(17 votes, average: 4.82 out of 5)
Loading...As I indicated yesterday, I’m doing a series of posts leading up to Christmas, dealing with the accounts of Jesus’ birth in the New Testament. Here’s a discussion of the one most familiar to people, found in the Gospel of Luke.
**********************************************************************************
As I’ve indicated, it is only Matthew and Luke that tell the tales of the infancy narrative, and the annual “Christmas Pageant” that so many of us grew up seeing is in fact a conflation of the two accounts, making one mega-account out of two that are so different up and down the line. And so, the Annunciation to Mary is in Luke, the dream of Joseph in Matthew; the shepherds are in Luke, the wise men in Matthew; the trip to Bethlehem is in Luke, the Flight to Egypt is in Matthew, and so forth and so on. You can compare them yourself, up and down the line, and see the differences.
In this post I want to focus on Luke’s account. Then I will look at Matthew’s. And then I will compare the two in a couple of key points in order to show that the differences between them are not simply different aspects of the same story – the accounts in fact are at odds with one another in rather important ways.
Luke’s account begins with the announcement of the birth of John the Baptist to Elizabeth and Zechariah, followed by the Annunciation of Gabriel to Mary that she will conceive without having sex, through the Holy Spirit. Mary visits Elizabeth, breaks into song, John the Baptist is born, and Zechariah speaks a prophecy. All of that is in chapter 1, and a lot could be said about it (and *has* been said about it!). But for the purposes of these posts, I’m more interested in what happens in ch. 2.
Starting in 2:1 we’re told that…
To see the rest of this post — or all the posts — you will need to belong to the blog. Your membership fee all goes to charity. So why not? JOIN NOW, BEFORE CHRISTMAS!
Are we counting only all-male line ancestors here? Because otherwise Joseph would have some 8000 ancestors to choose from.
I”d be interested in a genealogist’s view of this. Wouldn’t *most* Jews be from the line of David one way or the other (1000 years later)? I assume that the author must be speaking of strictly patrilinear descent.
Yeah, and 8000 is the wrong number. I mixed up Luke and Matthew and got the number of generations wrong.
I am a new to this forum and from Iceland and a Genealogist among other trades.
The assumption that most if not all Jews would be from the line of David one way or the other 1000 years later. My answer is yes, it is very likely if not certain. I have of course not done any serious research on the subject. But if we look at the facts that are obvious to us, we can clearly come to that conclusion. Let me elaborate a bit.
1. Jews were a very closed ethnic and religious group and still are. They lived in an area that geographically small i.e. Palestinia and close surroundings.
2. It is hard to determine how many Jews were living in the region at the time of the so-called “census” according Lukas. Tactus says that there were about 600,000 Jews in Jerusalem at its fall in the year 70 CE. So, let’s just say that there were about one to two million Jews living in region.
3. Now going back to my country Iceland. We are pretty much like the Jews a closed society. Most all 99.8 % from the same ethnic background. There is not much diversity. We are about 350.000 and all pretty much all related to each other. All ethnic Icelanders are descendants of the last catholic bishop in Iceland (Jón Arason) who was beheaded along with his two sons on the 7. of November 1550. For me personally he is my 13th ancestor. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3n_Arason)
4. If we look at this from a mathematical and logical perspective. There are 30 generations in 1000 years. Now let’s say for the sake of this argument that David had 2 children that were fertile (he had 18+ children). This means that we are talking about 230 that equals to about 1.073 billion descendants. This means of course that everyone lived and was fertile and had two offspring that also lived and had offspring and so on. But this also means that every Jew should have gone to Bethlehem for the census. Especially when we take in to consideration the closed ethnic and religious group they are It should also be noted that they often married close relatives and still do. It not uncommon to find same great grandparents in the linage of today Rabbis.
Fascinating. Thanks. Two questions: (1) I didn’t understand your statement “This means that we are talking about 230 that equals to about 1.073 billion descendants.” 230 what? (2) what would the number of *patrilinear* males direclty related to David 1000 years later — ones who could trace their lineage through their father, grandfather, great-grandfather, etc, all males in direct line? Based on all the sons David actually did have.
This was a copy / paste error. Should be “This means that we are talking about 2 to power of 30 equals about 1.073 billion descendants.” Sorry about that. I will answer question two later.
The question about how many patrilinear males would be directly related to David 1000 years later? Well that would be a massive number. If we say David had six sons and all of them had one son. The number would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 3.3 billion after 30 generation. So, every Jew at the time of Jesus birth could trace their family to the House of David (maybe that’s why there was no room in the inn ????).
People often don’t realize how related we are. Today all Jews can trace their family to David as they could do in antiquity. If they had the information. For example, I can trace my family to all the first settlers in Iceland and to the kings in Norway, Denmark, Ireland and so forth. Just for fun of it all Icelanders, the Faroese and people of Nordic origin in USA and Canada are related to Donald Trump whether they like it or not in the 20th-25th generation. All because his mother (Mary Anne MacLeod) is from Ireland her forefather whose name was Ljótur who had two sons whose name were Þorkell og Þormóður In Scottish manuscripts they are called Torquil og Tormod MacLeod (son of Leod).
Wow. Interesting. Thanks.
I like what Fr. O’Connor said, “the census is nonsense. Luke guessed and got it wrong.”
Historical contradictions in the NT don’t phase me, nor do I feel like I, as a Catholic Christian, have to bend and shape it to refute the contradictions like most evangelicals.
For us, it’s more than just the Bible, it’s Tradition too. If you only have the Bible, I can see why you’re so fierce to defend it.
Well, call it a theory. An educated guess that wasn’t well-educated enough, and how could it be? It’s not like he could go to the library or use Google.
We have all those things now, and more, and you constantly hear literate educated people talking all kinds of nonsense about fairly recent history–received truths that aren’t even remotely true. So we shouldn’t be surprised, or toss out the baby Jesus with the bathwater. Obviously if there was an adult Jesus there was a baby Jesus, and it’s not impossible somebody laid him in a manger once or twice, animals munching hay nearby, and there were stars overhead, and shepherds in the fields. Maybe there were even a few wise men around (there are never very many).
We can treasure the story, know that’s exactly what it is, and understand the truth behind it that made it resonate over the centuries. And if that isn’t faith, what is?
Saying that something was not impossible, is not the same as saying it happened. It is not impossible that Jesus was never near a manger at the time of his birth. Right? The wise men didn’t come to see an infant Jesus, so not sure how they even matter. The point is that the Bible is said to be the Word of God and infallible. Well the Word of God would be infallible (inherently?), but obviously the Bible is not.
I don’t know how you got that I was saying that–I wasn’t. I was saying there was nothing terribly IMPROBABLE about it. It’s highly improbable the trip to Bethlehem of Judea took place. All the more since only Luke talks about it, and has many other elements in his nativity story that nobody else has. (But not the Wise Men, that was Matthew).
But there’s nothing terribly improbable about laying a child in a manger when there’s no crib available and if there was a manger, there probably were farm animals around. (Incidentally, ‘manger’ is French, I don’t know what the word would be in Aramaic, or how they’d be designed).
None of this is proof it happened, but nobody should feel like they’re flying in the face of reality to say it might have. As opposed to many other elements of the Nativity story, which require both a belief in the supernatural and an unwillingness to see that the two stories we have don’t agree with each other.
Why the manger? Who came up with that? There’s nothing about that in Old Testament verses that are believed to prophecy the Messiah. Bethlehem, yes, virgin yes (because of a mistranslation), but there’s nothing that says the Messiah will be born in humble circumstances, laid in a feeding trough for animals.
Don’t you think that did, in fact, sometimes happen with such poor people in such a rural setting?
Maybe it’s just a reflection of the way these people saw Jesus–as a king who came from the humblest of places. A king who didn’t need thrones, or golden crowns.
And is there not beauty in that? Is there not truth in it?
Lincoln really was born in a log cabin. But there are many stories relating to his birth that are purest nonsense.
He was still born in a log cabin. And there were animals nearby. And we can take joy in that. In how the great often spring from humble circumstances. And the truly great–those who are worthy of our reverence–don’t forget where they came from. Maybe Jesus did, in fact, tell people he was once laid in a manger as an infant. Maybe there’s where it came from.
That’s all I was saying.
It seems obvious that a picture of humility was what the writer was attempting to attract the reader to. It’s nothing new. The appeal to emotion/familiarity has always been a perfect merchandising tool to use on the masses. That doesn’t make it beautiful, true, or mean that someone should treasure the story.
If our goal is truth (which it should always be) then emotional or familiar attraction should be recognized and countered during analysis. If those appeals did influence the conclusion in any way then the conclusion is fallacious and requires revisiting from a more objective position.
//We can treasure the story, know that’s exactly what it is, and understand the truth behind it… and if that isn’t faith, what is?//
First, “truth” is a clear presupposition in this case, especially considering the context of the post. What “truth behind it” is being referred to? Second, “faith” is the abandonment of reason, it’s not something to be proud of. There are thousands of “faiths”, one no less fallacious than the next. Neither emotion or faith are valid excuses for poor reasoning which is why we have designated fallacies for each.
I feel forced to ask.. if sound reasoning isn’t the goal godspell, what is?
Except the people who wrote these accounts were themselves part of the masses, not elites trying to manipulate them, so that argument doesn’t hold water. Christianity didn’t become a source of power and wealth until long after all the gospel authors were dead. And in fact there have always been Christians who not only came from humble origins, but remained humble. Or who came from wealth, and humbled themselves voluntarily.
In recognizing the truth of one story, you don’t denigrate all the others from different faiths, often with very similar points to make. The differences matter, but so do the commonalities.
Honestly, I don’t know who you think you’re talking to here. You seem to mainly be arguing with yourself.
I don’t believe Jesus was God. I do believe he knew the truth better than most of his critics (or deniers) ever have.
I don’t believe “elite” was ever deemed a requirement of an appeal to emotion so I’m afraid you’re up against the straw man there. It’s not an opponents burden to argue against a point that has somehow been conjured up and attributed..
The point I’m making is;
The stories were written.
You’ve admitted to them having serious issues regarding historical authenticity- (“Well, call it a theory. An educated guess that wasn’t well-educated enough”).
Then, attempted to fill in the blanks with conjecture- (“it’s not impossible somebody laid him in a manger once or twice, animals munching hay nearby, and there were stars overhead, and shepherds in the fields. Maybe there were even a few wise men around”)
To eventually arrive at a “truth behind the story,” which has yet to be shared with the rest of us.
All apparently in order to rationalize “faith”.
-It could have maybe, possibly, kind of happened, therefor I have faith there’s truth to be found- is not sound reasoning.
Humility and all other human qualities are irrelevant when determining likelihoods so I’m not sure why the appeal to emotion continues to occur.. unless determining likelihood isn’t the goal??
What you’ve done though in large, and I have to say is a great example, is known as ad hoc rescue, or, ad hoc hypothesis.
[Ad Hoc Rescue
Description: Very often we desperately want to be right and hold on to certain beliefs, despite any evidence presented to the contrary. As a result, we begin to make up excuses as to why our belief could still be true, and is still true, despite the fact that we have no real evidence for what we are making up.
Frieda: I just know that Raymond is just waiting to ask me out.
Edna: He has been seeing Rose for three months now.
Frieda: He is just seeing her to make me jealous.
Edna: They’re engaged.
Frieda: Well, that’s just his way of making sure I know about it.
Ref. Logicallyfallacious.com]
So who made up Lincoln being born in a log cabin?
Probably the single most famous modern account of a great man coming from humble origins, and of course it really did happen, even though many of the supporting details were the result of posthumous mythologizing after a tragic martyrdom (that also really happened, and do you want to consider for a moment some of the nigh-supernatural elements introduced into that story, with uncertain veracity?).
The rest of your post (which I lost track of, sorry to respond so late) is a lot of nonsense from somebody who studied logic and never really learned how to use it. Your objections are clearly emotional, not logical. You cover it up with a lot of rhetoric, but under the rhetoric is a clear dislike of the story itself, which makes objectivity impossible.
I like the Nativity story, but believe most of it to be untrue. I can put my emotions aside and look at it objectively, see which parts might well have been true. The manger could be a fabrication, certainly. Whose fabrication, and to what end? You don’t know. Why does only Luke talk about it? You don’t know. What was the influence? You don’t know.
In fact NONE of the mythological stories that supposedly gave rise to the Nativity of Jesus have a manger, or anything comparable, which only goes to show that probably none of those earlier stories had any influence on the story of Jesus. It is unusual, to say the least, to show a man who is supposed to be God depicted as having such a humble birth. So why, pray tell, couldn’t it be possible that his birth was, in fact, humble? And that Luke interwove things that were known about Jesus’ birth with things that were fabrications based around the need to prove he was Messiah, in spite of his humble origins?
That is called an ‘argument.’ If I can find this thread later, I’ll see if you’ve managed to make one in response. 😉
Stories of Abraham Lincoln are not evidence as to the historicity of the nativity narrative no matter how many times they’re repeated.
There are many reasons why the writer might have chosen to portray a humble birth. As already stated prior to being written off by a grossly illogical strawman derailment, the most obvious and likely is the associative attraction that the target audience would have, and did have, and is still having as you are evidence of, with humble beginnings. It’s the same thing Rowling did with Potter, which I do love but don’t believe to be historically factual. Like I said, it is not a new tactic and it wasn’t 2000 years ago, or 2000 years before that.
Again, it can be humility or arrogance, either is of no relevance to whether or not even a believable story holds any truth. It seems the only reason you believe what you do is because you are attracted to the picture being painted. That is not objective, it is the exact opposite. It is an outright confession to being manipulated by the appeal. These ancient stories, written many decades after they would’ve occurred, aren’t believed because they are likely true, they’re believed because people want to believe them, .. because they’re personally attracted to the ideas within,.. because they’re being controlled by unrecognized cognitive biases and wish thinking.
We don’t know what we can’t know, and “faith” doesn’t get us any closer to knowing. It’s just desperate and irresponsible. I can see your position has pulled back from the faith angle, which is a good start. I dig your passion but be careful not to allow it to influence an analysis. If you don’t know, then simply state it, rather than opting for faith (abandonment of reason) in order to pretend you know. I don’t know.. therefor faith.. therefor I know, is impossible! I don’t know equals I don’t know 100% of the time. I don’t know doesn’t equal “truth behind a story.”
I was never arguing for or against the legitimacy of a story, I was arguing your methods of attempting to legitimize a story that is up against self-falsification. Surely you can see that. Your “truth” isn’t proportioned to your evidence so there must exist some other form of motivation. Having faith and being objective are mutually exclusive, so please, make a choice.
You’re really bothered by this. I make a common-sense statement that there’s no reason Jesus couldn’t have been laid in a manger as a baby–something no religion teaches as essential doctrine, btw–it’s not in the Apostle’s Creed–and you assume I’m some religious nut. I haven’t believed in the Virgin Birth, literal miracles, or the Resurrection since before I ever heard of Bart Ehrman. In no conventional sense am I a Christian. So you got that wrong.
Also, you got Harry Potter wrong (never read the books, but I saw the movies on cable, googled some stuff)
He’s not born in humble circumstances. He’s born into one of the most respected families of the Wizarding World, and what’s more (and more important, from his creator’s perspective) he’s born into the English Middle Class, and goes to a super-exclusive English public school that looks like something out of Lord of the Rings. From his earliest childhood, everybody calls him The Chosen One, and he’s the most famous person in his world.
Yes, he has to live with his awful muggle relations (for reasons that don’t really make sense, but it makes him more identifiable) during the school holidays. But he’s treated like a little prince the rest of the time.
It’s a terrible terrible analogy, and anyway, Rowling’s story doesn’t have the discontinuities of the gospels, because it’s fiction, and reasonably well-crafted fiction, and she made it all up, except for the stuff she borrowed.
The gospels are so problematic because the authors all know Jesus was a real person, and they have real information about him, though it’s hard for them to know exactly which stories are factually accurate. None of them are 100% happy with the information they have. It doesn’t fit who they want him to be. So they fiddle with it. They add to it. They use stories that are well-known to be true, but also stories that were made up after the fact, and others that were heavily embellished. They have ideas of their own to get across. The puzzle is how to tell fact from truth, and those are not the same things. We all have truths to tell. And lies.
And you really have to stop with the Latin. 😉
I agree with you about the gospels but I think we have a very different definition of “truth.” It appears you’re referring to subjective truth, which to me isn’t truth at all. I would refer to it as an opinion, likelihood, probability, or potential. A subjective truth needs to be qualified or specified as such.
It should go without saying.. if someone says they “know the truth,” they are claiming to have factual evidence of an occurrence, or to have a demonstrable, repeatable, explanation of an affirmed cause and effect, which in this case is admittedly impossible. We simply lack critical evidence. So you can see the objection. The distance between a concluded subjective likelihood, and a concluded fact, is insurmountable.
That said, I think this can all be cleared up with a quick qualification and a retraction. It seems the comments in question aren’t accurately reflecting your overall perception so might I suggest.. Instead of “truth,” we qualify the position with “in my opinion the most likely scenario…” And instead of “faith,” well, we can never use faith in reasoning. Ever.
Also, for fun, I stand by the potter analogy. The reference was “humble beginnings” not “humble birth”. Harry was forced to live under the stairs as an unwanted orphan from age 1-11. It is without question that Rowling painted Harry as a picture of humility within the story in spite of others knowing who he was. Don’t take my word for it though.
Disregarding semantics, the parallel of both writers having successfully endeared readers to a character through the use of emotional appeal, was the point, and is made only in order to display the effectiveness of like appeals, not to distinguish definitive intent. It’s just one suggestion of many possible motivating factors to be speculated, from the writer’s point of view, and a believer’s.
These appeals do work so we must acknowledge their potential influence and can’t write off the possibility that they are used knowingly for persuasive purposes. We know they have been used with great frequency throughout recorded history. They are equally effective in fiction or non, and aren’t limited to a single human quality, but rather, all qualities exist under the umbrella of physiological emotion, defined in reasoning as simply an appeal to emotion. It’s basic logic and I wouldn’t feel the need to explain it if the potential wasn’t being taken for granted.
“The opposite of fact is fiction. The opposite of one great truth may be another great truth.” Susan Sontag.
Let’s not spend years arguing over terminology, okay? To me, truth means a deeply held conviction. “Speak your truth.” “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” If they are not, then we have to factually prove all men are created equal, which I think you know would be really hard. Truths are ideas, really. We may with good reason believe that some things people accept as truth are really false, but that’s just a way of saying “That’s a bad idea.”
We basically never have enough facts to draw all the conclusions we need to make in our lives. We speculate, we guess, we intuit, we take leaps in the dark. Because we have no choice. Science and math work in very specific areas, that do not comprise all of existence. And if you look at the best scientists and mathematicians, they also deeply believe in things that can’t be proven. If nobody had ever done that, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. There probably wouldn’t be any conversations.
But for the record, I am not immovably wedded to the notion Jesus was lain in a manger as a baby. It’s just a speculation, based on the fact that I can’t think of any better reason for it to be there. A few equally good ones, sure.
Poetry has no truth? Great fiction has no truth? Great paintings and sculptures have no truth? Music has no truth? None that can be established factually.
You are seeking absolute unequivocal certainty where none exists. Nor ever could.
And that, apparently, is your truth.
😉
Amen. So many unhappy Christians originate as fundamentalist-oriented Protestants and then when they realize their approach doesn’t work, they simply lose their faith and try to dissuade others from faithfulness.
Pretty sure that goes just as much for disenchanted Catholics.
There is, believe it or not, something called “Catholic Atheism.” Google it.
Much as I agree that scripture should not be literally interpreted, I don’t think all problems with religion stem from that. Most stem from human nature, you ask me.
The Sheep and the Goats. Jesus was on the money there. But most of us have both potentials inside of us.
Or maybe.. So many Christians originate as Christians and then when they realize they were taught to sacrifice reason for self centric wish thinking, they recognize the consequent dangers, admit the faulty conclusion, and then help others get beyond the resulting dependency as well.
Every time the word “faith” is used we can swap it for “abandonment of reason” and it will read the same. It is not a -get out of logic free card-. Sorry
Except that everyone has faith. EVERYONE. We may not call it that, but that’s what it is, regardless. We all believe things that can never be proven–many atheists willfully believe things that have, in fact, been substantively disproven, and go on doing so, because they want to.
“Love is better than hate.” “Life is better than death.” Why? There is no logical answer. There is no logic to any emotion, and yet we are all deeply emotional creatures, including those who try to suppress their emotions.
It’s the pernicious urge to rationalize all of reality, including those parts that are inherently non-rational, that leads to the most irrational behaviors by humans. Theists and Atheists and everyone in-between.
Some things you do just have to accept on faith, but you also have to accept that there are faiths other than yours. Respect them as much as you can, and accept that those people may know something you don’t. Or hey, maybe just accept that nobody knows a damn thing. That could work.
>>> This is referring to a law in Leviticus 12, that after 32 days a woman >>>who has been made ceremonially impure by giving birth is to offer a >>>sacrifice for cleansing.
It would actually be 40 days after the birth of a boy (7 + 33). Leviticus 12 says: “2…If a woman conceives and bears a male child, she shall be ceremonially unclean for seven days; as at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean…3 On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. 4 Her time of blood purification shall be thirty-three days; she shall not touch any holy thing, or come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purification are completed.” (For girls, the times were doubled to 14 and 66 days.)
It’s also worth noting that even though Luke 2:22 says, “When the time came for *their* purification according to the law of Moses…,” Leviticus 12 specifies that only the mother be purified, not the child also. The NIV attempts to smooth over this discrepancy by rendering Luke 2:22 this way: “When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses…”
I don’t mean any offense, but it seems misogynistic to require a woman to attend a purification rite after she gives birth at all. Purification from what?
Yes, in modern terms it is. In traditional Judaism, though, a woman is made impure by discharges, e.g. during menstruation. Men too, though, e.g., thorugh emission of semen.
1. I was recently in a Facebook discussion of whether the impregnation of Mary constitutes sexual coercion. In Luke I don’t see that Mary is ever asked for permission; Gabriel tells her what is going to happen and she just voices her resignation. After all, how could a young woman resist the will of a God who is on record as having wiped out mankind in a flood, destroyed disobedient cities with fire and brimstone, ordered his people to slaughter unbelievers including women and children, and filled the Law and the Prophets with dire warnings about the consequences of disobedience? It’s like putting a gun to your head and then asking for your permission.
2. One interpretation is that Joseph chose to take Mary to Bethlehem to avoid the embarrassment of registering his pregnant fiance at home in Nazareth, not that he had to return there; the text simply says, “each to his own city.” (I still think the story is legendary, not factual.)
1. I imagine that conversation didn’t go so well….
Luke 1:38- “And Mary said, “Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.”
Mary’s “Fiat mihi secundum Verbum tuum“ isn’t coerced, and she could’ve said no! But she said yes! The Fiat is a big deal in most Mary-venerating Churches. Also how could it be “sexual” coercion if she never had relations?
Just a thought
>>>Starting in 2:1 we’re told that here was a decree that went out from Caesar Augustus that “all the world should be >>>registered,” and we’re told that this was the first registration, and that it happened while Quirinius was governor of >>>Syria.
Why does Luke specify that this was the “first” registration taken when Quirinius was governor of Syria, especially since Acts 5:37 refers simply to “the census” at which time “Judas the Galilean” rose up, which would have been in 6-7 CE?
He seems to think there were severral censuses. But he doesn’t indicate that Quirinius ruled two different times. The tension with Acts ois probably because they come to the author from different sources.
Does occam’s razor mean the bible is real
I don’t see how it possibly could. But in any event, the Bible is real. I ‘m looking at one right now!
> Eight days later the child is circumcised.
Presumably Bethlehem had a resident or visiting mohel?
I certainly hope so….
>“all the world”
No chance, I suppose, that this was something like modern French and Spanish “tout le monde” and “todo el mundo”, which mean “everybody”? The idea being (yes, this stretching majorly) that the phrase applied to everybody in a certain understood but unstated set of people (Jews from Galilee, maybe?) rather than literaly to each and every person in the Empire.
I probably should have been an apologist.
Yup, you missed your calling. (But I don’t think even tout le monde would work; surely not every Jew from Galilee was making a trek and no one ever mentioned it….) (and the point is that he locates this to the time of Augustus: no reason to do that if it’s not everyone under Augustus’s reign)
Really, really good! Thanks
Was there any significant historical event(s) that happened in between the writing of Mark and Matthew/Luke that the authors of Matthew & Luke felt the need to add birth stories?
POssilby some rumors about Jesus’ dubious birth-origins?
Dr. Ehrman, I’m a new member on this blog and I want to thank you so much for diligently writing posts each day and periodically responding to comments. I, like you, was a devout believer who then went on to receive a degree in theology but then began to realize that my earlier assumptions about the historicity of the early church were largely in error. Keep up the good work. It is a great encouragement to me to read these posts each day.
Regarding the Quirinius question, apologists point to the Tivoli inscription to show the plausibility that he may have served twice as governor of Syria to overcome the ten year gap problem. I don’t find this compelling for a number of reasons. Is there anything noteworthy of mentioning on this issue?
I haven’t looked at or thought about this for a long time, but I don’t think even the Tivoli inscription indicates that Quirinius was the *governor* on two occasions. Someone else was a governor during the reign of Herod the Great.
The fragmentary Tivoli inscription may be interpreted to say that Quirinius was “legatus” twice in his lifetime. Most historians think this refers to different provinces. Josephus describes the presence of Varus during Herod’s last months. At that time Varus had been in office for three years at least.
A somewhat related question — historically, is it likely Jesus believed David was his ancestor? Or is it more likely something added later to bolster claims Jesus was the messiah?
My hunch is that David was just about *everyone’s” ancestor through one genealogical line or another. But Jews didn’t keep genealogical records (even though everyone seems to think they did), so if someone *said* Joseph was his direct patrilinear descendant, it would have been guesswork.
Sort of like half of Europe is descended from Charlemagne.
There is a passage in Mark where Jesus talks about David, and dismisses the notion that David was a son of God. Says David referred to God as Lord, just like everyone else, which is not how a son addresses his father. It clashes with some other things Jesus says in that gospel. It’s unclear to me whether Mark’s Jesus is saying “David wasn’t a son of God but I am” or “There are no sons of God.” To be honest, the passage confuses me.
Mark may have been confused on this point as well, but knew Jesus had said this, and felt compelled to include it.
Jesus himself may have been confused at times.
I’m sure Jesus didn’t think he was a miraculously begotten son of God through a Virgin Birth.
But did he in fact believe God had adopted him after his baptism?
Is he talking about David or himself?
It’s often thought that he was denying a link to David: the messiah could be non-Davidic. Not sure if that’s hisotrical or not; *might* be a later Christian attempt to show that the messiah was not *supposed* to be a warrior king like David.
Is it possible that Jesus, as a child, witnessed the destruction of Sepphoris by the Roman governor Varus? Biblical texts don’t mention it, but with it being so close to Nazareth, I can’t help but think Jesus experienced that violence, if at a distance.
Or maybe Josephus is just exaggerating about the city’s destruction.
I don’t think Josphus was exaggerating, but we don’t have any way of knowing of people living several miles away would have actually seen any of the action.
Safe bet Jesus witnessed all kinds of human evil in his life, that inspired the philosophy that lies behind his theology. But to get any more specific would be pointless, with the information we have. Why do we need to know exactly what acts of greed, violence, and treachery he experienced? We’ve all experienced the same. Maybe not all to the same extent, but there are people alive now who have seen worse than him. It was his reaction to evil that distinguished him. His quest for an answer to that problem.
Even just 300 years ago, I had ancestors scattered around in various cities and countries. In such a census, which place would I go to? I don’t know where my ancestors lived before that. Even if people didn’t travel as much in the BCE years, how would the “entire world” know where their ancestors lived long ago? And which ancestor’s town should they travel to?
Right! And we live in a day of massive data retrieval systems!
Even the Romans would have been unclear on that. After all, Rome was supposedly founded only 773 years…not 1000 years…before.
Dr Ehrman –
I’m no great “fan” of the Gospels, and although I am one who believes that Jesus was indeed resurrected bodily, I have never accepted the notion that the Gospels are somehow “the infallible Word of God” (or any other such notion). Such notions of infallibility or inerrancy were just somebody’s “pronouncement” about them. So, I don’t really do too much to defend the Gospels…
But – having said that, you ask (in your post) “Are we supposed to imagine that everyone in the Roman empire had to register in the town of their ancestors, the way Joseph did?”
Luke writes “And everyone was on his way to register for the census, each to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David…”
This simply says that everyone was going to “his own city”. Joseph, on the other hand, was going to Bethlehem, “Because he was of the house and family of David”. So, for *some* reason, Joseph, according to his family lineage, was going to Bethlehem. But, we don’t know *why*. It could have simply been that he happened to have property there. Or, it could have been that that’s where he had lived most his life, and where he had decided to return to, to live. All we can say is that Joseph had determined that “his city” was Bethlehem, and it had something to do with his family originating there. But, there is nothing in this verse that clearly states that everyone had to return to their ancestral homes…
So, *are we* supposed to imagine that everyone had to return to their ancestral homes? I don’t see why we would. In fact, what I see is that to arrive to the conclusion that this verse somehow states that everyone was supposed to return to their ancestral homes takes quite a jump in logic. Clearly, it can’t mean *that*. That would be ridiculous. So, why do you interpret this to say that *everyone* had to return to their *ancestral homes* when that would literally have been an impossibility?
I think it does say why he went there. It was because he was from the lineage of David, and it is where David himself was born. It doesn’t say anything about his owning property there — or any other reason.
Yes, I do agree that the passage says nothing about Joseph having property in Bethlehem. But, neither does it say that everyone had to travel to their “ancestral” homes. It just says they went to their “own” cities.
The fact that Joseph went to Bethlehem to register for the census could entirely have been a personal choice: he *chose* to go to Bethlehem for whatever his personal motivation was (ie, “because that’s the place of his ancestral family”) – but this may have been nothing more than his own preference for moving to Bethlehem. He may have simply been prompted by the alleged census to go ahead and make the move, in order to get established as living there (and no longer Nazareth),. But, there is not one thing in the passage that indicates that the Romans required everyone to return to their ancestral cities, going back to the very foundation of Israel.
I’m simply saying that if that particular understanding of the passage as *you* present it *seems* ridiculous, then, maybe it is. And, therefore, there might be another, far less ridiculous conclusion to draw. I know I certainly never drew that ridiculous conclusion from this passage. But, that’s just me… *shrug*
I think you’re overlooking the key line, at the end of v. 4, explaining why he went to Bethlehem “because he was of the house and lineage of David.”
I get that. And, I’m just saying that maybe Joseph wanted to claim Bethlehem, not Nazareth, as his “own city”. After all *that’s* what the others were doing: They were just going to their “own cities”. He decided he wanted Bethlehem as his “own city” because that’s where his ancestral family was from…
It’s OK that we differ on this. I just never – ever – have figured this passage was saying everybody had to move to some place according to where some ancestor, forty steps up the family tree, made their home – as if everybody could trace their family lineage that far back. Heck, I can’t get past the 1800’s with the Irish contingent of my own family, and dang, I even get to use ancestry.com…
Or maybe it was an entirely different Bethlehem? Six miles away, instead of sixty?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethlehem_of_Galilee
For what it’s worth, I don’t think Matthew or Luke were consciously lying. But that doesn’t mean they were telling the truth.
I’m afraid it doesn’t work. The point of Luke’s story is to say that they had to go to the birthplace of David (which is the Bethelehem near Jerusalem in the south) and even more explicit, both of them *explicitly* locate it in Judea.
I wasn’t saying otherwise, Bart. I do read your posts, you know. Even your books! 🙂
Sorry if I was unclear, but what I was saying was that the idea of Bethlehem of Judea as his birthplace could have arisen partly from a misunderstanding, relating to Bethlehem of Galilee (which has its own Wikipedia page, it’s not a made-up place).
That’s not an original idea, and it’s almost too obvious. They are looking for some excuse to have him not be born in Galilee. Any reference by anybody to him being born in or even near a Bethlehem (six miles is pretty near) would be seized upon eagerly. And would they have even known there was a Bethlehem near Nazareth?
Though I recognize that they wanted to say he was born in Judea AND of the lineage of David, there is no requirement that the Messiah has to be born in Bethlehem of Judea. Nobody was THAT anal about it.
Luke wants to prove he was of David’s line by saying Joseph had to go there to register because he was of David’s line. I get that. But Matthew says they just lived there, and is content to manufacture an ersatz genealogy that differs from Luke’s. Why does he need Jesus to be from Bethlehem, specifically?
Because there was a tradition he was born in or near a place called Bethlehem, and Matthew just assumes it’s the one in Judea, which makes the point he wants. It’s not like he can check Wikipedia.
Luke takes it to the next level, by saying Joseph going to Bethlehem of Judea proves Jesus is of David’s line, even though Joseph isn’t his natural father.
Which I’m sure made sense to Luke at the time.
Hey, I’m glad *someone* does!!
Dr. Ehrman,
I know how fundamentalist scholars grapple with the issue of a worldwide census, but how do more moderate-liberal christian scholars deal with it? Do they think a real census involving the whole Roman Empire occurred?
Thanks, Jay
No, they think it’s a legend.
Thank you for these posts Mr. Ehrman!
It’s nice to come back to some of those basics in the gospels.
For my part I still haven’t figured out how much Jesus son of Joseph is related (if it is) to the fact that Josue (Yehoshua) was from the tribe of Ephraim, so could be called Josue (Yehoshua) son of Joseph in jewish tradition (as Ephraim is Joseph’s tribe)… and as Josue is the one who got the People of G.od to actually enter into Israël, well…
Well as they say, the Torah is not a history book but a book of messages… I guess we have to figure out how much of the gospels is history, and how much is messages!
In the bible there are multiple prophecies that get fulfilled (such as book of isaiah predicting Cyrus or Jesus predicting the destruction of jerusalem and its temple) occam’s razor states that the simplest explanation is the most likely to be correct, the simplest explanation for these fulfilled prophecies is that the bible is most likely the word of god, so isn’t it most likely that the bible is the word of God
My occam’s razor says the easiest explanation is that the texts were written *after* the events they claimed they were allegedly predicting. The reason that is the easiest answer is becaause it doesn’t require a supernatural presupposition of a deity actively engaged in this world — i.e. it requires one less step (the whole point of occam’s razor)
I’m sorry but how is it that dozens of people all deciding to lie and write in prophecies after they happened a simpler explanation than the prophecies being inspIred by God
They didn’t see themselves as lying. They saw what happened to Jesus as a fulfillment of what had been predicted, and wrote their accounts accordingly.
Actually, Isaiah – Second Isaiah – isn’t predicting Cyrus; he’s speaking to Cyrus in the present (“to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped”). Starting with chapter 40 (Cyrus is mentioned in ch. 45), it’s clear that this is a new writer living in the time of the Persian conquest. He speaks about the exile in the perfect tense, indicating that it is now over (“You have paid double for all your sins”); where he makes predictions or prophecies, it is always about events after their return.
For First Isaiah to have prophesied about Cyrus 200 years earlier, he would have had to explain who Cyrus was, which Second Isaiah never does. Otherwise his listeners of that time would have had no idea what he was talking about. Also, predictions about the future (even fake ones, like Daniel talking about Alexander and Antiochus) never use names, only descriptions.
Really really great posts. thanx so much Dr. Ehrman
Even though I am now an atheist/agnostic (like you, I was once a fundamentalist), I still think the account of the birth of Jesus in Luke is a beautiful story. You just can’t think about it logically. I think the familiar King James version is especially beautiful:
“And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.”
That one sentence says so much.
I guess all those descendants of David filled up all the inns in Bethlehem.
Or they got a really bad Airbnb?
I’ve heard of people having worse experiences. 😉
Is there good reason to believe Jesus was more likely to be born during the reign of Herod the Great than when Quirinius was governor of Syria? What if these were different traditions, neither necessarily accurate, that Luke didn’t know to be contradictory? If neither Matthew or Luke is historically very reliable, who’s to say Jesus wasn’t born earlier or later than believed?
I suppose mainly because it is attested in two sources (Matthew and Luke) instead of just one (Luke)
There is an authenticating fact that Ehrman once observed in a video clip. There was no room at the inn. Why? Because everyone had to go to the town of their ancestor, and David was the most famous ancestor who could be claimed. Hence, everyone was a descendant of King David, and everyone went to Bethlehem to officially register themselves as such.
Darrell Bock’s solution is that the census was started around 4-6 BC, and it took several years to get everyone registered. Then by the time Quierinius comes in, all that data is there to document, and he was the one who documented it. Does that seem plausible?
A census took ten years to implement? Really? And then what was the rush for Joseph to get there when Mary was about to give birth?
Censuses in the US happen every 10 years, and notifications about them start getting sent out years in advance.
There is nothing in Lukes account that says the census was happening “right then”. It says a DECREE went out that there WOULD BE a census. There’s no telling, from that phrase, when the census itself would take place.
If the practice was anything similar to modern practice in the US, then that “decree” could have been sent out years in advance…
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not trying to either explain or “explain away” anything about Lukes account. Whether Luke has his facts right or not is irrelevant to me.
But, when I read the census was for “the whole world” and “everyone” was going to their own cities, it just makes me think Luke writes in grandiose, exaggerated terms. Matthew does the same: ” Then Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea and all the district around the Jordan” — Wow. “ALL JUDEA”. Every single man, woman, and child – those that were unable to walk, those that were blind, those that were sick and dying. They ALL went to see Matthew. (That’s how the literalist might read that. OR – the “former Christian literalist” who remains a literalist, while dropping the “Christian” part).
Again: it doesn’t explain why Joseph had to go that weekend. Bad timing!
oh, was there a “had to” about it? I didn’t notice anything in the narrative that says, at that precise timeframe (ie, “that weekend”, or even “that week” or “that month”) that anybody “had” to do anything at all.
Unless somehow it were established that a persons “own city” were, in fact, determined by where some ancestor, dating back to some particular time, lived, then a person might well have been entirely free, just as we are here, to determine the place we call our “own city”.
So, why would Joseph decide, at that point, to go to Bethlehem? He may have decided that Bethlehem was the city he wanted to call his “own city”, and in his case, it was due to his personal desire to live in the place of his ancestors. And, perhaps Mary had family there. She was, after all, just visiting Elizabeth, who was in a town in the “hill country” of Judea, an area a scant ten milles south of Bethlehem. Luke, in the Greek, says she “turned back to her abode” – it carries no implication of a journey having been completed (as it seems to indicate in so many piss-poor English translations – “Mary returned to her home”) And Luke points out that Joseph, not Joseph and Mary, headed to Bethlehem. It could very well be that the plan, all along, was for the two to meet in Bethlehem after Mary’s visit to Elizabeth, and to be married there and settle there.
In Other Words: Joseph’s reason for going *at that time* may have been because he was going to meet Mary there, after her visit with Elizabeth. And, after all, there had been this “decree” sent out, saying there *would be* a census – some time in the future – so, it may all have just looked like the right time to go..
OK, well, maybe he just thought it was a good time to make a week-long trip on foot, when his espoused was on the verge of giving birth!
According to Wikipedia (famous last words), Quirinius conducted a census in Judea after Herod died and his son Archelaus removed from power. It also suggests that this Census may have been the basis for the story in Luke, although obviously it was a much more local phenomenon than Luke suggests. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius
Is this a commonly accepted position?
I’d have to look at the sources again, but this would again mean that there is a major contradiction between teh Gospels (since in Matthew Herod is still very much living!)
Matthew seems to think theres a prophecy that the messiah will be called a nazarene – do you think this could mean the jesus being from nazareth story may be made up also to fufill this suposed prophecy just as with bethlehem?
It looks like it happened the other way around: Matthew knew that he came from nazareth and so tried to explain it (by citing a prophecy that doesn’t exist, so far as we know!)
What is striking about the two birth accounts we have is that each mentions a major historical event that we have no record of, and should (it is hardly surprising that historians of that time and immediately after don’t mention Jesus–Josephus is just barely the exception).
Matthew talks about Herod ordering the massacre of children born around the time he believes Jesus was born, in response to three men he’s never met telling him this child will someday be a king. This motivates Jesus’ family to flee to Egypt, and eventually settle in Nazareth.
Luke talks about the oddly conducted census that forces Joseph and Mary to leave Nazareth when Mary is close to her time, so Jesus is born in Bethlehem then raised in Nazareth.
There is no evidence either event happened outside the gospels, and neither makes any sense. Herod would not have survived as long as he did if he made such irrational decisions. The Roman Empire wouldn’t have survived as long as it did if it required entire populations to uproot themselves and find some ancestral spawning ground to register for taxation.
But more significantly, these events are mutually contradictory. Matthew doesn’t mention any census (they’re already in Bethlehem) and Luke doesn’t mention any mass murder of children followed by a flight to Egypt.
Each is looking for a way Jesus could have been born in Bethlehem then raised in Nazareth. Need to believe the former, can’t escape the latter.
Somebody started asserting the Bethlehem birth as fact, but nobody could find any proof. It was vitally important in the years after Jesus’ death to prove he was Messiah, and the Messiah had to be from Judea (later generations of Christians wouldn’t care where he was born, but converted Jews did). Once the birth is in stories that have been accepted as scriptural, it can’t be abandoned later on.
Since there was a different Bethlehem in Galilee, much closer to Nazareth (about six miles), it is not hard to imagine there might have been some business or legal formality Joseph had to attend to there, and Jesus certainly could have been born there (maybe there was a good midwife or a family member living there–six miles isn’t sixty).
And it goes from there.
I’m no great believer in EITHER of the Nativity stories (Matt or Luke).
But, you talk about two “major historical events”, and say “Matthew talks about Herod ordering the massacre of children …”
What makes you think this was a “major historical event”?
Bethlehem had maybe 300 people living in it. Just do the math… You’re gonna come up with maybe 5 or 6 kids, half of them girls, two years old or younger… So, in other words, Herod had about 3 kids killed.
Read up enough on Herod, and, that doesn’t seem too far out of the “plausible”. At least, not in terms of the number of kids killed.
I’m not saying it happened, though. I’m just wondering why you think it was such a major event that anyone’s history book would mention it…
Okay, several things:
I’m a bit surprised you know the exact population of Bethlehem in Judea, a town that some archaeologists have suggested had NO population at the time Jesus was born (see “Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels” by Michael Grant.)
People had very large families then, due to high child mortality, no birth control, and a need for enough able hands to attend to whatever business the family worked at. I’m not sure how you get that 300 residents means a handful of kids under the age of two.
Matthew says Herod ordered all children of that general age group killed in Bethlehem AND OUTLYING AREAS. That’s kind of a major omission you made. Now you need to know how many children there were in an undefined geographical area a few miles from the biggest city in Palestine. Not exactly a remote backwater, Bethlehem. More like a suburb of Jerusalem. Six miles. (Strangely, the same distance that exists between Nazareth and Bethlehem of Galilee.)
So to be clear, you’re saying that while you don’t particularly believe this story, you find it plausible in theory that Herod, on the basis of hearing stories from a few passing travellers, could send soldiers to murder every toddler in an area near Jerusalem, presumably leaving their families alive to tell the tale (since there’s no mention of any adults or older children being killed), and this was well-known enough for Matthew to have heard about it (but none of the other New Testament writers), and the aggrieved parents never petitioned the Roman authorities or the Jewish religious leaders for redress, and thus this slaughter (and it’s a slaughter if half a dozen were killed–Matthew clearly thought it was more) was never added to the rather large litany of crimes later attributed to Herod the Great by posterity? And the Romans Herod owed his power to never thought “Hey, this guy’s nuts!” and replaced him?
Also, how would the soldiers know the precise age of each child? They’d have to go by general appearance. If they were willing to do this at all, they probably wouldn’t be the careful conscientious type. It’s not like the parents are going to be helping them out with birth certificates (which wouldn’t exist). So yeah, it’d be a whole lot of kids, if they were thorough.
It. Did. Not. Happen. Period.
Hi Dr. Ehrman. Many times at night I listen to your debates and lectures on youtube as I’m falling asleep or if I wake up and cant get back to sleep. I’m not saying they put me to sleep but rather they are a diversion from thoughts of work and daily life. I really appreciate that diversion. This morning I woke up to your debate with Kyle Butt on suffering. My question is why did you make yourself suffer through that? It’s not the first time zine listened to that debate and to me listening to Kyle is painful. He is obviously not a scholar and mostly asserts if he says something it’s a fact. Do you still enjoy debating? thanx
Yeah, every time I have one of these debates, I end up writing a note to myself — while the other guy is speaking! — “And WHY am I doing this???” 🙂
I think I speak for others when I say that we are glad that you do them! I think they play a very important role in educating a largely uneducated public (especially on those specific topics).
“Since there was a different Bethlehem in Galilee, much closer to Nazareth (about six miles), it is not hard to imagine there might have been some business or legal formality Joseph had to attend to there, and Jesus certainly could have been born there (maybe there was a good midwife or a family member living there–six miles isn’t sixty).”
But which Bethlehem was David born in? Both Matthew and Luke seem to think that it was David’s Bethlehem, not a town with the same name.
If Joseph or Mary had family there, why were they staying in a stable? Wouldn’t a good midwife be more likely to let Mary have the baby in her home, rather than a stable?
I think it is more likely that Luke made up the story (or took it from oral traditions) in an effort to explain how Jesus grew up in Nazareth, while the Messiah was supposed to be born in the City of David.
Yes, that’s right. The problem with an alleged Bethelehem of Galilee is both that that was *not* where David was from (which is the point of the story) AND that Luke explicitly says it was the Bethelehem located in Judea.
Luke definitely was telling a story that has little or no basis in fact, but that doesn’t mean there being a Bethlehem a few miles from Nazareth has nothing to do with how the confusion got started. It’s way too much of a coincidence to just let it pass.
I wish people would read more carefully. At no time did I suggest Matthew and Luke thought Jesus was born anywhere in Galilee.
And I don’t think Luke believed he was making anything up.
He just really needed to make this point, and you only have to read Richard Carrier to know how far some people will go to do that.
😉
Isn’t part of the reason Jesus had to be born in Bethlehem due to the significance of Migdal Eder and the sacrificial flocks kept in this shepherd’s town?
It wasn’t that they ended up in some inn keeper’s vacant stable. They ended up in the same manger where lambs born for sacrificial slaughter were held. Jesus had to be laid in the manger that held swaddled newborn lambs. Swaddled so that they couldn’t injure themselves, and thus disqualify themselves as perfect and without blemish.
The shepherds were also significant because they would understand the significance.
The text doesn’t say anything about that. Instead it indicates he had to be born there to fulfill prophecy, as the son of David.
What if Luke is the “historical source” you are looking for concerning this census? Why are we not considering that Luke is telling the truth–especially since the opening verses state that he did much research concerning this census?
Any statement made by any ancient source is subject to questioning: one doesn’t necessarily *disbelieve* it, but doesn’t necessarily *believe* it either. Each statement needs to be tested. In this case, if Luke is right, how is it possible that “the entire world” was registering in tehri ancestral homes for a census, and not a single other source (even Christian; but also not Jewish, Roman, Greek, Syrian, etc.) even *mentions* it. Just seems implausible.
Hey Bart, I’m a new member here and would like to say that I’m very grateful for all your work and debates.
One question regarding the census in Luke 2:1. NT Wright says (in Who Was Jesus p. 89) it has to do with the greek word ‘protos’ which usually means ‘first’ but could also be seen as a ‘before’ around the time that Luke wrote the gospel, especially when followed by the genitive case (which is the case here). So he suggests that the reading of the verse goes: “This census took place before the time when Quirinius was governor of Syria”. This would solve the weird wording Luke choose with this ‘first’ census, like you’ve said in your post.
What do you make of this?
It’s a valiant effort, but I’m afraid it doesn’t work. Protos doesn’t mean “earlier” but “first,” and it modifies “census,” not “was the governor” (it’s an adjective not an adverb.)
Yes, I thought it was far-fetched, but someone has provided this as an argument to make sense of the Quirinius time issue. By the way in John 1:15 “protos” translates into “before”, but I don’t know if that’s a translation thing or not, I’m no greek Jedi.
It’s a completely different case; there it is governing a genitive used as a comparative.
Even if Joseph were a descendant of David, what difference does it make if he’s not Jesus’ biological father. It seems to me that the Virgin Birth and the invocation of this particular messianic prophecy are mutually exclusive. Am I missing something here?
Yes, they can’t really be reconciled. He’s either descended from David thorugh his father or he’s not!
Good evening, Bart. I have an idea for your posting pleasure after this thread. When did Christians start thinking about using December 25 as the birth of Jesus? Are there any early written records about the thinking behind this? When did that day become an official proclamation and who did it? Was there any fighting among bishops over this idea or the date? Does every Christian denomination use this date? If not, why?
It appears to have happened in the early fourth century under Constantine. In the early centuries Jesus date of birth was not celebrated (much? at all?) In the eastern church the date was January 7; in the West Dec. 25. West won.
Both NT geneaologies go back to King David & come forward to Joseph. That may be why Joseph had to register in David’s home town.
One problem is that Joseph is not Jesus’ father so why did the two Gospel writers include these geneaologies? There is no NT explanation to suggest that this also was Mary’s geneaology.
Were Mary & Joseph originally from Bethlehem & not Nazareth? Luke suggests yes.
Yup, maybe I’ll repost my reflections on this.
I was reading another post and referenced a census of Quirinius around 6 / 7 AD for roman citizens. Have you heard of that before?
Yes, it was a census just in Syria.
Dear Dr Ehrman,
Could the story of the manger be a true story?
Is it possible that Mary gave this single piece of information since she was there at the time of the birth of Jesus?
What need is there to invent such a singular detail?
I mean… Why a manger?
Thanks
Sure, it could be true. But thousands of options could be true — so I’m not sure how much weight that is. Why a manger? It occurs only in Luke, and Luke wants to stress that Jesus came for the lowly, the impoverished, the outcast. So he doesn’t have him born in a fine house but in a hut or cave for animals. Notice he has the low-life shepherds visit him. In matthew it is exotic Wise men from the East who find hinm in a house.
This is going to sound like a very odd question, but does the Koine Greek behind Luke 2:16 “τήν τε Μαριὰμ καὶ τὸν Ἰωσὴφ καὶ τὸ βρέφος κείμενον ἐν τῇ φάτνῃ” support a translation that means something like ‘not only Mary, but also Joseph, as well as the baby were (all) lying in the feeding trough’?
Ha! Good question! Since KEIMENON is neuter singular, it is referring to the BREPHOS, not to the family practicing an ancient form of attachment parenting by all bunking down together. (So it means “and the child, who was lying in the manger”)