Loading...Here now is the fourth of my twelve favorite Christmas posts of years gone by, in our celebration of the Twelve Days of Christmas.
******************************
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.
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!
I have never taken the account of Herod slaughtering all the boys two years old and younger as an indication that Herod expected Jesus to be two years old. If he had commanded that the babies less than three months old be killed, then mothers could lie and claim that their child was actually four months old. On the other hand no soldier are likely to mistake an infant for a toddler. It would have been a more fool-proof plan.
Plus, from a literary perspective, this version of the story allows more babies to be murdered which is the real point of the tale, after all.
How then might you evaluate John 7:42? This is clearly John’s irony; he invents a debate, where some in Jerusalem are arguing from a correct premise – that Jesus is from Galilee – to a mistaken conclusion – that Jesus cannot be of the line of David. Whereas we can be certain that Jesus’s Davidic status would have been considered an uncontested fact for John’ readership; as it is for Paul (Romans1:3).
So, as this verse also asserts Jesus as not having been born in Bethlehem; is this. for John, a correct premise or John’s invented, mistaken conclusion?
I’m not sure I”m following your reasoning. John seems to assume that Jesus came from Nazareth, and doesn’t say anything about him being from Bethlehem. There’s no reason, of course, that “the” Son of David had to be born in Bethlehem. Other “messiahs” weren’t.
Apart from that, being a descendant of David is a tricky issue — on one level probably almost all Jews were, if matrilinear descent is brought into genealogies, given how crazy that makes them.
I have read that the so called wise men were actually priests of Zoroaster from Persia (Iran). I find it interesting and intriguing.
The text itself doesn’t say, and it’s the only reference to them that we have.
Thanks for the insightful and well-written post! Wouldn’t early Christians reading these accounts for the first time be skeptical of the supposed historical events? For instance, if Luke claims that there was a worldwide census, then early Christians would surely have some community or family members involved to some extent?
Luke was writing some 80-85 years later, so I don’t know that readers would necessarily be sceptical. They did know that censuses sometimes happened. If any of them did feel any doubts, we never hear of it (until after the Englightenment, so far as I know!)
I have a question for Bart. Every year right before Christmas we get numerous claims that Jesus was a Palestinian or a Palestinian Jew. As far as know it’s not true but if you have academic evidence it’s true I will change my mind.
It’s a tricky business. The areas of Galilee, Samaria, and Judea were together renamed “Palestine” in 135 CE. In Jesus’ day they were called by their separate names. They were not called “Israel.” In two of the Gospels he is born in Bethlehem; does that make him a Judean? Normally yes. He is raised and ministers in Galilee. Does that make him a Galilean? normally yes. Today we noirmally refer to both areas as Israel, as it was originally called. Should he be called an Israelite? That term was not being used much back in his day. So if we say he was “from Israel” it is anachronistic. And if we say he was “from Palestine” it is anachronistic. So, what do we say? Apart from a wordy circumlocution: He was from “the Promised Land” or the “homeland of the Jews” or … something else, I don’t know! I used to say he was from Palestine since that’s whta the area came to be called, but some people found that offensive (as if he were a Palestinian instead of a Jew). I typically today say he was from “Israel” since it doesn’t create the wrong impression so much, but is still problematic since the area wasn’t called “Israel” at the time. I just don’t have a good answer!
In my opinion, Jesus was a Palestinian Jew. Palestinian in the first century context refers to geography rather than ethnicity or nationality.
This part of the world was referred to by the Greek as “Palestine” even before 450BC as mentioned by Herodotus more than one time including this line (Histories 3.91):
ἔστι δὲ ἐν τῷ νομῷ τούτῳ Φοινίκη τε πᾶσα καὶ Συρίη ἡ Παλαιστίνη καλεομένη καὶ Κύπρος: νομὸς πέμπτος οὗτος.
Which is translated: “and in this division are the whole of Phenicia and Syria which is called Palestine and Cyprus: this is the fifth division”.
Also, there are evidences that this land was called Palestine by the Assyrians much before the Greek. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_name_Palestine
This part of the world represents one geographical unit, which is surrounded by the desert in the south, the sea in the west, and a river in the east and another river in the north. Therefore, it is logical for this land to have a single name. However, this land included many sub-areas at the time of the Greek as: Galilee, Judea, Samaria, etc.
The Roman in 135AC didn’t invent the name Palestine for this land, but they just erased the name Judea, and replaced it with “Syria Palaestina”. Notice here that this name includes two known names that were in use much before the Roman: Syria and Palaestina.
I think the question is what the land was called in the time of Jesus (less than what it was called centuris before or a century later)
During Herod’s reign, Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt to escape his domain over Judah. After Herod’s death, Archelaus only inherited half his father’s power, allowing them to settle at the land they owned in Nazareth.
During this period Augustus held the office of Censor, possibly initiating a worldwide Census Equitum targeting only the elite class. As a member of this class, Joseph would have registered his royal ancestral lineage. Fearing persecution, Joseph abandoned his title and adopted a humble lifestyle as a carpenter.
This explanation answers “why David?”and sheds light on Jesus’ connections with wealthy residents in Bethany, his secretive messianic identity, how he became educated yet associated with the lowly, and his reluctance to enter Jerusalem.
While the mystical magi seem mythical, it’s actually the shepherds who are symbolic. The wording surrounding them alludes to 1 Samuel 16:11 indicating there is a candidate who can depose the tyrannical king, but hes tending sheep. Also Ezekiel 34:11, and Micah 5:2-4. Luke combines the historical story of the Magi with prophetic shepard imagery, explaining how a star could shine over a house: the “star” in Matthew 2:9 is the same event as the “angel” giving directions in Luke 2:10.
Bart,
You write this in an earlier part of this brief post “So even though Jesus was raised in Nazareth (starting when he was just under two months old), he was born in Bethlehem.”
And the this towards the end “And so what conclusion can we draw? To me it seems all fairly straightforward. Jesus was not really born in Bethlehem.”
Which is it?
Best,
Kevin
I think my first statement is referring to Luke’s account (the way he portrays it); my second one is what I think we can say historically.
Thanks for the reply and clarification
ancient Jerusalem is reported to be 220 acres is approximately 89 hectares. slight larger than 1/3 sq m.
gemini Ai: the population of Jerusalem in 30 AD would be in the range of 20,000 to 40,000 people.
hoew far was bethany from central jerusalem 30ad
BeagoAi:
In 30 AD, Bethany was located approximately 2 miles (3.2 kilometers) from central Jerusalem. This distance is supported by multiple sources, which describe Bethany as being near Jerusalem, about two miles away. The town was situated on the southeastern slope of the Mount of Olives, making it a relatively short journey from the city center.