(19 votes, average: 4.89 out of 5)
Loading...It is virtually certain that Jesus’ was raised in the small hamlet of Nazareth in Galilee, the northern part of Israel. All of our sources agree that he was from there, and it is very hard to imagine why a Christian story teller would have made that up (since there was no prestige about the place: no one had ever even heard of it!). But now the question is whether that was also his place of birth.
The only two accounts we have of Jesus’ birth, Matthew and Luke, independently claim that even though he was raised in Nazareth, he was actually born in Bethlehem. So isn’t that the more likely scenario? Born in Bethlehem but raised in Nazareth? You might think so, given the fact that this is what is stated in our only two sources of information, and that they independently agree about the matter (based on their own sources, the no longer existing M – Matthew’s source or sources – and the no longer existing L – Luke’s source or sources).
But there are reasons for thinking that we cannot trust these accounts, three reasons: each of them is filled with historical implausibilities that make it look like someone is making up the stories; they are irreconcilably at odds with one another in matters both small and large (so they both simply can’t be historical); and they both have very clear and definite reasons for wanting to say that Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem rather than Nazareth: the Son of David/the Messiah was supposed to come from Bethlehem! But if Jesus was the Son of David the Messiah, what is one to do with the fact that everyone knew he was from Nazareth (of all places)? The easiest way to deal with this inconvenient fact was to say that…..
Hey, it starts getting interesting. If you want to keep reading but are not a blog member, there’s a very easy solution to that. Remember: every penny of your small membership fee goes to charity. So why not join?
If Jesus claimed to be the Messiah and everyone knew he was from Nazareth, wouldn’t this be an argument used against him? “You claim to be the Messiah, but we know he’s supposed to come from Betlehem.”
Not really. There were lots of views of who/what the messiah would be, and none of the ones that mention him outside the Bible require him to have come from Bethlehem.
There are so many implausible things! How did Joseph learn that Herod had been replaced and that his son was worse? How fast would news travel in those days? In some cases dreams seem to take the place of modern media. You learn things quickly because of a dream. Right. Was the “star” some sort of conjunction of planets? No way, not if it lasted two years. And plenty of people have pointed out that a slaughter of infant boys in Bethlehem is recorded nowhere outside the NT. That would have been a noteworthy event. But it wasn’t noted. And so on and so on. “Wise” men decide to “follow a star”? Give me a break. By the way a comet is also ruled out by the time span. And this strange UFO is noted– nowhere. Nowhere outside of the NT. Even for pagans it would have been ominous, taken as a sign and remarked upon. Nothing. Nothing.
Yes, I’ve wondered why Herod wouldn’t send one soldier with the Magi to take care of the supposed new king, rather than trusting these foreigners to report back. Out of character from what we know of Herod. Lately people have been talking about the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction as “the star of Bethlehem.” Yeah, I don’t think that would lead me to anyone’s house. But even if it could, why stop off in Jerusalem to ask directions? Still, it makes for a nice Christmas pageant.
Given Matthew’s insistence that Jesus uncannily “fulfilled” obtuse interpretations of OT prophecies, it seems unlikely that he would have invented those attributes. Those not claimed to be fulfillments seem more likely to be his inventions. (The visit of the Magi could be claimed to fulfill Isaiah 60:3-6.) Perhaps assertions that Jesus was born in Bethlehem were generally accepted, given understanding that he was David’s descendent. Perhaps Joseph’s extended family were Bethlehemites, though he was in Galilee working (building Caeserea?) He was engaged to Mary of Nazareth, who got pregnant and claimed to not have fornicated (fulfilling Isaiah.) He believed her, took her home with him, then to Egypt perhaps to escape wagging tongues. There they stayed during the unrest after Herod’s death, then went to Galilee and settled among her family, not his. (The journey from Egypt is the only claim of fulfillment.) The unattested slaughter of the innocents is perhaps modeled on Herod’s attested slaughter of the male Hasmoneans. (The weeping for slain children is the claim of fulfillment.) Maybe Matthew built a fanciful story around 6 things he believed were true. Dreams, angels, and Magi were poetic license.
Elsewhere people have observed that Joseph and Mary were in Bethlehem because the census required everyone to go to the hometown of their ancestors. Since everyone claimed to have been descended from King David, there was a huge crowd in his hometown of Bethlehem. This also contributed to the lack of accommodations, forcing Mary to give birth to Jesus in a barn. Research on the Star of Bethlehem has been well documented online, too. The star is an interesting way to determine the time of Jesus’s birth. It’s a scientific way to rewind the heavens and calibrate our human-error calendars. Although there are implausibilities, there’s no doubt that Jesus and his followers are the most improbable historical figures ever.
Why improbable? They appear pretty typical of the times. Or do you mean because a religion got very creative with stories about them?
Aren’t you pushing the star-thing a bit hard? Every christian ever would just say “it was some kind of divine light or something that looked like a star”. Such a light could disappear and reappear and sit over a house. The star is clearly miraculous, so this doesn’t seem to make it anymore implausible then it already is.
I can kind of imagine Cyprian doing this in 250 CE: “My dear Gaius, the star was not a litteral star. It was a divine miracle. Stop asking of how it could mark a certain house!”
I’d say that most Christians actually do think it’s a star. They certainly do today, when it should be clear it wasn’t. I get calls from journalists every year trying to figure out what astronomical phenomenon it could be (last week from a British journalist who wanted to know if it could have been an earlier version of the Great Conjunction!).
I’m on your side about the star. But didn’t people of that time and Jewish cosmology say that stars were stuck to a hard dome that covered the earth and occasionally fell off? It may have been plausible to them since their cosmology was different even though we know it isn’t really possible. On the other hand you can always find a number of people that will believe anything so it doesn’t have to make sense. 🙂
There were various understandings in antiquity — some thought the stars were actually angels. But yes in biblical cosmology they are part of the “firmament.” Astronomers, of course, knew full well that stars were not fixed in space. So did anyone who thought about it after looking at the sky at different times of the year.
Great answer! Thanks!
If the magi can receive divine guidance to not return to Herod, then why couldn’t they have received divine guidance to avoid Jerusalem completely and go straight to Bethlehem? Sure might have saved a bunch of infant slaughtering. And if Herod was so confident in the Magi’s astrological prediction, enough to eventually kill scores of baby boys….but thankfully not John the Baptist….why wouldn’t he send companions with the Magi to see what they would find? Is it possible that Matthew….in addition to making Jesus fulfill prophecy…was more interested in making Jesus into the new Moses….and this required a wicked king…and a horrible infant slaughter.
What do we know of the historical/archeological data about Bethlehem? I assume post-Gospels, it became an important destination for pilgrims, but do we have reliable evidence to know whether it was a thriving community during the time of Herod?
RIght — its a great story but is hard to make sense of. We do know about Bethelehem — it’s been continously occupied, and did indeed become a major place for Christain travelers starting in the fourth century (known e.g., esp from jerome). It would have been a small place in Herod’s time.
What do you think of Crossan’s and Reed’s (and I’m guessing that of earlier scholars?) insinuation that Matthew’s rather hectic narrative (including the mass murder of children) was a series of attempts to parallel the birth story of Moses? They do mention by way of apologia that both the haggadic midrashim and the Aramaic targumim traditions allow for the expansion and explanation of existing stories in the process of transmitting them.
I think it’s clearly right. Much of Matthew’s early narrative tries to show Jesus as the new Moses. (Beyond the infancy narrative: he passes through the water and then delivers the law of God on the mount!)
Some 1600 years later, astronomers were starting to realize that the stars are huge incandescent objects many times bigger than the entire earth and vastly far away. Are you aware of any early discussions of how that understanding could be squared with Matthew’s star?
Every year amateur astronomers try to make the connection; this year I was asked by a British journalist if the Great Confluence could have been “the star”!
Back when I believed, I just assumed that God made the “star” appear to the wise men early enough for them to make it to Bethlehem at the time of his birth. Of course, I totally missed the part about them visiting the family at a house!
Killing every male child under two seems unbelievable, but also, If Herod was a king but ultimately had to answer to a Roman governor, I can’t see the governor allowing this.
He actually didn’t report to a governor; he ruled int he place of a governor, and was directly answerable to Rome. But technically, Rome let him do whatever he needed to do to keep the peace and bring in the taxes; so he would have had the authority to do this. But it still isn’t credible, given the contradicions in the story and the historical plausibility. (Including the lack of any reference to the eevent in any ancient source)
Prof Ehrman,
Listening to Rabbi Tovia Singer, a human sacrifice as an atonement for sin (as found in Christian theology) is at odds with the Tanak especially given the fact the very act is condemned by Yahuah.
If this isn’t of a Jewish influence, what may have influenced this theology amongst early Christians.
Q1. Given that this practice may have been a popular practice amongst the ‘pagans’, could Greek culture, customs or mythologies, or some ancient myth have influenced this?
Q2. If not, what could have influenced this concept of human sacrifice?
Q3. Have you covered this in any of your books, please.
Human sacrifice was not popular in Greek and Roman societies at the time, though certainly there were some marginal groups that may have engaged in it at the time. AS there are not. Human sacrifice was also practiced in Judaism at times, much to the consternation of some of the writers of the Old Testament. It was never sanctioned, of course; but in some ways the understanding of Jesus’ death as a sacrifice is closely tied to the “sacrifice of Isaac” in Genesis; some ealry theologians thought that Isaac was the model on which Christ’s own death was built: sacrificed by his father.
if the religious knew that jesus was supposed to be born in bethlehem
” yet when they reached Jerusalem all the chief priests and scribes of the people (Matthew 2:3-6) were already aware that the Messiah was to be found in Bethlehem.”
then how is it possible that knowledge of this would die down every time mary, joseph and jesus travel to jerusalem for festival
“Now every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the festival of the Passover.”
?
Remember, when you read those verses in Matthew, you are not reading what a non-Christian Jew said (“the messiah must be born in Bethlehem”) but what a Christian writer *claimed* non-Christian Jews said. Matthew is using this comment to set up his claims that the messiah had to be born in Bethlehem to fulfill prophecy; that Jesus was born in Bethlehem; and that therefore Jesus fulfilled prophecy.
Another question is WHY they had to flee to Egypt, when they should be safe in Nazareth, too? Is it to make a prophecy fullfilled?
In addition: wasn’t God powerful to protect his son against Herod so that they did not need to flee?
Yup, it was so Matthew could quote Hosea 6:2 to show Jesus fulfilled that prophecy too. And good question. Exactly!
God could avoid a mass murder under children as well. What a love.
Dr Ehrman,
With Jesus fulfilling most of the prerequisites of being a long awaited jewish Messiah, whose decision would have been the final call about his claim? Like was it populace voting or Sanhedrin deciding? Who and how was it decided in Biblical times the claim of being a “real” prophet from God or Messiah?
Ah, there were no votes or final decisions. It wasn’t like “who is president.” It was more like “who is the greatest religious authority.” Opinions could differ.
Hi Dr. Ehrman. My membership automatically renewed recently but I’m thinking of going ahead and upgrading to the Platinum option. Can you remind me of the cost and have you done any Webinars yet?
The fee and benefits can be found if you click on JOIN NOW. The first Platinum webinar is next week. Hope you can think about it!
Listening to the recent podcast on Matthew made me want to defend the Star of Bethlehem just a bit, mostly as an intellectual exercise because I agree it never happened.
What we’re told is: the Magi followed the star, it stopped, they were happy, and they entered the house.
We’re _not_ told the Magi knew it was the right house _because_ the star stopped over it, but this is _implied_ if we assume Matthew is giving a strictly factual account of events he understands well. (An unsustainable assumption.)
Suppose the star-like object stops in the heavens (e.g. a planet transitioning into retrograde motion), and it may as well be directly over Bethlehem so Matthew takes it on faith that it is. Matthew doesn’t know how the Magi identified the precise house, but he doesn’t care very much so he leaves that out.
But this _doesn’t_ explain why the Magi were overjoyed to see the star stop. It would make sense if the star stopping signified the moment of the birth, but that took place before the Magi set out. Maybe Matthew doesn’t know why they’re happy but puts it in the story anyway, but that seems like a strange thing to do…