Loading...Yesterday I discussed Matthew’s account of how it is that Jesus came to be born in Bethlehem, if in fact he “came” from Nazareth. It may well be that Matthew has placed Jesus’ birth there to fulfill Micah’s prophecy (5:2) that a great ruler (the supposed messiah) would come from Bethlehem.
Matthew explains it all by indicating that Joseph and Mary were originally from Bethlehem. That was their home town. And the place of Jesus’ birth. Two or more years after his birth, they 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.
Since Joseph is “of the house and lineage of David,”
It’s amazing how few people — even Christians who have read their Bibles faithfully for many years — realize just how different the accounts of Jesus’ birth are between the two Gospels that contain them. Want to learn more? Or even refresh your memory? Read on! If you’re not a member, join! Then read on, to your heart’s content.
I wonder what happened to people whose ancestors lived outside the Empire 1,000 years ago. Did they not have to pay tax? And what ancestor? You will have a lot of ancestors 1,000 years ago.
Yup. Probably everyone was descended from DAvid in one way or another! (Literally)
Maybe David was like Genghis Kahn?
Yup. Probably everyone was descended from DAvid in one way or another! (Literally)
The efforts of the authors of Matthew and Luke to place the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem would seem, at the same time, to support the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Otherwise, the stories could simply have him growing up in Bethlehem (unless Matthew retained the villainy of Herod and so on.) One wonders if we ever would have heard of Nazareth if not for its most famous son?
Almost certainly: Nope!
Presumably there was an ur-nativity story that originated somewhere (Judea?) sometime before 80 CE and got transported to at least one other place. The story then developed in different ways and two versions reached the authors of Matthew and Luke.
Is that a reasonable view? If so two questions:
– By comparing the common features of M and L, plus other relevant information if there is any, can we make guesses about what the ur-nativity story was?
– Cultural anthropologists and others have studied how folk legends are created, propagated and altered. Do they have anything to say about how long it would have taken the Ur-story to undergo separate development into the M and L versions? Only 50 years at most (30 to 80 CE) were available.
Yup, there must have been, and the only thing we can say about it is that it indicated that Jesus was born to Joseph and Mary, in Bethlehem; that Mary was a virgin; and that even though born in Bethlehem, Jesus was raised in Nazareth.
Yes, cultural anthropologists ahve done a ton of work on oral traditions. it takes almost NO time for them to develop. I deal with this at length in my book Jesus Before the Gospels. (A book I misnamed: it’s really about oral tradition and memory in the ancient world, in relation to the Gospels)
Just a quick point – Jesus was born to Mary for sure. Howbeit, the NT is clear that his father is unknown, certainly it is not Joseph the Carpenter (or more precisely, Joseph the Stone Mason). The genealogies of Jesus as stated in Matthew and Luke are as ridiculous as the Virgin Birth or Immaculate Conception itself! Yes, Jesus was born to Mary in Nazareth and raised in Nazareth without a doubt.
As for his father, since asexual reproduction for humans is an impossibility, there is one conclusion that Christians and Muslims will find difficult to grapple with…And that is that Mary may have been a molested teen as the Talmud suggests. The Virgin Birth is merely a cover story woven into the fabric of the Christian Jesus-tradition and then inherited by the Muslims 600 years later.
I’d say the NT is clear that the father of Jesus *is* known. It is the Holy Spirit. (I’m not saying I agree with it, but the texts are not ambiguous on the point)
Yes! You are right Dr Ehrman about the NT writers (i.e. Matthew and Luke) being clear that the “father” of Jesus is the “Holy Spirit.” Jesus himself, however, never acknowledges in the NT that the Spirit, specifically, is his father and certainly not his own kinsfolk make this acknowledgement – “Is this not the Carpenter’s son?” What we have is a deliberate cover story on his parentage on the part of the evangelists – the erroneous genealogies in Mt and Lk is the bare naked proof!
No, Jesus did not think the Spirit was his Father.
Matthew and Luke wrote (irreconcilable) fictionalized birth narratives to support their purposes. Luke presents Jesus’s parents as fully compliant with the Jewish law, and with Roman law (requiring registration for taxation.) Note the text does not say everyone went to ancestral homes, but to their “own towns”. Joseph is “from” Bethlehem and comliantly goes there to register, though he is working in Galilee. Luke’s larger purpose was to write the birth narrative his audience would expect for the birth of a great man. The pastoral manger scene, shepherds in the field, a host of angels, Mary’s Magnificat, poetic oratory from Zachariah, Simeon, Anna, and a heavenly choir make for good entertainment. Give Luke credit: he wrote the play that has been enacted more times than any other. He dramatizes everything (think the Ascension and Pentecost.) His literary corpus establishes Jesus as the great spiritual emperor, comparable to Augustus. He needed the great-man’s birth story to round it out, and Matthew’s was wholly unsuitable. It’s not unthinkable that Joseph was from Bethlehem, carried his pregnant wife there to a relative’s house where she gave birth, then took them to the Temple as described. Then they went home.
So, did the authors of Matthew and Luke know they were making stuff up or did stories keep changing with time and these authors wrote what they thought was true using these changed and embellished stories which they thought were true? If they thought they were writing historical truth, why didn’t these obvious historical problems bother them? It also sounds like neither author knew what the other had written. Do the writings of any early church fathers give us any clues about these matters? Thanks
I don’t think they thought they were making anything up, and I doubt actuallyif they *did* make anything up. My guess is that they were recording what they heard, and any changes they made were either unintentional or simply their understanding of what must have happened. They almost certainly didn’t know each other’s accounts. It’s hard for us to figure out how someone could actually say the kinds of things they say as having happened, but they were not post-Enlightenment thinkers like us, and that kind of thing happened ALL the time back then (people telling incredible stories). In fact, they happen all the time now. What one person thinks makes perfectly rational sense may seem to another to be mindless irrationality.
Was there a census mentioned in other sources? outside the bible.
Not a world wide census, or even an empire wide census. There were, of course, lots of censuses taken in the ancient world. but they were always local affairs.
Thank you, Professor Ehrman, for how you are able to clarify so many passages / authors that contradict each other. I learn more with every book, every blog post you write.
Merry Christmas to you and yours, and let’s hope 2021 is nothing like 2020 ( well, there were some good moments 🙂
I 2nd that motion, ArizonaBob.
Since these stories aren’t historical and they contradict each other, what problems does this pose for dating the birth of Jesus? Might 6 to 14CE be just as good an estimate of the birth of Jesus than 4BCE? Why not before 4BCE or after 14CE?
Yeah, probably. But all the Gospels do seem to make best sense if Jesus was born sometime around when Matthew and Luke indicate he was. A lot of it depends on how old he was when he *died*, and for that we have only LUke’s random comment that he was “around 30” when he started his ministry.
There are very good reasons to believe Jesus was born in Bethlehem. That’s where the historical record of his life says he was born. The implausibility of the Bethlehem birth rests upon a chain of errors. First, of course, is the Bethlehem Star. If the star was actually an unusual phenomenon in the heavens like a planetary alignment, then that would explain what the Wise Men or Kings saw. That would also explain why whoever was king might take it seriously, very seriously. There was probably a warning sent out that if the rumors of a new king did not cease immediately, then every male under two would be killed. And that would have been enough to cause the parents of a newborn to flee. As for the first Roman census, the evidence of it found in the New Testament augers for its authenticity. The birth of Jesus of Nazareth marked a turning point in human civilization in many ways.
Very thoughtful Prof,Ehrman. When i read both these accounts,Matthew and Luke, It seems that whoever wrote these gospels, was implying O.T. prophecy,that the Messiah would come from the lineage of David born in Bethlehem,David ‘s birthplace. Would this not make the Scripture a Jewish apocalyptic movement that was anticipating the coming of the Messiah, since Christianity did not materialize till after the resurrection of Jesus ? Best Holiday wishes Dr. Ehrman and to all of your worldwide flock. I have learned a lot from all of you who share your thoughts on this site. I feel I have a better understanding today than a year ago. It is amazing how all of us have a somewhat different interpretation of what we read and how it is understood. Yet, my hope is that disagreeing does not divide rather help us understand why we think the way we do.
There probably was a local census when the Romans took control of Judea in AD 6 and banished the incompetent king, Herod Archelaus. Quirinius was taking up post as governor of Syria at that time, which accords with Luke’s account, but Jesus would then have been at least 10-12 years old. Some historians have argued for a census, administered by Rome, when Herod the Great died in 4 BC, as the emperor Augustus would have needed to approve Herod’s will and oversee the partitioning of his kingdom. However, even then, Jesus would have already been born and Varus, not Quirinius, was the governor of Syria. So either way, even these local censuses wouldn’t support Luke’s account by providing a means of getting Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem prior to Jesus’ birth. PS. Happy Christmas to you, Dr Ehrman and to everyone on the Blog.
So when you were an evangelical christian, how did you justify such inconsistencies? In particular, the Roman census seems really hard to justify since there’s no account of it as you said.
Ah, you can reconcile anything if you work out it. We simply said that other historians chose not to mention it.
Prof Ehrman,
“But what about the wise men from Matthew who come to find them in a house in Bethlehem, over a year later? ”
How did you arrive at this 1year + duration? The killing of the children in Matthew wasn’t set at just 2 year olds, but 0 – 2 years. Hence, I don’t find it so convincing that it would have taken so long (1-2 years) for baby Jesus to be found by the wise men.
Please, what’s your reason/ evidence for your position? Thank you.
Herod has boys two years and under killed “based on” what he heard from the wisemen about when the star they were following appeared. That appears to mean they had been following it for a couple of years. Otherwise Herod would have the children killed who were born over the past week or so.
I don’t think the author necessarily meant that literally David was the reason to go to Betlehem. I’ve understood it meaning that Joseph’s family was from Betlehem and had recently moved to Galilee. That is, the decendants of David had lived in Betlehem for a thousand years, and now Joseph had to go back where he or maybe his father was born before relocating to Nazareth. Do you think this could have been what the author had in mind? Or did he think that his readers wouldn’t find it implausible that ancestors living 1000 years earlier would be a good reason, like modern people find?
Interesting ideas. But it seems like then he would have said that Joseph had to register in Bethelehem because that is where he was from, just as David was. Instead it says he registered there because he was descended from DAvid. For what it’s worth, there would have been many thousands of male descendents of David (there are many millions now), and it seems implausbile they all lived in Bethlehem! (It was a very small place.) My sense is that no one reading the account thought about it — just as no one today does!
You make a good case Bart for Jesus’s birth in Bethlehem to be a relative latecomer to the pre-gospel traditions about his life; certainly later than the tradition that Jesus was of the line of David, which Paul is familiar with (and accepts).
Nevertheless, might you not be putting rather too much emphasis on these stories as originating from a desire to “show that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of Micah 5:2”? What evidence do we have from this period, apart from the Gospels of Luke and Matthew (and John 7:42), that Micah 5:2 was interpreted by Jewish commentators at this date as requiring the Messiah to have been born in Bethlehem? Might it not have been the other way round; that some early followers of Jesus claimed Micah 5:2 as a Messianic prophecy, because they believed Jesus to have been born in Bethlehem?
I don’t think Jewish interpreters did see it that way. But Matthew explicitly does, and I think Luke must have done (otherwise there woold be no reason to have him born there) So yes Christians claimed it as a messianic prophecy. THat’s true of most of Matthew’s fulfilment citations: they tend not to have have any Jewish support outside of Xn circles.
Could it be that the account of Jesus being born in Bethlehem – in Luke’s tradition – arose simply from from elaboration on the link with David? Then the Micah citation (in Matthew) would be secondary.
Yup, I’d say either way. One would have to ask the same question of all the other fulfilment citations in Matthew (but since none of them is in Luke, possibly that would be evidence that the Scriptural support was indeed a secondary feature)
Maybe the story doesn’t have to be historical to be a Christmas treasure. Maybe the Jesus story still has a place in Christmas much like the Santa story. But maybe I have to keep this a secret like I had to do with Santa when my nephews were little. I got in trouble from my sister for almost messing that up one Christmas. I had to back pedal with the story of St. Nicholas. I don’t know if it is wise to mess with people’s Jesus story if that is as precious to them as Santa was to my nephews. I lived decades of my life believing in the Jesus story without asking questions.
Thank you for your Christmas posts. Even with these facts… I don’t feel so lost. Maybe humanity has done what it had to for it to survive… and maybe that takes a good story to believe in, for most of us.
Prof Ehrman,
On the Christmas story.
People are of the view that an act of syncretism occurred with the replacement of Saturnalia with Christmas by the Romans. It appears to be one of the reason why some Christian denominations shun this festivity.
Q1. Could this view be historically true?
Q2. Some have also traced the date 25th December/ time of the year to the birth date of a number of some ancient deities prior to Christianity. Could this also be true as well?
1. I used to think so, but it looks like it was more complicated. Saturnalia ended on Dec. 23. 2. Most of the time when people say that there isn’t any evidence for it. In the end, it’s not clear why Dec. 25 in particular was picked, though there are lots of theories (these being two of them)
Dear Prof. Ehrman, thank you for your texts!
Just a quick question. Is it possible the texts are telling the stories of two different children born from two different couples? I have read this idea in a text by Rudolf Steiner.
I don’t see how. They are both about Joseph and Mary giving birth to a child named Jesus in Bethlehem and then taking him to be raised in Nazareth. Seems kinda unlikely that happened twice at the same time!
Hi Bart,
Where in Matthew it implies that Joseph and Mary are from Bethlehem?
That’s where they are when Jesus was born. They live in a house. THey are there a couple of years later when the wisemen show up . And when they return from Egypt after the death of Herod that is where they first plan to come back to, but can’t because Archelaus is ruling there, so they relocate to Nazareth.
I can’t help thinking you’re unfair to Luke’s device of the census. Yes, it’s implausible (and historically counterfactual), but not _that_ implausible. It doesn’t say that everyone returned to their ancestral town of a thousand years before. It says that everyone went to _their_ town, and that in Joseph’s case, for reasons not fully specified (unless we choose to _assume_ Luke means to fully specify it), this meant the home of his ancestors.
Obviously Luke leaves out a lot of details, and for me the question is: how might he have expected the reader to fill those details in; what assumptions might he have expected the reader to make? Surely he must expect the reader to assume that Joseph’s family have for the most part remained in Bethlehem, and that Joseph emigrated to Nazareth comparatively recently. People have to register in a town (with a registration office, presumably), not a hamlet, and no town has a greater claim on Joseph than Bethlehem.
You can poke holes in that scenario if you like, I’m not saying it’s plausible, only _comparatively_ plausible. And that while it involves filling in Luke’s gaps, it is not unique in that respect: every other interpretation does the same.
One of the the express objectives of any census is to map the population distribution, allowing the central government to better distribute its resources. Taking this into consideration, why on Earth would any government want to know where its people came from 1000 years ago? What’s the point?
Arghhhhhhh!