Loading...Here now is the ninth of my twelve favorite Christmas posts of years gone by, in our celebration of the Twelve Days of Christmas. This one comes from 2018.
******************************
Let’s explore the key contradiction in the Birth Narratives of Jesus. Several readers have asked about my comment that Matthew and Luke appear to contradict each other in their birth narratives, especially when Matthew indicates that Jesus’ family fled to Egypt after his birth but Luke claims they went straight back to Nazareth, a month later. I’ve posted on this issue several times over the years on the blog, but maybe a refresher would be helpful for those with questions. Here is how I explain the matter in my book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, slightly edited. (See especially my final point.)
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!
Thanks for the helpful refresher on this! I think one further point of tension is worth mentioning. The Temple is in Jerusalem, which was the capital of Herod the Great’s kingdom, right? If Herod was trying to murder Jesus (as Matthew says), would the whole family really go straight to his capital city for a month (as Luke says)? Isn’t that also rather hard to believe?
I guess even in Matthew they didn’t know Herod would try to kill the child until the night before it happened? Even so, if I’m reading you correctly, you’re saying it’s hard to reconcile the two narratives, and if so, I couldn’t agree more.
I have wondered why the star would lead the wise men to Jerusalem where they inquire and find out that the future king will be born in Bethlehem. The star then reappears and leads them to the house where Jesus lives. The “star” always knew where it was going. It didn’t need to inquire the whereabouts of the future king.
Yup, the star knew but they didn’t. Why it just didn’t take them there is a bit hard to figure out (if it’s a historical account). But as a story they have to go to Jerusalem first, since otherwise Herod owuld not have known he needed to slaughter the boys….
The Gospel of Mark is actually “Peter’s Memorabilia,” compiled from Peter’s accounts. Meanwhile, the Gospel of Matthew was written by Mark (the son of Peter and Mary of Bethany), who sought to critique the aristocracy responsible for his father’s death (Acts 12 is a eulogy. Peter never made it home to his wife and son).
The Gospel of Luke, addressed to the high priest Mataias ben Theophilistus (Josephus’s dad), omitted the massacre to avoid fueling tensions between Markean Christians and Jerusalem’s ruling class. Instead, the author Epaphroditus (Paul’s traveling companion/Josephus’s friend) highlighted Jesus’ adherence to Jewish law- explaining Josephus’s omission of the massacre.
The Magi’s visit, prompted the Isaiah 7 prophecy, was likely linked to the astronomical event of Jupiter in Virgo, which occurs every 15 years. This event gained significance in 1st century BCE due to the Roman occupation of Palestine and the Parthians’ awareness of it prompted them to send Magi to investigate.
Joseph, a potential Davidic replacement for Herden, fled to Galilee to escape Archelaus’s domain, losing his title and becoming a humble builder. If not for Archelaus, he would have returned to his residence in Bethany where he left his daughter with his leprosy ridden brother Simon.
For “Peter’s Memoribilia” are you referring to the statement in Justin Martyr? The interesting thing is that Justin (ca. 150 CE) does call the Gospels the “Memoirs of the Apostles” but he never names any of them. Except in ONE passage where he mentions Peter and then refers to “his memoir.” He gives no indication he is talking about the Gospel of Mark. When he does say what was in this memoir, it actually lines up with what we now have in … the non-canonical Gospel of Peter! I think that’s what he’s referring to.
Luke, for course, does not mention Mataias ben Theophilistus.
Papias’s fragment refers to Peter’s memoir (apemnemoneusen) and Mark’s INTERPRETATION of Peter’s Memoir and I think Irenaeus and subsequent church fathers misunderstood him which led to our misappropriation of gospel authorship. The Gospel of Mark should be titled Peter’s Memoir (or memorabilia), The Gospel of Matthew should be titled Mark’s Interpretation of Peter’s Memoir. And I believe Papias’s comments on Matthew are referring to the contribution of a literary patron of the gospels in compiling the testimony of Aramaic speakers that were used by gospel authors in their accounts. This is the same literary patron Luke addresses in his preface- Mattais ben Theophilus.
I argue this in more detail here: https://youtu.be/CxGU8X0rLY4?si=KrIowXK8x2RrtVeF
Thanks for a fun and interesting thread!
Personally I don’t primarily see these stories as historical accounts but as literary tropes, made and shaped for different specific audiences. For me it looks like Matthew and Luke draw from different cultural and historical influences where Matthew’s narrative leans into Jewish-Christian traditions, likely incorporating Eastern and possibly Zoroastrian elements (like the Magi and perhaps also resembles the Zoroastrian savior, Saoshiant), and perhaps Luke, on the other hand, speaks to a more Gentile or Greek audience suggesting some similarities.
Concidering these as tropes rather than strict history, the discrepancies/contradictions can make sense, even the different geneology (Matthew point to a jewish messianic king and Luke to a more common/universal ancestoral origin.
I understand this kind of storytelling was common (in my opinion also within OT and NT) jsut for blending cultural influences to convey deeper truths in a way people could understand and connect with, to inspire and teach.
One thing that strangely enough hasn’t crossed apologists’ minds is that this contradiction could be very easily solved with the old fashioned way: Jesus, exactly because he is by default miraculous, was born 2 times: so after the first time he was born, they fled to Egypt, just like Matthew records, and after the next time he was (re)born, they returned home to Nazareth! Checkmate, Mr. Hyperskeptic! I see no contradictions at all whatsoever!
It certainly never crossed *my* mind!!
Okay, the story is definitely a story, but this nitpick may go a bit too far…
“Surely soldiers would know that two-year-old kids toddling around the yard hadn’t been born last week!”
…given the scenario, how sure was Herod on the date of the birth here? Why not play it safe? You could hardly accuse later Christian authors of covering for Herod, but writings on the topic show a wide range of times the Magi show up based on Matthew – before Jesus was even born, 12 days later, months later, and I’m pretty sure there’s at least some stories where the Magi do meet a 2-year old Jesus! Given that, a generous safety range of executions makes sense if we assume as Matthew does Herod didn’t particularly care much about the collateral damage.
They both can’t be historical accurate . Either one of them, or both created a (partly) imaginary narrative. It doesn’t look good on the accuracy of their entire gospels either. It seems they have no discernible moral objection blurring the line between fact and fiction to get a certain message across.
Matthew and Luke go to great lengths to have Jesus born in Bethlehem to fulfill prophecy. Can we expand the argument of ‘How would anyone know where their ancestors were born 1000 years ago’ (and as an example report for the census). Have any scholars given thought to the possibility that David’s ancestors over time moved to different locations? Therefore, couldn’t Jesus (or anyone else for that matter) have been a descendent despite being born outside of Bethlehem simply because ancestors may have migrated a bit?
The authors could have skipped Bethlehem all together!
Well, I’ve thought about it! There must have been davidic descendants virtually everywhere there were communities of Jews! The reason the authors didn’t skip Bethlehem was not because Jesus had to be Son of David but because they wanted him to fulfill the prophecy of Micah 5:2.
Given that most scholars agree that Luke/Acts was written after Matthew, could we infer that the author of Luke/Acts did not know the Gospel of Matthew or was the author of Luke/Acts deliberately writing his own version of the story to convey a different meaning to a different audience?
It is debated whether he knew Matthew, but I myself think absolutely not. Still, the author of Luke says at the outset that he knows of many accounts of Jesus’ life, and he is writing his to provide a correct one! (A bit rather damning comment given teh circumstance that he clarly did know Mark!)