census in Bethlehem won’t be as unreasonable as it seems:
Luke never says that Joseph came from Nazareth, just that Mary lived there. So, imagine that Joseph came from Bethlehem, and only lived temporarily in Nazareth. I know you don’t belive there was a family tradition about davidian ancestry, but suppose there was, and that a group of davidian descendants lived in Bethlehem, perhaps since centuries, that they had chosen Bethlehem because David was born there.
Also, assume that Mary was supposed to go to Bethlehem with Joseph and live with him there after the wedding.
Then the decree about the censes comes. Since Joseph and Mary intend to move to Bethlehem, which “his town”, they decide to advance their move to Bethlehem and go there directly and register there…. (to be continued)…
Interesting. I think the idea is that two people in very small and remote villages (hamlets) a hundred miles apart would not have been engaged to be married. (I can’t think of that ever happening; you were married to a local or at least someone within shouting distance). In any event, Luke is explicit that Joseph had to register in Bethlehem not because it was his actual or original home, but because King David had come frm there.
Well, what if Joseph was an itinerant carpenter, travelling around Palestine to get jobs where he could get them? Wasn’t there construction works going on in Sepphoris, the larger town just 7 km from Nazareth? Perhaps he got well payed work there and had a temporary residence in Nazareth.
Studies of the social world of first century Palestine suggest that this is not how it worked at the time (as opposed to, say, the 1930s in America). The earliest suggestions about what he did was make yokes and gates. In any event, even if that were the case, it still doesn’t get him anywhere near Bethlehem.
(continuation from the previous post)… So, this seems much more reasonable than assuming that Luke meant that the Romans wanted people to register at places were their remote ancestors had lived.
But why did Joseph and Mary go to a (full) inn then? Why didn’t they settle in Bethlehem, as they planned? Perhaps a conflict had arisen with Joseph’s family so that they refused to let Joseph get the home he thought he was entitled to (perhaps they couldn’t accept that Joseph should marry Mary when she was pregnant by somebody other than Joseph). So Joseph and Mary had to stay elsewhere during the registration, hoping that the confict with Joseph’s family would be quickly resolved, and when that didn’t happen, they had no choice but to return and settle in Nazareth.
Again, I don’t believe that this really happened. As I wrote, I believe that Jesus was born in Nazareth. I just wanted to point out that what Luke wrote can be interpreted in a way which is not as absurd as the idea that everyone should register at a place where a remote ancestor had lived. Bethlehem was Joseph’s hometown, according to this idea.
Dr. Erhman, I think the key is in the theophoric names. I just figured this 🗝️ out this week.
Yahweh theophoric names like Y‘shua were huuuuuuge circa First Century Palestine >50% — but archaeological finds of them are only so far found in Judah. None in Galilee.
‘El theophoric names like Immanu‘el are conversely incredibly rare in First Century Jewish Palestine, but are found in the royal Nabataean city of Petra (and Galilee, through Phas‘el, Herod Antipas’ first wife, and Phaes‘el, the Edomite-Nabataean Herod’s brother.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7817/jameroriesoci.134.4.621#metadata_info_tab_contents
So, the naming conventions may support the idea that Jesus is not born around them there parts. That the fam is in Nazareth for the rural witness protection type-thing from Archelaus, just as stated. What’s not stated is that the Queen of Galilee may be offering that protection.
Immanu‘el may be an Abrahamic name, like Ishma’el and Isra’el both are, associated with a much higher status than the Yahweh theophoric.
The Herodian Dynasty doesn’t even pretend to use the Yahweh theophoric. And, Ya‘kov gets ‘upgraded’ to the name Isra‘el. The name Emmanuel in my very humble opinion may be patrilineal, and supports Jesus’ bid for tetrarch of Galilee-Peraea in the manner of Melchizedek (ordained ruler).
One way to illustrate that the family may not be from Nazareth?
Jesus, James, Joses, Jude, Joseph, Jacob. These Tribe of Judah theophoric names of Yahweh are males in Jesus’ family. Let’s forget Simon (tho Simon has an equivalent in theophoric Ishma‘el.)
Kai, Kawika, Kane, Kalani, Keolu, Kamehameha. Even when you hear Native Hawaiian male names that don’t have the k sound, they turn out to be short for k sound names. They are identifiers of culture in the broader Polynesian family.
It’s a lot easier for your followers to claim you’re a Kennedy if you’re born in Boston, Massachusetts than in Waco, Texas……
Church Fathers claimed that Matthew was written first, it was translated from Hebrew to Greek, and the Nazarene Heresy was invented to oppose Christianity. Mark was first; its brevity is explained if it were a script. The final scene was destroyed, so decades later, scribes added verses to synchronized Mark with Church doctrine. Matthew was NOT the first, it was NOT a translation from Hebrew, and the climax to the story WAS DESTROYED. Why? And, where is “Bethlehem” and “Virgin Mother” in Mark?
Abbé Jean Carmignac offered evidence (1983) that original Mark was in Hebrew. Mark 1:9 says, “…Jesus came from Nazareth…” If changed to “…Jesus came from BTLHM…,” “BeTLeHeM” and “Virgin Mother” (BeTuLaH eM) are restored. The first NZR is Joseph, Israel’s favorite son (Gen 49:26). He was sold into slavery, but after the crucifixion of Pharaoh’s baker, Joseph interpreted Pharaoh’s dreams, so Pharaoh named Joseph second in command over Egypt. Joseph gave credit to LHM; rendered eLa Ha eM, “Goddess the Mother.” “YH-Zeus” and “Mary the Magdalene” fulfilled Micah’s TWO prophesies (5:2): “from BTLHM” would come “…ruler over Israel.” Micah 4:8: “…to you, MaGDaL Eder…the kingdom of Jerusalem will be restored to BaT YaRa SaLeM, “Daughter teaches Peace.”
Two issues to be alert to: 1) It is complicated to say “the” church fathers said x, y, and z. Rarely is that ture. (I’m trying to think of an instance and am not coming up with much…) 2) Carmignac’s view never gained any traction that I’m aware of. I’ve never heard of anyone who was convinced, but then again, I’ve never heard of everyone. 🙂 I don’t think I know a scholar who thinks Mark was originall composed in Hebrew; there’s so much evidence against it…..disabledupes{c1d25f9202aa2a710d950242cc512c8c}disabledupes
Evidence FOR Hebrew Mark is the missing Bethlehem and Virgin Mother appear if “Jesus came from BTLHM…” can you point me toward evidence against Hebrew Mark other than scholarly tradition?
Why would teh absence of a story in a Gospel demonstrate which language it was written in??? These stories are missing from John, Acts, and all the other books of the NT as well. Surely they weren’t all written in Hebrew for that reason.
I am referring to the Hebrew word:
BTLHM can be Bethlehem the town.
BTLHM can be BeTuLaH eM, “Virgin Mother.”
Additionally, BTLHM can be BaT eLa Ha eM, “Daughter of Goddess the Mother.”
Replacing “Nazareth” with the Hebrew word BTLHM answers the question of Mark’s apparent ignorance of the Little Town of Bethlehem and the Virgin Mother. ONE WORD REMOVED BOTH, ONE WORD RESTORES BOTH. Changing Bethlehem to Nazareth and claiming he was called “the Nazarene because he came from Nazareth” separated “Jesus THE Nazarene” from the competing Nazarene sect. The first NZR is Joseph, Israel’s favorite son, prince to slave to freedman-ruler of Egypt. The Nazarene sect predates Christianity, a fact the Church Fathers vehemently denied.
More evidence that Mark was originally in Hebrew and Mk1:9 was an interpolation to separate “Jesus THE Nazarene” from “Joseph the Nazar” in Genesis. Matthew’s Gospel was written to remove BTLHM from Mark’s text. Matthew 2:26 is a misdirection away from The Nazarene Way of Jesus, resurrection of Daughter Jerusalem, Magdala Eder, the Great Mother, eLa Ha eM. Luke-Acts attempted to correct Matthew’s Nazareth lie by associating Nazarenes with a sect, not a town. There is no “Q”; Mark, then Matthew to remove BTLHM and eLa Ha eM, then Luke to correct Matthew.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7smTWI4g7kM