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 have read that the so called wise men were actually priests of Zoroaster from Persia (Iran). I find it interesting and intriguing.
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?
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.
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.
What bothers me about all the Bethlehem stuff was that there does NOT seem to have been a prophecy that the Messiah will come from the town of Bethlehem. Rather the prophecy seems to refer to Bethlehem-the-person rather than Bethlehem-the-place:
Mat 2:6 “‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.”
Mic 5:2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel…”
1 Chronicles 4 “The sons of Judah were Perez, … Hur … , the firstborn of Hur was Ephrathah, the father of Bethlehem.”
So the ruler that was to come from Bethlehem-Ephrathah could not have referred to Jesus because both Matthew and Luke trace Jesus’ ancestry through Judah’s son Perez rather than through Judah’s son Hur> Ephrathah> Bethelhem.
How is this to be explained?
Matthew is referring to Micah in particular for Bethlehem as the birthplace of David, whose “son” the messiah would be, not to the human chronology of the founder of the place.